 I'm sorry. I could find a good time. If I turn my... I actually... I know somebody who can. I will come. He will be 99. Okay, no problem. He made a big difference in my application. She's also... Really? She should be there for six months. All right. Okay, everybody's here. All right. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham City Council 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 will have the final say of any issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak to an item tonight, please go to the table on my left and sign up to speak. For those who wish to speak, please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium. Please speak clearly into the microphone because you'll be in televised. Each side, 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. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative, so if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation to the elected body is for the now. Thank you. Could we have the roll call, please? Mr. Alturt. Mr. Brun. Mr. Busby. Ms. Freeman. Mr. Gosh. Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Harris. Ms. Hyman. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kinchin. Mr. Miller. Mr. Van. Mr. Whitley. We have a quorum. Thank you. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I may suggest, it's my understanding that in our agenda item 7, the Creekside Commons case, we have a simple procedural request. Just looking at the audience, it is my assumption that there are a great many people here who have come to hear that case. Would it be convenient for them and for us to go ahead and hear that procedural request and dispose of that before we do go into our regular cases in item 6? Is that a motion? That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. The motion is to move item 7 before item 6. Move item 7 before item 6. Are there any comments or questions? Yes. I understand the point, although there are a lot of people here to speak on that topic, I mean, we do have a case in front of it and they are in front of it because they were presumably filed first or whatever, and I wouldn't want to make those applicants wait until the end of our Creekside Commons hearing. I'm assuming that the people here do want to speak on it. That makes sense. Actually, my motion was based upon the assumption that they wouldn't speak if they were to be wrong. Okay, the motion on the 4 is to move item 7 before item 6 or the additional comments. If not all in favor of that motion, please raise your right hand. That's 9. All opposed. Motion carries 9 to 5. Okay, and one additional thing under announcements which you don't have under new business, that's address November the 8th which is election day and our meeting day. So let the board address that. Okay. The chair will now entertain a motion to approve the agenda as modified. Mr. Chair, I make a motion to move the agenda as modified. Second. Second by commissioner Friedman. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. The next item on the agenda is approval of it August the 9th meeting minutes comments. If I may, Mr. Chairman. My comments and I believe perhaps Ms. Hyman's comments were left out of the material. Not this time. My comments were left out and my only concern is that going forward those comments be included in the materials that we send to the council and staff is assured me that those are there even if they are not in the packet we are voting on tonight. Is that correct? That is correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm satisfied. Okay, I'm there. No more comments. Yes. I just wanted to move approval of the minutes as presented. Mr. Chairman, I do have a change. Okay, it's been motioned seconded that we approve the minutes as presented and we have a comment from Commissioner Gibbs. Well, my note re-elected should be changed to re-evaluated. It's on the first page my vote. Gibbs voted for development. Entire 100 plus acres should be re-evaluated. Thank you, Mayor. Okay, the motion will you accept an amendment? Yes. While we're at it, my name is spelled wrong on the same page. Okay, did you get that? Okay, would you with a maker of the motion I mean his motion to include the corrections? I move the adoption of the minutes as corrected. Motion is seconded that the minutes be received and approved as corrected. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay, the next item on our agenda is item number 7. The public hearing will open the public hearing for the zoning map change request for Creekside Commons Z 16 quadruple 01. And we have a new staff member during the presentation. Bear with me. Yes, please bear with me. Steve Medlin with the planning department. I am filling in for my entire staff which happens to be in Asheville this evening at a national, I mean a statewide conference. Yeah, fortunately they get to go and I don't. This case is case Z1601 which is Creekside Commons which is a request by NDR Ryan Holmes Stephen Freeman to rezone the current site from RS 20 to a PDR 6.302. Earlier today the staff received a request and I think the planning commission received a request from the applicant to consider a 30 day deferral of this item. Staff obviously has no issue with a deferral being granted for this case in order for the applicant to modify their development plan and to potentially work with the adjacent property owners and citizens in the area to address some of their concerns. Staff will be glad to answer any questions that you may have at this point but we're going to reserve our full presentation until this item potentially this issue is decided. Thank you. I have two people wishing to speak in favor of this item and five people wishing to speak against. Okay. I understand the applicant may have a motion to for consideration. Good evening Mr. Chairman members of the planning commission my name is Ken Spaulding. I represent the applicant in there. I was just brought into this case last week and so was Mr. Stan Jel and we saw that there was some needs to meet with the residents again as well as some cleaning up some issues in regard to our commitment, our committed elements to clear that up with staff. I would like to reserve any further presentation unless or until we have to go further based on you all's vote but I think it's very important for us to make sure that we have met with the residents again since we are now involved with this and to hear them out completely and to see what if anything we can do to address their concerns. It's clear from some emails I've read it's very important to them about some issues. We need to understand the issues better and we need to be able to explain the situation better and to get as much input to make any modifications if they're going to be possible. So I would respectfully request that and move that this be continued over deferred over for 30 days. Thank you very much. Commissioner Bryan. Is we open to discussion on this? We have not closed the public hearing. Okay. Before we bring before the commissioners he's making a request he's not making a motion the motion will have to come from someone up here. So he's making a request for a continuance for 30 days. Now before I close the public hearing there were five people from the community that signed up to speak and against. If the motion is granted the request is granted. They're going to have 30 day continuance in other words it will come back in October. If the motion is granted and moved upon we will not make any decision on it tonight. And my question to the five people that signed up to speak and against is there anyone that just would like to speak tonight with reference to this or wait until October to speak after the full presentation has been made from both staff and the applicant. Come to it Mike please. And state your name and address. As Michael. Greetings. Greetings members of the planning commission. My name is Mike Cutlip. I'm a resident at nine T House court in South Durham. My only question is not to speak necessarily to the proposed development but to the possibility of 30 days not being enough time to meet with the residents in the area and address the concerns that they have. I don't know if there could be a motion for possibly 60 days. You can request a 60 day continuance. I would like to request a 60 day continuance instead of 30 days. Thank you. So we have two requests. We have a request from the applicant for 30 day continuance. We have a request from the community for 60 day continuance. So if no one else wishing to speak I'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners and hear what the commissioners commissioner Brian. I agree with the community based on what I've read so far from the neighbors and looking at the plan for 60 days is going to be even pushing it to really get this cleaned up if it's even possible to clean it up. So I'm going to move that we reopen the public hearing and continue it for 60 days. It's had a motion for continuance for 60 days. I have a second from commissioner Miller. Is there any other discussion? Commissioner Whitley. Is it possible who's here for transportation? Bill Judge. Creeside Elementary School in the mornings and the evenings the cause are in a parking lot. Commissioner Whitley, I'm going to rule you out of order. Let me ask one question. The discussion the motion on the floor is for continuance. You're asking about the project. You're speaking to the project. I'm wondering whether I know it doesn't fit the criteria for transportation but you're still asking about the project and not the motion is on the floor. The motion on the floor is whether to grant a continuance or not. You understand? Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get some business done in the 60 days. Are there other comments? Commissioner Goesch. Thank you, Chair Harris. My comment is that without I know we all received emails and have read the report and all of that but without opening the public hearing I don't know how we can make a determination that 60 days would be required rather than 30 days and I think just from a practical standpoint if they are not able to resolve the issues in 30 days then they would come back and ask for another continuance which they would be able to do. So I'm inclined to not vote for a 60 day but to vote for a 30 day continuance because it is possible that they would be able to meet with the neighbors and address their concerns in that amount of time and I don't see any reason to push it out 60 days if they can do it in 30. Thank you. Commissioner Freeman. Can I ask the question of the representative that was speaking? Is it speaking to the motion or is it speaking to the project? Specifically to the motion. I just want to know if you think the property owner or whoever is working on this project would be amenable to 60 days rather than 30 days and it doesn't matter whether he is amenable or not. We say 60 is 60. I just spoke with the developer and he truly feels we can get it done in 30 days but that's it. May he just respond to that person? Sure. My name is Britt Spivey and I'm an applicant. The only reason I think that 30 days is reasonable is that there's actually been a meeting with the homeowners already that took place and actually some of the text commitments came from that meeting. We also have people here in support of the project too that would rather see it happen sooner than later so I'm willing to act as quickly as possible with West and Downs to have a second meeting. Do you have meeting dates already lined up? I do not. So I think that the 60 days might probably work better then. If 30 days does not work, I agree. Thank you. Any other comments? If not, the motion on the floor. Commissioner Johnson. I'm just curious to the resident who requested the 60 days could he provide insight as to why he doesn't feel that 30 days is enough time? Let me do that. They have to have information in for the agenda two weeks prior to the meeting so right now from tonight they would have like a week or a week and a half to get the information in to staff for the October meeting and so even if they had the meetings already lined up it would still be tight and pushing it in order to get the material into the staff in time enough for the October meeting. They only have about a week and a week and a half. That's very helpful. Thanks. Any other comments? Can I speak one more time? Yes. We're fine with 60 days. If that's what it takes to make the council happy and to give the neighborhood a chance to schedule a meeting then we're fine with that. Thank you. It's for case number Z16 to have a 60-day continuous to our November meeting. Whatever day that is. It may not be 60, it may be but to our November meeting so all those in favor of this motion please raise their right hand. Thank you. And thank you neighbors for coming and thank you for granting us this lead way. And I also thank the people from Ellis Road Townhouses for allowing us to do this. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Now would be the time for me to talk about the possibilities between here and the 60 days. Okay, ma'am you need to speak up. You're being televised. I want to ask a question about getting a staff evaluation of traffic right there by Creeside Elementary School that backs up and creates a one name traffic instead of two lanes. Bill. Bill Judge with transportation the only thing I can really answer is that the ordinance has very specific criteria for when we can threshold for when we can require a traffic impact analysis. This site is currently presented is under that criteria so there's no basis for us to require any additional traffic impact analysis or study. If in conversations with the neighbors or the commissioners and ultimately the city council those are concerns and those are certainly things that the applicant can volunteer and provide but there's no ordinance requirement for it. Mr. Chairman I came from Chapel Hill Creeside Elementary School to come here and there's no way they can do that project without some traffic calming. Mr. Commissioner again I'm going to rule you out of order because you're speaking to something that's not on the floor right now. I'll bring it back in 60 days. Okay the next item is public hearing open the public hearing for Ellis Road Townhouse A16 Quadruple 03 and Z16 Quadruple 04 Good evening I'm Laura Woods with the planning department I'll be presenting both cases this evening and these cases were previously before the commission on July 12th 2016 the case was deferred two cycles because the applicant a new commitment at that time so we're bringing back the cases this evening my presentations will be slightly different this evening since you've seen the full presentations before I'm going to present a slightly abbreviated version hopefully you will remember the case well enough that if you do not and would prefer me to pull up the PowerPoints from July we can certainly do that to look at the maps Case 1600 003 Ellis Road Town Homes is a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan for four parcels comprising 25.6 acres generally located in southeast Durham at 2511 Ellis Road it's directly east of the southern rail corridor in north of Ellis Road as I stated this case and the associated zoning case were deferred two cycles owing to some issues that have been resolved I'll touch on this more fully when I discuss the zoning case subject side is presently designated low density residential that's four dwelling units or less per acre the applicant Ellis Road residential to LP request a designation of low-medium density residential that would raise the density to four to eight under the intended land use as a town home community to the north of the site is recreation and open space to the east is single family residential and town homes to the south is vacant a single family residence and multi-family residential and to the west the aforementioned rail corridor and vacant land as staff concluded in July when we did the full presentation we find the proposal consistent with the four criteria for plan amendments those being the proposed change would be consistent with intent the intent goals and policies of adopted plans the proposed change would be compatible with surrounding land uses and future designated land uses the proposed change would not create substantial adverse impacts in the adjacent in the adjacent area and the subject site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed use therefore staff recommends approval of the plan amendment that concludes my presentation on the plan amendment we will now move to the next case the associated zoning case Z16 00 004 here the applicant is requesting a change from a residential suburban 20 to PDR or plan development residential 7.55 a voluntary and accession petition has been submitted in conjunction with this request the case is clear of comments at this point and the applicant and city have agreed the extension agreement the development plan associated with this request includes the following following commitments it will be townhomes to a maximum of 165 dwelling units the new commitment in the development plan is that units containing garages shall utilize a decorative garage door design including but not limited to windows or carriage style doors I believe that was a point of contention in July so they have addressed that there are four access points on the development plan there are three preservation areas and a maximum on pervious surface of 60% text commitments include widening of Ellis Road for an eastbound lane and continuous three lane cross section from Taylor Ridge Drive to the proposed site access number three four feet of additional asphalt on Ellis Road for accommodation of a bicycle lane a bus shelter and design commitments staff determined that the proposals meet the requirements of the unified development ordinance and should the plan amendment be passed it would meet the comprehensive plan as well that concludes my presentation thank you very much I'll turn it back over to the board Susan can I get your sign up sheet and she came to get back okay we have three people signed up to speak all is in favor of the project so I will entertain three minutes each or roughly four minutes each for each of you to present Lara Holman thank you members of the planning commission again my name is Lara Holman with Spalding and Norris representing the applicant thank you very much for allowing us to come back here this evening in just a response from the earlier agenda item 60 days was very helpful so thank you we take away from the last planning commission meeting as the staff member stated we were able to work out and finalize the utility extension agreement with the city that has been done and is finalized and is poised to move forward with rezoning and annexation to city council so we're all finalized there the second item on the list was to work with staff to work out a design commitment speaking to a decorative garage door and as the staff member stated we have done that as well that has been stated and added to our published and finalized development plan so that has been done as well thank you very much Steven William Stevens good evening Mr. Chair and also members of the commission my name is William Stevens I've been serving as the pastor of the south side church since 1982 we are located on Elmira Avenue where we also house a private elementary school that provides affordable education to the community when we purchased the property on Ellis Road we did so with the intent of developing the 25 acres to help meet some of the needs we saw that existed in that community however due to reasons beyond our control of the property on the market when we were approached by the builders we had no idea who they really were after speaking with the representatives of the Halley Company it became clear that their intent for the property is similar to the vision we had in mind except for church building and school I discovered they have a great reputation and what they are doing in that part of the community they have done projects in Apex as well as Holly Springs a project different from the one they have in mind I do believe housing options are important in this area with this close proximity to the RTP these townhomes will complement the existing residents as well as professional office and campuses nearby my understanding is the project is meeting all development requirements by agreeing to everything the city has asked in terms of roadway improvements on Ellis Road as you told the extensions in my honest opinion this will greatly improve that area thank you very much thank you and Isaac Woods Isaac Woods is anyone else in the audience that wants to speak to this item if not then we will close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners that we have commissioners wishing to speak we have commissioners wishing to speak Commissioner Goosh just quickly I want to thank you guys for making the changes and working to finalize your utility extension agreement with the city I know those were the primary outstanding issues that we had when it was before us two months ago so I commend your efforts in getting those things resolved and I plan to vote in favor of this whenever a motion comes available okay if this Commissioner Miller I have a question if I may of the developer if you could come to the mic I'd appreciate it it looks like your building envelope line is co-equal with the railway 200 foot right of way line if the railway were to expand in that right of way is there any plan or anything to provide any kind of planning from your property to protect your residents from the potentiality of an expanded railway usage inside that right of way sure I understand your question we have talked about that and of course you know we delve into that when we get into our level four site plan but certainly there is we believe some area some variation where we can provide some sort of buffer for that I don't have a lot of experience with railway rights of way it seems like 200 feet 100 feet is a lot and I don't know what they're playing whether they plan to expand the tracks or usage in there so that was just a concern I had then the last question I have if I may Mr. Chairman is I see that you have a potential crossing point for that creek or stream that runs through there would you carry your roadway over like on a culvert or as a bridge what have you got in mind for that culvert yes culvert thank you that's all I have any other comments questions if not to entertain a motion Commissioner Bryan please don't leave are you planning to have any amenities for the residents of these townhomes yes there will be some sort of amenity it may be a playground area but it certainly will be a developed amenity feature for the residents because you have no commitment on your development plan for any amenities so you can state what you just said at the public hearing but there's no way to enforce it no I mean I would certainly be able to comment that when we get to site plan and see what's actually before you at that time we don't see the site plan right I understand and the pastor said something about a mixture of housing in the area and everything will any affordable housing be part of this development for sale market rate townhomes no affordable housing thank you any more comments Mr. Chairman then I move that we send case A16 quadruple zero three forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation second second by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner Bryan that we send to the elected body with a favorable recommendation all those in favor please raise the right hand all those in opposition in zoning case if I may Mr. Chairman I move that we send case Z16 quadruple zero four forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation and Mr. Medlin before I finish my motion this case does go to the city council with a favorable recommendation all right thank you we send it forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation motion by Miller second by Commissioner Whitley that we send Z16 quadruple zero four forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation all those in favor please raise the right hand all those in opposition okay the next thing on our agenda is the election of chair and vice chair for the next year and according to our bylaws that's done by the planning director or his designee good evening again Steve Medlin with the planning department at this time I'd like to open the four for nominations for the chair I nominate Commissioner Hyman for chair second have a motion to second any other nominations hearing none all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye any opposed but the record reflected was unanimous vote that Ms. Hyman has been elected chair vice chair vice chair now elect vice chair I understand I'm not leaving yet just pick it up my favor at this time I'll open the floor for nominations for vice chair I nominate Mr. Busby for vice chair any further nominations hearing none all those in favor of Mr. Busby please indicate by saying aye any opposed let the record reflect that was unanimous vote of Mr. Busby for vice chair congratulations congratulations to the both of you okay the next item on the agenda is new business and I added the November the 8th how the commission want to address that do we want to move it out a week yeah yeah I'd like Mr. Chair if I may I'd like to hear the staff's recommendation but I would strongly like to not have our meeting on election night especially while the polls are still open but I'm open to when we we move it it is solely the board's decision as to when you want to have the meeting we just need to know well in advance to ensure that we can secure the venue and also make sure that we do all proper notice according to general statute we haven't noticed anything already we have not so at this point we are we're two months out so we have plenty of time to work through the logistics in terms of preference obviously the staff would prefer either a Tuesday or Wednesday night just simply because it doesn't conflict with other boards and commissions that we may be serving that evening whether you want to move it to the Wednesday following the election or the following week certainly or whatever is the discretion of the body Commissioner Miller I was wondering if anybody on the commission had any strenuous objections to proceeding on the 9th which is the closest day to our regular schedule I have in mind that we have continued that one K 60 days with the gracious consent of the developer who wanted 30 and I thought that one day's delay would be more acceptable to them under the circumstances in a full week no problem motion it I just wanted to make sure it was if somebody on the commission really had a strenuous objection that we okay I was just going to ask if it might be possible to move up a week to like the first and similar to your thought process and shorten in the 60 days a little bit I don't know if that works for everyone but so that would be the second that would be the November 1st that doesn't cause any problems from the staff perspective to move it up a week if I may then Mr. Chairman I move that we move our regularly scheduled planning commission meeting from November 8th to November 1st at 5 30 in these chambers if they are available and if they are not available on that day that we instead have a ready alternate for the staff to work with that we move that November 8th meeting to the 9th to these chambers at 5 30 p.m. let me have one motion you did a compound motion and I'm not going to accept that well I just think that since we are not coming back and if the staff can't get the chambers they might like to have two dates to work with one is a primary and one is a secondary so if I may interject Mr. Chair I think it's certainly reasonable for staff to assume that we will be able to find a venue whether it's this room or another venue within city hall or even the county building that would suffice though we may not be able to broadcast if we don't get this venue but we certainly can work to get a proper venue for your meeting on the first under those circumstances Mr. Chairman I withdraw my motion and move that we move our November 8th meeting to November 1st at a venue that the staff finds for us 5 30 p.m. Second. Motion is seconded that we move our November meeting from election night to a week earlier which would be November 1st any additional discussion all in favor please raise the right hand that was an opposition 13 to 1 so we had one no vote right Johnson no vote Mr. Whitley I did not get Mr. Johnson's vote yeah that's no vote so it was 12 12 to 2 okay so the motion carries so is there any other new business whether you have what's coming up next month sadly I don't really have an answer versus the staff going commission of middle Mr. Chairman with Mr. Judge still here and I think perhaps consistent with where Mr. Whitley was going with regard to the case 16 quadruple 0 1 the Creekside Commons case it would be great I would like to know in preparation for that case to know if there are reasonably current traffic counts for Farrington in the area and Ephesus Church Road in the area to have that information whenever you can make it available between now and the first and if you foresee a problem with using that information and evaluating this case tell me what that is so I'll be armed certainly right now the information in the packet is the best information we have available however as you probably noticed it is 2013 data and generally by about this time of year we usually have the 2015 so we're expecting it any day so certainly if we get it between now and the November meeting we'll update those numbers and those figures not only for this case we do that routinely for every case is it never mind thank you very much Susan I do have one additional item for new business and I would like to move to the mic to read a resolution of appreciation for Mr. David Harris Mr. Harris if you will join me please this is a resolution of appreciation of Mr. David Harris whereas Mr. David Harris acted as chair of the Durham Planning Commission from September of 2014 through September of 2016 and whereas the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens and city of Durham and the 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 desires to express its appreciation for the public of a job well done now therefore be it resolved by the Durham Planning Commission one that this commission does hereby express its sincere appreciation for the service rendered by Mr. Harris to the citizens of this community and number two that the clerk of 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 Mr. Harris as a token of the high esteem held for him adopted this 13 day of September 2016 and I would just like to say personally to this individual who has sat next to me I have appreciated all that he has done his guidance his leadership and that we it is a rare opportunity that individuals step forward and give their time to the community it is so much appreciated and at this time I know we'd like to hear from Mr. Harris thank you and the chair will now entertain a motion for Jeremy no actually Mr. Chairman given the date that's been appended to that resolution I move the resolution second it has been moved and properly second that the resolution be adopted by this body and so are we ready for the question let it be known by saying aye all opposed the ayes have it and Mr. Harris we thank you so very much and now I move to adjourn