 Just taking that whole side of that. That's what we have to do. People, we think that we're holding the public hearing on the EHC tonight. And I hope that none of you walk in and see where it says none. What's published? It's like the mic's hot. We have the none. Your mic's hot. So everybody thinks there's a public hearing on text amendments. It's like really? Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. We're glad you're here this evening. The members of the Durham Planning Commission are appointed half by the city council and half by the county commissioners. We are an advisory body to those elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have a final say on any of the items that are before us this evening. If you wish to speak on an agenda item this evening, you can come and sign up to the table on my left. You'll note that each case that has a public hearing has the opportunity for you to sign up if you could put down your name and your address. When we get to that item, we will open the public comment period. So each side, foreign against, has 10 minutes per side. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thanks again for joining us. May we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Williams. Here. Commissioner Morgan. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Present. Commissioner Bryan. Present. Commissioner Durkin. Here. Commissioner Alturk. Here. Vice Chair Hyman has been excused. Chair Busby. Here. Commissioner Miller. Here. Commissioner Ketchin. Here. Commissioner Baker. Here. And Commissioner Gibbs. Here. Mr. Chair, a move and excused absence for Commissioner Hyman. So moved. Seconded. Seconded by Commissioner Alturk for an excused absence for Vice Chair Hyman. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Ms. Smith. Yes, before you move on to the approval of the minutes and consistency statements, I just wanted to bring to your attention a change that we have made to the minutes on page three under the public hearing for a text amendment for expanding housing choices. In the section where it says public hearing, we changed the number of people that spoke for an opposition for this item because we had a question from a citizen about whether or not we were gonna actually show how many that spoke that were not in either of those camps. We had four people that signed up to speak that did not indicate whether they were for or against. So I've modified that to say that 13 people spoke in support, 15 people spoke in opposition, and four others spoke that did not indicate if they were for or against the proposal. We will send you a corrected copy of those minutes, but I had to get back and watch the tape to figure all that out, so I didn't have a chance to make copies for you today. Thank you. Yes, sir. While you're there, I have a question. Normally when motion is made on minutes and consistency statements, we make the motion to approve minutes and consistency statements, but in the minutes we've been getting, the only thing it shows is the move approval of the minutes. We'll fix that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, are we done, Grace? That's all I have. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes and the consistency statements as they have been amended by, at the suggestion of staff and also commission member, Brian. Second. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Bryan. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Chairman, could I make just one brief statement about the minutes of the last meeting to what we just approved? You may. And I do approve them, but I just, and this is for the board up here. The written comments that were sent in by, well, everybody up here. To me, they were very meaningful and they were substantive. And I even took mine out and marked them as a reference because I'm gonna go back to them. And I do appreciate how far this commission, this board has moved to the point that it is now that we can speak freely and there are some excellent ideas. And, but I just wanted to say thank you to everybody who had a part in that. It's a step forward, I think. So thank you, sir. Thank you. And I would concur. I know the members of the governing bodies often remark on our comments and will sometimes reach out to us and ask us for either clarification or comment on it and reference them. So it is worth, I think, the time that commissioners put into it. We will move to adjustments to the agenda. Staff does have one adjustment that we would like to propose to the agenda. Under old business, we would like to add a brief update regarding the EHC text amendment. If you would be to kind of add that to the agenda. Yes. And what I would like to recommend if my fellow commissioners would agree is I do know there are some individuals here this evening who are interested in the update on the expanding housing choices. I'd like to move that up to the top of our agenda. So moved. Thank you. Second. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Thank you. Okay, and while I'm here, I would like to state for the record that all advertisements and notice requirements for MET, that MET state and local statute and they are on file in the planning office, tongue-tied. Thank you. So we will move to the update on expanding housing choices. Before we do that, I do just want to take one moment. I know my fellow commissioners also heard the news, but we did get very sad news that our fellow commissioner, Paul Hornbuckle, passed away recently. And so I appreciated the time we spent with him and his service to our community. So I did want to just take a moment of silence to honor commissioner Hornbuckle and we send our thoughts to his family as well. Thank you very much. We will plan to have a resolution in the future to honor commissioner Hornbuckle for his time on the planning commission. So that will come at a future date. We will move to the expanding housing choices. I know this is a brief update, but just as a reminder, we spent considerable time at last month's meeting on this item. We continue this for two cycles. So this will be back at the planning commission at our May meeting, but I know the staff has been working on additional outreach. So Mr. Whiteman, we'd love to hear an update. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Scott Whiteman from the planning department. First, I wanted to state that there has been some confusion. There have been no changes proposed at this time to the draft that was presented to the planning commission in March in the At Your March meeting. As many of you or hopefully all of you know by now, we will be hosting a community conversation style workshop on Saturday, April 27th at Waltown Recreation Center. The doors will open at nine. We will have a repeat of the presentation, or generally the same presentation represented to the planning commission for anybody who is not that familiar with the proposal that will begin at 9.30. At 10.15 the actual workshop portion will begin. We will work out strategies so that we will have small discussion groups that will be facilitated and will be designed so that people with different opinions will be at the same table so that we can have some discussions from all sides. We will see after that, if there is consensus on any particular issue, we will propose changes based on those and make those clear when we bring this back to the commission in May. If not, we will also make it clear what the options are for the commission at their May meeting. We have also been working to reach out to some neighborhood groups that had not been involved previously. Last week we met the Southwest Central Durham Quality of Life group. This coming week we will be meeting with the Northeast Central Durham Leadership Committee as well as PAC-1. And we will be involved with the Y.E. Smith's Play Day on May 4th. And we will continue as to reach out to additional neighborhoods and we'll meet with any group that's interested as time and resources allow. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Scott. I know one question I have and other commissioners please let me know if you have questions or comments as well is do you have a sense of the timing? So I know the public event is on April 27th. Our meeting is on May 14th. Do you, I know it's a moving target but a sense of when a synopsis from the 27th would be available and any additional updates to our packet would be publicly available. We don't have an exact date yet but we will make every possible effort to have it available in enough time so that the commission and the public will have time to react to those before the May meeting. Great, thank you. Other questions? Question on the notification of the folks that would be participating. Would that be the people that showed up from our last meeting on that email list that you started to collect? Yeah, we did email all the, everyone who signed in at your last meeting and provided an email address. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Scott, for the update. So you said at 1015, there'll be like a workshop style. Can you say more about that and what exactly you're trying to get out of that and what it would look like in practice and who will be leading that? So it'll be led by a city and potentially some county staff as well who have not been as involved. We'll try not to have folks who have been deeply involved in this project so that'll be people with no perceived bias, at least generally. We will have questions framed around the main proposals within expanding housing choice and we'll work with our facilitators to work with the groups at each table to talk about the things that are most important to the folks at the table, knowing that it may be difficult to, even in an hour and 15 minutes, it may be difficult to make it through all of the issues. Okay, thank you. One more, I'm sorry, one more question. Has there been a group that's been meeting that's officially, I guess, endorsed by the planning department or to discuss these things or has there not been? I've heard, maybe there were some suggestions about doing that. People have said that there may be some additional panel. Is that something that? There were some suggestions on that. I think we wanted to find a way that could be as inclusive as possible so we're trying to find a time that could be impossible, particularly this time of year, to find a time that's good, time of day that's good for everyone, but we wanna find a time where more people would be available at a location that is accessible and on a transit line. So we think that's a better approach than trying to put together a committee that would be a limited amount of folks. I see, thanks. Commissioner Durkin. Could you send us the information about the 27th meeting, the April 27th? Yeah, I'm sorry, what was that? Could you send us the information about it? Certainly, I was under the mistaken assumption we had sent that to you already. We will make sure that I had sent to you. If you could resend it, I didn't get it. Email. No, I'm on my email all day, I didn't get it. Yeah, I don't think it was directly sent to the planning commissioners. I think any of us that have maybe signed in at one of the expanding housing choices may have gotten it, but that's probably not all of us. So that, yeah. I apologize, I thought we had done that already. We will do that. It might even happen in the next five minutes. I have signed up for general notices, so that's probably why I got it. I just assumed you sent it. I recommend that you sign up for your general notices. Yeah, we did send it out to our general notice list for folks who get notifications of all public hearing items, so. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you. Hopefully three questions. So you said doors open at nine. That's right. How long will this town hall event last until? Till noon. Till noon. So essentially the presentation's at 10.15. The presentation is at 9.30. The workshop begins at 10.15. Verse 10.15 to noon. And do you have, have you all figured, the planning department figured out who all will be in attendance on behalf of the planning department as part of this event? We are still working on that. We'll be a lot of us. And finally, with this being a public event, have, has the planning department notified any of the media outlets or anything so that that can be a part of getting the information out regarding what comes about from this? Yeah, we are working through the city and county public information office. They need to co-sign any public notice we give. So that, if it hasn't happened today, it will happen very soon that we'll do a press release to the, to all media outlets that the city and county normally communicate with. All right. Commissioner Bryan. If a majority of the planning commissioners show up out of interest in this event, do we have to be careful about being accused of having an unadvertised meeting? Yeah, that's a, it's an excellent question. As long as you're not discussing business amongst yourselves, it would not be. But as in the essence of precaution, perhaps if any commissioners are planning on being there, if you could just make sure to let us know in advance, then we can work through our city and county clerks to just say that a quorum may be present so that none of us go to jail. Thank you. Seems like a fair outcome. Any other questions or comments? Commissioner Gibbs? Yeah, my question. I'm gonna try my best to try to reach out to several areas I know y'all have put out public announcements. But having said that, I got my information about this through the grapevine. And this is what happens when you get it through the grapevine. I have been told that a meeting would be held in East Durham at the Holton Center. Evidently, that is incorrect. Is that right? And the meeting we are, that is not the meeting we are holding. Well, I've not heard of, we are not sponsoring or. And this is part of the. So PAC-1 meets the Saturday before the 20th at Holton. And we will be in attendance there as a guest. It will not be our meeting. Okay, that's exact, yeah. That was part of my grapevine notification, but okay, I'll try to find out more information about that. Would the EHC be part of the conversation or are you gonna just let their program bring you in? Yeah, we asked to attend specifically to talk about expanding housing choice. Okay, that's one, okay. So grapevine wasn't too bad this time. Thank you. Seeing no other questions and comments, we will wrap up this agenda item, Scott, and then to the staff. Thank you for the update and a reminder at the May 14th meeting, we will actually be back here and we will continue the public comment period as well as the discussion on that item. We will move to our first zoning map change, public hearing item this evening. We have case Z18-00037. This is Rougemont commercial and we will start with the staff update. Good evening. I'm Emily Struthers with the planning department. I will now be presenting case Z18-00037 Rougemont commercial. The applicant is George Venters of Glandon Forest Equity LLC. This 2.37 acre site includes three parcels located at 120907 North Roxborough Road, 120807 North Roxborough Road, and 123 Bill Pool Road. This site is located within the county's jurisdiction. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from Commercial Neighborhood, CN, and Residential Suburban 10, RS10 to Commercial Neighborhood with a text-only development plan, CND. The property is designated commercial on the future land use map, which is consistent with the zoning request. Text-only development plans are a relatively new type of development plan that allows proffered text commitments that specify, limit, and or prohibit uses within the zoning district requested pursuant to UDO section 5.1, the use table. As the name suggests, no graphic plan is provided with the text-only development plan. This rezoning request includes a text commitment that the following CN uses shall be prohibited, drive-thru facilities, drive cleaning, payday lenders, or check caching services, psychic or medium, taxi dispatch center, animal kennel, and restaurants with drive-thru facilities. The 2.37 acre site is shown in red on this aerial map. It's located at the corner of Bill Pool Road and North Roxborough Road. The site is located in the rural development tier and the rural village of Rougemont. The site is also within the Lake Mickey Little River District B watershed protection overlay, M slash LR dash B. These site photos show that the site contains both open field and wooded areas with hardwood and pine trees. The area photos illustrate that the site is adjacent to a mix of uses including commercial, industrial, residential, and a place of worship. The zoning context map here shows the area as well as the zones. The applicant proposes to change the CN and RS-10 zoning to CN with a text-only development plan and that's limiting those permitted uses as previously outlined. The property is designated commercial on the future land use map, which is consistent with the rezoning request. Commercial neighborhood dimensional standards within the rural tier include a minimum site area of two acres, a maximum project floor area of 20,000 square feet, although under certain conditions, a minor special use permit is required for more than 5,000 square feet of floor area. Minimum street, side, and rear yards of 25 feet, building coverage is limited to 23% and a maximum building height is 50 feet. The proposed CND zoning designation complies with the current commercial designation on the future land use map and applicable policies. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies including policy 221A, 221E, 221G, and 232A. Further detail is provided in the staff report. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Others. We will open the public hearing and we have one individual who is signed up and that's George Venters speaking on behalf. Mr. Venters. Do you want to answer? Good evening, my name is George Venters, 3825 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina. I am with Land and Forest Equity. That is a commercial development company based out of Raleigh. And we are working on these three parcels essentially we are looking to expand a commercial zoning. The front two parcels are already zone commercial but the area, that area is very small. So we're looking to extend that zone to encompass all three parcels. All three parcels have one common ownership. And we are just trying to create a site that is large enough for a small, viable commercial development but still allows us to abide by the watershed regulations. This will also bring commercial services to Rougemont that are keeping with the future land use plan. On March 28th, we held a neighborhood meeting at the Rougemont United Methodist Church. We had nine community members that attended. At that meeting, I explained kind of the general idea of rezoning showed them a printout of the allowed uses under CN zoning. And then we discussed the uses that we have voluntarily pulled out of that list. And we talked about that to see if, and I asked the members that were there, if they had any concerns, if there are any other uses on the existing list, they would not like to see in their community and there were nothing else was added. I will say the only concerns that we heard at that meeting or I heard that meeting really didn't have anything to do with the rezoning in particular. It was just a concern that traffic moves through Rougemont pretty quickly. And I suggested that might be a topic they bring up with their DOT district engineer. See if they can maybe lower the speed limit down to like 35. If anyone has any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Sir, you can give us your name and your address and look forward to your comments. Respect to members. Parish Patel from Durham, North Carolina. I own the property across the Billport Road is on a yellow zone and is a residential. And I'm a little concerned about the traffic. We already have a lot of accident and upon a gas station there, the cars. And we just had a one-dead on the Roxbury Road last weekend. It's a three car accident and we are more concerned about the traffic. And we don't want any more debt near the stores or in Rougemont. So that's me concerned. And I was thinking to build the house, but I'm going to hold on. If the traffic is more problem, I'm not going to build the house there because it's a residential zone. Used to be house and they bought it, but I was thinking to move there and build the house. But I would hold on that right now until everything happened. That's all the concern I have. Thank you. Thank you. And if you don't mind, I'm going to just ask you if you could just fill out your information and you can even just leave it back on the table. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and commissioners questions or comments. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chairman. This is a question for staff. When I'm looking at the permitted uses for commercial neighborhood, could you inform us of what is the most intense use that could go on this parcel? So that sort of depends on intensity from what standpoint. I think that from a traffic standpoint, early Thomas could speak better to the specifics. Did you have a specific element of intensity that you're concerned with? Potentially the traffic piece just in the sense of how could that have an impact on this area? Early in Thomas City Transportation Department. So the traffic numbers that's in the table one on attachment eight were generated based on the most intensive uses or highest traffic generation for uses that would be allowed on the site under the proposed zoning. Table two, right? Yes. We have generated traffic based on two fast food restaurants without drive-throughs. Oh, thank you. There we go. I'm sorry, table two here. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Great. Commissioner Bryan. Thank you. I have a question for the applicant. I know that the uses to be excluded include kennels, but I'm wondering if all veterinary clinics still be allowed. We did not exclude a veterinary clinic. Thank you. That was my question. Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. I have a question, a question probably for transportation regarding attachment nine from BPAC. So they recommend that the applicant proffer the construction of a sidewalk along the full, or maybe this is for Emily as well. That the applicant proffer the construction of a sidewalk along the full frontage, along 501 and Bill Pool Road. Is that, would they have to do that as site plan? So as the applicant has submitted a text-only development plan, which is only specific to proffers for use. So they would not be able to proffer sidewalk as suggested by BPAC. I guess what I'm asking is that they're not required by the EDO to build a sidewalk along the frontage, full frontage of both these roads, right? So they are in the rural tier, which is, I'm just trying to pull up the reference here for you. Thank you. Early Thomas transportation, they would not be required to build a sidewalk in the rural tier. Okay. And then, thank you. And then BPAC also recommends or says that the EDO states that the development in this district should provide safe pedestrian access to adjacent residential areas. I guess it's not clear to me whether BPAC is asking for above and beyond what the EDO requires, but what does the EDO require in terms of pedestrian access to adjacent residential areas? I don't believe that the EDO requires direct access to residential. On this side. Okay. And then of course they wouldn't be required to build the five foot of additional asphalt for a bike lane, right? Right. Okay. This is I think one of the things that concerns me about these text only development plans. I voted for it a few months ago cause I think it's a step in the right direction, but I'm concerned that we're gonna get a lot of these where if we do have traffic concerns from nearby residents that we can't really ask the applicant to proffer anything. We can't ask them to even proffer sidewalks along the full frontage, which seems like a reasonable thing to do near or adjacent to residential areas. So I'm a little concerned about this application as it stands and I'm on the fence about this. I think it seems to make sense to continue developing commercial, but without some commitments to make it safe for people to walk to nearby residential areas. I'm a little concerned. Mr. Miller. So I have a couple of questions for staff just to make sure I understand what can go here. So as I read the table in this tier, the site has to be a minimum of two acres and this is 2.37 acres. So we satisfied that property is, although a bit of a parallelogram, it clearly satisfies all the requirements for street frontage and all of that. How big a building could you, under the sea and zone, could you build on this piece of property under the table? So the dimensional standards address that. There's, the maximum floor area is 20,000 square feet. However, any development within the CN district with new project floor area over 5,000 square feet that has two or more property lines adjacent to residential would require a minor special use permit. So explain, explain to me how that works. So at the time of site, give me an example. Sure. So if a project comes in at time of site plan proposing greater than 5,000 square feet and they meet the criteria outlined in that ordinance section, then they would need to apply for a minor special use permit that would go to the board of adjustment to quasi-judicial proceeding. They would be required to show that they meet compatibility standards, a number of findings within that minor special use permit. Right, and that's because this has got property lines along the shared property lines with the residential zone property. Correct. And so if they wanna build a 4,500 square foot building, I can just go for a building permit and build it. Through the site plan, yes. Right. And then, but if they wanna go bigger than that, up to 20,000 square feet, then they're gonna have to get that minor special use permit from the board of adjustment. Correct, because they are adjacent to the residential, the two properties. And because it's 2.37 acres, they could do that, if it was two acres, it would be the same, that 0.37 acres gives them a little space, but it doesn't give them right to build any more square footage than the 20,000. Correct. Right, that's what I needed to know. You've been very kind, thank you. Any additional questions or comments? Commissioner Gibbs. I'm gonna go a step or two further than Commissioner Al Turk. I too voted for these text-only developments or proposals. And it's, I have talked to a few people in Rugemont and it seems that everybody says that this is, the rumor has it that it's going to be, like it will be a dollar general store. And I don't know if the residents have been told anything about this, I don't know how that rumor gets started. But if it were to be a dollar general, there's another one about three or four miles up the road toward Roxborough. And I'm not knowing what it's going to be. Well, I have reservations too, like I guess any of us do at this point. We know what is allowed and what is not allowed. But sometimes that's not enough. And I think this is one of those areas. This area is seeking to build a commercial district that's gonna be able to move forward and serve a wide range of inhabitants. There are, well, there are farming communities nearby. There are people of means in certain areas, in certain lots up and down Billpool Road and East and West of this North-South corridor. So I am going to have to struggle between now and vote time. Is there any yay or nay as to whether this proposal will be something like a department store? Is that something that can be told? And Commissioner Gibbs, is this a question of the applicant? It started out as a general thing, but I will ask the applicant if you would come forward that particular question. Do you mind just rephrasing the question so the applicant can focus on the specific answer to your question? Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is, is there any way that any clue that could be given as to whether this will or will not be a department store similar to say a dollar general? Yes, the answer to that is yes. And you mentioned that there is another store three or four miles up the road. We are preferred developer for dollar general. We shared this discussion at the neighborhood meeting. There were no concerns raised at the meeting and there were actually other than some of the traffic concerns that were discussed today that really were not specific to the rezoning request but due to more existing conditions on a five-lane road going through Durham County. We, while I can't say 100% that that's what will end up happening here, that would be the intent if the rezoning was approved. We are a preferred developer for dollar general. There is a store up in Timberlake. We did not choose this site. We were asked based upon market studies that were provided to us by others that this would be a good site. So if you look at the pattern of development of those types of stores, they're located in convenient areas close to the residences. So those residents do not need to drive all the way to Timberlake to shop or back into Durham to shop. So I hope that answers your question. And when we chose what uses to pull out, we chose the most intense uses to pull out fast food, drive through type restaurants because from doing this rezoning like this in the past, we know that that can be an issue in some communities. So we're cognizant and we asked the residents that attended the meeting, if any of the uses concern them, they were still on the list and there were none brought up. And there really was no opposition to the rezoning itself brought up at the meeting other than the concerns about the general traffic and speed and whatnot that's existing. So these type stores are there to serve existing communities. They typically do not bring in an increased traffic. They're there, the trade areas are very small, two or three miles. So they're there to serve the existing community. They typically do not create more traffic that is not already there. Great, thank you. Commissioner Gibbs, any other questions or comments? And I do appreciate that answers my questions. And the main one was that the residents were, and I guess non-residents in a community that small is pretty representative of their concerns. And I do appreciate the information that you gave. And since there is no opposition here tonight, a regimen is not that far away. Well, thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Gibbs. Commissioner Baker, I'll be short and sweet. I just wanna support Commissioner Alturk's comments. I think that our number one goal should be walkability. Commissioner Miller. So I wanted to say a little bit about the text-only development plan. This is the second case that we've had under the new ordinance. Both of them have been not in town. We really haven't seen it tested there. I think that we need to give it a bigger try before we start making judgments. I'm a big supporter of this approach. I believe that as long as it is limited to how pulling things out of the table permitted uses, it's always going to be a little bit unsatisfactory. But I believe that when the staff made the presentation, the idea was to see how this goes and that we might expand it in the future to allow other text commitments that don't have to be represented graphically, which is the expensive part of the development plan creation. I'd like to see us get to that next step where we can add text commitments which address some of the things that don't have to be shown graphically, supposedly maybe could be shown graphically, but for ingress and egress and sidewalks and those kinds of things that you could describe clearly in text in a way that would be understandable and enforceable, we're not there yet. One day that may come. But I hope that we will go in incremental steps to get there. Nothing is more frustrating to me than to know that somebody who has a relatively small project has to create a development plan in order to get it two or three text amendments. I mean, text commitments that would make their project more palatable, but they have to pay a land planner to essentially do the minimum representation in terms of maps and drawings when they really don't add anything to our understanding of the case. I think we're headed that way and I look forward to getting there. But I think as long as we're stopped at where we are, there's always going to be folks like me and I sent some of the other commission members who wish we could do a little bit more. I hope we'll get there though with some practice. And so that's just what I wanted to say about that. I'm going to support this rezoning because I think it's consistent with a comprehensive plan. Ms. Smith. Grace Smith planning, just not to lose that thread and follow up on what Commissioner Miller said. The staff certainly is looking at that. When we brought this to you, we said, let's see how this goes. I agree with your assessment 100%. We definitely are moving in that direction. We can't commit to a timeframe of when we'll add that to our list, but we definitely are moving in that direction. So thank you for bringing that up. Thanks for the clarification. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you. A couple comments. So one, I remember correctly, I voted in favor also of the text commitment thingy. Well, not just to see how it would play out. So a case like this puts me in position where more questions are raised than confirmations of clarity. My question for staff is given that it's been informed, we've been informed that if this request goes through that the applicant or the project sponsor will not be required, for example, to put a sidewalk on the front edge of the site. Is there anywhere in the process beyond this particular platform that that could become part of the conversation? Like it's not required or mandated, but at what point does, if that's something that's a desirable aspect, say from the UDL standpoint that that conversation is had with the developer or the project sponsor and it goes on to consideration beyond just us raising the fact that it's not required as part of the request here. Sure, so it's not required to their, as a site plan, it will be reviewed by planning as well as transportation and bike pad will make those comments at that time as well. I suspect their comments will be fairly consistent. So it's possible that at that point that conversation could happen. Otherwise the minor special use permit if they are required to pursue that has findings as far as compatibility and it's possible that a neighbor could raise that concern or, but as far as what is required by the ordinance, it is not, but those are the potential avenues. All right, and one follow up today. So just I wanna make sure I try to connect the dots. So the applicant responded that the goal of the intended programming of this site was to serve the existing community that's currently in this area. And I think he said like two or three mile radius. And so connecting that to Commissioner Gibbs comment of if nine people in that community came out and spoke and that's representative of that community, I would kind of like push back and say that if nine people were representative of a convenience store comment, I don't think the economics would pencil out. So I think there's more voices that probably, nine people are probably not representative of a three mile radius around that store. Just something to keep in mind. And if it's there to serve the existing population or residents, I think that the walkability issue is important because it's why would we want cars going half a mile or a quarter of a mile to get to this commercial development. So I raised that first question because if the goal is to serve the existing residents in that area, I think that issues regarding quality of life, particularly walkability, environmental bus, will a bus pad be there to serve the people who are living in that area? It's something that should be explored to a deeper degree than we're able to do with this request here. But knowing that we, that the request is asking tonight does not allow for that. I think I was just curious as to at what point will that conversation actually have a meaningful exploration beyond this. So that's my comments. Thank you. Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. You know, I recognize that the tax only development plans make sense in a lot of cases. And then I think it's true that for small projects, you know, we should give them a fair shake, but it seems to me like at least now we should be skeptical of them. And we should, we should be, I guess with an eye toward, you know, is this really the right approach and would we like to see more from a development plan? And I think one of the things that I'm concerned about with this particular application is that, you know, it is going to generate a couple of thousand, you know, vehicle trips a day, and you know, increase of a couple of thousand a day, which, you know, North Roxboro has the capacity to handle, but you know, it's not an inconsequential number of vehicle trips. And I think, you know, we often, and I take the applicant's point that, you know, the traffic concerns are a bigger concern than just in a bigger issue than just, you know, what this development will, you know, do for traffic in this area. It's something that residents should take up with other authorities, but we often ask developers to take up some of the, you know, some of the responsibility. And we often, developers often come with specific proposals and with specific strategies to mitigate traffic concerns. And I don't think we should, you know, let developers off the hook that easily. So I think I'm going to vote no against, no on this case. Mr. Whiteman. Mr. Chair, if I could address the sidewalk issue, I want the commission to keep in mind that this site and the entire world here is outside the city limits, which means all the streets are under DOT control, DOT at this time. And then probably the foreseeable future does not build or maintain sidewalks. The county at the present time does not have a sidewalk maintenance budget or program. So that is why sidewalks are not required in the world here. So there's some other issues here that probably need to be addressed first before, because if this applicant, even if they agreed to build a sidewalk, there would be no entity to maintain it. Thank you. Mr. Durkin. I just have a question for the applicant. And you're not, I understand you're not proffering to anything or promising anything, but what's the average square footage of a dollar general in that area? 90, 100 square feet. Okay. So then you would have to do the special use permit. According to staff. Okay. So that's helpful. Thank you. That was my only question for you. And then for staff, you guys might not know the answer, but do you know if DOT is looking at traffic impacts in this area at all or anything? I realize that you're not DOT, just curious if you knew. If there are any. We're only in Thomas Transportation. I'm currently, there are no projects proposed along this section of Roxboro Road or the secondary road there. I will say though, at the time of site plan, we would evaluate whether or not turn lanes would be required for the site for safety, depending on how the site gains access, particularly from Roxboro Road, turning lanes would likely be required. And as such, we could then require bicycle lanes as well. And would those kind of issues be raised at the special use permit stage? They would be required at the time of site plan. Okay, thank you. Great, we have a few other commissioners with questions or comments. I'm gonna go in the order that I saw you. So Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Alturk, Commissioner Bryan. So Grace, I'm gonna ask this question of you, but maybe another staff member, you'll get somebody to answer the question. It's been a little while since I've been to the Board of Adjustment, but as I recall the statute, the Board of Adjustment, and if this building is going to be more than 5,000 square feet, we've rehearsed this a little bit. And I just heard the gentleman say it was going to be just under 10,000 square feet, so they're headed to the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment can attach to a special use permit conditions if they are reasonable. And I would think reasonable, reasonability in this case is that if they would relate to any of the criteria for the standards for granting the permit, do you think that adding sidewalks or some sort of pedestrian safety facilities would be something that the Board of Adjustment could do? I'm not saying they would do, I don't wanna step into their circle, but is it something that would be in their purview in a case like this? So one thing to circle back to how the site plan and the Board of Adjustment action, how they interact, so the site plan would be under review and anything that would be required to the site plan, like Ms. Thomas was mentioning, potentially a turn lane, which could potentially morph into an ask for a bike lane. Those types of things would be shown on the site plan and the site plan has to be substantially clear of comment and it goes with the special use permit to the Board of Adjustment and that's what's approved as part of the use permit. I would have to, I'm not gonna guess that whether or not they would require sidewalks, I'm thinking that they probably would not because there's no mechanism for maintenance for such. Yeah, my question is it's not whether they would, it's whether they could. They could, but yeah, I mean, I think it would be one of those situations where it'd be hard to make a connection of how, why would they do that and no one, there's no mechanism. I think it really could open them up for some possible scrutiny at any rate. I guess they could, but I don't know that they would, especially if we have professional staff stating that we have no mechanism to maintain those sidewalks if they're put in. So yeah, that's my, I'm sorry, I might think they could. No, no, no, I was just trying to think it through and think the process through and I appreciate your help. But definitely back to the turn lane, if there's other things that would go with the turn lane that could be required, they would be shown on the site plan and they would be required as part of the use permit. Commissioner Williams. Yes, I have a comment. I don't have a question. I think that we are finally going about it the right way in terms of how we're approaching when people want to submit to build something and how we're looking at things. And though I do think walkability is a very important issue and it does need to be addressed, I think that we also have to be very concerned about what the walkability means. We're concerned about traffic, but we have to have these same concerns when people come to us and they want to build things in already heavily density areas where we're addressing things with traffic lights just because it makes sense because somebody else can do something already in that particular area. I think that we need to be conscious of the fact that just because we have sidewalks, people still are not going to use them. People are going to drive if that's what they want to do. And in Ruge mine, I don't know where a whole lot of people are walking. I mean, it's just about what makes sense. And to me, I think it's an undue burden to ask a builder to build a sidewalk because people who live across the street can walk on the sidewalk once they cross the street. But what are they walking on to get there? So, to me, it's just about coming together and figuring out a way to do things that make sense. There's a new complex of townhomes that was just built on 55 in Riddle Road. There's a sidewalk that walks from the complex to 84 Lumber down the hill where you cannot see the people that are walking down the hill because somebody asked for a sidewalk. You're not going anywhere. So we just have to be a little bit more well-versed in what it is that we're asking and understanding the area. Ruge mine needs a development, it does. With that, it's gonna come other access to other things. It's in the county. I don't know that anybody's really riding bicycles on Rocksboro Road in Rouge Mine. Maybe later on, when it is more heavily populated in density, it's gonna happen. But I just think that we need to have a consideration for if these people live out there and they went to the meeting and they've heard about it and no one's here. If they build a dollar generator, if they build a McDonald's or whatever the case may be, if they're not fighting it, then why are we? But people who come and they fight about stuff that's happening in the city and they're upset about different things, we approve these things unanimously. I think that we have to be a little bit more conscious about the responsibility we have of trying to establish these standards going forward. That is my statement. Commissioner Alturk. Oh, I just wanted to clarify. I misspoke and said that this development would generate 2,000 vehicle trips. That's the staff report estimates based on two fast food restaurants. So we don't actually know that, but my larger point stands. Thank you. Commissioner Bryan. Just a brief comment. When I visited the site, I don't know if anybody's picked up on it, but across Bill Poole Road, item number nine in the Pector category is the Durham County Container Site number three. And while I was out there, and I wasn't out there all that long, but that was the biggest traffic generator. I did have one question for Ms. Thomas on the transportation side. Just curious. So back to table two. So we talked about the traffic generated by the president designation and then the traffic generated by the proposed designation. And under the proposed zoning, the maximum use we were presuming that it would be two 4,000 square feet fast food restaurants without drive-through windows. Now that we know that it will be one 10,000 square foot store, does that change? I mean, I don't know the difference between how much traffic you presume for two fast food stores compared to one general dollar general store. I can't give you an exact number, but the traffic would be much less than what's generated by a fast food restaurant. Thank you. So the current, the original projection was if it were two fast food restaurants, we would see an increase of 307 vehicles per day. You're saying with what we know now that it'll be less than that. It might be still more. There would likely be a decrease. Right. So it won't be 307. It'll be lower, more than likely. Thank you. That's helpful. Any other questions or comments from the commissioners? So commissioner Miller and then commissioner Gibbs, and then I think we're gonna have a, is it gonna be time for a motion? So I, because of your comment and your question, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to remind everybody that the state law requires us to consider the most intense use the requested zoning would allow when we measure these metrics. That's why Ms. Thomas gave us the two fast food restaurant option. And we have heard the developers say that they're looking at a dollar general, but we can't assume it's going to be a dollar general. They may change their mind and build two fast food restaurants. So I just want to make sure that we are voting for or against this rezoning within kind of the strictures that are imposed upon us by law, not with any kind of assumption or implied promise that the property is going to be developed to a lesser intensity than the maximum allow. Yes, fair point. Commissioner Gibbs? I just wanted to say to Commissioner Johnson, my reference to nine representatives of the community was sort of tongue in cheek. And that number, I know it's not representative, but I just want to use that to remind and evidence of neighborhoods everywhere. If there is a hearing and you have some concerns, make them known. That's what this hearing and this board of, this board exists for that. That can't be stressed enough. Communication is hard, I know, but I'm still going to have to give some thought to this within the next few seconds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So I would ask for a motion. Chair Busby, I move that we send case Z180037 or to the county commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Okay. Moved by commissioner Alturk, seconded by commissioner Brian, and we will have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Williams? Yes. Commissioner Morgan? Yes. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Commissioner Brian? Yes. Commissioner Durkin? Yes. Commissioner Alturk? No. Chair Busby? Yes. Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Ketchin? Yes. Commissioner Baker? Nope. And commissioner Gibbs? No. Motion passes eight to three. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will move to our next case. This is the text amendment with rezoning. This is case TC18009 and Z1800030. This is the Patterson Place Compact Suburban Design District and a reminder, we have continued this case. We saw this on February 12th and we continued it for two cycles. So we will start with a staff update on the staff report and then we will reopen and continue the public hearing. Good evening. I'm Lisa Miller with the planning department. I just have a relatively brief introduction before your continued consideration. First, the biggest development related to this project since the February public hearing is that the Durham Orange Light Rail Project is officially no longer being pursued. So I wanna briefly talk about why in light of that, we still think this project should continue moving forward. I will note that staff has had opportunity to think about this scenario at least a handful of times in the last two and a half years while this project has been in development as the light rail project experienced one hiccup or another. We keep reaching the same conclusion which is that whether the transit system precedes or follows we need to create significant pockets of dense walkable and excuse development in parts of our community to accommodate the growth that we're experiencing and that Patterson Place is somewhat uniquely served in comparison to some of our other adopted compact neighborhoods, compact neighborhood tiers by existing high capacity roadways and well used regional and local transit service. In addition, its location between Durham and Chapel Hill make it the best candidate of our existing tiers to implement this project even without light rail which is one of the reasons it was selected as the next project to pursue. We believe that the development that can be created under the design district framework is better than what our current zoning districts in place allow. We want to encourage the kind of development that can help us grow more sustainably in areas that have existing infrastructure and access and take advantage of places where that infrastructure and access is intended to be improved whether that is the additional lane of travel on I-40, the 15501 corridor improvements under study or the Giffin's lift station upgrade. When property redevelops and we believe it will even without the light rail, we want to ensure that it does so in a way to create walkable places. We also continue to believe there's great opportunity in the creation of local connections across I-40 to create local circulation from Gateway or Easttown through New Hope Commons and to Patterson Place proper. It's also worth noting that our elected officials on the Go Triangle Board has stated a desire to continue to preserve the Durham Orange Light Rail corridor for potential repurposing for another high frequency transit type. As we begin work on a new comprehensive plan for Durham, we'll have opportunity to assess each of our other compact neighborhoods to determine whether the existing vision for those areas still makes sense without the rail project. However, the concept of compact neighborhood development in some form continues to be important to our future development. So second, I'd like to give just a brief overview of the supplemental information that was included in the packet, addressing the three major areas of concern raised in the last meeting and a few other text changes. The first item was the request to look at a 300-foot transitional use area. So it was suggested in February that we consider a 300-foot TUA instead of the 200-foot that is currently proposed. As the memo states, we continue to believe that the 200-foot TUA balances the concerns we've heard from property owners and environmental stakeholders to find a compromise that we can live with. In addition, the property owner of the largest area of impact for the TUA has entitlements to masquerade and develop under existing regulations and zoning designations. However, they're proffered to remove masquerading area from the 200-foot TUA, creating further protection for the area along the primary corridor of the New Hope Creek and near the greatest pinch point along the corridor where the bridge is over 15501. We believe creates a better outcome than alternatives presented. We welcome, of course, commission members to relay their concerns on this issue to city council because ultimately this is a policy choice for them to decide. The second item was reassessing the review factors for issuance of a major special use permit within that transitional use area. So it suggested that we review that as it was seen as not specific enough. We reviewed the current review factors that are in place for other major special use permits. Again, we asked the city attorney's office to reassess our proposed factors in light of the concerns raised. And we believe that the proposed factors strike a balance by including more specificity than those currently in place for other major special use permits but still allow leeway for the governing bodies to determine appropriate action on any proposal that comes forward for encroachment into that transitional use area. The final item was related to the New Hope Commons area. The legal council for New Hope Commons requested at the last meeting that their property be removed from the design district project. We did have a chance to meet with the ownership group in their council shortly after the February meeting and talked in great detail about their concerns and questions on the proposed zoning. I believe that we have addressed concerns but I think the council is here and they can speak directly to that. But on a related note, we have heard a few folks suggest for a variety of different reasons that the property on the north side of 1550, all of the property on the north side of 15501 should be excluded from this project, especially now that the light rail project is not continuing. But I believe my initial comments regarding the pursuit of this project without the light rail address our thoughts kind of address that holistic view of the compact neighborhood tier but I'd be happy to reiterate any of those as needed. Finally, just four quick items. At the end of the supplemental information, changes that have been incorporated into the text amendment as going forward to the governing bodies include removal of payday lenders as an allowable use in the support one and support two sub districts to mirror or to reflect what is in place in the compact design district. We've limited the number of drive-through lanes allowed as suggested. We've revised the non-conforming use section to allow reconstruction by right if a building is destroyed. And we've added some clarifying language for single and two family development related to frontage types. And I would be happy to answer any questions that you all have. Thank you. I am guessing we will have some questions after the public hearing. Thank you, Scott. So we have four individuals who have signed up to speak and it looks like two are in favor and two against. I believe Mr. Sabara, are you speaking against or in favor? In favor, thank you, okay. So we will call up the three individuals speaking in favor and you will have a total of 10 minutes. And so we'll start just in the order that individual signed up, Jay Hikes and then Michael Waldrop and James Sabara. Good evening, my name is Jay Hikes. I'm a transit-oriented development planner with Go Triangle. Even without light rail, we still believe it is critically important to create compact, walkable and equitable communities connected by transit as envisioned in the Durham comprehensive plan. Over the next 30 years, as you know, Durham will grow by 160,000 people. When they search for a place to live, 50% of them will prioritize places that are close to work, shopping, places, parks, excuse me, and other amenities that are walkable according to a 2015 Urban Land Institute study. How and where Durham accommodates its growing population matters. Today, there's a shortage of walkable places in Durham. Approving the rezoning will lay the groundwork for a new one with homes, jobs, shopping, and so on connected by pleasant streets and public spaces. Redeveloping parking lots and big box retail in areas like Patterson Place will help address the unmet demand to live in a walkable place and help reduce displacement pressures in walkable neighborhoods elsewhere. Each person who moves to a Patterson Place is one less person, bidding at prices and more vulnerable neighborhoods near downtown Durham. The rezoning supports Durham's affordable housing creation goals. It strikes a careful balance between setting a deep density bonus and encouraging new mixed use development. The rezoning will also create a new job destination served by affordable transportation that will give more people across Durham the freedom to forego the costs of car ownership without foregoing access to jobs, education, healthcare, and community. Both Go Durham and Go Triangle provide service there today. And notably, Go Durham has long-term plans to increase service to every 15 minutes, a key level of frequency that makes the bus convenient for more people and more trips. And also, as mentioned, Patterson Place may be an important note on a future transit investment in this area. Approving the Patterson Place rezoning will help Durham create a future where everyone can share in its prosperity. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Waldrop? And actually, if you can make sure you're at the microphone for your official comments. Thank you. Yes, thank you. I don't know whether I've got a few more copies here if there's somebody that would like to have something I can certainly provide it. My name is Mike Waldrop, 5324 McFarland Drive. Essentially in the heart of Patterson Place, if you will. And I think that there are a number of us that are still in the state of shock given what happened with the effective cancellation of the light rail project. I am one who hopes they get to a replacement, a high-quality replacement, very quickly. I've got presentations in the works that I'm going to be kicking into the discussion with Go Triangle staff. I've already been in conversations about setting up appointments with them. And I've also provided you folks, I don't expect you to have paid much attention to them because they went out in email today, but Richmond has a BRT system. I mean, if we're not going to go steal wheel, then we don't, it becomes a process of elimination. And you've got to start looking at rubber tire alternatives. So I wanted to speak to the issue of roads. I think of the, you know, everybody's got their favorite aspect of the Patterson Place Compact neighborhood. We are going through a 15501 corridor master plan study process. Roads are forever, in my opinion. We've got to get the roads right. And regardless of how quickly transit gets delivered, regardless of how quickly development occurs and at what density and whether they use the affordable housing option or not, as things have sort of shrunk down courtesy of the loss of the light rail, I think that we need to pay very close attention to roads. Part of my problem, and I sent you out email over the weekend was that there seemed to be a lot of roads that don't make an awful lot of sense. And I've learned that once you adopt something, it becomes a little hard to erase it, to haul out the eraser. But there are road segments that cross streams. They go through the edges or if not the middle of ponds across wetlands. They create blocks that I consider to be too small to be practicable. If you were talking about trying to match blocks sizes that were developed in the horse and buggy age, that's one thing, but we're not there. And so I suggested with this piece to staff and with what I shipped you, that there's a lot of slimming down and trimming that needs to occur on that road exhibit. I'll leave for another time the discussion about the core area, which was the other issue that I raised when I spoke to you in February. I don't know where we're going from here. I don't envy your position. As I say, I'm gonna be engaging very directly in the roads discussion and the go triangle, plan B, second choice, whatever you wanna call it, discussions. It is a key piece of real estate, a key piece when considered with its twin, its Siamese twin on the other side of I-40 it's just a remarkable and unique place in the western part of the triangle between Durham and Chapel Hill. So again, I'm in favor of it. I'm in favor of the work that's been done, but I suspect that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before final decisions can be made. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Mr. Savara. Good evening. Jim Savara, 1114 Woodburn Road. I'm a member of the Coalition for Affordable Housing and Transit, but I'm not speaking for the group tonight. There has been discussion, and I think there is a great deal of favor for the kinds of limits and incentives that have been built into the proposal to encourage affordable housing, the minimums and maximums that have been set in the three sub districts. The bonus density that it comes, an unlimited density in any of the three areas if there's affordable housing, greater height, moving from 145 to 35 feet to up to 300 to 60 feet high in support area two. And then finally, there's a no minimum requirement for parking spaces for the affordable units. Now there was concern in the report from Planning Department and express at the last meeting that the height levels and the 30 units per acre that are permitted in the core area might mean that that area gets filled up with residential, with commercial property or that people would simply use those allowable limits rather than providing for more affordable units. So the one change that I would suggest, and it may have to do with core issues that were just mentioned, would be to reduce the size of the core district by putting the area between the unnamed entrance road on the east side of Patterson Place before Sayward Street and between that area and Southwest Durham Drive. And now that you have maps, you can see that sort of extension off to the east that is part of the core district. It is the previous location of the light rail station made it unnecessary, presumably, that that extension be added given the placement of the station. With a smaller platform that would accompany bus rapid transit, it could be placed more flexibly and in the middle of that core area. And that would make it possible to shift that core district into district one, support district one. That makes the incentives available for adding affordable housing much stronger in that area. And that area that would be added to sub-district one currently is underdeveloped. There appear to be six to eight single family houses in that area, so it would be a prime location for high density housing that would include affordable housing. So I encourage you to go ahead and in support this proposal. It can be a model, I think for other compact districts and suburban areas in the future. And the unlimited density and greater height available if affordable housing included is likely to produce greater results in sub-district one than remaining as part of the core district. Thank you. Thank you. And we have one final speaker who's speaking against Bob Healy. Good evening, I'm Bob Healy. I live at 839 Sitchfield Street and you're downtown Durham. And I'm here tonight as I often have been in the past as the co-chair of the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee. Over the last 27 years, the committee has advised local governments in Durham and Orange County on the implementation of the 1992 adopted New Hope Corridor Plan. And over that time, an estimated $5 million of federal, state, local and private money has gone into protecting this corridor and providing trail access to part of it for the public. Now in my testimony before you on February 12th, I noted the fact, there's more detail in your packet that six very experienced ecologists, I'm talking about people with 30 years experience and environmental planners with whom we consulted recommended a transitional use permit of at least 300 feet measured from the quarter boundary be established. I've got to emphasize that this is not a 300 foot setback. It is not a 300 foot no build zone. It's not a limitation on density. Rather gets a zone where a special permit would be required and city council would decide whether a given configuration of development and configuration is terribly important. These people have told me would be consistent with the New Hope plan. The recommendation from staff is for 200 feet. And when we look at it, it just is not going to cover enough of the property, the sensitive part of the property to see that New Hope corridor values are given adequate scrutiny. I'm talking scrutiny, not prohibition. We cannot support that. Now we know that since our last meeting, the LRTS changed completely both respect to the nature of the project, but also really with respect to the deadline pressure that everybody faced. We don't know what... You can keep speaking. Oh, okay. We don't know what's going to take its place along 15501. Patterson Place will still be a density node, but we're no longer in a rush for a blanket rezoning. We therefore suggest that the entire property bordering the New Hope on the north side of the highway be removed from the compact neighborhood. Now we think that criteria for design make lots of sense, and this is a good laboratory for them, but we think that blanket rezoning doesn't make sense. We think that projects need to be evaluated on their merits compared to the criteria that are set forward by rules that you and I are going to recommend and council will establish. Now we're very aware that the current landowner has in use existing zoning to build strip commercial on the property, and that's a risk for us in the New Hope. We also know he is a grading permit that would allow virtual destruction of some of the most important slopes. We've looked at the maps very carefully and compared them with sensitive areas, but we suspect that the current zoning is not the most profitable use of the property, and we don't think it's the kind of development that's most consistent with the public interest. We also think, frankly, the exercise of the grading permit just for its own sake to destroy the values of the land would cause a tremendous public outcry that no local developer would be interested in sustaining. At this point, we think that rather than including the property in a blanket rezoning, up zoning, with no real protection for the corridor, we think it'd be best for the owner, should he wish to do so, to come to Planning Commission and council for an ordinary rezoning consistent with whatever compact neighborhood criteria you may wish to put in place. And at that time, there would be an opportunity for you and the council and our ecologists to take a look at a specific development plan, specific use, specific configuration of buildings on the site and determine whether these are consistent with the new corridor plan and with other matters of public interest. So thank you for the opportunity to express these views this evening. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this item while the public hearing is still open? I don't see anyone else. We're gonna close the public hearing. I know commissioners, we have a lot of questions and comments, I'm sure. So we will start to my right. We'll start Commissioner Bryan. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't only see Commissioner Bryan raising his hand. Commissioner Bryan. Don't know whether this is a good sign or not. I'm gonna start with a question for staff. I heard what you said at the beginning of your presentation. And I know that plan A, if you will, is no longer on the table. The problem I have right now is that we don't really know what plan B is gonna be. We suspect or I suspect that it's likely to be some sort of bus transit system, but we really don't know. I think it'd be a long time before we get back to a rail system for various reasons. And one of the things that got my attention in the email you sent out today, this statement about as Durham works to reassess the appropriate transit mode for the corridor, this is an opportunity to reassess the appropriate station location for the district now that the severe restrictions from the Durham Orange Light Rail Transit Project are no longer in place. But what that suggests to me is we don't really know where the station might go, or if it turns out to be a bus stop and maybe more than one bus stop, we don't know where they're gonna be for sure at this point. And that's partly because we don't know what the plan is. So if we don't know that, then I don't see how we can be sure exactly what our core area is gonna look like. And that leads me to ask, why move forward at this point? I mean, I agree we need to move forward. At some point, I agree that we need to protect the corridor. But until we know what plan B is, I don't see the point in doing it right now. So that's a long statement. I can reiterate all of the reasons that we think it's really important to be planning for the growth that's happening in Durham and accommodating that. Part of as we are looking at the comprehensive plan process, we're gonna be looking at the county transit plan in tandem working with our transportation partners. And some of what we'll look at is how do we connect people where there's existing intensity or existing allowed intensity? And some of it will be thinking about where we think new intensity should be. I think as Jay from Go Triangle mentioned, Patterson Place is already a location where they're planning to extend 15-minute headways, as well as it already having well-used bus service and park and ride service. So there's a lot of opportunity there in the current setting. There's also a lot of development interest there in the current setting. So as people come in and they're interested in developing, we can have more of the same of what we have, and we can not accommodate more households and more jobs, or we can look to create more walkable places that have more intensity in order to better accommodate that now. So we will be looking at county-wide at all of this through the comprehensive plan, but for all of those reasons, we still think that this is an important project to move forward, as well as it creates. So one of the things that sometimes gets lost in the fact that it's three pieces in one project is that one of the things that we're doing is creating a district that is applicable in other locations that then somebody could come in and try and apply somewhere else. So if there's interest in somebody coming in and doing development in the South Square area, they could come in and apply these regulations in a new location, in an area that we know that is ripe for redevelopment. So trying to change the tide of what kind of development happens in those places as redevelopment occurs. Yeah, I understand that and I agree with it. I get, my basic point is, we seem to have some uncertainty about locations of specific things in Patterson Place. And unless we can pin them down more certainly, I don't see the point of adopting something now. And six months from now, you guys decide, well, you know, the core area is wrong, we need to go back and change it. So one of the advantages to the proposal that's in front of you, as I mentioned in a little bit more detail in the last meeting, is that the core area that came out of the public input sessions for the Patterson Place project was extremely expansive. Folks wanted to see core area along I-40 and along 15501 on both sides because they thought that made sense. The reason that we retracted it significantly from that is because as we were looking to put in place the affordable housing bonus, we wanted to make sure there was a significant area that's outside the core, where that bonus would have a real impact. So I don't think that there's a real concern here that we're gonna get development that's inappropriate for the setting. And we still feel, again, I'll just reiterate, we still think that this is, you know, we presented as information items to the city council and the board of county commissioners in March and it was, there was still some potential hope that the light rail project would continue, but it was after the information came from Duke and from the railroad. And these questions came up there and we had this conversation there as well. So we understand the question and again, I've been thinking about it for the entire time that we've been working on this project. So, and you know, a similar question came up with Ninth Street when we worked on that project when I was an intern with the planning department. So continually comes up. I don't think we have a whole lot of certainty about transit, but we need to start changing our development patterns and create transit that serves it. You know, I'll say again, I don't disagree with that. I'm just concerned that we're moving forward without really knowing exactly what plan B is gonna be. And plan B could change a lot of stuff that's out there. So that's my one basic point. And while I've got the floor, Mr. Chair, I'm just gonna run over a few other things that I question about this. One, I don't like the idea of taking away the major transportation corridor overlay. I think that's a nice thing to have. And I think if we're gonna view this part of 15501 as sort of a gateway to Durham, as I've heard it described, I think having that buffer in place is better than not having a buffer. I can't see anything that's so special about design district that we need to take a buffer away. That's one thing. I'm also one of the people, and I haven't discussed this with anybody in the audience yet, but I can see doing away with stuff on the north side of 15501. I have questioned whether New Hope Commons should be included for a long time. If we're not gonna have the transit, I think they become more isolated. They're gonna be more of a vehicular served area. I don't know that bus service is gonna serve them as well as it could serve Patterson Place. So I think in the long run, they might be better off not being included. And I think the same thing goes for everything else along the north side. And if you do that, it may also take care of this question, the 200 feet versus 300 feet buffer. The third item is that I believe in the 300 foot transitional use area tend to side with the New Hope Carter folks on that. And there's still a big piece on the south side that you pointed out last time that most of it is outside. There's a little bit of it inside the compact neighbor. I think you should take it out. And what you get out of this, if you do this is a much more compact, compact neighborhood, which I think might be better served by your bus transit system, which is what I believe you're likely to get there, at least in the near future. And the final thing is I do agree with some of what Mr. Walter said. I think you've got too many streets and too short box in the Patterson Place area. So that's where I stand on it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Bryan, Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. Well, a lot of what I was gonna ask and say, I think Commissioner Bryan said very well, I made some of my objections know last time about what I think this would do to affordability in the area, but I've thought about, Lisa, your answers to my questions last time were really helpful. Commissioner Miller had some good insights at that meeting. I've spoken with Jay Hikes and others at GoTriangle and other places. And I have been convinced, I think, that the proposed density bonus strikes the right balance. I'm still skeptical that it will be used in a way that will really increase affordability in the area, but I'll leave that aside for now, because I think to me the big question is still about, is what Commissioner Bryan asked, which is what's the logic of having the locations of the core and the S1 and the S2 where they are now? And I mean, you've kind of answered him, but I guess from the last meeting and from your memo, there are reasons that we have a core and it is where it is, right? Because it surrounds, it was going to surround a light rail station that and you want to, and I think in your answer to me, you wanted to promote office and commercial right there and then promote affordable housing and residential outside of that area. But let's say that bus rapid transit is an option. Let's say the node moves considerably. Why would we, I mean, again, what's the logic between sticking with this map right now? I mean, and maybe you already answered it and you'll just say I've already answered it, but I want to keep pushing. Reiterate some of the things that I've said, but I do, I think, you know, while there is logic around the transit, having a transit station in the core, the idea is not that the transit station is like only the, you know, the idea with the initial public input being this area where there was a much larger area that made sense for intensity, where you're not having to transition to uses like single family or even other multifamily residential neighborhoods, where you're going to have issues of nuisance overflow parking concerns coming from neighbors. When you write up against a highway corridor, for instance, that was a scenario under which folks thought intensity made sense. There are a lot of settings in which intensity makes sense without a strong transit every downtown. You know, there's a strong, there's not necessarily a strong transit connection that has high frequency, but that doesn't mean that density can't thrive there. And what we're trying to do is create these dense nodes that can allow for that we can live here, we can work here, we can, you know, and have that frequency of transit follow. Is there any concern that if we don't have better public transit here, and I recognize that GoTriangle and GoDurham might, and they're looking into increasing service there, but if we promote something like this, the core area as it stands now, that it does promote really dense commercial and office, that we will just be promoting more cars on 1550, or encouraging more people to just drive on 15501 to go to these new offices and new commercial areas. If we don't have a really, a real public transit plan. So I think two things. One is that, you know, part of the core being very small now compared to what was recommended, there is a lessened impact for that potential. The other thing is that this has been, in some form or another, thought of as a location for a transit station for a very long time before this iteration of the Durham Orange light rail line. And so it's been, it has been understood as a place where density makes sense, and we need to put the transit in place to create it. So, and it was set up by the developer that created it to be able to transition, you know, with more of a network of drive aisles and internal streets than most more suburban developments have. So it's been kind of set up with this in mind. And I believe that's another way that this is a unique compact neighborhood from some of the others. Okay. And well, I think you've already answered, Commissioner Bryan, on the question of why not wait until the comprehensive plan. So I will just make that comment that I think that we should be, we should wait. So I won't ask you a question on that, but can I ask Professor Svar, I think, to elaborate on your idea of moving the core? I wasn't sure exactly where you were, what you were proposing, and can you tell us a little bit? So in terms of, so you, I think you suggested making the core even smaller. That's correct. And moving part of it east. Yeah, you can see Sayward Street. Right, and Mr. Svar, if you don't mind, just before you start, we could see if we could put this map, I don't know if it's possible, but if we're able to put attachment C, I believe, is what you're talking about in the package. That's right, I think. And do you just get a promotion to being professor? Sorry, I was sticky. Commodore. Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. I just wanted to say, yeah, thank you. I don't know what your map looked like, it was given to you. Oh, okay. You can. Oh, there you go. Thank you very much. Yeah, you can actually see Sayward Street on the map, on the small version you have. There is another parallel entrance road that enters the shopping area. You can put it on that. Okay. I'll bring it, I'll bring it on. Okay. The natural boundary is that entrance road that comes in from Southwest or in Parkway, and I think that could be the boundary for the core district. From that, okay. So there you can see it is actually sort of where the light rail line was coming in before is set in a bit from Sayward, and it's essentially an extension of that line. Sayward now has houses on both sides of the street. I think there are developable lots rather than having, that could be used for higher density housing. And so that's why I think it's that entrance road that would be the North-South boundary. Is that, is that- That's the North-South, so Southwestern and then- Would be the North, yeah, the North-South. Oh, sorry, okay. And so everything to the east of that entrance road would be then part of sub-district one, and the incentives would be stronger in that area to go to affordable houses. Yeah, because there's a, this is mostly vacant land, is that right? It is mostly vacant land, that's right. Large lots with peer-to-peer single-family houses. Okay, great, thank you, that was very helpful. So how difficult would it be if we went through with this and then we just, you know, we realized that this was a good idea to do this, right, to make it even smaller, to expand S1. So I will tell you that the first design district zoning that I worked on here was for the downtown. And I believe it was very late in the process. We, there was some assessment of some of the blocks within the design district that were looked at for potential redevelopment, either rehabilitation or wholesale redevelopment. And there was a city-initiated rezoning that very quickly followed the main project that addressed that change as it was recognized and recommended by the council in the process to undertake that. So it's not something that is, you know, if there is support for making changes, it's not something that is, you know, an unwieldy process. And it's something that we've done before. Okay, thank you. And so I'm not leaving anyone out. I also agree with Professor Healey's 300-foot TUA recommendation as well. So I think that's an important thing that we should protect and I'll leave it there. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. So between commission member Brian and commission member Al Turk, everything that I was gonna say has been pretty much said. I do have some concerns. I can understand that instead of light rail, we might be stepping up bus service, but it's gonna be bus service on 15501, which at peak times of the day isn't going to be able to deliver a 15-minute service. That was the beauty of light rail, is it could keep a time table because it had a dedicated route. Well, that's not gonna happen here and we don't even know what's going to happen. And that really worries me. There are things about this proposal that I really like. This new balance on incentives is what I've been talking about, not because it was my idea. I actually heard plain staff interns about, gosh, 10 years ago tell the city council at a work session that we need to make the incentives greater and we need to bring the base zoning down and we need to eliminate the clutter because back at the time we also had incentives for public art and things like that. I think we're finally getting there and so there's aspects of this that I would like to actually see tried and hopefully to see them work. And so I'm completely in sympathy with what Mr. Savara says about increasing the S1 where I also believe the incentives are going to work if they work at all at the expense of the core. I've always been a believer that once you give away the core, you're done. And you can't get it back. It's easy to up zone. It's very difficult to down zone. And so under these circumstances, I'm convinced by what both of our professors have said and also convinced by Mr. Bryan and Mr. Al Turk. I could support this project if we as a planning commission could agree on a couple of things. One of them is I'd like to see everything on the North side taken out of it. Now I've read the memo and I'm sympathetic with some of that but my concept of a design district is that it's walkable and having 15501 run right through the middle of it means that nobody is going to walk from the top to the bottom. I even see the road networks but I see all these bridges that are going to be spanning 15501 and also I-40 and I don't see anybody building them. They're very expensive facilities and I just don't believe in it. Now if moving forward, we get something going here. We actually have a plan B and there's no reason why we couldn't expand here but I'm convinced by what Mr. Healy said although there is risk associated with leaving the I guess it's the northeast portion of the trans 15501 area zone as it is in the PDR that the developer may do some land disturbance inside the area between the proposed TUA area and the areas that are already protected by the zoning code either as slopes or as stream buffers. It's been zoned that way for a long time. I think that, I mean there's always risks associated with that I don't think that there's much difference between the TUA, the 200 foot TUA and the existing code protections for the streams along there. If there is a difference, it's got to be less than four or five acres out of a potential of 20 or more. So I would like to take all of that out. The other thing I'd like to do is shrink the core and then we could perhaps go forward with a Patterson Place Design District that's now cut free from the light rail thing that it was tied to. It's small, that doesn't mean it isn't expandable in the future when we come up with a plan B either a new light rail proposal or some other better transit service. But I would rather start small and expand with the knowledge of knowing what we are serving and what is serving it than to bump around in the dark without a flashlight, which is what I think we're doing right now. So I'm going to have to vote against this unless we can come together and make a recommendation to the city council and board of commissioners for a smaller Patterson Place Design District and one with a smaller core. Commissioner Baker. I want to thank the audience members. I think that you brought some really thoughtful statements to the conversation. Same with my fellow commissioners. I really, really liked the conversation that we're having. I think that there are a lot of really important things that people are bringing up. I think that we're talking about really good things. I also think that there are some valid concerns and I certainly share a lot of those concerns. I'm going to support this. I support this in his current state. I think that we need to ensure that we create the types of nodes that can at one point be served by bus rapid transit. And maybe we don't know what's coming today. Maybe we don't know what's coming tomorrow, but we need to build the kinds of communities. We need to build the kinds of development and built forms that can be served by these types of transportation. And so I think that that's something that we really need to support together is pushing these types of developments. Moving forward, I think that it is going to be really important that as this area becomes developed that there is a focus on affordable housing, that there is a focus on creating human scale design, creating valuable public space, the pedestrian realm. Those are all really important. I think that there were good comments about the block sizes. I would differ in my opinion about block sizes. I think that if we go to some of the places in Durham or outside of Durham that we truly care about, historic places that in fact block sizes extremely important and having small block sizes as portrayed here is extremely important. And so I would actually support that, the design that we're currently looking at. I do have one quick question for staff and I apologize if this is somewhere in the packet and I did not see it, but is there any requirement for alleys? We're creating them or what? So the block standards that are in place for design districts currently, that would apply to any new design districts. There are maximum block sizes, maximum block lengths. There are also provisions for exceeding the maximum block size by a small amount if you use either an alley or a pedestrian mall to further create connectivity within it. Okay, I would encourage the use of alleys wherever possible. But again, I support this. I'd encourage my colleagues to support this. I think the form is appropriate. I think the boundary is appropriate. Again, I think that we need to be creating more of these and not constricting the size of them. And so that's what I'd like my fellow commissioners to be thinking about. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Morgan. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chair. One of the things I was thinking is what I'm hearing is that this will probably get refined further as we continue further down the pipe. And I've heard kind of the statement in other situations is we're kind of taking a step in the right direction here. And I kind of think about it in that term while we don't have the perfect plan or we don't have all of the eyes dotted and the T's crossed on everything here or even the size of things, I think it's a good start. Even if we abandon it and we go back and we try to reshape it where you think it, we don't have anything to kind of work from. So my thinking is six months down the road, we may see this back here with some refinements based upon further input. And so I'm thinking more in terms of supporting the plan as it is going forward. If we need to take out the North side or we need to reshape the core, we can do that is from that perspective. So I kind of look at it from that point of view because what we're wanting to do is put something in place here. We want to plan out the neighborhood and plan out that environment. And I think some of the components here are good to work with. And as we start to entertain developers to come into this area, we can certainly come back and revisit and refine that. So that's my thinking is, so I'm thinking even that staff's gonna come back and make some changes here and we'll probably have to refine it if we pass this forward. Thank you. Commissioner Williams. Yes, as I always have comments, I don't typically have questions, but I agree with a lot of what has been said thus far in terms of how the neighborhood is being looked at, Patterson Place within general and the need for development out there. I do have general concerns with thinking that because we put something in place right now, then in saying we're gonna call it affordable housing, then people gonna wanna flock there. I also have issues and concerns like Commissioner Miller said with, saying that we gonna put a bus ride out there and people gonna be able to take the bus and get there quickly. I've never gotten anywhere on 15501 quickly unless it was about three o'clock in the morning. So I just don't necessarily believe that that is going to be the necessity or the deciding factor of how we go forward with deciding how we're gonna design this, how it's gonna be laid out, who it's gonna serve. I do also have concerns in terms of we continue to use the fact that people are moving to Durham and what that's gonna forecast and it's gonna look like and what they're gonna need, but we could easily establish a traffic standard by understanding what the people who presently live here do. Do they go to Patterson Place as it is now? If we don't know that that's the case, then we can't say that because we build this or we design it that people are gonna wanna go there because it is a standard 15 to 20 minute drive from downtown Durham, but we say we can use this as a way to get people to and from downtown Durham where you can use 147, you can use Highway 40. I think that we have to go about doing this for the right reasons and it's not necessarily because people want to go there from downtown Durham. I've been to Patterson Place, I like it, but when I go there, I go there currently because there's multiple things I need to do there. Like I need to visit multiple stores. I'm going to eat while I'm there because it has excellent parking, but it's just not convenient and I live in the heart of the city to travel to Patterson Place. And until we can get faster bus routes and transportation within Durham itself to help with the commute within Durham, getting people to and from various places within Durham, then it's kind of hard to address the need of what is gonna be like to get to somewhere that's relatively closer to Chapel Hill than it is to Durham and downtown Durham regardless of who's moving here. So me being the realist and looking at things for what they are and what they could be, you're gonna have issues with Highway 40. You're gonna have issues with Highway 85, 147. You're gonna have problems with 15501, Southwest Durham Drive. And as developments and people continue to build in those areas, the unforeseen traffic impacts are going to continue to happen. So we kind of have to cross bridge what the need is right now and look at how many people are actually traveling there from these various areas, even from Orange County, how many people actually travel there before we can determine whether or not buses or light rail or for God's sake, scooters, whatever the case may be, will actually work in these areas because we're trying to predict 230,000 people moving here when we're not taking into consideration the people who are here currently and what that traffic looks like because I can tell you right now, I'm not driving on 15501 University Drive or anywhere between the hours of 730 and 10 a.m. and from four to 7 p.m. It's just not happening because you used to cross over Southwest Durham Drive and pick up University, but 751 has now figured out that you come across University Drive and you come across in front of Jordan High School when school is in, you're gonna have that same issue. Woodcroft Parkway now funnels into that same area. So it's creating a situation that we need to address currently. And I think that by improving the neighborhood and designing responsibly, it can be an area in which people enjoy because they can walk their area, not necessarily because the concern is about whether or not people from Orange County or the heart of Durham can get there but creating an experience that is worthy of the people who want to live there. And it takes the strain off because I live on Highway 55. There is literally nowhere for me to go eat. I have to drive. I have to. If I had a neighborhood in which I could walk to go get something to eat or go to a grocery store or socialize, I would welcome it in a heartbeat. So I think that we need to address the issues of compact neighborhoods in the sense of live, work, play because that's what people wanna do and that's what the design basis of this is for but when you're not presenting it for the right reasons, it's met with cruelty and it's not really accepted. But saying to people that let's build this and let's create a reason for people to not have to leave unless they want to makes it a little bit more feasible. And when we started talking about buffering and streams and all that other stuff, I get it. Sustainability is important. It is essential to how we're gonna continue to build and thrive going forward. But I do think that there's a common sense plan here. And I don't think that saying it because of light rail or because of transportation, then it makes sense. I just think that it makes sense. And I think if we take the other aspects of whether or not people gonna be able to commute there and how they're gonna get there, if you take that out of it, I think that it's still a feasible plan. Thank you. I know we have a few other questions and comments. Actually, I have a few questions myself and the timing may be appropriate. I usually wait until the end. But first of all, I just wanna say to the staff, I really appreciate the years of work that've gone into this. I mean, this has truly been a very heavy lift. And it is, I can only imagine your level of frustration that the light rail project has gone away. I mean, literally, we were here 60 days ago and we continued this case and I'm not saying this as a critique, but basically nothing has changed in the last 60 days in the packet in front of us, but everything has changed with the light rail going away. But Ms. Miller and Mr. Whiteman and all the planning staff, I really appreciate the work you put in. I think as Commissioner Baker said, there are a lot of things in here that I think are really great. I do have significant concerns about why now. And so I guess my question is, I know you've said this before, but walk me through what would happen if six months from now? We just paused this process and we came back six months from now. What are the trade-offs? What are the costs? What are the benefits of just, and I'm making up, could be nine months. I'm just saying as opposed to us passing it now, it goes to the governing body, it gets enacted and then we decide we did make some mistakes, which is Commissioner Morgan's argument of saying, let's put it in writing and then let's try to dial it and tweak it as we decide what we're actually gonna do here. Walk me through the upsides and the downsides of going now or just waiting because literally we are all just figuring out what just happened and what do we do next? So I would say one of the biggest downsides of doing something like that is that every time that the project gets pushed down the road, it's more time for not only staff to continue to be in sort of full understanding and depth of the project, but also for the community that we've been working with for the last two and a half years. It's limbo for people who are trying to make decisions about what they're doing with property. It is, there is very significant possibility of folks that have been part of and supportive of the process fatiguing and not wanting to continue to be involved or not wanting to be involved in other projects because of that. And I think there's a very, if we were to stop and start again at some later date, we would be starting from scratch, essentially. I think there may be some minor things that we could take from this now, but we would need to walk whoever is willing to come to the table to be part of the conversation through the entire process again. And that is obviously, we have had a lot of dedicated folks who've been walking through this process with us for the last two and a half years. And I think it would be certainly a disservice to them as well as, for staff starting over as obviously feels like a disservice. That is, I think, I know I've said this already in several different ways, but we still think and have at every step of the way as we've thought, you know, I believe Scott told me that compact neighborhoods have been on the books in some fashion since 1995. Is that right? Yeah. We understand that this is what we need to do. We are continuing to see development happen out in places where it's suburban. There's not good infrastructure. It's creating greater traffic issues. We do need to be creating the places that people can live, work, do everything that they need to within a walkable space. This has been long identified as a place where that can happen. And there's been support for that to happen, political and community support. And so for all of those reasons, but then also, you know, six months from now, nine months from now, 24 months from now, we will be fully engulfed in a very different, very huge project. And one of the things that can help us is to have put in place design district zoning here, where we've identified that, yes, even without the light rail, we think this makes sense repeatedly, or we've repeatedly identified that, have the opportunity to see what's happening there as we're working through the comprehensive plan as we start to think about other compact neighborhoods and whether there are different versions of compact neighborhoods. That kind of place where people can walk to things and bike to things needs to be happening in more places throughout our city. So thinking about how we can learn from what's in place and take those concepts and create maybe other iterations of compact neighborhoods for places that aren't around a fixed transit line station. So I think there's a lot of reasons that it is helpful to move forward. I don't know if that is helpful. I understand, especially from your and the staff's perspective, that viewpoint. I hope that it's not true that if, and I'm not the decider here, but if our community did decide that it made sense to pause even briefly to be able to stop and think about so what is next and what might make sense here, especially when you hear even supporters tonight coming with suggestions on ways that we can continue to make changes. I would hope that we wouldn't actually have to start from scratch because that's true of our transportation plan as well is that our community has to come up with a new plan but we aren't starting from scratch. So I say that just hoping that that isn't the case. But you did answer my question. It was very speculative but it's helpful to just get your sense of what are the costs which I know is what I'm weighing and I think a lot of us are weighing. My inclination before the light rail went away was to come in tonight to vote for this with reservations, some of the reservations that I and others have indicated. I'm very much on the fence and I think I lean towards advising our governing bodies to pause ever so briefly to really think through is this the right way to go? Commissioner Miller's arguments, I tend to share his concern which is once you start to make significant plans and start to give things away, it's very difficult if we change our mind to move backwards. But I do think we should vote tonight and so I think that's important. Nothing's gonna change significantly in the next 30 days so I don't think it makes sense for us to continue this case. We can only continue it for 30 days if we did so. I think it's time to send it forward to our governing bodies. I will likely vote against it but point out all the great things that are embedded in here because I agree with the principles that undergird the thinking here. It really is more the timing and the significant change of the light rail. So that's just my thinking on the item. I know Commissioner Gibbs, you had a question or a comment and then Commissioner Johnson and Brian. Well, I appreciate your comments just now. That pretty much sums up the myriad questions that I've been trying to wrap my head around with this whole thing. There's so many directions that can go. I've even thought of so the light rail, the steel wheels are gone. What if we replaced the steel wheels with rubber tires along the same route? Could we accomplish the same thing? Now that's common cartoon thinking folks. But that's, I think we should preserve these corridors and the stations along the way that we were gonna have the compact districts to be built in and the plans may be that they could, they would decide to, and whoever they are, decide to reduce the number of them. Right now we just don't know what the plans are, but I still think this can be accomplished with rubber tires. And I don't really think it would be that complicated. Even if we had light rail going forward, it still was not going to completely eliminate the traffic on all the other feeder roads. We would still have issues there because it's just speculation to think that all of those people that are on those other roads or that will always be contributors to the traffic. Well, I'm just gonna start taking light rail so that leaves the rest of us with a lighter traffic load. I think that's just speculation, but I wanted to support this also with reservations and I'm gonna make notations to that effect. And I think I'd just like to send it forward also. And then after I make the decision and send my notes, I'm still gonna be wondering what the heck is going on. So, okay, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you. I'll be quick. So I appreciate and thank comments that were shared from the people in the audience as well as appears here on the commission. I echo almost 100% of the concerns and points that the chair raised in regards to his thinking coming in from last meeting and what transpired in between us getting here this evening. And I'm inclined to vote not in favor of it, but at the same time, I feel that there's a lot of good elements within what we're looking at. And I appreciate and understand the time and effort that the staff has put into this as someone who's spent his prior career in tax policy. I agree with Commissioner Miller's point that the reality is, is that once you put things in place such as this, it is very difficult to pull back. It's a process that takes a life of its own. And so I feel that given the uncertainties, the many uncertainty that comes with what lies ahead with the unknowns just being what they are, that there are opportunities for us to ensure that there's more leverage for us to get things right going forward rather than reacting to whatever transpires. And like, for instance, I think that the core zone should be the logic behind reducing it just makes sense from what we're trying to accomplish. And finally, the point of, so I spend my time, I'm not retired like Commissioner Miller, but I have the ability throughout the day to just ride in different areas at different times of the day to see what things are like. And 15501 is just a beast within itself with traffic. And I don't think whatever the plan BCRD is, it's not gonna be light rail, any rapid transit. That's not gonna be the solution to what we're trying to do if it's a mobility issue to get people that would not be within this compact district in and out and around to enjoy this area. And so what Commissioner, my fellow commissioner on my right here stated, I just think that it's a conversation or exploration of figuring out what the residents who are currently here, how they use the area, not just projecting forward with who's coming to Durham. And so I'll stop here, but I just wanna make sure I'm on record of saying that and in the event that I'll likely vote not in favor, this is not because I feel that this is not a good effort and that it can't be built upon to get where we're trying to go. Thank you. Commissioner Bryan. I just wanna share an observation or two that one is, I think Ms. Miller pointed out that when Patterson Place was designed, it was in the back of the mind that it could someday be converted into a compact neighborhood in support of transit. Is that correct? That's my understanding, but I think the developer could respond to that if you wanted him to. Would the developer care to respond to that? And Commissioner Bryan, do you mind just restating the question so we can get an answer just to that question? Was Patterson Place designed with the idea that eventually it might turn into a compact neighborhood in support of transit? I have been involved in transit land use discussion since the early 90s. We funded the 15501 Corridor study. It was my great hope that something would happen between Durham and Chapel Hill, between the universities and the medical centers. So yes, I mean, we created a grid structure that was going to be very easy to navigate, that was going to create multiple pathways for traffic of all kinds with the thought that every street would be multimodal, meaning bicycle, ped, scooter even. That wasn't even considered, but the short answer is yes. I would like if the chair will indulge me to suggest that if you can imagine all of the features of the current light rail alignment, all of the bridges, all of the dedicated right-of-way, all of that being plan B with the sole difference that they put rubber tires on it instead of steel wheel. I'm not suggesting that you would have to develop that all at once. That was the great failing of light rail. It was an all or nothing proposition, very attractive, very sexy, very permanent. What we need to develop is a growable system. And what I'm going to be arguing, as I argue for the preservation of Patterson Place as a compact neighborhood and the light rail alignment serving future transit is to say, let's develop a growable plan and let's look at the features. We're not talking about bus in 15501 or we shouldn't be. And if that is your vision of bus rapid transit, it may be bus, it may be transit. It's not going to be rapid. Great, thank you. Okay, thank you very much. The other thing I would like to share been corresponding some with the mayor and the chair of the Board of County Commissioners. And one of the things the mayor has pointed out to me is that the problem with the affordable housing goals we set for transit supportive neighborhoods is that they're just that goals. The city cannot enforce them. They put the density bonus in as a carrot. But so far, they haven't had anybody nibbling on that carrot. Now, there was a very interesting article in today's news and observer about Raleigh's attempts to maybe get around some of this and get more affordable housing. But to me, one of the more interesting things was some comments from developers. This particular comment I think related to apartments. But what he pointed out was if he was to build an apartment building with so many apartment units in it and certain percentage of them would be affordable, then the rest of them would automatically be much more expensive because they would be supporting the affordable part of it. And for that reason, he didn't really care for the idea of any sort of bonus. So I just put that out there as something to think about and say if you subscribe to the news and observer, it's in the front section somewhere. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Outerq, you had additional comments? Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so a few commissioners have said that it's difficult once we pass this to kind of take anything back. I'm curious, how long has the Ninth Street design district been in place? I think it was put in place in 2012. Okay. And just for illustration purposes, I guess have there been lots of changes to that? And I assume that there have been things that have not gone as planned, including the density bonus, right? Has that been changed? So one of the, we have seen, I think one expansion of the compact neighborhood to put design district zoning in place. We have also done a number of, a number of smaller and then one more significant kind of review of the design districts in general after, so they were put in place in 2010. And one of the things that we had committed to at that time and have continued to do is to, as our development review staff are getting in site plans and coming up, applicants are raising issues, folks who are seeing development are raising issues, reviewers are seeing issues that we're noting those and then responding to those sometimes through the Omnibus Text Amendment. Sometimes there was one standalone design district update as well. So that's something that we anticipate to continue to do just like we do with the rest of the ordinance, kind of making changes as we see issues that need to be addressed. Okay. And is there a reason that it could not serve as kind of the guidance for the comprehensive, I mean, you mentioned that it would be good to have this in place so that whenever we are doing, redoing the comprehensive plan that we have some, you know, information about how things are going. And I recognize that this is a suburban, compact district compared to a nice street. But aside from that distinction, is there no reason to use the nice street one as kind of the template or the? There are very few developments in the Ninth Street area that have occurred under the design district zoning. Most of what has occurred in terms of development happened just got entitlements just prior to the design district being in place. So there are two or three, I mean, there's not a lot of, you know, Tom made a better idea of exact number of developments. So the Berks, I think they're now called Berkshire, they were originally circled. Both of those were developed, one was developed under the standards, that's Berkshire Main. Berkshire Ninth was developed in under existing zoning, but in anticipation of known standards and probably would very nearly completely comply. But other aspects, as Lisa said, like the very suburban Harris Teeter were developed under the existing things. And the Solis is not far off what would have been allowed under S1, but was still developed under a previous development plan and site plan. I would say the biggest thing is we have been hearing folks say that they want to attempt this affordable housing bonus strategy and that that's not in that form is not in place in our other design districts. So this would be the first test case for that. And why can we not amend the Ninth Street one to have the same affordable housing density bonus there that you're proposing in here? So there's a, I mean, I can think of at least two reasons. One, as Commissioner Miller has mentioned a few times, once you give it away, it's hard to take it back. So if you're going to tell people, okay, you were given this intensity and now we're going to drop that back, that's going to be a harder sell. That is absolutely true. The other thing is there's not a whole lot of developable land in the Ninth Street area for that to happen on. There's some, but not much. Thank you. I guess, yeah, yeah. I think your answer both makes me think that Commissioner Morgan is right that we can try something like this or we can, this is a step in the right direction. But at the same time, I also think that it seems unlikely that we're going to have a lot of development here that we're going to, it's going to give us much information for the comprehensive plan to kind of see how things are going. So I again would urge pausing and caution and that's how I'll be voting tonight. Thank you, Chair. Other commissioners thoughts, questions? I think we're ready for a motion. I think Commissioner Miller, to your earlier point, the notion of if we were all in agreement, we might craft a combined statement. I don't hear that from the commission. So I would recommend that we move forward with the motions as they stand. And staff, if you can help me, we have three motions. Three, yeah. Three. So we will keep that in mind as we make the motions for approval, but I would be ready to accept a motion on the zoning case to start. Do we do zoning or text? First, text amendment first. Oh, text, I'm sorry. Text first, you can't, you can't rezone the text you don't have. Let's look at the wrong page. The text amendment, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that we send text amendment TC 1-800-009 forward to the governing bodies with a favorable recommendation. And I'll also state that I'll be voting against it. Second. Moved by commissioner Brian, seconded by commissioner Al Turk. And we'll have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Williams. No. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Brian. No. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Al Turk. No. Chair Busby. No. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Ketchin. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. And commissioner Gibbs. Yes. Yes. Motion fails five to six. And did you say that again? What was the vote? I'm sorry. Motion fails five to six. Thank you. And the zoning case. I move that we send zoning case Z-18-00030 forward to the governing bodies for the favorable recommendation. Second. Properly moved and seconded. We'll have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Williams. No. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Brian. No. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Al Turk. No. Chair Busby. No. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Ketchin. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. And commissioner Gibbs. Yes. Motion fails five to six. And the final is the Patterson Place Street Network Plan. Need a motion? I was looking to see if I could find the attachment where the street plan is laid out so we'd know what we're voting on. Attachment F. Okay. That's what I thought. Okay. I move that we send the Patterson Place proposed street network as shown in attachment F forward to the governing bodies with a favorable recommendation. Second. I've moved by Commissioner Brian seconded by Commissioner Al Turk and we'll have a roll call vote as well. For Williams. No. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Brian. No. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Al Turk. No. Chair Busby. No. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Ketchin. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Commissioner Gibbs. No. Motion fails four to seven. That right, four to seven? Okay. Thank you. We will move to our final item on today's agenda. This is under new business. This is the FY 20 work program. Good evening. Sarah Young with the Planning Department. I would like to give you a very brief overview of the proposed work program for fiscal year 20 and start by pointing out that the Planning Department under the interlocal that creates a joint city and county planning department requires that we produce an annual work program and that that work program be approved by both the city council and the county commissioners and that it come both through the joint city county planning committee and through the planning commission for recommendations. So the joint city county planning committee saw this earlier this week and last week, sorry, and recommended approval of it. So it is before you tonight. In general, the Planning Department does three main types of work. And the first is things that are mandated by law, whether federal, state or local law, things like reviewing site plans, for instance. The other thing that we do is provide a range of services to kind of support services to the residents and businesses in Durham City and county, things like providing customer information at our Development Services Center when people have inquiries about property or processes, supplying staff support to our boards and commissions so that they can be effective advocates for different policy issues in our community. And then the last thing, which is really kind of where the meet and substance of the work program where people generally get interested, are the discretionary projects. And these are mostly our long range planning projects that you will see are under the third section in either part A or B of the work program under the heading of policy and urban design. You will notice that there are several projects in that section three that are current projects, namely signs, Patterson Place, Expanding Housing Choices, and the Industrial Land Study. Those are projects that are envisioned to potentially carry over into the next fiscal year but should be finished shortly entering hopefully maybe the first quarter or so of the fiscal year so they would be completed shortly thereafter allowing our long range planning staff, our policy and urban design staff to focus on the new comprehensive plan. And that is where the bulk of our discretionary time will be. We are still anticipating year-marking time to do probably two omnibus text amendments. We have started doing them twice a year so that we can capture all things as they come up throughout the year and proactively address policy issues that are a limited scope. We are still going to preserve some amount of time to tackle slightly broader text privately initiated and city or county initiated text amendments so that if there are some other issues that we need to address, we can certainly do that as well. But aside from those things, the bulk of staff time is going to be earmarked for the comprehensive plan. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. I saw this at the Joint City County Planning Committee and I'm strongly support the plan. I voted for it there. I really am excited about the staff being able to put the time into the comprehensive plan so but I would like to open it up for any questions or comments from commissioners. Commissioner Baker. Yeah, I also support this work plan. I think that it's very good. I think that you all are covering a lot of ground with a limited staff. One thing that I've talked with several people about now at this point is a request to add two new zoning districts to the UDO for specifically for greenfield type development. One would be more for T&D types of urban design and the other one would be more focused on cluster types of development with a portion of T&D type of development. So that is my only request. And I've also sent plenty of omnibus requests as well and I'm sure that there are things going on behind the scene. So thank you. Commissioner Miller. So who did we hire to do help us do comprehensive planning? That's right, yeah. So we have, sorry, I don't even remember what day I'm in. We have a contract that we're bringing forward for city council approval for planning next, which is a firm out of Ohio. They do a lot of comprehensive plans and they do them both turnkey, meaning they do the whole plan themselves, as well as doing the engagement component, which is the primary role that they'll be fulfilling for us, although we have also retained a certain amount of their time to help us with technical expertise and reviewing drafts. Saw that. That's good. The other question I had, help me understand better about where we are with the Forest Hills NPO. I saw this in here. I agree, although I voted to disappoint Ms. Miller. I agree with what she said is you pull people together as stakeholders and then it comes apart. And I'm worried that I watched what happened with the Cleveland Holloway Historic District expansion and that fell apart. So this is a proposal to push, to ask for some money to hire a consultant who will be working on that on the side under year management, beginning in the fiscal year that would begin a July year from now? So the, let me understand it. So the budget request that we submitted was to fund a consultant to basically work for us to complete the entire development of the neighborhood protection overlay with the Forest Hills neighborhood. That project, if funding were approved, that could start in terms of procuring the consultant after July 1 of this coming year. But again, that... Right. And has the staff communicated with the folks in Forest Hills and are they on board with this? We have, I think we have a representative from Forest Hills hiding in the back of the audience. All right, that's good. I wanted, I appreciate that. And then... She did mention earlier that she would like to speak on this. It's not a public hearing, but it's up to the chair's discretion. That's up to him. And then the, just out of curiosity, what was the budget request? Was it cost to hire a consultant to do a neighborhood protection overlay? We budgeted $40,000. Okay. Very good. And you won't put out an RFP or anything, of course, until you know you've got the money. Correct. How did, I will ask the chairman this and take you off the hook. How did the discussion go on this at JCCPC? Yes. We had a very similar, positive reaction to this approach. We thought it was, and in fact, there were, Ms. Young, make sure I capture this accurately. I mean, there were a few of the elected, one particular elected individual who wanted to really make the point of saying I was voting to say, to support the process of playing by a community that was putting an application forward under the existing rules and appreciated that the staff was recognizing the big challenges of the comprehensive plan, but looking to be able to move this forward, given that other communities, other neighborhoods had to wait a long period of time. Is that an accurate? That is accurate, yes. Accurate summary. And again, I just want to say, just to make sure that I was clear, we requested $40,000. That is not in our budget yet. We need to see if that will be approved, if it is, and then we would amend our work program to include a line item for this. All right, lovely. I understand. Thank you for clearing it up. I appreciate that. Yeah, and this does seem like the appropriate time to please come and speak. Thank you for being here for the last few hours. Again, if you can share your name and address, we'd appreciate it. Yeah, my name is Ellen Pless. I live at 706 East Forest Hills Boulevard. And just following up on the comment, I actually only just found out that this was coming before you all this evening, about an hour and a half before the meeting. Doesn't mean that there wasn't some communication. It just means I must have missed it somehow. But I primarily wanted to just appear before you. I'm just one person who kind of came up at the last minute. I do want to say, though, that we've got over like 180 signatures on the petition. If you could kind of use your imaginations and multiply me by 180 people up here saying that we actually support trying to work together on this project and that we really would like to see it move forward. As you all know, NPOs are the only single tool currently written into our UDO that allows the citizen to come forward. I think it's like 1,600 pages or something in the UDO. And this is the one device that we get to work with. And I'm incredibly grateful to the fact that staff actually has gone the mile to try and obtain funding to have our NPO looked at and worked on prior to that application aging out. It only has an 18-month lifespan. We're already considerably into that term. And so staff, thank you very much for the fact that you are seeking funding on this. It is sincerely appreciated. We are aware of the time slipping by. And thank you, everyone, for considering this issue in the work program. Thanks for your comments. Commissioner Miller, any additional? No, I'm all done. Thank you. I'm going to vote for this. Great. Commissioner Bryan. I'm also in favor of the work program. But I have a few comments. One of them is about the NPO. I actually think it should be one of your highest priority projects. To me, when the Joint City County Planning Committee votes to approve it so it can move forward, it's really their job to tell you what you might be able to back off on so you can move it forward, to vote for something and then not act on it. To me, it's bad policy and bad procedure. And the other reason I think it's high priority is because, to me, it sort of ties in with the expanded housing options. This group of people, Forest Hills, brought up a problem with the fact that they were really a suburban neighborhood within an urban area. And now we're trying to put more density into the urban area to get expanded housing choices. So I think the two actually sort of relate to each other. And it will be interesting to see what they might come up with to accommodate expanding housing and yet preserve the neighborhood in the way they'd like to have it preserved. And I think there are other suburban neighborhoods within the urban tier that would watch it very closely. The other comment, well, several comments, relates to your future projects list. Because I notice you've got a lot of compact design districts up here as high priority. I really don't think they need to be high priority at this point. And in particular, the Urban Road Compact District, Duke has taken urban road off the table as far as rail transit is concerned. So if you're going to work on the compact neighborhood, you may be wasting staff time and taxpayer money. So I would make these things much lower, even medium priority, and move up some of the other things. And another item is this land use plan update for Birds Creek, Hency 55, South Austin Avenue. I brought this up last year. I see it's still here. If you're going to tell me the reason it's here is because it's something in the Comprehensive Plan, I'm going to tell you that all it shows to me is that the Comprehensive Plan is badly out of date. I think item number eight here, that's also a waste of staff time and taxpayer money. So I would like to see it go away. But in my written comments, I will suggest a different order of priorities for these things. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Brian. But how do you really feel? Additional commissioner questions, comments? Ms. Young? If I may, Chair, you are right, Commissioner Brian. This list is basically the leftovers from the projects that are not completed from the current Comprehensive Plan. So that's why it's showing up. Thank you. Are we ready for a motion to approve this plan? I move that we send the proposed work program forward to the governing bodies with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by Commissioner Brian, seconded by Commissioner Miller. Let's have a roll call vote. Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Williams. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Brian. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Alturk. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Kessin. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. And Commissioner Gibbs. Yes. Motion passes 11-0. Thank you. Staff, any looks ahead for next month at this point? And we know expanding housing choices is back. Right now, at this moment, I can tell you for sure that the EHC is coming back next month. We're looking at what we might have ready for zoning and thumb amendments. But I can't tell you tonight if they're any ready. Don't kill yourself to get them all ready. Don't worry. No, no. I love staying here all night. Actually, I really do enjoy this. Commissioner Miller. Enjoy your company, Annus. Commissioner Miller speaks only for himself. With that, I want to thank everyone for their time. This meeting is adjourned.