 Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those who wish to speak in favor, for those who wish to speak, please state your name and your address clearly into the microphone when you come to the podium. Each side, those wishing to speak in favor of an item and those wishing to speak in opposition to an item, have 10 minutes to present each side. The time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak. If you are here opposing a rezoning tonight, you should be aware of what's called a protest petition. A protest petition can be helpful to those residents who live in the rezoning area. Please consult the planning staff for any details on a protest petition and they'll be happy to help you. You should also keep in constant touch with the planning department as to when your case will go before the elected officials for a final vote. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. Can we have roll call? Commissioner Beachwood, Commissioner Bealon, Commissioner Board, Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Gibbs, Vice Chair Harris, Chair Jones, Commissioner Huff, Commissioner Lamb, asked to be excused on tonight. Commissioner Padgett, Commissioner Smusky, Commissioner Walters, Commissioner Whitley, Commissioner Wonders. All right, thank you. I did receive an email from Fred Davis today asking for an excused absence. Do we have any adjustments to the agenda? Good evening, Commissioners Pat Young with the planning department. No adjustments to the agenda, but I can't certify for the record that all public carrying items before you tonight have been advertised in accordance with law. And there are affidavits to that effect on file with the planning department. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have approval of the minutes? Mr. Chair, I move approval of the minutes. David Harris. It was approved by David Harris, approved by Melvin Whitman. All those in favor, let it be known by raising your right hand. Any opposition? Let it be known by raising your right hand. Minutes have passed 11 to zero. All right, thank you. We move down to item five, public hearing, plan amendment, zoning map change, Electoral Residential Plan Amendment A 130 0008 in zoning case Z 130 00026. Good evening. I'm Hannah Jacobson with the Durham Planning Department and I'll be presenting the plan amendment case A 13 0008 for Ellis Road Residential. The applicant in this case is Teague Hankins Development and they're proposing to amend approximately 15.5 acres of the future land use map from low density to low medium density residential. This would allow the maximum density on the site to increase from four units per acre to eight units per acre. The proposal affects one parcel that's located in the suburban tier. It's on the east side of Ellis Road and north of Sohi Drive. Here's a map showing the broader area with the future land use map superimposed on top. The Durham Freeway runs down the center of the screen and the subject site is north of the research triangle park, which on the screen is shown in teal. Generally speaking, there is a ring of somewhat more intense land uses that surround the park. These include some industrial, some commercial, some office and some higher intensity residential. I would like to point out that this pink site here on the screen, which indicates office on the future land use map, is currently being developed or is construction is near completion for some apartments. As I mentioned in the staff report, there have been a number of changes to the future land use map over time for this area. In fact, there have been two cases that were initiated and approved by the governing bodies that determined that low medium density was an appropriate use for this area. Those are listed on the screen. And in their justification statement, the applicant suggests that the requested land use pattern matches the adopted pattern in the area. It would also act as a transition between lower intensity uses for the north and the higher intensity uses to the south, and that it helps to form a more contiguous pattern of growth that does not overburden the existing infrastructure. So staff has reviewed the request against the four criteria for plan amendments that are found in the unified development ordinance. We found that the proposed amendment is consistent with land use policies, including those that deal with density and contiguous development. We also found that the proposal is not out of character with the established land use patterns or with recent development trends. It creates a logical transition from those more intense uses, including the RTP and the apartment complexes to the south, and to the lower intensity residential neighborhoods for the north. We also determined there not to be any substantial adverse impact with regard to infrastructure, environmental protection, or with demand for future land uses. And finally, staff determined that the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed use. So we are recommending approval of the plan amendment. Good evening, Amy Wolfe with the Planning Department. This is Zoning Map Change Case Z1300026 for the parcel that spurred the plan amendment request. So this is the applicant is Teague Hankins Development Corp for Ellis Road Residential. This parcel is within the city's jurisdiction, and the present designation is Residential Suburb in 20, and the proposed designation is Plan Development Residential at a density of 7.341. The site is 15.53 acres, and not just the proposed use, but the committed use is 90 townhouses. The site is within the suburban tier at 1443 Ellis Road. It does have frontage along Ellis Road and NC 147 Highway. It's south of Rated Drive and north of Sohi Drive. And towards the bottom of this context map is the upper boundary of Research Triangle Park. The request does meet the standards of the Plan Development Residential District. It requests a density of 7.341, which satisfies or accommodates the proposed 90 townhouses. And it meets the other standards of the PDR district. The existing conditions on the site show that there are a couple of environmental features, including stream tributaries, wetlands. There's wetlands are associated with the stream. There's a farm pond up towards the frontage of Ellis Road. There is also steep slopes towards the rear of the site, as well as other conditions on the site. It's mostly forested. There's a residential structure towards Ellis Road and a power line that splits the site approximately in the middle. The proposed condition shows two building envelopes, one on either side of the stream tributaries. There's the site access point, one on Ellis Road and there's two others for cross access easement to the northern parcel. So a total of three access points. The tree coverage area is shown, including areas within the stream buffers, as well as along NC 147, as well as a possible stream crossing at this location. There's a number of commitments. 90 townhouses is the maximum unit count and housing type. Again, one potential stream crossing. There's actually three site access points, one site access point onto Ellis Road, two cross access to the parcel to the north, impervious surface at 70% and tree preservation at 20%. The graphics that you see on the proposed map that I showed you are all committed. As well as there's four text amendments, including the housing type, dedication of right away along Ellis Road frontage, improvements associated with turning into the site. I have site access one and accommodating the bicycle lane by providing four additional feet of asphalt. The request is not consistent with the future land use map. As we've heard the request for the plan amendment, this should be no for not consistent with low density residential, but it does satisfy the other policies of the comprehensive plan. And staff determines that should the plan amendment be approved, this request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Thank you. Thank you. We have one person signed up to speak for Mr. Jared Eden's. Good evening. Jared Eden's with Eden's Landcorp. You're representing Tom Hankins with Teague Hankins Development. I'll be very brief. I don't have much to add beyond the staff report that Hannah and Amy summarized. I would do think this would be a nice transition between the apartments to the south and this single family to the north. The site will also provide another housing option. That corridor of Ellis Road, I'm not aware of any town homes available in that corridor of Ellis Road, so we thought town homes would make a lot of sense on this property. We had a neighborhood meeting on September 3rd and we had three people in attendance. There is no opposition that I'm aware of. Again, short and sweet. Glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. No one else wishing to speak. I'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. Do we have anyone signed up to speak? Mr. Smusky. Thank you. Just a quick question for Hannah or anyone who can answer it. What is the density of the apartment complex being built? I'm not positive of the exact density. However, they can go to a maximum of 10 and a half in the O and I zoning district. Okay. So, all right. Thank you. Mr. Edens, everything on this property seems to be either a hill or a swamp. I was curious how you're going to build on these hills. Are you going to have to grade everything? Are you going to be able to terrace it a bit? I mean, typically for a town home development, there's there does end up being quite a bit of grading because you go out larger paths for the town homes will have driveways, parking aisles, things like that. So, I mean, I've seen worse sites. That's for sure. All the good land was built on a long time ago. Of course. But I mean, we will be staying out of the wetlands and the stream buffer. I will have one crossing shown on the plan but the rest of will be unpreserved or remain preserved. Mr. Gibbs. This question is for you too. I have, I think we all may have gotten contacts by from different people about historical aspects of this site and some of the naturalist things like certain animals, certain fauna and flora, I guess I should say. If these were that important, I would think that something would have been designated by this point. So, and I'm only mentioning that because that has been one of the comments that have been made. But beyond that, my question as a follow up to the previous one, rather than extreme grading, I would assume that you would be developing, for instance, roadways, driveways, roadways sort of parallel to the contours to and whatever other methods to minimize runoff. I don't know what value this land, this wetland down here is but it seems to be, it's, there seems to be great effort in trying to preserve that and and to stay away from it. So, to minimize impact on that, would it be a safe assumption that you would be terracing, I guess, would be a better description for the development since it all does drain down to this bottom land? Yeah, I mean, just generally in any design we do, we try to minimize earth work because earth work equals cost. Right. And no one wants to incur the cost. And with the kind of topo you're looking at here, you're going to have different finished floor elevations of townhomes as it goes down across the side, definitely. So, you're not, you're not looking at a, you know, big Walmart pad where everything's at one elevation. There's going to be definitely tearing as you go down the grade just to minimize earth work for sure. Yeah, thank you. Anyone else? Oh, yes, ma'am. It's a question for staff. Most of us got that email asking about the, or commenting on the diversity of plants and animals on this site. What triggers a review by the natural heritage? What triggers that review? There's a resource we have called, I don't it's a long title, natural inventory of plants, species, animals that we use as our resource. There's a map that goes along with that and we do review those maps in, to see if any of the applications we have in correspond to any mapped location. This site did not fall on any map and that, that was the basis of our review and to provide any information. We don't have it. Anyone else? Questions to speak? Mr. Chair, I move approval of plant amendment A130008. Moved by Mr. Harris, seconded by Ms. Beachwood. All right. All those in favor, let it be known by raising your right hand. Any opposition? Motion has passed, tweet up to zero. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I move approval of zoning case Z1300026. Moved by Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Smutsky. All those in favor, let it be known by raising your right hand. Any opposition? Motion. Motion has passed, tweet up to zero. All right. Thank you. We'll move down to item 6a, Crosel Commons case Z1300024. Mr. Chair, before we start on this one, I resign with, I report to work at this location and there will be no financial gains by me by sitting in on this. But I did want to let you know that I do report to work at 1821 Hellendale Road. All right. Thank you. Good evening, Amy Wolfe with the Planning Department. This is case Z1300024, Crosel Commons. The applicant is Glendale Hillendale Company, LLC. It is within the city's jurisdiction. The present designation of the site is Commercial Center. The requested designation is Commercial General with a Development Plan and the site is 8.751 acres. The proposed use is 109,400 square feet of non-residential uses. The site is in the urban tier. It is three parcels at 1821, 1823, and 1855. Hillendale Road, it's between West Carver Street to the north and Front Street to the south, which is on the north side of Interstate 85 and the interchange of of Hillendale Road and Interstate 85. It is just south of the watershed protection overlay, which you see on this context map in the blue. The requested designation of Commercial General has lot standards and it is reviewed on the urban tier, which is, we don't typically see a request in the urban tier. So the difference that we would typically see that I'd like to point out is a maximum street yard of 15 feet. This this slide is an error. It should be a maximum street yard of 15 feet. And then all the other setbacks are, as we would typically see in a suburban area. This site meets those, the criteria for this district. The existing conditions are shown here. It is the former Lowman's Plaza, presently known as Croesdale Commons. It is, from what I could tell on the site plan, 98,691 square feet of office and commercial uses. You can see three buildings here and the pre at site layout with site access points. The proposed plan shows the same site access points and it does satisfy the requirements of a development plan. The difference, I would say that this site is showing an additional square footage for development for building uses. Again, the maximum would be 109,400 square feet, which is just over 10,000, greater than what is there today. There's a number of commitments. Maximum floor area, I just mentioned, six site access points. Maximum impervious surface at 95%. There's no text commitments associated with this. Graphically, everything you see is committed, including the location of the access points and the building envelope. There's a number of design commitments that the applicant is required to address. We don't have criteria for reviewing those, but the applicant has provided what was asked for the standards for design commitments. This request is consistent with the commercial designation of the future land use map. It also satisfies the review, the policies for review for the comprehensive plan. All of those are met, and for that reason staff determines this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. All right, thank you. I have one person signed up to speak. George Stanzia. Good evening, members of the commission. George Stanzia with Stuart 115 Cofield Circle. This is a redevelopment project. I think everyone is pretty familiar with Lowman's Plaza. It's been there for very, very long time. It was built in the late 60s. It was renovated in the 80s. In 1999, our client, Glenwood Development, purchased it and operated it. Lowman's, the Lowman store actually moved out in 2005, and since then there have been a number of different retail uses, including exercise gyms, Windixie, Lowman space. The development plans for this project started in 2008 when Harris, there were two things going on. Harris Teeter was interested in moving there, and at the same time there was a very significant road improvement for Hillendale that NCDOT was doing. So it took a lot of coordination between what we wanted to do, NCDOT and their project, but what we did get out of that was a full movement traffic signal right at the entrance to the project, which has been very, very useful. So a significant investment was made on the behalf of our clients to renovate this project. Harris Teeter, as some of you may know, decided that they would move to the, they chose the 9th Street site at Irwin Square, which I believe is now open, back behind Irwin Mills. So our client began to look at other potential uses and redeveloped this project into a, essentially what it is today, a retail, partially retail and a Duke health facility. And so that process started back in 2011, worked with Duke Medical Center to provide a medical office building there, an urgent care. And so the new, the new Crosedale Commons is constructed with 95,475 square feet of retail and office space. In addition to that, there is a new BB&T bank. Currently there's Duke Urgent Care, Duke Primary Care Physicians, Car Drugs, Restaurants, Dry Cleaners, UPS Store, and the existing zoning commercial center. And we're, as Amy said, we're looking to rezone it to CG. And I'll explain to you in a minute why, why we want to do that. We do have a note on our, on our plan, our development plan that basically says, I'm not going to read it, you can see it in front of you, but basically says that we can't change the center without a rezoning or a new site plan. And the, you know, it's brand new, it's just opened, it's the, the, the reason why we're here is really because we're looking to provide more flexibility within the center as it relates to office versus retail. CG district allows for, for a broader percentage of uses, as opposed to the, the CC district that ties you to some, some percentages. So that's really the, the, the basic reason why we're here. You can see on this aerial, the BB&T is brand new. It used to be located just south of the site. It moved to this site. Duke Health Facility is the long building that you see there. There's a pharmacy just south of that, and then small sort of support retail and resident and restaurant just south of the pharmacy. Some of you may recall this is what it looked like for many, many years. It shows you the, the, the back of the facility and the front of the facility. Today it looks like this. This is the new pharmacy. Of course there's new signage on site, renovated retail, and the new BB&T bank on the northern side of the site, and then of course the Duke Medicine building. All of these structures were there. They've just been renovated. And again, why, you know, why are we here? We're here because we just are looking for a bit more flexibility so that, and some of it relates to, even within the health care, the way services are provided. There are certain health care services that are considered retail, some that are considered office. And we want to have the flexibility, you know, within the center to allow those, those different medical uses to, to occupy the buildings over long periods of time. So that is, that is why we're here, and I'm here to answer any questions. All right, thank you. It mentions an increase in square footage. If you were to increase the footprint, would you have to get a TIA? Yes, ma'am. Okay, that's all. Well, above what we have on, above the hundred and nine thousand, that is on the development plan, we would have to do a new TIA. So if you were gonna increase, you're 95,000 right now, right? Is that right? We're at 98,000, including the bank. Are you planning to? Frankly, it's all parking driven. So, you know, it's, it's, it would be very difficult to even add space. Believe me, we had to work some magic just to get it to work the way it is. So, and a lot of times with medical uses, too, they, they, in particular, do, they, they, they usually like more parking spaces than are required to serve, you know, their clients. So, you know, there's no plans. It's newly completed. It's, it's just done the way it is. This is really more about internal uses. Anyone else? In the, in the development plan, you have one additional entrance that go out the rear of the property to the, or the, is that for vehicular traffic or is that for truck traffic? It's, it's just general vehicular. I mean, the question, I mean, the concern is additional traffic on that little strip. Right. And, and again, you know, if, if this were redeveloped, a new TIA would have to be done. It would include, you know, they'd have to look at potential improvements to the site or to site driveways and so forth. That's not anticipated in anywhere in the near future because it's a brand new project. It's done. It's just, just open. But we wanted to have the flexibility in the future in case it was redeveloped at some point in time. Okay. So, there's no plans to do it, right? No, no, sir. Anyone else? I'll get a motion. Mr. Chairman? Yes. I recommend approval of case number Z1300024. Second. Moved by Mr. Smulski, seconded by Ms. Beachwood. All those in favor, let it be no more raising your right hand. Any opposition? Motion has passed 12-0. All right. Thank you. We'll move down to item 7a, the density revisions. Thank you very much, Michael Stock with the Planning Department. Before you tonight is a text amendment TC-12-00012, which is a request initiated by whorevath associates as a privately initiated text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to modify certain density provisions within article 6 of the UDO. The application first or the original application requested something actually somewhat different than what's before you tonight after revisions were made. The original application that's in your packet requested a specific new type of density bonus to be applied within the suburban tier based upon an existing density bonus that's in the UDO right now that's only applicable within the urban tier. After review by staff and discussions with the applicant that that application has been modified to what is currently shown now very kind of a similar process as to the application that that you folks reviewed last time where there was an initial application and then through discussions with staff as to what was supportable and what wasn't supportable it had been revised to to what was currently proposed now. So the revisions or the draft ordinance that's before you now has gone to the JCCPC for their comment and they issued no concerns with what is currently being proposed and I will just quickly highlight what is being proposed within the draft ordinance that's in your agenda packet. First the current density provisions that are in the UDO any of the fractions are being removed to to start out with a base density of just whole numbers instead of fractional dwelling units. The second is to adjust the current residential suburban multifamily major roadway density bonus to include projects that would front along service roads of limited or control access freeways currently that language is not in there. That is actually that part of it is actually consistent. Actually I'm sorry I'll move on to that I'll discuss something and further. The third part is to increase in the RSM and the RUM densities that could be sought with the development plan. It's the process that's currently in place with the UDO with the RSM and RUM districts where you have maximum densities that are allowed by right and then you have additional maximums that can only be approved with the development plan. The proposal is to change only that number to seek approval from the governing bodies and those densities that are proposed are also consistent with the current comprehensive plan for densities that are permissible within the or recommended within a comprehensive plan for the suburban and urban tiers accordingly and then the other change is to link current density bonuses for residential development and non-residential districts in the suburban tier and also in the compact neighborhood tiers to the respective I'm sorry density bonuses that are allowed in the suburban and urban tiers to not a residential development in the non-residential districts that's currently allowed in the urban tier for such development but aren't allowed in the suburban and compact neighborhood tiers and we saw and staff felt that that was reasonableness to maintain consistencies within the UDO. The applicant Mr. Horvath is here to answer any questions and of course I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you. Anyone else wants to speak? Mr. Horvath? Horvath? Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of commission. I'll be very brief and it's more of a commentary. What brought this about was we are working on a lot of properties that are either in a current or future compact tier area near one of the station sites or adjacent and suburban tiers that are adjacent to the compact tier site namely the South Square area and the Patterson Place area. And one of the things we discovered during that is there's a inconsistency between in the ordinance between certain conditions and we're trying to get some of the commercially zoned property general commercial to be allowed to have at least a little bit higher density i.e. the same that multifamily now can do. They can add one more unit and acre and to their bonus density if they front on a major transportation corridor. The exclusion to that for everybody is that it's if it's a controlled access it doesn't count. But if it's controlled access with a service road that allows connection for that development it makes sense. A little bit of inconsistencies in the UDO and quite frankly I've been working with the staff for almost a year trying to muddle through that. We're not trying to grab everything we're just trying to get a consistent level between urban suburban and non-residentially zoned property and residentially zoned property to get them all working the same and to support the future compact tiers. So if you have any questions I'll be glad to try to answer them. Thank you. All right thank you. Any of the commissioners wants to speak. Yes ma'am. Red board then Mr. Gibbs. I'm very concerned about these fractional changes because it's just thrown in here as oh by the way we're going to round these numbers out but this is effectively a density increase and I really don't see any good reason for it because you're going to multiply if you multiply a fractional number or a whole number by a fractional number of acres you're still going to come up with a fraction. I don't see anything has changed except that gradually we're incrementing the density and there's not really any justification given for why. The it's a very good point that you bring up. It was determined that to start out with a base density at a fraction although it's going to be rare that you're going to start out with say a whole just a unit or an acre plain and simple there may be instances that that happens and currently that if you have an acre of development and you go by and your density is allowed at a fraction you don't get to count that fraction. So whether you institute a policy of rounding up you're still at the same point if it's 10 and a half you get to 11. The second point is that we felt that it was a very minimal increase in density. Again the request that was initially proposed by Mr. Horvath was a much greater density request in terms of the methodology that was proposed. You're looking at much more substantial density increases that were allowed. So what staff felt was that the minimal increase of what amounts to about a well amounts to a 0.5 unit increase per acre was a nominal increase and was not and was not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Well I'll kind of say what you're saying but I still I still don't get it. If the point is can't build 0.2 of a house then the solution is to round up when you're all done with multiplying the acreage by the density not to change the fraction to a whole number because they are not rounding up by one. You could be rounding up by a bunch if there's a number of acres involved. And I don't what I don't see in here is I see the round numbers are really nice explanation but I don't see a justification for increasing the density and I think that needs to be documented here. Mr. Board of I might give it a try Pat Young with Planting Department. I think there's there's kind of three elements to that. I think all of that is covered in the in the brief staff report but I'll try to emphasize the three points. First and most important I think is that what's being proposed here would make the densities in these areas consistent with the comprehensive plan. When the comprehensive plan and the UDO was updated in 2005 and 2006 the densities were slightly reduced to the current fractional levels as a means of trying to encourage folks to apply for the affordable housing density bonus. So the thought process was we would lower the maximum densities to what's in the current ordinance and that folks come in with an affordable housing density bonus and get to the comp plan identified density. I think what's clearly been established over the last six years and then reinforced what was in place since the really since the late 80s in different forms is that it's not adequately incenting and it's it hasn't been effective and there's an ongoing process that's looking at ways to incent affordable housing but this doesn't appear to be it. So the the original policy rationale for the current densities really is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and so that really what this does is bring the densities consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second I think equally importantly is that any of these higher densities that are before you would have to be approved through legislative council or commissioners through a development plan zoning. So if there's site constraints or reasons that these densities don't work the legislature legislators can take that into account and not approve it. And I think third and this is kind of a more general statement the areas that are in question here are really the areas I think outside of our downtown and compact design tiers that where we want to see density and we want to encourage density and that has the existing capacity or plan capacity to support it. So that's kind of three supplemental pieces to what I think Mike said very rightly. Be happy to take any further questions on that. Mr. Gibbs. Well my question has to do with what when you were the basis for this change is for areas served by service roads you allowed a density increase. And my question is are these new developments either this one or any other that this may apply to will those areas be served by public transit. The best way I'm going to explain this it's not just service roads major transportation corridors that is 15501 which is semi-controlled access controlled access it's all of the above. That's the control service road really applies more to 15501 than any other route I-40 I-85 even 501 North Roxburgh Road. But yes most of the properties and one of the reasons staff has taken so long to look at this is they looked at all the major transportation routes to see what impact this would have throughout the city not just the southeast or southwest area where I was looking at and in doing so that's where the first proposal I put forth ran into a lot of trouble they had issues other parts of the city which is not what we wanted so this kind of got narrowed down and yes where we're looking at is the rail corridor up from Chapel Hill to downtown in Duke namely the South Square area along 501 Patterson Place along 501 there are properties along there that have commercial zoning that could take advantage of this that are adjacent or within the compact sites and near the transit but there are other areas along major transportation quarters that it also will help but it's got to also deal with the fact that it's one or a half unit per acre increase that's it's not a 10 acre you know I'm not gaining 10 units an acre I'm gaining a half plus maybe one if I'm on a major I have frontage on a major transportation quarter does that make sense yes and I and thanks for your explanation that answered another one of my questions so we can move on and I do appreciate that thank you staff Mr. Harris so the purpose of this is try to incentivize developers to include what you call it low rent affordable housing no sir okay well my question is would this modest increase in density to be an incentive for the developers to include affordable housing in their development I could honestly say no the and we've had discussions I've been personally involved with the planning department on affordable housing the incentives have got to be a lot more is very expensive to deal with that and no I'm not going to kid you or try to say something sideways it's not an incentive it is as both Scott and Pat tried to say it's bringing the UDO into compliance with the comprehensive plan comprehensive plan please correct me medium density and suburban tier is up is 12 units an acre we're not even approaching that we're talking 11 units an acre and a bonus density of one that gets you to 12 units an acre so it matches what the comprehensive plan says is within the suburban tier gentlemen so it's trying to get an equal playing field and I think we missed a very valuable part for our city in redevelopment and that's a key commercial property like was on Lowman's Plaza good example but in my case South Square area there's a lot of old commercial property that can be redeveloped as a mixed use and part of that is it's expensive to do both the commercial and the residential above and the higher the densities that they can get on even at one unit an acre makes or breaks those projects and I think they make for better projects we're just trying to match up with the comprehensive plan and look at redevelopment and that's I might as well go ahead and tell them part of this that brought me forward was the old Pepsi property up in 501 perfect I think it's a great mixed use site but it's not really heavy commercial it's more of an office residential component right next to Duke University service road right there two roads to get out shopping right adjacent to a compact here perfect location it's zone general commercial and that's what kind of led to this whole thing is we're trying to figure a way of adequately redeveloping that into something that's a good looking gateway to Durham Mr. Chair if I might to quickly supplement Mr. Horvath's response to Mr. Harris I think I want to say this because this board has expressed so much interest in the area of affordable housing I think Mr. Horvath answered very honestly I appreciate that that any individual project or any individual developer is not going to be incended to provide affordable housing through this very modest increase in density but I would say and I think this is an important point on a sub market level like South Durham or you know different parts of town or certainly on a city wide or county wide basis the cumulative increase the most powerful tool we have in creating affordable housing other than financial incentives such as direct investments land trust establishing land trust is density greater density creates more affordability it's unambiguous in terms of the research so I understand there's other concerns about density but it's a very powerful tool that contributes to affordability on a macro level Dr. Liners I would I think some of the discussion has been helpful already but I really don't understand I don't know enough I guess about the details of the current ordinance but I wonder if you could you talk about being consistencies between the compact neighborhood and the and the suburban in those locations and I wonder if you could tell me something about what problems are created by the inconsistencies that currently exist I don't know that it's problems it's let me give you an example maybe that's any way I can and I'm sorry I'm Hungarian I got to talk with my hands if you have a piece of proper let's call it 10 acres that's zoned currently multifamily and it's sitting along 15501 somewhere near Cornwallis Road if I came into developed or redeveloped that property it's zoned multifamily I could do 10 and a half units an acre and I get a one acre or one unit per acre bonus density because a multifamily along 15501 well it's controlled access but let's assume it wasn't right in there and I have 500 feet of frontage so that's in the suburban tier I'm allowed to do that if it's zoned multifamily if the same property is zoned commercial I can't get that one unit bonus that's part of the inconsistencies in the UDO it's not so much between the compact tier in the urban and suburban it's within the suburban tier itself there's inconsistencies and that's part of what we've worked with over the past year to try to get a if you want to call it a level plain field because in my opinion people do not landowners do not want to lose the current zoning they got where they have retained commercial so how do we encourage them to develop it as both and profitable they have to do it profitable they're not going to do it to redevelop it and still maintain a good product and one of that is a small dent in my client quite frankly I got two separate clients believe it or not one in Patterson Place and one up north at the Pepsi Place are okay with the one or two units and acre that half a unit on rounding up and a one unit and acre gets us a 12 units and acre it makes the project work and when we look at other projects and properties down along 501 and along Roxburgh Road and 15501 business going downtown it makes sense these are older properties that need to be redeveloped and it adds just incentive it's a little bit of incentive it's not great but it's just that little bit to make it work I hope that's kind of but that's how we've gotten here Miss Uff yeah I have a question about the you know we're talking about half an acre half a unit increase but with RSM and RUM you're increasing quite a bit the density and I want to know why the rationale for that is primarily consistency with the comprehensive plan there are already tools in place within the UDO that allow an applicant to request those densities but through different zoning districts primarily the PDR which you folks are familiar with on a regular basis this is just another tool that a potential applicant can seek if they're already at an RSM and you want to keep that designation or comfortable with what the development standards are within the RSM or RUM then they might want to just seek that rezone it's still rezoning to it but and they would still have to seek the development plan but it's sometimes familiarity is makes a lot of people more comfortable with the zoning district so that was primarily it to take a look at those densities maximizing the tools that an applicant can use and also that the city and county have available to them in terms of addressing and having the flexibility to allow for higher densities again the changes are for what an applicant can ask for the changes are no changes are being made that are for at least for the RSM and the RUM for what's allowed by right so it didn't seem logical to restrict what you could ask for especially if what you can allow them to ask for would still be consistent with the policies that have been adopted already mm-hmm thank you Ms. Meachwood yeah I just I see this as a good way to incentivize increased densities where we need it and a good way to incentivize mixed use so I'll be voting for it anyone else can we get a motion I move that we approve TC 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 all right so moved by Reverend Whitley seconded by Mr. Padgett all those in favor let it be known by raising your right hand any opposed raise your right hand the motion has passed 11 in favor one against thank you we'll move down to item 8a any announcements what do we have next month Mr. Chair we have three land use cases scheduled for next month okay second thing where are we with the updated members list we wanted to get an updated members list out to all of the various commissioners via email chair that was emailed to you all that the day I think it was an August you asked me for it right okay is it possible to I could resend it tomorrow if you like yeah please do I think I might have deleted that I'll take care of it it's okay is that the dog eating homework I'm sorry yes so any other announcements anyone else have all hearts and minds clear we'll adjourn Merry Christmas everybody and Happy New Year yes thank you be safe