 here last time so I couldn't. August 12, 2012. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issues before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight, please go to the table on my left, your right, and sign up to speak. For those who wish to speak, please state your name and address clearly when you come to the podium and please speak clearly into the microphone. Each side speaking, those speaking in favor of an item and those speaking in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes to present for 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 is called a protest petition. A protest petition can be very helpful to those residents who live in the rezoning area. Please consult the Planning Department staff for any details on a protest petition and they will be happy to help you. You should also keep in constant 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, if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. Could we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Bealon, Commissioner Busby, Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Freeman, Commissioner Gibbs, Chair Harris, Commissioner Hollisworths, Commissioner Huff, Commissioner Hyman, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Padgett, Commissioner Whitley, Commissioner Wenders. For the minutes, Commissioner Padgett is out of town and has been granted an absentee. So having a quorum, do we have an adjustment to the agenda? Good evening, Chair Davis and members of the Commission, Pat Young with the Planning Department. I do have three adjustments. Mr. Busby, Commissioner Busby's name was not on the agenda. He was appointed after the agenda was prepared. So we'd like to make sure his name is reflected in the minutes and he was called at roll, of course. And we have other several other new commissioners here, which you may want to introduce later, Chair Davis. Excuse me, Harris. So many new names. Those are two old ones up. Additionally, on item five, we have a resolution for former Commissioner Rebecca Board, and her name was inadvertently omitted from the agenda. And on item eight A, the election of the chair will be at the end of the September meeting as per the by laws. And that was just also an error. So those are three adjustments for the any other adjustments to the agenda. If not, the chair will receive a motion to adopt the agenda as corrected or amended. All in favor of adopting the chair as corrected, please raise your right hand. The agenda has been approved 12 to zero. Okay, the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from a couple of months ago. Do we have anyone wishing to speak or what action would you like to take? Move approve. It's been moved by Miller seconded by Whitley that we approve the minutes from two months ago. All those in favor, let it be known by show of hands. All those in opposition. Minutes are approved 12 to zero. At this time, if I could have commissioners boy commissioners Walters, Commissioner Smusky and Chairman Jones meet me to the podium at my right, please. I will start with Chairman Jones. This is resolution appreciation of Mr. Antonio Jones, whereas Mr. Antonio Jones was a member of the Durham Planning Commission from April 2010 through June 2014. And whereas the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens of the city and county of Durham have benefited from the dedicated efforts that he displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission. And whereas the commission desire to express its appreciation for the public of a job well done, be it therefore resolved. Be it therefore. Now therefore be it resolved by the Durham Planning Commission that the commission do hereby express its sincere appreciation for the service rendered by Mr. Jones to the citizens of the community community that the clerk for the commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official minutes of this commission. And this resolution be therefore presented to Mr. Jones as a token of the high esteem held for him adopted this 12th day of August 2014. David Harris. All right, thank you. With the permission of the chair, I would like to take my last three minutes if that's okay. So first, I want to thank a few people. First is going to be the Durham Planning Department. I think this is probably the best group of professionals that I have worked with over the course of years in any venture I've ever taken on. Second thing is the elected officials. They have been very responsive in our report. So calling on whatever the case may be, the fellow commissioners, you know, it's rare to find people who are willing to serve their community and go through the great lengths of time and research and dedication that the commissioners of the Durham Planning Commissioners, you know, we put in a lot of work doing independent research and even following up with the planning department and developers. We also want to thank the developers. There's a few of you guys here today. We want to thank you because without you, there would be no Durham or the Durham Planning Commission. Although we may not see eye to eye on every case, but I think overall, you definitely get a great aid for all of the effort that you guys put into ensuring that Durham is a great place to live. So initially, why did I join the Durham Planning Commission? I think I want to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Winder's. She may not even remember this, but I was in an undergrad at North Carolina Central University and we took an urban planning class with Dr. Michael Busco. And we started looking at how communities are developed. And that kind of got me inspired as to what can I do to impact my community in Durham. So initially when I signed up, I didn't know what was going to happen. I said, it was opening on the township in which I represented. I said, hmm, why not? If I don't get it, it's all good. I'll go back, you know, but I did. The elected officials all fits up point me. I want to take the opportunity to thank her just for for her dedication and time and going over the urban planning courses and all of the effort she put into. And this is a special shot out of my will. Dr. Well, Brother Ray is here. Way back when I was at Southside kind of helping them out doing some things at that Southside Community Center before Southside became kind of I guess the state of Israel right now. That was many years ago. So to be on the Planning Commission and voted for that case the last time around, that's a full circle moment for me as just doing some random work in the community trying to better Durham and actually having the opportunities to vote on that case and seeing the actual, I guess, fruits of our labor now at Southside. And for the commissioners, you know, oftentimes they may see us in Walmart or at Southpoint, they want to stop and talk to us about various things that's going on in their communities. And like I tell everybody, it's a process with development. You know, so when the bulldozers show up, it's kind of too late. You know, but now as we see here, you know, the Durham Planning Commission, this is kind of the beginning. So all of you got all the residents that came out today to show their support or opposition to an item that's going on in your neighborhood, we still need the citizen input. That's the most critical point of any community development of citizens don't show up. Anything can happen. You know, but I would like to say this, you know, when I'm out and about all through North Carolina, South Carolina, I love to tell people I'm from Durham. I'm not from Durham, but I live in Durham, I own a house in Durham. But I like to tell people everything that's going on in Durham is a microcosm what's going on in the United States, you know, with urban planning. You know, one of the biggest issues that we didn't tackle here on the Durham Planning Commission, but it's they're going to eventually, it's going to be the issues of affordable housing, we didn't get to affordable housing, and we didn't get to some of the light rail issues that's going to be coming up with those are going to be two of the most pressing needs for the Durham community in the next five to 10 years. What are we going to do about affordable housing? What are we going to do about the light rail system? So as those cases unfold, one of the things that I won't leave the Durham Planning Commission with is and the developers. When it's all said and done, when all the Durham Planning Commissioners are cycled off, and all of the developers are long gone to probably start full build out. It has to be something that you can be proud of at the end of the day, whether you voted for it or against it. And even as a citizen, when you see things coming up in the community, you know, you want to do things that's going to make you be a proud resident of Durham. And lastly, I want to thank my brothers of omega sci five attorney. I see a few of them in the house today. Once again, yes, I had to thank them, of course. Once again, that's that's that's one of our four corner principles is really uplift, you know, our community is that's the basis of everything that we do is community. So I'm turning back over. I think my three minutes is maybe up. But you won't see me again. And most people know, I just had a son who'd be four months, for three months on the 14th. And I'm starting my doctorate program. So that's one of my that's my main reason for not seeking reappointment. But I thoroughly enjoyed my time on the Durham Planning Commission. I still live in Durham. You still see me. I'm not going anywhere you need me call me. But without further ado, I go ahead and take my seat now. Oh, yes. Oh, my baby. Is he asleep? Okay. Wait, okay, there you go. It's a baby baby. Yes. Yes, it's mittens on he likes scratching himself. I know you sleep buddy. Okay, wave at him. I'm gonna take your gloves off. There you go. Wave at him. This is a eight and Antonio Jones, the newest resident of Greater City in America Durham. So I'll go ahead and sit down now. This is my wife, Demetria Jones. Alright, thank you. And thank you for all your services. Mrs Rebecca board resolution and appreciation of Miss Rebecca board whereas Miss Rebecca board was a member of the Durham Planning Commission from April 2011 through June 2014. And whereas the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens of in the citizens of the of the city and County of Durham have benefited from the dedicated efforts that she displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission. And whereas the Commission desire to express its appreciation for the public of a job well done now therefore be it resolved by the Durham Planning Commission that this commission do hereby express its sincere appreciation for the services rendered by Miss board to the citizens of this community. But that the clerk for the Commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official minutes of this commission. And this resolution is hereby presented to Miss board as a token of the high esteem health for her adopted the 12th day of August 2014. David Harris chair. You don't want to speak. So I'll just say me to everything Antonio just said. And to say this has been a really wonderful experience the last three years working with the planning staff the other people on the planning commissioner I was grateful to have for the appointment and I have had a wonderful time. Thank you. Mr David Smusky resolution and appreciation of Mr David Smusky whereas Mr David Smusky was a member of the Durham Planning Commission from April 2011 through June 2014 and whereas the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens of the city and county of Durham have benefited from the dedicated efforts that he displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission and whereas this commission did desire to express its appreciation for the for the public of a job well done now therefore be it resolved by the Durham Planning Commission that this commission do hereby sincerely express his appreciation for services rendered by Mr Smusky to this to the citizens of this community that the clerk for the commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution and its entirety upon the official minutes of this commission and this resolution is hereby presented to Mr Smusky as a token of a high esteem hell for him. I doubt this 12th day of August 2014 David Harris chair. Thank you Mr Chairman and fellow citizens again I would like to thank Mr Jones for his leadership during my tenure and I appreciate the comments that you made and I fully agree with them. I think this the planning staff has been tremendous and citizens ought to be proud that we have such professional staff and I thank all the people that have signed up to fill the spaces and thank you for coming out and supporting our community. This is this has been a great great time and at some point in the future. I hope to be back serving the citizens of Durham again. So thank you very much. Mrs. Bynum Walters. Resolution and appreciation for Miss Bynum Walters whereas Miss Bynum Walters was a member of the Durham Planning Commission from May 2013 through June 2014 and whereas the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens of the city and county of Durham have benefited from the dedicated efforts that she displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission. This commission desired to express its appreciation for the public of a job well done and now be it resolved by the Durham Planning Commission that this commission do hereby express its sincere appreciation for the services rendered by Miss Walters to the citizens of this community that the clerk for the commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official minutes of this commission and this resolution is hereby presented to Miss Walters as a token of the high esteem held for her adopted this 12th date of August 2014. David Harris chair. Thank you. I'd like to also thank Chair Jones for his good leadership during my short tenure and also the thoughtful comments of my fellow commissioners and the excellent work of the staff. Thank you. And a hearty thanks and appreciation for all four of you. Thank you. Chair Harrison and the commissioners before we move to the next item I can certify for the record that all public hearing items before you tonight have been advertised in accordance with the requirements of law and their affidavits to that effect on file with Planning Department. Mr. Chairman to make those resolutions official I move that the commission adopt the resolutions honoring Antonio Jones David Smudsky Bonham Walters and Rebecca Board. It's been motion and second that the resolutions honoring Chairman Antonio Jones commissioners David Smudsky Commissioner Bynum Walters and Commissioner Rebecca Board be adopted. All those in favor of that motion please signify by a raise of hands. Motion has been approved to adopt the resolution for Rebecca Board David Smudsky Bynum Walters chair Antonio Jones 12 to 0. Thank you. And now the chair will open the public hearing for plan amendment with concurrent zoning map change for urban terrorists at the sale a 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 and zoning case Z 1 3 0 0 0 3 1. Good evening. I'm Carla Rosenberg with the Planning Department. I'm here to present on Erwin Terrace at La Salle Street. Plan amendment portion. The applicant Erwin Terrace limited partnership is proposing to amend approximately 19 point 64 acres of the future land use map from urban tier to compact neighborhood tier. This change would allow the applicant to increase the intensity of the development of the site which is located next to a future light rail transit stop. The total site encompasses four parcels which will maintain their current land use designations of commercial and institutional. This is a map showing the broader area and future land use context. Erwin Road runs diagonally from the lower left to the upper right part of the screen bordering the site to the southeast. The subject site is adjacent to the present boundary of the compact neighborhood tier which surrounds a variety of high intensity developments including Duke Hospital and Duke Manor. The site is also located near the convergence of several major arteries including Highway 15501, 147 and Interstate 85. There have been several changes to the future land use map for these parcels over time. An earlier small area plan called for this site to be designated as mixed use and institutional. The 2005 comprehensive plan designated the area as commercial and institutional with the understanding that mixed use projects are allowed anywhere as long as one of those uses is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation. It also drew the compact neighborhood tier boundary at La Salle Street west of a series of transit stops along Erwin Road. Subsequently, an additional future transit stop would be added to the west of the quarter at Salle La Salle Street. In the justification statement, the applicant suggests that the current tier boundary designation of urban tier ought to be amended because it does not allow the intensity or density for a site situated adjacent to a future transit stop. The applicant further states that the existing compact neighborhood tier designation further city and county policies contained within the comprehensive plan of increasing development intensities for mixed use projects and of providing incentive incentives for those projects to integrate uses vertically. Staff has reviewed the request against these four criteria found in the unified development ordinance. Consistency with adopted plans and policies, compatibility with existing and our future land use patterns, lack of substantial adverse impact and adequacy of shape and size of the site. For the first criterion we found that the proposed plan amendment was consistent with land use policies in the comprehensive plan, including policies regarding density and contiguous development. The first policy defines the compact neighborhood tier as an area surrounding a proposed fixed guideway transit station that encourages high density redevelopment and new development integrating a mix of uses. The second supports orderly development patterns that take advantage of existing urban services and avoids leapfrogging or noncontiguous scattered development. The third promotes public transportation to increase the mobility of residents, employees and visitors and the fourth seeks to reinforce the downtown and compact neighborhood tiers as supportive of multimodal transportation through increased density allowances and supportive infrastructure and design requirements. The second criterion, the site sits immediately adjacent to an area already designated within the compact neighborhood tier. To expand the compact neighborhood tier to the southeast to capture these parcels would allow for more intense development along what is expected to become a major transit corridor. And for the third and fourth criteria we determined that there is no substantial adverse impact with regard to infrastructure environmental protection or future demand of land uses. And finally the staff determined that the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed land uses. And so the request meets all of the criteria for plan amendments and the staff is recommending approval. And now I'd like to introduce Amy Wolfe to come forward to present the zoning portion of this case. Good evening Amy Wolfe with the planning department. And this next presentation is for the zoning map change case associated with this plan amendment. Again this case is case Z1300031 Irwin Road up LaSalle. The applicant is triple E apartment management incorporated. It is within the city's jurisdiction and the request is from mixed use with the development plan in the urban tier to mixed use with the development plan in the compact neighborhood tier. The site acreage is 9.86 acres roughly 10 acres smaller than the geography of the plan amendment. This the zoning map change will request to change a portion of the zoning of that area encumbered by the plan amendment. Pardon. The site is three parcels for the zoning map change it's in the urban tier. It's adjacent to the compact neighborhood tier where the border is at LaSalle Street to the north is the current compact neighborhood tier. However it's currently in the urban tier at the intersection of Irwin Road on the south street. It's also known as Irwin Terrace. There's presently two buildings on the side that front along Irwin Road and there's some multifamily apartments in the back with a vacant parcel at the very corner. The zoning in the area is is multifamily mixed-use commercial and university college. The request does meet the requirements of a development plan for the mixed-use district. I'll elaborate on some of the commitments in just a bit. You can see here that all the minimum requirements are met. Here's an existing layout of the site. There's a stream running along the the rear portion of the parcel. It's on two sides of Lambeth Circle and again LaSalle Street is on on the east and east north and the other frontage is Irwin Road. Here's the proposed map from the development plan. There are a number of commitments represented on the plan. It'll show the access points which are on both sides of the existing Lambeth Circle. There is an access to LaSalle Street and there's a number of driveways, a maximum of eight total driveways off of Lambeth Circle. And some of the other commitments for the residential. They're requesting a range from 72 to 322 residential units. And you see the other breakdowns of there's a number of office possibility for public and civic use as well as commercial. And whenever the site access points there's a impervious surface limit of 91.1%. The location of the access points in the building and parking envelope there's two of them on either side of Lambeth Circle are commit graphic commitments. There's a number of text commitments. The project will be completed in two phases. There's some transportation requirements that would require improvements at the site entrances. As detailed in the staff report and to provide a bus shelter which is there's already one there but to make sure that there's a bus shelter to serve the site. There's design commitments also associated with this request. That describe the roof line the building materials any architectural features as well as how it will transition into the area. There are landscape design guidelines as well which would provide the requirements for meet meeting the landscape of the area. Again as is Rosenberg indicated the site is presently designated commercial and institutional in the urban tier and the plan amendment is a request to extend that. For that reason because it's in the urban tier currently it's not consistent with current policy but again there's a plan companion plan amendment. The request is consistent with all the other policies that we've reviewed that are applicable to this site and ordinances as well and staff determines that should the plan amendment be approved this request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. And staff is here available available for any questions. I have two people signed up to speak one definitely for dangell and one a conditional for I guess. So I'm going to put that in the against column so you have ten minutes. Great good evening commissioners my name is Dan jewel with culture jewel Thames our firm culture jewel Thames is assisting the developer in the design and entitlements of this project with me is Jeremy Anderson in my office who's the lead landscape architect project manager. Of course we have Robinson Everett who is the family that owns the property and next to him is Robert Everett who's assisting with the project management from a construction standpoint. I'd like to first do a little bit of history lesson. Our firm has actually had a long history with this project in particular. We worked on the initial design and the approval of the current development plan that created the zoning that's on the property today back in nineteen ninety nine. Robinson's father approached us and said I was just in California there's this new thing called vertical mixed use I want to do it in Durham. The Durham ordinance at the time had recently been amended to allow and promote for vertical mixed use. So over the course of six or eight months we heard his story try to figure out what to do on this site. Came up with a plan that was resoundingly approved by the city council is a very forward thinking way to develop in Durham along a corridor which at that time was thought to be urbanizing in the future but had not yet. Even a little farther back than that. If if many of you know the history of the Everett family. They have been active in Durham in civic engagement and doing public good going back to the eighteen nineties they've been here for a very long time. The Everett family acquired this property in the nineteen fifties. And at the time they developed an affordable multi family housing development on here which many of you probably remember back in the day that existed until the mid nineties. In the mid nineties they took that those seventy two apartment units and rebuilt them. In the back corner of the property if you've been back here to that existing building that's popular apartments that was built in. I think we did that in about nineteen seventy nineteen ninety seven or ninety eight something like that. Which freed up the rest of the site for development. Also keep in mind the Everets have a long history of. Multi family housing in this neighborhood. Going back to if you're familiar with the highly hill apartments which Rob grew up in and his mother still lives into this day an apartment unit. And also the campus walk apartments. So back in nineteen ninety eight. The development plan that we had approved by the city council was fairly forward thinking and maybe fairly dense in the context of that day. This is an aerial photo from two thousand and two. So this is the site just as we were getting ready to prep it for the first building that exists today at Erwin Erwin Terrace. This was the newly built popular apartments in the back corners the seventy seventy one seventy two units. You can see the rest of the corridor though was relatively low density of ccb branch bank here. The Methodist retirement home a gas station. The duke. Fitness center things of that nature along long Erwin road so at the time what we were doing was a was a fairly forward thinking. Dense community fast forward to two thousand and fourteen. And look at this same stretch today just twelve years later. You have the Trinity Commons high end department complex that's been built. You have the pavilion east retail and mixed use center over here. You have the lofts at Lakeview apartments which sit on this site. And what's interesting now is you look at the scale of what was built at Erwin Terrace in the early two thousands. How it's dwarfed into comparison of what happened prior to that. Just to let you know they are proceeding with additional development plans right now based on what was approved under that previous development plan. There's a site plan that's been approved for a new building here mixed use office with ground floor retail on this pad. And if you've been over there of late you'll notice that they started construction on a parking deck in this area. Why a parking deck because they're being forward thinking and they know they need to go ahead and provide that additional parking for the development that is to come with those additional buildings. So recently as many of you know because I know you've been getting updates on this and I know many of you have been active in promoting this. The the Durham Chapel Hill Carburel Metropolitan Planning Organization adopted what's called the locally preferred alternative for the Durham Chapel Hill light rail alignment. As part of that they adopted station sites and of course as you probably know and as was mentioned in the staff report there's a station site proposed right in front of Erwin Terrace. So our previous thinking that we could do some modest density mixed use development has now been rewarded with a station site designated at this location. And one of the things is as we all know that is critical to the success of us being able to get our funding for light rail and to make it successful as time goes on is us for to build in a manner that's provides transit ridership through providing workspaces shopping opportunities and residential opportunities so that we have opportunities for people to live work in proximity to those light rail stations. That's what will show the numbers that will hopefully allow us to get the federal funding we need for this to go forward and Erwin Terrace is ready. That's why we are in today asking for this request. So one thing I would like to clarify the staff report mentions extension of the compact neighborhood here. We actually think of this as a new compact neighborhood here centered on our station site. I believe if you talk to the staff they will tell you that the long range goal would be to have a compact neighborhood designation at every light rail transit site. It just so happens though that we have light rail stations that are relatively close together here Duke Medical Center back up toward Dine Street. Those compact neighborhoods will eventually overlap with each other. So we would like to think of this as a new compact neighborhood not an extension of an existing one. Amy ran through the numbers for you already. We are still way shy of some of the development that has occurred over at the pavilion lofts at Lakeview projects of that nature and what we're proposing is additional residential density office density public civic and commercial density which again will be supportive of the light rail that we think and hope will be coming. Now to be clear we know that we have to handle the traffic being generated by this right now that's why we are not pushing the limits on density and square footage. You will see in the committed elements that we are committing to making three traffic improvements to keep the level of service functioning properly at three places. One is at Erwin Road and Cameron Avenue where we are doing some additional striping to help that level of service. The other two traffic situations where we're doing improvements are actually internal to the property where it was shown the level of service was going to drop on Lambeth coming out to Erwin until LaSalle coming out on these. So we're going to be adding additional turn lanes there and just to be clear those would only be inconveniences to the people who are inside the Erwin Terrace project not outwardly. Now one last slide not last slide second to last slide I want to show you is this. So it's recognized that there's a half mile radius a half mile walk zone that's important and should be associated with these light rail stations. This bubble the red area the magenta area shows that half mile walk. What was kind of intuitive to us but until we ran the numbers and again Robinson being in the apartment business all his life had all of this stuff in his head but did the research to tie it down. You can see within that half mile zone almost everything north and west of Erwin Road is already multifamily. The areas that we've highlighted are actually already considered affordable to a household of three- that makes eighty percent of the average median income. Which is a goal that's been stated by the federal government. In order for us to get transit funding that we need to provide fifteen percent affordable housing. To people who make eighty percent. Of the AMI within a half mile walking distance. What that translates to is sixty two percent of the existing housing within a half mile of this station site this is incredible to me is already considered affordable by HUD. And just put a cap around it the popular apartments that the ever it's built fifteen years ago are already considered affordable housing. I bring this to your attention just because I've had more phone calls and emails over the last week or two about affordable housing. And whereas we think this is a good project for Durham and a necessary project to meet the needs to be supportive of transit. I think and hope you will agree with us. That the affordable housing needs of this station site are already well being met to go far toward getting our federal funding of this project. Thank you for letting me go over a few minutes and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Larissa Sible. Resolution. My name is Larissa Sible and I live at twenty four ten part place. And I'm handing out the resolution that you all adopted it was changed just slightly by the county commission when they adopted it and the city council when they adopted it on May 5th. But you all were the first to adopt this resolution for affordable housing around transit. And I want to thank you. Tonight I'm here to speak for affordable housing near transit. And I want to read the first number one. On page two after all the where as is which is the actual affordable housing goal. Number one it shall be the goal of the city and county of Durham to preserve and increase the stock of affordable housing within a half mile of each of the proposed Durham Orange Rail transit stations consistent with state law the city and county endorse the objective of achieving at least fifteen percent of housing units within one half mile of each rail transit station and bus hub be affordable to families with income less than sixty percent of area meeting income here and after referred to as the affordable housing goal. The sixty percent of area meeting income is a goal that I think is achievable. And I wanted to illustrate some of the people who are at that income and the range that I'm looking at is for one person sixty percent of area meeting income is less than twenty seven thousand five hundred dollars a year and for a family of four or household of four the income is thirty nine thousand four hundred dollars or less. And these are folks like the people working at Duke Hospital certified nursing assistants who might make around twenty six thousand dollars a year or research assistants who might make around twenty eight thousand dollars a year. These are also our police officers who start at thirty three thousand dollars a year and with the new state budget teachers who started thirty three thousand although they may be higher because Durham really does support our teachers. So these are the folks who probably fit in below sixty percent of area meeting income and the goal of this in reality is to ensure that there is a small percentage fifteen percent of homes that actually stay affordable even as rents may increase around the transit station as we've seen in Charlotte and other places which have put in real transit. So I'm here to again just ask the question how will this rezoning and amendment achieve or help Durham achieve the goal of mixed income housing with fifteen percent affordable. And dedicated to stay affordable to our neighbors our co workers and our Durham residents who are making less than sixty percent of area meeting income. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is anyone in the audience that wish to speak to this plan amendment or zoning change. If not then we will close the public hearing and bring them out of back before commissioners or their commissioners that would like to speak. I got Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Winder's. Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Huff. Charlie Gibbs. And you got your job. Okay. Each of you have three minutes. Each commissioner Davis. This question is for Dan. You mentioned just for my clarification of what's going to happen in the future. One of the committed elements is that phase one will continue with existing buildings so you do not plan on tearing out the existing buildings but enhance with future development. Is that correct. That's correct. Okay. No further questions. Commissioner Winder's. I'm going to be voting against approval of this. This development for the affordable housing reason as I have for some other proposals. And I believe that we shouldn't be expanding the compact neighborhood tier before we have some plans for how we're going to meet that affordable housing goal. And I appreciate I'm somewhat ambivalent about this because I've been learning about the the issue as we go along too. And I know that we you know this planning has been going on for this thing for for a year probably and a lot of money has been is has gone into getting the plans this far. And that but I appreciate that we're talking about affordable housing now. And the reason and I would hope that we could do something creative. To to to meet that 15% goal the the housing that is all that is there that is currently affordable is is very likely not to be affordable after the transit comes comes here because you know are all the clearly all the research shows that that the property right values go up when when transit comes. And I think and I could be wrong about about this but I think that the federal guidelines when they say affordable housing they are talking about deed restricted affordable housing. And so our as we have in the the transit planning process we have not we've added on another stop but there's also been some changes in how the the federal government counts your trap your travel the transit demand which is one of the factors for getting a transit approved and so they have started waiting affordable housing extra so it's not just density that supports as our plan our our comprehensive plan you know has a goal of promoting transit for and it's not just density that I'm just noticing my time there. Fortunately I got this written as not just density it's what kind of density. So and I think that we mixed income housing is desirable in the community for more reasons than just for the long run for the community. Thank you Commissioner Miller. Thank you Mr. Chairman I actually just want to begin with a couple of questions. The first thing is help me understand if somebody from staff maybe Miss Rosenberg if we extend the tier boundary to take in the proper portion of the tier boundary extension that's proposed to cover this this the segments that's now zoned University College what's the practical impact on that what would you be able to do in University College inside a compact neighborhood that you couldn't do in the urban tier. This is Scott Weyman from the Plain Department. It's actually the standards for the University College District are not dependent upon the tier so it really has no effect on the current zoning of that site but if it were to be re-zoned in the future could take advantage of any compact here standards. Right so if Duke were to divest itself of this property and it seems to be University College some other somebody wanted to be something else it would be evaluated in the compact tier standards rather than the urban tier standards. Yes that's correct. It is anybody said I'll ask anybody who knows is that in the works for this parcel I'm not sure I understand why we're extending the tier boundary here and not across the street which is also University College and all these other things. It's just the mystery in the report to me. I don't have an answer for that. I was prepared for that. Dan do you know. I can. So if you remember the the map with the red zone I waved my I have more power than I thought the red zone the half mile zone could all of that could eventually be in the compact neighborhood. I mean that would be the planning guidelines that the playing department would use if in when they actually have the staff resources to start creating compact neighborhoods around station sites. What we did though is we reached out to several of the adjoining property owners to see if they wanted to be included in our application because certainly we weren't going to be submitting an application for a half mile radius about this site. The the folks behind us declined for the time being they said we're not sure yet you know and it's complicated just like you asked the question what would happen to the UC zone. The folks that were interested though was Duke University on the Linux Baker property because they know that some day that will be redeveloped at a at a higher intensity and they said well you know one you guys are doing this so add us in the mix we're not rezoning their property but we're adding the tier but secondly the university was very excited about the transit coming through and the transit stop being here at LaSalle street and they as much as anything told us they wanted to be included on that portion as a show of support but just as you asked a question about what does it do to the UC they said but we you know we have you know other development plans going on currently on the other side of Irwin Road so don't include that but please include so the people that asked us to include them have been included. Thank you Mr. Jule and Mr. Chairman if I can ask one more question of staff. So one of the things that as I looked at this and listening to the remarks that the commission member wonders has expressed the staff said oh it's consistent with the comprehensive plan but the comprehensive plans in goal three says we're going to develop affordable housing I don't see how this addresses that and so without talking about it at great length in future when we see especially a significant change in residential densities around these transit centers I would like to have staff report if it's if it's possible staff report address how whatever is being proposed is promoting that affordable housing goal whether it does or whether it doesn't if we can get because I'd like to have I'm learning and I'd like the benefit of the staff's report on that when when we see these because we're going to see more. Thank you and that's all I have right now Mr. Chairman. Okay okay they huddled up over there okay well yeah Mr. I'm just to address Mr. Miller's concern I certainly we can address that to the extent to which a current comp plan identifies that whether it's compliant or not compliant we try to evaluate all policies currently. So again what I was huddling on was to I haven't looked at the specific language in a little while and we want to make sure any any proposal address that specific language. So as it goes forward to the officials elected officials that information would be there for them. We will in the future we can include we'll make sure that any policy in the comp plan that's pertinent is addressed in the staff report. All right thank you. Commissioner Huff. Yeah I had something related to what Commissioner Wenders was asking about and maybe she asked it and it wasn't answered but I'm going to ask it this way. What is the mechanism for keeping housing affordable. I mean you could start out with affordable housing and if the property values go up or the demand becomes really great what's to what's to stop it from becoming very unaffordable. What kind of mechanism is there. Does anybody know. Anyone like to take a stab at Commissioner Huff's question. I think if if it's on like a federal grant or something like that then like 20% of that property if it's deemed under federal grant has to stay that way or you lose the funding or whatever you had. You know generally speaking nowadays there are tax increment finances or special finances that say that it has to stay this way for a certain period of time and if you know they come in and find that a certain percentage is not affordable housing and you'll lose that money that you got from the federal government. But in the private sector I think it's pretty much private market rate driven and so if the market rate deems it not to be affordable then it wouldn't be affordable. That's just my educated guess. Yeah. I mean Pat Young again with the planning department I'm not sure I heard all that question I apologize I was talking to my colleagues. Let me try to give two quick responses. I think Commissioner Davis is correct if there's federal money in projects or certainly federal housing grants there's certainly significant stipulations about affordability and how that's guaranteed long term. To my the best of my knowledge there's no federal money or state money or any governmental money involved in this project. And so I think none of those provisions would apply related to that on the earlier comment about the housing policy and I don't have the complaint in front of me my colleagues are going to be pulling it up for me but I believe what the company and plan talks about is the actions of the city's department of housing and community development and another city supported through federal and state funding activity housing activities and again that if that's indeed the case and I'll confirm that it wouldn't be germane to this project since it's not a city project. So again does that address your concern or was it? Yeah it doesn't really answer it but that's okay. Could you repeat the question then? There doesn't seem to be in private development a mechanism to keep the housing affordable. There's not. Okay. So I'm not sure why we're talking about it. I mean I am sure why we're talking about it. Let me go ahead and say this. So I think everybody on the commission knows the city is because of the adopted policy that Ms. Seibel passed out the city is convening a kick off workshop on August 20th to talk in detail about a four part strategy to try to find a tool, build a toolbox that will identify mechanisms to preserve and create affordable housing near transit areas and meet that goal. There's no way I can sit here today and say that that's going to involve any kind of we certainly are contemplating incentives through the development process but not any kind of mandatory mechanisms at this time. Explicitly mandatory affordable housing is prohibited by law and we're not at a point where we can jump to final solutions yet but we're certainly going to kick off our approach and dig deep into those issues over the next year to try to address the policy goal Ms. Seibel outlined. I had one quick other thing. The bike lanes that you're not going to build. Are you dedicating right away for that? We have not been asked to do so. Are you aware that the bicycle plan actually requests or calls for dedication of additional right away for bike lanes? Well, I don't know. I don't think it does. Okay. I know that it's a subject. I'm on the development review committee for Bupac and it is a subject that comes up practically any time the development is mentioned. People hope that where the bike plan would like to see in the future bike lanes that the developer would dedicate the right away and so I was just asking. Well, and if it's needed we will. As we go through site plan for the next phases, as you know because I think you review the plans, that's when it comes up and that's when there will be a directive if the bicycle plan says dedicate additional right away for these bike lanes, we would do so at that time. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just listening to the comments so far. How to integrate affordable housing in development is another part of the puzzle. But in reviewing this application, it seemed I got the feeling that this probably is the first attempt at development around at least a proposed transit stop and I was looking at it and that even though it's using infill development more so than brand new planet from the bottom up. And I think everything is sort of in place as far as I'm concerned for affordable housing according to whatever percentage you can talk about and that gets to be complicated too, doesn't it, staff? But the one question I have is I don't know how far this circle goes but there is a part of the neighborhood and it has always been considered part of this whole neighborhood all the way from the ambulatory surgery building at Duke, across Irwin Road, at the medical center, all up and down and that's a median income family neighborhood, single family development. It's a crested area. Is it part of this, is it enclosed in this circle and if so has it been included as part of affordable housing percentage or I'm just curious about that and I don't know if it would come from Dan or anybody that would enlighten me on whether it has been included and if it's, okay. Mr. Gibbs, the Crest Street is part of the existing Duke University compact neighborhood which is really served by the station to the proposed station to the east as the applicant I think stated that these compact neighborhoods will probably all kind of merge together but it would more than likely not be within the half mile circle of this station in front of this development. And Mr. Gibbs, just to clarify, the numbers that we gave were strictly multifamily units didn't include any single family units but there's something north of 3,000 multifamily units existing within that half mile circle. And that seems to me to be a, I don't know how it works out percentage wise but it's a good start and I guess that's what complicates this particular development in that it is existing. But we, going forward, we're going to have to do everything we can to come up with ways of integrating affordable housing in developments wherever it is but especially along the transit corridor and the transit stops. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to make sure that I make a comment to that and that, sorry, I make a comment to that and that it's important not only that we integrate it into our plans but it's also important that we look at the inequity that comes out of it when we don't and how it has tracked back through history. So I'm also going to be voting against this as it currently stands and I just want to make sure that we focus more on moving forward with a better plan on incorporating affordable housing because this is not it. And I have noticed a lot of increase and at this point it's just rentals but the home values will increase, the properties will increase, everything increases and then folks are displaced. So I just want to make sure that we're not overlooking that point. I know density is very important and how we move forward is just not this way. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to vote against this project and I really think it's necessary. I do think the time to start including serious commitments for affordable housing starts with this project starts right now. This is the first big one since the Council and the Board of Commissioners have adopted the resolution that lay out the criteria that they want. We are the policy arm of the advisors to them on projects like this against the policies that they've announced to us. And so because there is a lot of experience out there using federal subsidies and other things deciding what's affordable and how to construct those commitments and to evaluate them in the future against performance, here the difference is we're not offering federal money but this is a mixed use development and a mixed use development has a development plan and the development plan can have commitments and those commitments I believe can include affordable housing. The Council has laid out what it wants. I think it is admirable. I'm willing to be reasonably flexible on those things but at this stage what I'd like to see is this development plan modified in 60 days to come back and say that we will have somewhere around 20 to 30 units. I mean altogether this is 322 units but some of those units are already on the ground so if you measure against the increment of units to be built which is 200 in some units, 218 according to the staff report I'm not sure that's exactly the right number but let's use that number. These developers could come back with a committed element that said that as they build units, as they add residential units a certain percentage of those would be offered at 60% AMI for a certain number of years, 10 years, I know in some places they look at 15 years or 20 years but 10 years let's get a start on this. Let's do it the first time. Let's do it now and move forward that way. These developers are lucky in that they already have 70 plus units on the ground, two bedroom units on the ground that could serve a family of four. They've been on the ground for 16, 17 years so presumably they have amortized a little bit to the developers favor. It would not bother me that as they add units as they develop out their mixed use project, as they add units, the units that wind up being affordable are the ones that are already built. So let's look at that. I believe that we have in the examples that we have in other places ways to construct a committed element that can advance affordable housing, be a model for projects in the future and we can start today let's not just say next time in the future, the future is now. So Mr. Chairman, unless you think it's not appropriate I would move that we delay this project for 60 days. Give this developer a chance to bring us back some ideas on how to address affordable housing against the resolution adopted by the city council. Before the chair accepts this motion, are there any other commissioners that would like to speak on this item? Commissioner Davis. I think it's unfair to the applicant for them to go through another process, mainly because we've already talked about the fact that you're speaking to the motion. The motion is not on the floor yet. It's not on the floor? No, it's not on the floor. I don't accept the motion. I'll make another motion. Can I make another motion? How long do we have applicants, commissioners that would like to speak to the application that's before the board, the commissioners right now? Right. I was speaking to the applicant saying that while affordable housing is a need, I think it happens with public-private partnerships where the public in the city or the county help with public-private partnerships. This is a totally private operation. Now, we can ask him to look into that, but I just think it's not fair for him to, you know, we can't ask for committed elements and it's solely private. I think if this was a public private operation, then we can look at it in that manner. I think we're trying to treat it as that. And so that's why I would approve this at this point because of the nature of this project. Okay. Commissioner Gibbs. This is for the staff. Are there any guidelines that would require or would address any kind of commitments that would become hard and fast? Yeah. Commissioner Gibbs, thank you for the question. Pat Young again with the planning department. Let me take a half a step back and then I'll answer your question directly. In terms of the policy context here versus whether we can accept a committed element, I will get to that in just a moment. There are adopted, there's an adopted objective of the comprehensive plan as Commissioner Miller alluded to regarding affordable housing enhancements. It has four parts. The first relates to a density bonus that's been earned ordinance for over 10 years and it's been ineffective, hasn't been used by any developers. A second calls for the city to seek legal authority to get legal authority to apply mandatory for inclusionary zoning or affordable, mandatory inclusion of affordable housing. That has not occurred. The third talks about public private partnerships through the city's community development department. There have been many of those. This is not one of those projects. The fourth talks about energy efficient housing to be encouraged by city dollars through the department community development. The other policy context is the adopted resolution that Ms. Seibel passed out to you all and that you all are aware of, which we are going to begin with the identifying tools and techniques on how that would be accomplished. There was not any guidance in the resolution about exactly how that would be accomplished and that's what we're going to start evaluating a staff. As commissioner Miller alluded to, you all have every authority as a policy guiding advisory body to determine this is the right time to apply that. As commissioner Miller is certainly correct in that regard. So I just want to be crystal clear about kind of where the staff is at on that. To your question, yes, there have been other examples fairly limited, but there have been certainly of proffer committed elements that tied to mandatory through proffer, made mandatory through the proffer affordable housing. And depending on the specific language and the mechanism which we would have to evaluate thoroughly and I heard commissioner Miller suggest 60 days that if something is submitted to is offered by the applicant that would give us time to review it. But certainly I can't say specifically until we know exactly what's going to be what would be proffered if anything in terms of the precise terms because it would be dependent on the suggested mechanism for affordability. Thank you all. Commissioner Gibbs, are you through? I believe commissioner Whitley. I just knew this was going to sell through. It was my understanding that we were as commissioner Davis just said that we would that this would apply to public private ventures, the affordable housing add-ons and this is a private development. And this is they already have buildings on the army that is built out on the land. And what they're proposing is to add on. But it's still be private when they add on. And to ask them to come back in 60 days, I'm not sure what changes will be. I mean right now we don't even have a process. Please don't speak to emotion that's not on the floor. That's not on the floor. All right. I'm prepared to vote for this based at this. It's a private development. And I'm sure when we talk about vacant, public, private development, that's when we can talk about 15% affordable housing. That's it. You through? Yes, sir. Commissioner Beeman. Thank you. I'm not sure if we heard enough about the existing set of apartments that are currently affordable housing on that parcel. Are there plans to change those? The 71 existing units that were built in 1997 by our calculations are well within the 80% AMI. We've talked at length about whether those could be committed long term. And the answer is no. And the reason for that is those are covered under HUD financing and HUD insurance. And the contract with HUD would preclude them from agreeing to a committed element which bound it to that. And that's the sole reason. And that is the reason I talked about the long history of the Everett family and their 60 plus years of creating affordable housing in this neighborhood. Not just the popular apartments but Holly Hill apartments and campus walk apartments all of which are well within that 8% AMI. So what I'm hearing tonight is even though this family has a long demonstrated history of doing good for the Durham community and doing good from a standpoint of doing what's right rather than what's in their best financial interest, that I'm hearing that there's a matter of trust that they're not going to continue to do that. And that they're going to do something bad for the Durham community. And that's why I'm, if we came back two months from now, I don't think our answer would be any different than it is today. That very reason. As I said, we have over 60% affordable housing already in this half mile radius. I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jill. Okay. So the answer to the question is that there is no long-term commitment to keep those apartments there and keep them affordable. There cannot be. Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Wyness, I think you had a question. I'd like to, you're asked, Pat, about, you know, as you were reading out about the incentive that has never been used, it made me think if this, if the, what would the impact of the, of the not extending the compact neighborhood tier be on the allowed density of this development? I'll have Mr. Whiteman give you the details on that. I think it was in Ms. Wolf's presentation. You might have asked that before, but it didn't quite register. Ms. Wynders, the existing zoning would allow a total of 104 units. So there's, there's actually some, I believe some residential units in the, other than in the, the 72 in the rear. So it's, it's close to being maxed out. It's mixed unit. I mean, mixed use in the, in the urban tier now, right? That's correct. Yeah. So if that, if the compact neighborhood tier were not extended, then one option would be to use the density bonus to get more units and, and include some affordable housing. Is that correct? It is without checking the details. It's definitely theoretically correct. Maybe the reason that the density bonus is not used is because the, it's not needed. The, the density is already so high that you never have to use it. No wonder it's never been used. Okay. Addition. Okay. If not, I just wanted to ask Dan, if I'm correct when you say 60% of the existing housing is that 80% affordable rather than 60%, which is in the proposed, I'm sorry, MDL. So the resolution. So to clarify, at least 62% of the existing multifamily units within the half mile circle meet the 80%. I'm not exactly sure what the 60% rent number would be. Pat, I don't know if you have that, whether it's a linear projection, but I suspect that a very good percentage of those actually meet the 60% as well. So if I might miss Freeman and members of the commission, as I think Mr. Jewel alluded to, most federal programs through the department of housing development refer to the 80% threshold. The city policy about affordable housing near transit reflected 60. So that Mr. Jewel, I think correctly referenced, the 80%, the HUD guideline is you should spend no more than 30% of your income on housing in utilities, whether that's rent or mortgage. That's about $1,050 at 80%, and 820, 830, it might be off by $10 either direction at 60%. Just making sure 30% of your salary, like if you're making $27.5 or I'm sorry, what's the other number? Right. You're considered housing burdened if you're spending more than 30% of your income. Or $39.4 if you're spending more than 30%, you're above that 60%. So we're talking about two different things. 30% of your income at any income level, if you're spending over 30%, you're considered housing burdened. You're spending more on housing than HUD's guidelines indicate it's financially healthy for you to have money for other needs, savings, et cetera. So I guess the question comes down to the 80%, which is recognized for most federal programs as the qualification where it constitutes low moderate income. And the city policy was in the county policy was 60% of median income. And I'm just asking a question, would that only be applied to public-private partnerships and not private development? No, those criteria apply across the board. They're based on area median income. Thank you. Mr. Young-Pat, if I could get a clarification, did you say what you think the 60% AMI rent number is without utilities? Yes. So the rent plus utilities number is approximately $830 a month. Again, that may be off by $10 or $20 either direction. I should be able to get it while we're still in this hearing. Thank you. So I have all the numbers in front of me of the average rent of all the apartment complexes in apartment neighborhoods within this half-mile zone. And if I simply take out the number of units that are in excess of that rental amount of the affordable amount handy to have a calculator here, 59% of those units are at 60% AMI. And I am happy to share this chart with the staff and the chair, if you'd like. I would like. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Tom, you have a question. Okay. If there's no other comments, the chair will entertain a motion. I move that we approve A13 00010 for adoption. Motion by Commissioner Whitley, second by Commissioner Davis that takes amendment A1300010 be approved. All those in favor of this motion, let it be known by a show of hands. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I have a substitute motion. State your substitute motion. My substitute motion again is to delay action on these two items, the plan amendment and the rezoning for 60 days so that we can give these developers a chance to come back to us with some sort of commitment. Because we've talked about some sort of commitment on public housing that approximate matches or approaches the goal expressed by the city council in the resolution that they adopted a couple of months ago. Now, they may not want to do that. Okay, let's not speak to the motion. Just state the motion. Then I'd like to speak to the motion before we vote. Okay. We have a motion to delay this for 60-day continuance. Second. And we have a second by Commissioner. Now, Mr. Miller would like to speak since he's a motion maker and then you follow by him. I know these developers may not want to do this. But there's comes a point where we as a community actually have to start, stop talking about affordable housing and start insisting on affordable housing. The statistics that have been given about the rents in the half mile radius are affordable. None of that is committed. None of that necessarily is going to change. I have to say that it's always worried me that our AMI figure includes Chapel Hill, which I think skews the number considerably. This developer, as all developers do, and they ask for his own change, are asking for a considerable benefit from the public, from the people of the city of Durham. Resone my property to something that allows me to do more. And when we give that, when we grant that application, then I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect that what is being proposed, especially when it's on a large scale, that it promote our overall goals. And one of those goals expressed as a goal in the comprehensive plan. And now a little bit more expressly in this resolution adopted by the council is that we get serious about affordable housing. It can be done. It can be done. And I invite these developers to consider how they can do it. It doesn't necessarily have to meet this criteria. It's a point of beginning. And if they come back in 60 days and say they can't do it, then we can evaluate it at that time. But 60 days, I think, since we have sprung this whole idea of affordable housing on them in the last hour here today and maybe the last few days as people have communicated with us and concluded about our concern about affordable housing, let's give them some time to hash this out and be the first developer since this resolution has been adopted, the first developer to come back and say, sign us up. We want to be on board. This is what we can do in a commitment for affordable housing, especially when you consider who works at Duke University. It's doctors. It's all kinds of professors. It's doctors who keep the place clean, who mow the grass, and all these other people. Right now, a lot of those people have to drive clear across town or take the bus. I would like for them to be able to walk to their place of employment. I would like for them to be able to get on the transit and ride to their place of work. This is the time, this is the point where we start talking seriously. I urge you to vote for this motion. The substantive motion is on the floor of a six a day continuous. Mr. Chairman, would you allow a call between Miller and I? I have a question. The question is to the chair. What's your question? Will you allow a conversation I want to ask commissioner? The Miller question. Our questions is to the chair. If I need Mr. Miller to answer it, I will ask him to answer it. All right. Right now, where I understand it, that a 60-day delay would mean that they would have to pay another fee to come back. Is that correct? That would go to the staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Reverend Whitley. If the item is continued, which I think I heard the chair say earlier, it would be no re-advertising required. We would be continued to a date certain the current advertising would apply and there would be no new costs associated with advertising or owed to the city for the continuance. Commissioner Gibbs. I'm in agreement with you, Tom and your commissioner. I accept what we have as far as guidelines is this resolution. Is it not? It is not a law of zoning. That's all it is, right? But I am in total agreement. We do need to move forward with affordable housing and I'm directing my comments to those who are officials and anybody else who can put pressure on getting us moving forward. We can argue this saying you can come back 60 days, 120 days your property is going to remain the same and what your goals are going to remain the same. This is in this first step and I do consider this a first step in what's happening with around the transit stops. It's it is what it is and I in the resolution we ask people developers to in the future provide more affordable housing which is something I think you could do how that's going to work with it being rental property if it were well if it were rental property but I just can't see putting this off except to get the powers that be moving on setting some hard and fast rules and how it's going to be done nobody knows at this point but at any rate those are those are my comments and I think I just heard somebody say there are meetings coming up that the public should attend and have their input and put pressure on everybody concerned because it is an issue. Thank you Mr. Chair. I see no other interest so I'm going to call for a vote of the substitute motion to extend this request or continue this request for 60 days or two cycles. Are those in favor of this motion please raise your hand. Are those opposed please raise your right hand. Since the substitute motion passed there's no action taken on the initial motion. Right. So that appeared to pass 10-2 and we are. Okay so the substitute motion passed 10-2 that this item would be continued for 60 days or two cycles. Thank you. Okay. We have Mr. Chair you also need to take action on the zoning case. I think the motion included both of them. No he did a motion for both. He included both in his motion. The substitute motion. As long as the Mr. Miller's motion included reference to both cases there's no further action. He did. Okay now we will move down to item number 7A which is a public hearing of zoning map change request for the handover points area C Z140004 Good evening Amy Wolfe with the planning department. Again this is case Z140004 handover points sub area C applicant is Linnar Carolina's LLC it is within the city's jurisdiction and the request is from plan development residential at a density of 4.760 to plan development residential 4.000. The site is 13.96 acres and the proposal is for 41 single family residential units. The site is one parcel at 1030 Mclam Drive it is in the suburban tier again it's in the city it's in the FJB Watershed Protection overlay there's a similar residential density surrounding this property with rural residential zoning, residential suburban 20 zoning as well as similar densities of plan development residential densities. The request for the PDR or plan development residential district does meet the minimum standards of our ordinance some of the standards are listed here in this table the standards that are applicable to the development plan that we'll show you. Here's the existing site there is a stream on the eastern portion of the site it does have an associated floodplain and steep slopes there are three areas of wetlands through the center of the site there is dedicated right away through the site although the the pavement has not been there to connect it the proposed conditions show two development envelopes one on either side of the right away there are three access points one on either side of the right away that extends Mclam drive as well as another cross access on the northern portion of the site there's a number of commitments as well the commitment is for 41 residential units or single family residential units there's again three side access points 70% maximum impervious service that's maximum allowed in the FJB watershed protection overlay and 20.3% tree coverage there's one text commitment to have the housing type as single family the request is consistent with the future land use map of our comprehensive plan which designate the site as low to medium density or four to eight units and acre as well as the green represented on the west as recreation and open space the request is consistent with the develop with the comprehensive plan and the applicable policies and staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances staff is available to answer any questions excuse me three people signed up to speak I have one definitely far one definitely against and I have one this kind on the fence so so Mr. Robert Schump you have I'm going to say ten minutes which button do I push over here two one two I just said escape there we go reset the cloud Jacob did you put this file on here sorry it's in the cloud F5 good evening commissioners my name is Robert Schunk I live at 2627 University Drive here in Durham here representing in our homes some of you may be wondering I'll give you some history a little bit we rezoned this site back in 2006 this was the development plan that we proposed if you look here this is our site that we're here for tonight the site in 2006 also included this tract of land as well as this tract of land over here both these two tracks are currently under development today the reason we are here today for this site is for one reason only and that is to remove some traffic improvements that were previously required by Brightleaf when Brightleaf was having a proposed entrance here opposite Ashton Glen Road this was a committed element required of Ashton Hall and Ellington Place Hanover Point was formerly called Ellington Place after these two projects were rezoned and improved the NCVOT denied a driveway access at this red arrow okay moving forward talking with transportation staff and planning staff and with our traffic consultant the left turn lane into this development obviously could not be built because there's no turn lane to turn into so therefore the only avenue to remove those commit elements were to come back for a rezoning no other things with this project have changed as A.B. alluded to before the zoning was 4.76 that included the overall project we're rezoning to four units per acre the road connections that Amy showed in her staff report are essentially the same where we are making the same connection that was required and committed to back in 2006 here as required by the ordinance for connectivity and we're also making this step here to this parcel that is landlocked everything else that we did in 2006 that we were doing now is exactly the same locations of tree coverage here and here same buffers and all where we're asking for an approval to remove those road improvements that are no longer required because of the change of context of the driveway I have here with me traffic engineer that did a traffic study and I'll send if you have any questions thank you okay thank you okay it was 7.20 that was left on the 4 okay so again I have Greg stocked Greg you have 10 minutes my name is Greg Stocking and I live at 101 for Mclam Drive which is just a couple of lots I guess that would be on the top of the map but it's part of the continuation of the road which is what is it Willow Crest Road which they plan on connecting to Mclam Drive I'm not necessarily against what they're asking to do my concern is I just moved into the property I guess when all this originally happened so I wasn't really privy to any of the zoning that had happened but prior to this and I know that I guess in talking to some real estate people that there's a overriding zoning as new subdivisions are built they need to be connected to existing subdivisions and not just terminated and kept separate so I realize that it is probably a done deal that the Willow Crest Willow Crest Road will connect to Mclam and this may not be the right forum to point this out but the problem that we have as residents and several of us are here tonight is that Mclam Drive is just not designed to handle the amount of traffic that will be generated by connecting that road through both with the existing development that's already happened and the additional 41 more units that are going to be put in that area the road is fairly well deteriorated as it is now and I haven't heard any plans as part of this development that they're going to fix that problem secondarily it's not really clear on the map here it would look here if you don't look very closely that the Mclam Drive goes straight through Rycon Place to connect to Holder Road and it doesn't there is no straight through so what will happen here is people will come down Mclam Drive turn on Bristol Wood and then turn on Danbury effectively to go through there that is going to generate a tremendous amount of traffic for a road that is not by any mean stretch designed for that kind of traffic so my concern and again this may not be the right forum to bring this up is you know I realize that there's a again there's an outstanding statute or whatever to connect these subdivisions but I fear that if we look at the development everything is cul-de-sac except the one road that goes out through High Fox Drive which is right literally next door to one road over from where we're at and I just I'm afraid I have a four year old child I'm afraid of the amount of traffic because right now we're on a dead end road so we get practically no traffic except for residents how much traffic that's going to open up and that's really a concern to me secondarily the road can't sustain it it just won't do it it's just not built for it and it will need some major modifications in order to handle traffic I mean they're looking at 40 U.N. the majority of the people that would be going out through that road would my guess would be they would be heading or wanting to head to either Mineral Springs or to Stallings Road you know nowhere in the plan at least that I've seen or have do I see them connecting through the land that they made as part of this plan you know a direct more direct route to other major thoroughfares that people would be trying to get to unless you're going to visit somebody there would be no reason to go through our neighborhood to get to Holder because when you get to Holder you're either visiting some there's nothing there either going to go left to go up to Mineral Springs or you're going to go right to go to Stallings to get anywhere it's not like that road would continue on to 98 or any of the other major roads so you know it's a very residential area a very residential road again never developed to or never designed to handle that kind of traffic so I have a concern there and again this may not be the right form to bring that up if it does in fact end up going through I would you know I'll pursue avenues of trying to get speed bumps put in or whatever else we can do and get road improvements done that would number one be able to handle this and number two make it less desirable as a I guess a lot of people use the term cut through to you know for people to try to cut off time to get you know one way or the other and again I'm just concerned citizen who owns some land and the home on there and have children and things and I'm just worried about that connection I'm really not worried about the the density or you know there's a lot of runoff area back there so there will be some greenway and stuff like that so I'm not really concerned about that it's just going to be you know solid houses and no trees and all that kind of thing because there's a lot of in fact part of my property is a free movement that I can't develop on can't do anything about and that's perfectly fine I have no problem with that it's just the issue with me is the road and the amount of traffic that this thing is going to generate when that goes through and again this may not be the right form for doing that and if it's not then if anybody can tell me what the right form is I really appreciate that because I'd like to pursue that along with my neighbors so I appreciate your time and thank you for this opportunity okay thank you and I have Jericho Holland Moore and Jericho you have seven minutes in I mean seven minutes and 12 seconds four and four minutes and four to seven seconds again alright thank you thank you very much to start my four part I am for as far as the zoning and like the gentleman before me said I don't know if this is the right form but I am for the zoning as far as the lower density I mean you can drop the density as low as you want that would be great to me because obviously it's helping improve the values around there my house by the way my name is Jericho Holland Moore Locate 11 Faircroft Court it's not listed on this map that was sent out to us but it is the unnamed court right there in the middle of View Lane and the reason that I was speaking here tonight it won one the other representing the other concerned citizens out here they want to let me notify y'all as well and I again I think you have to access the property so I don't know if this can be addressed or if this is the correct form but Willow Crest people already do fly across that road they cut through High Fox Drive so obviously now that it goes straight through that's definitely going to be a thorough fair so that's just something to keep in mind if that affects anything my concern is the trees earlier one of the staff mentioned that there were 26% coverage on the on the property and I would say by my definitions like 100% covered the the property does have trees all across it I didn't know how to submit a handy-dandy PowerPoint so I'll pass along my iPad if that's legal here in this form and on that and actually it's a Samsung iPad I'm sorry for that it is it shows some pictures of the trees along the property you'll see pictures that I'm not standing in are pictures of the center of the property so there's a number of trees but my main concern the reason I'm not concerned or wouldn't be concerned about density is because if there was currently there's no there's no buffer anything along that southern line as you're looking at this map that we received along the south line along Glenview there's no buffer and we went in there we purchased property we had asked about that and so we knew that going in but just everybody likes trees I think everybody would say if I could have a 40 foot tall tree in my property I'd rather have it as opposed to just clearing all the trees so I've put together four points which I believe support just a small buffer 20 to 25 feet of neutral zone which those houses or the developer on that side would not be able to build that there would be trees that would remain there to be to protect there are a few old growth trees if you look at those pictures they're like 40 foot tall you know everybody likes to walk down our court to look at the trees and so they do provide a beautiful buffer along there and we do have trees on our side of the property so my concern is if the developer goes in there either raises the soil or undercuts the soil undercuts the soil they cut the roots you know covers of the soil they destroy the roots and mess up the drainage number two is to prevent erosion the trees do line a drainage ditch one of those pictures I'm standing in the drainage ditch the drainage ditch is about the furthest point of it in the front of my house it's about 15 feet off the property line I'm guesstimating because there's no actual line obviously but I would say it's about 15 feet away that that drainage ditch goes and so those trees line that they prevent erosion and obviously maintain the integrity of the soil number three to protect the property values I just got a beep to protect the property values this is obviously promotes tax revenue in the county of Durham I know you guys get your taxes because I pay quite a bit but I so I want to protect the property values of the houses obviously my house and the and my neighbors around there I think if you have this density if you look at the density another thing the staff said was that there's similar densities around I would consider pretty different if you look at our density is 2.72 the density over there as per proposed would be 4.0 which is obviously better than 4.6 but obviously a lot more than 2.72 so I think a tree buffer would minimize the negative effect on our property values number four provides a wildlife easement and access to the water source that creek back there is a pretty decent size creek and wildlife do travel in those woods down to the creek I've seen deer I've seen foxes obviously there's plenty of birds and I'm sure there's rabbits in there but wildlife definitely use that I see them walking across there if we cut out all the trees there's no access for wildlife to the to that creek below so whether or not that's an option I don't know but I just want to voice my opinion as to the benefit of neutral zone in that area okay thank you do we have any other memos in the audience that would like to speak to then close the public hearing and bring the matter back before the commissioners do we have commissioners that would like to speak I have Commissioner Miller Commissioner Huff okay Commissioner Miller I just wanted to start pardon me I just wanted to start with some questions sir I'm sorry I didn't get your last name first name is Greg Stocking can you who maintains the streets in your subdivision do you have like a homeowners association or they publicly maintain sir if you're going to speak you need to come to the podium Commissioner Miller I attempt to address that sure please to the best of my knowledge and build judge with transportation is here they're NCDOT streets they may not be and they may not have been accepted yet well that's what was worrying me because it wasn't city jurisdiction and there aren't any streets you were referring to the third gentleman that was McClam Drive and Recon and Danbury yeah McClam those are all DOT maintained streets to my knowledge and then I have a question for the developer your development plan says you're committing to single family which is not necessarily what a PDR is all about but it can be was your development plan in the PDR that you have today does it also commit to single family yes and I would like to know because your plan itself doesn't show the lot layout the way you did on the screen how are you coping with those wetland areas what's required there how do you propose to manage those the we have had the core out there to identify three wetland pockets they are located I don't have the current development plan up but right now we are preserving those wetland areas that he's speaking of what's been delineated from the core so I see them here how are you working the lots around that was my question since I don't have a kind of a lot or have you not decided yet exactly where your lots are going to be we've done some conceptual we've done some layouts on it the wetland pockets are in if you're looking at the screen here are in this area right here so this road here is basically in the same location so that is to the east of those wetlands and then this roadway here you know essentially the sites is pretty dictates that you know we'll need to have a road here and of course we spoke about that so the one wetland is north of this road and then there's another wetland pocket up in here so we're avoiding them can you tell me what the basic lot dimensions are 50 to 60 feet wide and to talk about the density more we had spoken to the planning department about trying to rezone it to a lower density our goal was to have some larger lots in there to be similar with Ashton Hall and we had re-zoned Ashton Hall back in 2005 as well it was formerly called Quail Creek and then the second subsequent we re-zoned this piece here but from the planning department the issue was that the comp plan calls for four or eight units an acre they had communicated to us that in order to gain support we would need to maintain the four units an acre instead of trying to request a comp plan I understand that's a pretty dramatic piece of property I've tramped around in there I hope you don't mind it's very high up and then it's very low and you're right none of the roads do what the map says they do that's a hard place to find but thank you those are my questions Mr. Chairman okay let me apologize to Mr. Gregg out there because we are on television and without you being at dispotted party and speaking into the mic I can't hear what you're saying nor can they get you a vision so that's why I ask you to come to the mic if you want to speak and we have Commissioner Huff yeah I wanted some further clarification because you went pretty fast Mr. Stocking about the way that one would have to travel to access to go in and out of this property how it would go exactly how it would go through the neighborhoods maybe we could put a map up and he could point somebody from the drawing that I have or the layout I have Willowcrest Drive right now stops at the edge of this proposed zoning change and Mclam Drive stops at the other end and they are on the left of the mouse I've asked Ms. Wolfe to pull up the context map which the commissioners have as attachment one there it is so right now here's where the existing road dead ends with the existing development I live right over here on Mclam Drive and Mclam dead ends at the other end of the development if this road were to be connected traffic would come down here through Mclam Drive and it would need to turn here on Bristol Wood and this map implies that this other road right on place is actually straight through it's not it goes very low and there's a stream through there and a little wooden bridge but there's no in fact once you get oops once you get just I guess this is north of Bristol Wood here this is actually a gravel road and it goes down into the bottom and dead ends and then right on the other end it's paved but it just dead ends at the other end of this woods that a stream goes through so that road does not connect through so in other continue on you come out Mclam Drive you'd have to turn right here on Bristol Wood and then you'd have to turn left on Danbury and it goes a little bit past where the map here shows and Danbury dead ends at Holder Road this other road that you see here Bristol Wood if you continue going out here once it gets past what is that Alistair it actually turns into a gravel road in dead ends if you turn down Alistair it actually goes up here a little bit makes a 90 degree turn to the left and dead ends at Danbury and comes back out so bottom line this entire development of Alistair Bristol Wood Danbury Mclam there is one entrance one exit and that is Danbury Road and it dumps out onto Holder Road and that's it it's a dead end community no outlet other than that one outlet and I believe the other gentleman who was actually living on Glenwood had mentioned that he's already seeing a lot of traffic that use the high high high Fox Drive as a cut through ours would actually probably be even a little more direct than that cut through and again that would scare me as far as the amount of traffic and the congestion and stuff the road that you dump out on Holder a lot of people go if you go left that will turn out on the mineral springs that is already a very very very congested intersection no light just you know you stop Holder has a stop sign and mineral springs is just straight through comes right out of an S-curve actually right there there's accidents there at least once a month people pulling out and getting hit and adding more traffic to that I just would think it was a very bad idea and going the other way on Holder to Stallings Road is also a pretty it's right there at a church Grove Park but anyhow it's got quite a bit of congestion there too so sending a lot more traffic in either of those directions would require changes and yes we are not in the city we are actually part of the county so you're asking I think about road maintenance and all that kind of stuff alright thank you did that clarify your question yeah thanks yes Commissioner Winder I just wanted to ask one more question if you would explain what happens when you go on High Fox Drive that's Pinnock or Pinnock Road does that go out to Sharon or Holder eventually that does go out to Holder Road so there are kind of two ways to get out but I went there and drove all around and it is the most maze, labyrinth place I've ever been you know is there any chance that it might be I'm sure it sounds like there probably isn't unless it gets taken into the city to get the roads system rationalized and in any way I don't think they can re-route the roads but one other comment I did have if the developer wanted a lower density and we would be happy with a lower density and this would limit the traffic on the road I mean would that be a possibility okay I think he answered that and they would not allow him to go in a little with the density who is the developer Mr. Chair and I guess to clarify that is the comprehensive plan for this area recommends a density of 4 to 8 units an acre so anything less than 4 would not be compliant with the comprehensive plan so the comprehensive plan cannot be changed end of that can be changed yes Pat Young with Planning Department the comprehensive plan can be changed the applicant would have the petition to do that okay and it's likely staff would not recommend approval to pursue it okay are there any additional questions of commissioners if not the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman Commissioner Miller I move that we approve the rezoning in this case which I believe is 14 at 4 and I'd like to speak to the motion we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Miller and a second by Commissioner Davis the chair will now entertain comments to the motion a reason for making this motion in this case is as the developer has pointed out there already the zoning on the parcel today is 4.76 units per acre this is actually a small down zoning they've gone to the absolute rock bottom that they could do the comprehensive plan and while they could get a comprehensive plan change we would be making a comprehensive plan change for 10 acres out of a large area that's covered by this 4-8 unit density and since the whole reason for this rezoning has to do with extremely remote traffic considerations that have gone away I personally although I do sympathize with all the neighborhood owners who spoke today believe that consistent with what is for Durham a pretty low number of units per acre in an environmentally difficult site where they are reserving space I mean I don't know what percentage of your property is not going to be buildable because of this but by my own calculation it looked like it was between 25 and 30 percent it seems to me that this rezoning is actually incrementally better than what's on the ground today and the issues that we've talked about today although it might be nice to have fewer units per acre there than what's proposed really what has driven us to this convocation are traffic improvements that no longer obtain so I'll be voting for this reason as seen yet now the commissioners wishing to speak to this motion so the motion on the floor is to approve zoning case one four zero zero zero zero four all in favor of this motion let it be known by showing your right hand how those in our position case C one four zero zero zero zero four has passed 12 to zero now the chair will open the public hearing for zoning case redino drive redendron drive is Z zero I mean Z one four zero zero zero one zero thank you again Amy Wolfe with the planning department this is a zoning map change request for redendron drive for case Z one four zero zero zero one zero the applicant is B prop LLC it is actually in the county we don't see many of those this case is in the county nine point seven zero six acres the request is from the present designation of science research park to residential suburban 20 and the proposed uses for one single family dwelling unit the site is in the suburban tier and again in the county's jurisdiction at 159 rhodedendron drive it's between vintage hill parkway to the south and Lob Lob Lee drive north in Treyburn there's a residential zoning district surrounding the site you'll notice on this context map also that surrounding the site is the city's jurisdiction what is represented in gray is the county's jurisdiction the site is within the FJB watershed protection overlay there's a railroad railroad corridor adjacent to the site on the south and west as well as a 150 foot Duke power easement adjacent to the Duke excuse me adjacent to the railroad but on the site the request does satisfy the minimum requirements of the rs 20 zoning district as demonstrated here based on and our analysis was a little bit complicated in this case since it's a county case where we're assuming no utilities are being provided so based on the county requiring one acre for a septic the applicant could develop nine lots if utilities were provided typically in an rs 20 district in the city's jurisdiction it could be 19 lots at two units an acre there are other factors to consider in this case it's a little background the request is consistent with the future land use map which shows this area as low density residential which is four dwelling areas in the city it's either one acre or less and it is also consistent with the comprehensive plan policies that are applicable to the site there's a number of adopted plans also that encumber the site long range bicycle plan shows a greenway to the west the little river corridor open space plan and the Durham trails and greenway and the Durham thoroughfare plan all have there's no development plan attached to this site there's no specific recommendations for the open space plan that encumbers the site and the Durham thoroughfare plan shows a future extension of Traiber and Parkway along the north of this site so staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and staff is available for any questions thank you Amy we have one person signed up to speak and Dixon Pitt good evening thank you I'm just here if anybody has any questions thank you do we have anyone from the audience that would like to speak to yes sir if you would come to the podium state your name address and then fill this out before you go back to your seat now you can speak are you speaking in favor or against against okay my name is Bernard Zabrowski I reside at 609 Red Cedar Circle in Durham in the area we're talking about we as residents have concerns about this may I say a part of the term moving into the area in Traiber and going up road to engine drive was the wooded area driving up there and I understand that this is not a sacrosanct thing but it was part of the charm of buying into the neighborhood one of our main concerns is if this house is allowed to be built and I'm understanding that right now it is I guess it's good for one house what's to keep the developer from adding more houses on to this is a major concern of the people in the neighborhood it's not a huge area and will be seen by a lot of other houses will you keep his word right as I now understand there are not city services there it would be designated for well and septic will city services come in and if so will that also allow for further growth at this time and of course I had some of us got a letter and some of us didn't and I don't know what the delineation was between who received the letters and who did not I talked to some of my neighbors I had no idea what I was talking about some of us did get letters the only thing I can ascertain is that the people who can see the site are basically the ones that got the letters and my last comment has nothing really to do with this but when I received this letter I had no idea what it was talking about I mean I had a general idea but the RSP and the RS20 and all that I had no idea what it was I would like to ask the commission if you send out a letter can you please define the terms so that a normal person like me can understand or else include a sacred decoder ring or something that I will know what it is that would be greatly appreciated thank you thank you sir excuse me do we have anyone else wishing from the audience wishing to speak if not then I will close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners Commissioner Huff yeah are there any plans to annex this is that in the future and what are your what are your plans about putting in providing utilities can they provide sewer to this without annexation no I didn't think so we have no plan to add any utilities it's going to be planned for well-incepted for one house so that does limit it to one house and acre well the soil we're planning on one house but the soil may allow it for more are you thinking of having any kind of dedicated right away to the possible rail to trail that runs by the property not that I'm aware of okay okay Commissioner Miller Commissioner Miller I just wanted to make an observation for the benefit of the neighbor that came and of course I understand but I wanted him to understand we have to assume that all the land in the county will be developed to the maximum that the zoning allows and make our decision based upon this so really what we have a request today even though the developer has announced one house the maximum that the regulations has applied to the way the site sits today might be as many as nine of course because you've got limited access you can only get in and out on road to dinner and you'd have to put in streets and what have you it might be fewer than nine as it's zoned today it's zoned for a non-residential purpose and we have to assume that at some point somebody is going to build some sort of non-residential facility in there that is consistent with the the research park zoning that's there it probably hasn't happened up to this point because there's no utilities but if utilities were extended if somebody saw that to say here's a 10-acre parcel where we could put a research facility they could come along and petition the city for annexation in order to get sewer and water I don't know how difficult it would be but we would have to assume that that's how it would be developed and I'm going to say putting myself in your shoes I would rather have one to nine houses similar to the way my own property is developed over on Red Cedar Circle than a non-residential research facility put in there where twice a day people would be coming and going to work I would think that would be over in the long run better given the choices and for that reason I support this rezoning thank you Mr. Chairman to staff can you answer the citizens questions with reference to the letters going out yes Mr. Chair thank you Pat Young again with the planning department so our local ordinance requires and we provide notice within 600 feet of the property so I certainly understand your concern about it is certainly possible some of your neighbors would not have gotten the notice because they were outside of that 600 foot radius so again that's exceeds the state law and is pretty one of the most expansive notification areas in this state so we try to make that as wide as possible but there's always cases where someone immediately adjacent won't get it in terms of the content of the letter we appreciate your comments we try to be as clear as we can one of the things we prominently highlight is the contact names so that there's any questions you can you can talk to a human live but we will try to make sure that we have an English rather than Planner ease as much as possible that was going to be my second one okay do we have questions from commissioners if not then the chair will entertain a motion Commissioner Davis I'd like to make a motion to move zoning map change request Z1400010 second okay motion by Commissioner Davis second by Commissioner Winder's that we move for with zoning case Z1400010 I mean one zero all in favor of this item let it be known by I'll show you right hands all opposed case zero I mean I'm excuse me Z1400010 has passed we have to zero numbers go to running together after a while and public hearing for zoning map change request Ravenstone extension Z1400014 a and Amy it's not running to the public sir the guy from Mr. Chair we got the gentleman's name on the on the record so we'll make sure it's in the minutes okay thank you sir good evening commissioners my name is Jacob Wiggins I'm with the planning departments some of you may have seen me before I've been with the department for about a year and a half now most of my time is spent dealing with the Durham Board of Adjustments Mr. Wyman is allowing me the opportunity to dabble in annexations which is what it has brought me here before you all this evening specifically the city received an annexation petition for Ravenstone what we're calling Ravenstone extension case Z1400014 a as part of the annexation request there's an initial zoning that the city has to designate for the subject property the property is currently split zoned to rs20 and rr and the city is requesting that the commission consider rezoning the rs20 portion of this site to rr and that is approximately 4.27 acres of the developments on the screen before you you can see the entire area that is requested for annexation is highlighted in red there are five parcels which are approximately 177 acres the portion requested for the initial zoning to be down zoned from rs20 to rr circle there on your screen you can see that it's the portion along Sharon Road historically the commission has noted that if it's an exact translation then they automatically recommend approval and it goes to council this case as you can see it's not an exact translation as the rs20 portion is being requested to go to rr an area as you can see there are neighboring subdivisions on each side of this request most of the property I believe is vacant farmlands and I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have how about this request I'm sorry do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this if not I will close the public hearing have one Eric Hester how you doing master officer Hester are you speaking in favor or against just a concern I very much appreciate Ravenstone what they represented our community my concern is as well the concerns were expressed in the Holder Road area the density of the traffic we're dealing with the calming measures that are not there we are having two lanes on 98 highway there and some days when I come home to work it's backed up a half mile to a mile from Sharon Road to 98 all the way back past almost to Grove Park and then when we see on the other side on the other end right there on Sharon Road we're seeing a lot of a lot of traffic problems that are there and if we're trying to get out on one of those little side streets we just almost have it getting out of there we're taking our life at our own risk and I'm hesitated about saying anything because I know that there are regulations that are in place as far as zonings and those kinds of things but my concern is a homeowner and a resident out there is the traffic in that regard would you state your name and address please I'm Eric Hester I'm at three or two Robin's Road thank you good to see you anyone else like to speak then I will close the public hearing commissioners commissioner Miller I just wanted to speak to officer Hester thank you for coming tonight I sat through a lot of hearing so this is a rezoning as a result of an annexation and the annexation is already a decided thing no it's not Pat Young again with the planning department the annexation would proceed to council with this zoning as part of the annexation action including an utility extension agreement and in this initial zone essentially what's being proposed here by the staff is a down zoning to the most restrictive zone we have pretty much we ain't got anything that's less than this and so if you're concerned is the development of the property that you're concerned may be more about the annexation than the zone it will wind up in presumably the annexation will make this property available for the extension of sewer and water make it more attractive for future development that's an annexation issue the property has to be zoned something and currently it's zoned RS 20 and RR which would allow more development than just RR would is that correct members of the staff that is correct this is a down zoning to the lowest permissible zone so as far as this body can in its recommendation to the elected officials make a recommendation in favor of the points that you raised we would adopt what the staff is asking us to do and I just wanted to kind of make that clear and to explain while I be while I will be supporting this in the other comments I have a question Commissioner Freeman I just wanted to know how the city or the county would go about a traffic and a calming measures plan for annexation and regards to this this is zoned and this is not the annexation staff would you like to did you hear the question Miss Freeman could you repeat the question I hear that I'm sorry I would like to know how you would go about attending to this gentleman's concerns about traffic and calming measures sure I may ask Bill Judge of the transportation department to speak in more detail but if the zoning is successful they'll have an entitlement to a certain number of units and they'll have to submit a site plan the site plan has specifications about what transportation improvements are required based on I don't know if there's anything we want to add to that Bill but the site plan is the mechanism we use to review in detail unless there's a transportation impact analysis or TIA required with the zoning which there would not be with a zoning of this limited density if there's no other comments to chair will now entertain a motion Commissioner Davis zoning KZ140014A moved by Davis second second by Whitley Commissioner Whitley zoning case Z140014A all those in favor let it be known may show a right hand all those in opposition case Z140014A has passed 12-0 next thing on the agenda is new business and I have announcements so what do we have next Mr. Chair next month we have three land use cases and one text amendment are there any other new business to come before this body tonight okay we do have additional members of the planning commission so what I would like to do starting from my right is for everyone to introduce themselves the old and the new members I'm Josh Hollingsworth I represent the Triangle Township here in Durham County and this is your first meeting this is my first meeting yes I'm Elise Beeland I'm representative from the city and how long you've been on the board about a year now I think Melvin Whitley I've been on the board for four years city appointee Frederick Davis County appointee I've been on the board since 2009 Becky Winders I'm a city appointee and I've been on here one month less than Melvin Whitley I'm David Harris city appointee and I think I've been on the board about three years I'm Tom Miller I'm appointed by the city council and this is probably my fifth month Deidre Anna Freeman and I was recently appointed I'm Brian Busby I'm sorry I'm Brian Busby I'm a city appointee I was appointed last week I'm Charlie Gibbs and I've been on I'm a county appointee I've been on the board for about a year and a half Linda Huff I'm a county employee and I've been on the board for a few months Ann and then on Ann Linda Huff you were previously a commissioner prior to this appointment yes I was my name is Elaine Hyman and I am a county appointee and this is my first meeting okay alright thank you everyone so if there's no other business we are in