 We have enough firetrucks going up and down the Barbie Road full siren anyway, we're used to You still John EMT things that go by with full siren I John's a great guy Or what I want to do is I Leave them in this bed good afternoon Welcome everyone to the Durham Planning Commission. It's good to have you here this evening The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the city council and the board of county commissioners were an advisory board to the elected officials You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue that's here before us this evening If you wish to speak on an agenda item, and I've seen many of you already do this We encourage you to please sign up to the table. It's on my left and just pay special attention to make sure you're signing up for The particular item on the agenda that you want to speak on this evening You will be called up to speak when it's time in the public comment period we asked that you state your name and your address clearly into the microphone and We will then be able to let you know exactly how much time you have Each side those speaking in favor and those speaking against are each given 10 minutes per side The time will be divided among all the different individuals who signed up to speak Finally all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties the recommendation is for denial Thank you again for being here this evening Mr. Brain Thank You mr. Chairman as we talked previously I just want to call everybody's attention to the rules of the quorum which are posted on the left side of Doors entering this chamber and in particular rule number 21 Signs such as I see out here tonight are permitted But you cannot block the view of the person behind you by holding up a sign And we're probably a little bit more forgiving than city council But if you do it at council you could be asked to take all signs out Thank you Thank You commissioner Brian and then before we have the roll call I would ask that everyone standing if you could please find a seat in the room That's a fire code standard issue and there are seats up the stairs on my left as well Those are available for the public as well Thank you, maybe we have the roll call please Commissioner I'll Turk here commissioner Johnson president commissioner gauche here mr. Brian Commissioner Satterfield here, mr. Durkin here Mr.. Hyman president chair buzz be here mr. Miller here mr. Kenshin Mr.. Hornbuckle a commissioner hornbuckle has requested an excused absence Noted commissioner van Commissioner Gibbs Commissioner Williams present Thank you very much mr. Chairman. I will move an excused absence for commissioner hornbuckle Properly moved and seconded all those in favor. Please say aye. Aye any opposed Motion passes unanimously We will move to the approval of the minutes and the consistency statement from the july 10th 2018 meeting where there Any comments or will someone be ready to make a motion? I move approval of the minutes and the consistency statements as presented second Moved by commissioner Brian and seconded by commissioner Miller all those in favor. Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously I see commissioner Kenshin is present. It's a party now And we will look to the staff miss Smith for any adjustments to the agenda Good evening grace Smith with the planning department staff has does not have any adjustments to the agenda We would like to know that legal notice has been executed in accordance with state and local law and affidavits for those Are on file in the planning department and staff is here if you have any questions Thank you With no adjustments to the agenda. We will move to our first item Mission or gauche Before we open the hearing for our first item I would like to ask that I be recused my law firm is representing the applicant on that Great. Thank you. And before we have a motion to recuse commissioner gauche This is the first item the comprehensive plan future land use map amendment. This is a 1 8 quadruple 0 4 in addition to commissioner gauche's recusal request I Live I do not live in forest Hills, but I live nearby and for a future land use amendment change request a Notification is sent out to any neighbor who lives within a thousand feet and I have received a notice myself So according to the rules of procedure for the planning commission, I will need to recuse myself as well So we will look for a motion for a recusal of both myself and commissioner gauche Properly moved by commissioner Miller seconded by commissioner brine all those in favor say I any opposed Commissioner gosh and I will leave the chamber and Vice chair Hyman will now take over the proceeding for this particular case Good afternoon, and we will give our commissioners an opportunity to leave the space and we will proceed with the public hearing for item number a one eight zero zero zero four forest Hills I'm ready for the staff report Good evening. I'm Karla Rosenberg with the planning department. I'm here to present plan amendment case a 18 zero zero zero four forest Hills This will be a somewhat brief presentation tonight, but you have a more thorough summary of staff's positions in your staff report For this request the applicant mr. Timothy profeta is proposing to amend approximately 220 acres of the future land use map from medium density residential to various less intensive residential uses based on current zoning designations in In addition he proposes to move approximately 320 acres of land from the urban tier into the suburban tier these changes are intended to preserve past development patterns and existing neighborhood character This is an aerial map showing the position of the subject area with respect to the current and future Transportation corridors the Durham freeway outlined in yellow is located one half mile to the northeast and the proposed Dillard Street stop of The future light rail system out and in green is at point eight miles The current future land use map shows that the downtown development tier shown in white is located one quarter mile away The subject area shown with red and white hashes measures approximately one mile from north to south and one half mile from east to west The area is bisected. I'm sorry Areas bisected by the Forest Hills Park designated as recreation and open space the second largest municipal park in the county Land to the northwest and south of the subject area is designated medium density residential and land to the east is medium High-density residential a small commercial areas located to the northeast transitioning into the downtown design district When the 2005 comprehensive plan established the current development tier system it incorporated Forest Hills into the urban tier and Increase the future land use density of the entire area less the recreation and open space to medium density residential Which is the lowest density designation in that tier So here are some images showing single family home located at the interior of the subject area in his justification statement The applicant suggests that the current land use designation of medium density residential and the current urban tier designation ought to be Abended because they allow for denser development than what was originally designed in the neighborhood and what is currently on the ground The applicant also cites the importance of preserving the neighborhood's sense of place Born from its current very low doesn't low density It's circular roadway layout and its allowance for economic diversity and abundant open space These are some additional photos of the area these show the open space of the Forest Hills Park and Then some photos of the peripheries of the subject area including Kent Street Which makes up the western border of the subject area with large backyards fronting the roadway and some multi-family Development in the southern portion of the site Staff has reviewed the request against four criteria for plan amendments found in the unified development ordinance consistency with adopted plans and policies compatibility with existing or future land use patterns that there be no substantial adverse impact and that the subject area be of Adequate shape and size for the proposed use Starting with consistency with adopted plans and policies We found that the proposed amendment is not consistent with land use policies in the comprehensive plans specifically those regarding the urban tier definition Urban tier development contiguous development and demand for land uses The first policy supports access to urban services and provides opportunities for infill and redevelopment Staff finds that the proposal reduces access to services by reducing density where services and infrastructure are most accessible and that the request reduces in opportunities for infill by placing additional regulatory constraints on new development The next policy states that the land surrounding the downtown and compact neighborhood tiers should be designated as urban tier The subject area is located within one quarter mile of the downtown tier The third policy supports orderly development patterns that take advantage of existing urban services and avoids Non-contiguous scattered development onto the present proposal the subject area becomes an isolated area or island of suburban tier within the urban tier The proposal furthermore reduces overall access to urban services and infrastructure and increases pressures on development growing outward rather than inward Finally the fourth policy evaluates projected need for the requested land use in the future projected demands for residential dwelling units across Durham in 2045 is 192,500 units currently 225,000 dwelling units could be accommodated by the flow 60,000 of which would be located within the urban tier the urban tier currently accommodates only about 28,000 dwelling units showing that it is underutilized in its capacity for development So returning to the four criteria for plan amendments although the proposal may match existing development patterns We found that it does not match future land use patterns which show rapid growth particularly toward the city center We did determine there to be a substantial adverse impact with regard to infrastructure environmental protection and future demand for land uses all of which are detailed in the staff report and Finally staff determines that the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed residential land uses The applicants request additionally includes a tier boundary change moving 320 acres of the current urban tier into the suburban tier There is a set of criteria set forth within the UDO to address tier boundary changes We found that the proposal did not meet the first criterion for tier boundary change Which is that the site be contiguous to the proposed here. These are the criteria for tier changes And so the requests do not meet all of the necessary criteria for plan amendment or tier boundary change and staff is not recommending approval of any portion of this request So I will be happy to take any questions that you have I'll be over with my supervisor and I also have We have the sign-up sheet which I can give to I do have it. Thank you I am ready to open the public hearing. I have a number of people who have Signed up to speak I have 15 people who have signed up to speak for so I'm going to our normal time is 10 minutes per Side so I'm going to need madam chairman. I move that we give every speaker regardless of whether they're for or against two minutes It's been moved and properly second that we give each speaker two minutes To speak so thank you all in favor of this motion. Let it be known by the usual sign of I Opposed thank you, and we will proceed the first individual is Mr. Brian Good evening vice chairman Hyman and members of the planning commission My name is Bill Brian, and I'm an attorney with a morning star law group here in Durham Tonight I am representing a group of neighbors in the forest Hills community called Durham neighbors together Who have filed an application for a flume amendment? For the entire neighborhood. I know this is not an ordinary application for you all The forest Hills is not an ordinary neighborhood, and it presents compelling reasons to change the flume everybody from D&T stand up, please Thank you As planning commissioners you are aware of the planning department's plan to revamp the comprehensive plan in the coming years a need for this is clear What you see here is a development tier map Which is a centerpiece of the current comprehensive plan the map was done primarily Primitively to fit a planning concept based upon a series of concentric circles emitting from downtown what you can see here The idea is that each of the successive circles is a little bit bigger and a little less dance with the last While this might make sense if you're starting with a blank slate in a green field The problem with this approach is that it does not take into account The built environment of the city and in Durham the built environment the existing neighborhoods is very important to the character of our community Forest Hills is one of the first neighborhoods in Durham that was built specifically as a suburban neighborhood However, our current comprehensive plan puts forest Hills in the urban tier You can see here the flume designation that designates the entire neighborhood as medium-density residential This calls for a density of at least six units per acre in as many as 12 units per acre This is what 12 units per acre looks like multi-family multi-story This is what six units per acre density looks like Clot clearly neither is consistent with any part of Forest Hills and Forest Hills is not alone This slide shows a number of historically suburban neighborhoods that are on the current Planning policy should be redeveloped at six to twelve units per acre what you see outlined here I think somebody one on my side will yield me an additional minute. I'm almost done Okay, what you see here Where were we? This slide shows a number of historically suburban neighborhoods that our current policy says should be redeveloped at 612 units per acre Some of them may be your neighborhoods What you see here outlined in purple is the current zoning map for Forest Hills Neighborhood one thing to note is a unique way in which the streets are laid out With somebody designer urban density neighborhood in this manner today. There's no way This is not only one of the unique features which went unaccounted for the 2006 comprehensive plan The main artery coming through Forest Hills is 15501 But it is only two lanes and cannot be widened without tearing down existing homes also There is no transit system in Forest Hills Medium-density residential or six to twelve units per acre simply does not make sense in this area What will we end up if the flume has not changed in patches of very high dent? What we will end up if the flume has not changed is patches of very high density development as some large tracks redevelopment with No adequate transit system a road system to serve them and they will be entirely inconsistent with the existing neighborhood So the flume designation that we've determined that makes sense is To use the existing zoning Our application therefore requests the flume designations of roughly match the existing zoning in the Forest Hills neighborhood It's important to note that our request will support more density and we've listed here on this slide What it does mean and what it doesn't mean But we're what we see here tonight ladies and gentlemen is a group of people who are trying to seize control of the planning Process for their neighborhood and that's a healthy thing Especially in a community like Durham Therefore we request that both that you approve the request and that you do vote tonight We would oppose most strenuously a continuance. Thank you for wrapping up your comments I'm going to call the I want to know the name of the individual to defer the time and then I'm gonna call the next four Individuals to speak Thank you, so Sandy heard I If I butcher some names, I apologize correct it when you get to the the mic the name was is it Silva Sylvan Robarge Am I close? Tom Clayton and George Vaughan That's the four. Okay, Sandy First of all, thank you for hearing us today My name is Sandy heard and I've lived in Forest Hills for 25 years and my husband and I've also had the pleasure of raising four kids in Forest Hills Clearly, we're all aware today that we are not here to talk about the pinecrest development as that's going to be addressed in a subsequent meeting in the near future However, I would like to say that despite the many unsettling moments over these past few months I'm actually really grateful that the pinecrest issue arose when it did because it served as a super powerful wake-up call for me And for a lot of people in this room who realized that we desperately needed to educate ourselves about the flume a Seemingly arbitrary map that actually has the power to irrevocably alter neighborhoods like Forest Hills in the lives of those who live there When we moved here in 1987 and I was returning to North Carolina having grown up here We made a conscious decision to live in Durham specifically because of neighborhoods like Duke Park Trinity Park and Forest Hills We felt thrilled to be in a place where we could lovingly restore an old house Be just minutes away from our jobs and very importantly to us meeting eclectic and diverse group of people Not just from our neighborhood, but from all over Durham in the Forest Hills Park Please know that we are not opposed to growth As a matter of fact many of us who have been here as long as I have actually consider ourselves the early innovators Who laid the groundwork for Durham's current vitality? So how could we be anything other than happy about where we are now? We're so proud of Durham and fully support its continuing trajectory We'd just like to see our city continue to grow in an intentional and not arbitrary fashion And it's such a way that it takes into account the myriad benefits that preserving neighborhoods like Forest Hills has to offer Not only to Forest Hills residents But to all of Durham and we think gaining approval of our flume amendment is critical to making that happen Thank you so much The next speaker and please state your name that I I'm Sylvia and we're bearish and I have lived at 1515 hermitage cart since 2008 and I'm going to talk about a few comments about Forest Hills as a historic area Forest Hills neighborhood is a national historic district Forest Hills principal historic significance is its ensemble of landscape and architecture the neighborhood was designed in 1917 by noted landscape architect Earl summer Draper It was the first subdivision in Durham whose design created parkland along the lowlands and whose streets follow the contours of the hills Rather than a rigid grid pattern First Hills contains varied residential architecture. They're both large and small houses and well preserved period revival and modernist styles Some houses were designed by noted local and national architects others will but were built from plan books or ordered from Sears and Roebuck Forest Hills epitomizes the desire in Durham's strategic plan for thriving and livable neighborhoods Forest Hills is now entering its second century as a neighborhood Please support the flum amendment So the citizens of Forest Hills may have the time to thoughtfully plan for the neighborhood's future via the NPO process Thank you Tom Clayton Thank you, my name is Tom Clayton and I've lived at 1016 Homer Street for 32 years in a vibrant diverse city like Durham our Future land use map as currently configured does not make sense No one with such a variety of interests needs resources and perspectives Would choose to live in home homogenized Concentric circles and indeed we haven't all across Durham folks have developed a patchwork of dwellings and living patterns of every type We all are fortunate that a distinctive feature of our city. It's the number of extraordinarily beautiful and stable neighborhoods close to downtown As an educator, I can appreciate the principle behind the flum as an elegant theoretical Concept, but in reality we humans are wonderfully unique artificially imposing Realization by drastically increasing density throughout the flums urban tier will never work and it shouldn't What the future land use map ought to resemble is a fully realized quilt Thank you. Thank you. I'm Mr. George Vaughan I'm George Vaughan. I live at 1022 Westwood and I've been there for the last 10 years I support the flum amendment and this is why when we learned of the rezoning at Pinecrest We discovered that forest hills was vulnerable to changes that were not in keeping with the neighborhood This is because of the 2005 comprehensive use plan and the flum We had no idea what these documents would allow in our neighborhood We discovered that the flum would allow a density of 6 to 12 dwelling units per acre in our neighborhood There are 21 lots in forest hills that are one or more acres and this totals 31 acres The flum would allow between a hundred and ninety and three hundred and sixty eight houses to be built on these houses Lots some are vacant lots others have existing homes The economics of today's housing market would make it worthwhile to tear down existing homes and rebuild using the much higher density This would destroy our neighborhood tear downs and inappropriate infill There is neighborhood support for maintaining our existing density Recently our neighborhood submitted an application for a neighborhood protective overlay The JCCPC approved it or advanced it on a vote of four to one The density limitations in our NPO are the same density limitations that we are seeking in the flum our NPO application was supported by 64 percent of the members of the Neighborhood and we have signed petitions to support that and we gathered those in under four weeks And I believe this shows a very high level of neighborhood support for our density existing density The flum will likely be revised in the next three years Our amendment will protect our neighborhood while the planning department does their job And I thank you and I ask that you decide in favor of the flum amendment tonight Forest Hills needs protection now Thank you. I'm going to call the next five people Nita ferrity Sue Watson Brent Wolf Lawrence Baxter and Tim Profeta, okay, thank you We're ready. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for hearing us this evening My name is Nita Farahani and I live at 1544 hermitage court with my family. We're a bit of an odd Family to be representing and requesting that you approve the flum amendment tonight because we're one of the families who moved in To hermitage court and had a house deconstructed there. We were Excited by the neighborhood. We loved the character of the neighborhood We love the history of the neighborhood and sought to move into the neighborhood It's a challenging neighborhood to move into because it's such a popular one We found a house that we hoped to renovate and discovered sadly was in such disrepair that it could not be salvaged instead we had a deconstructed over a number of months by Habitat for Humanity and Had a home built there with an architect who's notable to Durham Phil Shostack But who built a very different kind of home than is the kind of home in Forest Hills We built a modern minimalist home That home was built with an architect who recognized and us who recognized the beauty and the unique character of Forest Hills He spent months studying the neighborhood Choosing a setback that was consistent with all of the other homes in the neighborhood Choosing a roof line what was consistent with all of the homes in the neighborhood Choosing white painted brick to echo the history of the neighborhood White stucco to echo the history of the neighborhood that kind of thoughtful Development led to a neighborhood who embraced our change The Durham neighbors together recognized the change to the inevitable some homes may have to be torn down Some homes may change but that kind of thoughtful progress in a neighborhood That has such a deep history is the kind of progress that we all hope to see Homes that can be preserved homes that may need to be changed Architects who recognize the unique character and wish to celebrate it and integrate it into the neighborhood Rather than destroying the neighborhood and installing multi-family homes there instead We were shocked to discover that in the place of our home there could have been six instead Thank you, and we asked that you approve the flama green. Thank you Sue Watson Hello, thanks so much for hearing us And hearing our opinions. I'm Sue Watson, and I've lived in Forest Hills neighborhood for 35 years along with my husband Paul Savry. He's here tonight We had two kids and raised them in Forest Hills and our present house looks out onto the park so we do a lot of Neighborhood watch on the park including litter and chasing off Teenagers that are up to no good. So we're very invested in in keeping our eye on things We've lived in I said we've lived in two different houses, but and we've been on East Forest Hills the whole time We fully support the flum change to match the reality of Durham It's craggy and hilly and crooked and Nothing about Durham is concentric circles. I Also, like many of you in this room have served on other nonprofit boards in this town and the thing that's so great about Durham is that everybody gets a vote and We are so used to letting Everybody talk and give up their opinion and hearing them and taking all stakeholders opinions to heart And I really really do appreciate the planning committee doing that for us So again, we support the flum amendment and thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Is that right? Yes, Brent Wolf. Yes, madam chair. I believe Tanya voice had signed up ahead of me Maybe she's on the list twice if it's all right name is here twice So I marked one out and moved it down to be all right if she went ahead of me. Yes, that is fine I will move her back up to the spot that I moved her from Thanks much, and I apologize apologize for the confusion. My name is Tanya voice and I live at 1014 West Forest Hills Boulevard I've lived in Forest Hills for nearly 10 years and I support the flum amendment This amendment will ensure that Durham remains the special and inviting place. It has become Thanks in no small part to the patchwork of uniquely leafy established neighborhoods close to a vibrant downtown Durham's population is exploding Ironically the city must now balance accommodating this growth with the very reasons for it Tonight, I'd like to focus on the unique and vital natural and recreational resources that Forest Hills provides all of Durham These include its park its green open spaces and perhaps best of all It's mature statues trees people from all over the city flock to the park stroll its streets run in our streets in fact in case of the of Durham's numerous road races and Want to make Durham their home because of neighborhoods and trees and green spaces like the ones in Forest Hills When I tell people where I live people will say I love that neighborhood It's got that big park and all the trees and cool houses I play frisbee there or I take my kids trick-or-treating there or we love to walk our dogs around there So you see we're still doesn't just matter to me. It's special to many people beyond the neighborhood I therefore or urge you to amend the flume so that growth is accomplished in a responsible way that appreciates the unique character of the neighborhood while protecting an important and irreplaceable resource for the city in Other words, please amend the flume to make sure that we keep Durham Durham and don't risk the very things that make Durham The desirable place it has come to be. Thank you so much for your consideration. Thank you and now Brent Wolfe Thank you very much. My name is Brent Wolfe and I live at 1412 Kent Street I live in the Long Meadow neighborhood next to Forest Hills I come in support of the flume amendment for Forest Hills because the neighborhood is an asset for the whole city I People come not just for the park But also to walk and run and bike the streets lined with beautiful homes and mature trees The neighborhood also welcomed city residents for events like Halloween. It's a Halloween celebration various charity runs and road races and of course it has one of the best sledding hills in the city and people come from all over for that Requiring urban tier development could lead to the disappearance of distinctive architectural styles and tree cover Durham needs density in the urban core and affordable housing But it also needs neighborhoods like Forest Hills that are accessible to all city residents Great cities have older neighborhoods like Forest Hills that give them their unique character and tell the story of how the city came to be great I urge you to preserve this part of Durham's unique character and to do it this evening. Thank you Thank you We have mr. Baxter Thank You chair Hyman and thank you commissioners for the opportunity. I'm Lawrence back style of a 10-10 Homer Street Before that I lived in another part of Forest Hills Oak Drive And I want to focus briefly on something that has not actually received a lot of attention except in a tangential remark By the head of the planning department that is the infrastructure We're probably all familiar with University Drive It is a congested road that is often extremely difficult or dangerous to get onto out of either East Forest Hills Or West Forest Hills It is a main artery for the city and it is not yet able to handle the current traffic let alone The future traffic the Durham area transport authority doesn't even run buses on it because of the danger of running such large vehicles When I lived in Oak Drive, I often experienced the situation where there'd been an accident or some other obstruction on University And when that happens the smaller minor streets throughout Forest Hills become very congested because vehicles take their alternative way They they spill out even onto little streets that are not fully paved like Cedar and certainly on to Kent And then at the end of that those roads spill out back onto University So the existing flum After 13 years has not yet seen infrastructure developed to manage the kind of growth that it would allow For that reason I would urge you to consider Supporting a voting in favor of our petition for an amendment to the flum because it doesn't reduce a thing Contrary to what was presented to you at the beginning of this meeting It simply puts in place what we have now and then requires developers until a new Infrastructure is created to demonstrate how they are going to manage that infrastructure Again, I support the petition and would urge you to vote in favor of it. Thank you. Thank you Tim profita Thank you, madam chair and thank you to all commissioners for your time and consideration and for hearing their request today I'm Tim profita. I live at 1014 West Forest Souls Boulevard. I've been there for the last nine and a half years and I wanted to actually circle back Clearly as a signatory for this request to talk about what today's request is not about and it's really not about the pinecrest development at all Others have claimed that we are asking for the flum to be amended to fight the proposal to develop pinecrest. That is wrong Actually, we hope we can anticipate a smart pinecrest development that can be incorporated into our flum amendment This commission is in receipt of the our offer communicate the pinecrest developers regarding their development I think they will acknowledge that we've engaged them in good faith to find a mutually agreeable resolution And in fact three of my neighbors and I were at the pinecrest developers office until past 8 p.m. Last night Trying to work out a resolution. I Also anticipate that some may suggest that last night's last-minute negotiations were to last minute and they need to be given more time First the fact they were last minute seems to have awoken the possibility of a resolution But we at Durham neighbors together have been asking for the same key terms Set number of units and support for this flum amendment since we first met with the pinecrest team in the spring and Second there is nothing to prevent us to continue to negotiate in pursuit of a mutually acceptable plan Even if this flum amendment is granted Now our request today has nothing to do with pinecrest other than that the development woke us up to the flums implications for our beloved neighborhood what today's request is about as my friend before me expressed is Changing the default assumption about our neighborhood's growth to one that respects its character and current development patterns is not arguing May I finish yes, please is not arguing for nothing to change our negotiations with pinecrest verify that But it changes the signal to developers about what we want forest hills to look like in 20 years and The most then the most appropriate means that dig into the details of everyone's passions views and beliefs about our neighborhood's evolution is the detailed neighborhood playing process which we initiated Through the NPO process What we're asking for today is until that exploration can happen Please pass this flum amendment so we can have the time to wisely how this To wisely assess how to evolve This jewel of a neighborhood that is forest Hills. Thank you Oh Christie Ferguson Right, you still have Gave two minutes or we still have one minute Okay, all right. Thank you. So the next individual Tom big part Okay, so Christie No, she's she's she's yielding it to rebel. Oh, okay. Thank you. Okay. I missed that part. Thank you um Ian Ian nightl nightl Okay, and The last well, that's it. Those are all of the individuals that I have who have signed up to speak for So that means I have two individuals then who have reserved their time for rebel two minutes each Okay Now I'd like to call those individuals who have signed up to speak now First of all, have I missed anyone who signed up to speak for and I do not have your name Hi, sir Get this gentleman over here. Yes If to the mic and give me your name Oh, all right. Hello. My name is Josh McCarty I live in Long Meadow and I would like to speak in opposition name and address 1613 living Street, I'm dealing with the individuals who is speaking for For the proposal, I want to speak against there will be time. Yeah, right. Okay, okay, so I Have a list of individuals who have signed up to speak against and I'll give you an opportunity Once again, I'll ask the question have I missed anyone who wanted to speak for the project and at this particular time if I have I will conclude all of the Individuals then based on the signatures that I have and I will move to the list of Individuals who have signed up to speak against. Thank you for my list, please That's all right, I'll call the next four individuals James seman Ken Spaulding George Stansel and Jay McLeod James Yes, James Siemens is first. Thank you My name is James Siemens. I own the property known as pinecrest at 1050 West Fards Hills Boulevard I've not contributed to nor am I a member of the DNT group. I'm not represented by Monic Morningstar law group The proposed flum amendment would prohibit planning development had planned development at pinecrest. I understand the neighbors Supporting the amendment are in discussions with the developer Regarding proposed development of pinecrest. I simply ask that more time be allowed for those discussions to continue. Thank you Thank you Ken Spaulding Good evening, madam chair and members of the planning commission. My name is Ken Spaulding. I represent the applicant for pinecrest Also, I want to say good evening to the forest hill residents that we have been working with so hard over the last year and Appreciate you being here. I think and I hope Now all joking aside, I want to say they have worked extremely hard with us as we have tried to come up with Something as relates to pinecrests that would be do two things number one be consistent with our current Comprehensive plan because when the developer came in to talk about it the planning staff indicated that this is the way you're gonna have to go based on your comprehensive plan we went to the neighbors the neighbors pointed out They didn't know that that type of density was allowed and this was as I think you mentioned last night a wake-up call and So what we have been trying to do over the last few months is to find a way of being consistent with the comprehensive plan and at the same time reducing the density and We had to end up shrinking our actual Had been 12 acres we shrink shrunk it rather to 9.1 acres and we're able to get it to where right frankly We had been at about 57 units when we started And we worked down to 48 and 45 and now we have given our absolute best and that's 38 unit for the development We had been told previously by some residents that 40 40 units or 42 units would have been Acceptable then there's some that that wanted to have a fewer amount and we understand that too This is an ongoing process. We hope We're asking for tonight for there to be a deferral of this for 60 days the reason for that is is that We come on the calendar for for your agenda September the 11th George waves attack We September the 11th we come before the planning Commission anyone resident opposition anyone could move and request that There'll be a 30-day delay by right So that would put us into October So if we were able to have the case here deferred on the flume until October for 60 days, we will be able to be there together. What's the importance of being there together? We very much would like for there not to be a vacuum that you're in or that the residents are in We're each and every resident here tonight would fully understand what we're trying to do Not only how hard we have worked, but where we actually are It is crucial to us that we be good neighbors in Forest Hills and That we be that we represent Forest Hills as it exists today and I have never worked as long as I've been doing this for 30 years in Durham It's hard to try to make sure that we blend together What the new development would be and to make sure that it's consistent compatible and the density is one that is acceptable to the residents and so We look forward to hopefully an opportunity to continue to work with the residents With the group that we met with last night D&T and others to try to be able to have a win-win situation I do want to point out that we did present and Make a proposal for compromise about two three three months ago We did not hear back until I believe it was Wednesday of last week And I talked with the lawyer about it and he explained the reason why we understand that And when he did get they did get back with us my client jumped in his car Came back from Atlanta To be here for a Monday meeting one more of my people And so that we could have that Monday meeting we did meet from five until nine I believe and and We've been making progress and in the process of making progress It's not just for this development But it's for also Forest Hills itself So we're asking for the opportunity to continue to work and to Create a win-win situation and to create something that will be a hallmark for Durham As the residents of Forest Hills have indicated to us we might not be able to get every single person to agree but we want to get the majority or consensus if at all possible and I think as people have seen what we have done the meetings we have held We even recognized that the first meeting that was held quite frankly I felt and so did mr. Stan's L that Forest Hills had not been appropriately respected and we changed the team of how we were going to address it and We addressed it in the way that mr. Stan's y'all and I have done for the last 30 years in Conclusion I would like to say again that I hope we have an opportunity to help create a win-win situation I hope that we will have an opportunity to continue to work together and I look forward to that. Thank you very much Thank you So that was both mr. Stanfield and J. McLeod gave up your time as well Is that correct? Mr. Stanfield Right there, it's J McLeod It's ma'am. Good evening. I had a presentation. Is it or I bring that up? Does anyone know? Floated on here, and that's not it Good evening, my name is Jay McLeod and I'm a professional planner with Stewart where I work with Local governments and residents across the state to craft comprehensive plans and future land use amendments and updates and I wanted to discuss a little bit the The application for the flume amendment first off it is Regressive in two respects it downgrades the tier of development as well as the density if this was commonplace Durham would still be farmland This isn't the way that future land use maps work And it's not I'm sure it's not the way that it was envisioned in 2006 when it was created and adopted by the residents of the community The forest Hills neighborhood If developed if changed the tier and density would create a gap as staff said in the development pattern And it would be in opposition to the adopted future land use policies in the comprehensive plan and lead to leapfrog development Displace growth from the city center and reduce housing opportunities close to the city senator and lead growth away from that area The forest Hills site is indeed urban and location. It's about a 10 or 15 minute walk from here The stated policies in the comprehensive plan to support that would look to encourage infill development And as well as it is within about a 10 minutes walk from, you know, the downtown of a city of almost a quarter million people As a sizable number of the parcels and forest Hills are vacant those are the light pink color as opposed to the purple which are occupied That's almost 10% of the area excluding the park Two homes per acre I think is quite easily arguably not the highest and best use of vacant property this close to the city center And even staff has noted that parcels along Kinstreet or an opportunity for redevelopment And to conclude these are following some additional goals from the comprehensive plan that were adopted That are in opposition to the flume amendment Thank you very much. Thank you I'm going to call the next four individuals April Johnson Connie Siemens decales and Chris woods So April Johnson. Yes. Good evening. My name is April Johnson. I'm the executive director of preservation Durham The forest Hills neighborhood is and pinecrest are valued and important historic places and land use policies and decisions That affect either are important to preservation Durham and our members We have studied the issues toward the property several times and have met with the developers We've we've heard from neighbors who both support and oppose the development on various aspects of it We are pleased that the development plan commits to preserving the historic structures and pays for it with an infill density of less than four units per acre But we have abstained from officially endorsing or opposing the specific plan to give the primary stakeholder space To work with each other on the details We understand that the two sides are getting closer to a decision We are here tonight to speak to a related but larger issue that could derail those negotiations The disconnect between our future land use map and the existing density and forest Hills This is an issue of great concern for us which affects many of our historic inner ring neighborhoods Many of which lack the protections offered by NPO neighborhood protection overlay or a local historic district We support infill development that as density where appropriate but not at the expense of these historic traditional neighborhoods We believe that this is a larger issue that deserves more serious study and public input as part of the comprehensive plan update Our process we now understand is just beginning We asked the Commission to either to we asked the Commission to defer action on the proposed changes to flume This evening a rush to either approve or deny a flume update doesn't solve the larger policy problem And it could under my months of negotiation on the pinecrest project Thank you for your consideration. I'm Connie Siemens and dick hails Good evening. My name is Connie Siemens. I live at 1514 hermitage court. I've been a resident of Forest Hills for 12 years I'm a Siemens family cousin. I'm a supporter of historic preservation and a proponent of smart urban development As you know Durham has been propelled through a decade of rapid revitalization and extraordinary success However, this has not come without serious growing pains including increased suburbanization loss of rural buffers and natural habitats increased traffic issues and immense housing pressure The conference of plan is designed to help us with this growth in a way that protects the viability of our city and Controls suburban sprawl while protecting the quality of life, which has drawn so many to our beloved town As you know, we are also experiencing an extremely extremely limited housing inventory This has spurred gentrification both in middle-class and aspiring middle-class neighborhoods within the urban core and Quake and neighbors of Forest Hills It exacerbates affordable housing for our most vulnerable citizens While I appreciate the intention of the flum amendment to protect the integrity and character of my neighborhood I do not think this is the best way to accomplish that goal I strongly believe that we can put measures in place that can protect the quality of life of Forest Hills residents Along with its historic integrity while also accommodating smart urban infill and carefully planned density These goals do not have to be mutually exclusive Indeed thoughtful development and plan density can not only support the future and character An integrity of our existing housing and life of its residents But also be a leader in improved living conditions and a more vibrant diverse community I do not feel like the proposed flum amendment is the is the best and correct approach to future development or historic preservation I urge you to Not to recommend this proposal but work with Forest Hills and the greater community to revisit the flum its goals and existing conditions Thank you. Thank you Mr. Hales Good evening. My name is Dick Hales Good evening commissioners Could you please state your address? Yes My address is 100 Broward Cliff Road in Durham in the Forest Hills neighborhood. I Appreciate your all-service and to the community in note Commissioners Brian Miller and Gibbs were on the commission. I left the planning staff 14 years ago. So Especially single them out. I Was a 24-year employee of the Durham City County plan department before I was over Greensboro plan director For a returned home. I'm also work as a planning consultant In addition, I recently convened a meeting this past Sunday of some of my immediate neighbors About concerns with each of Angie's map request I live in a part of the neighborhood. I term it Southwest Forest Hills It's a long University Drive and some of the connecting streets The majority of the lots in my neighborhood and just from spot check and I would say 75 percent of them Are less than a quarter acre in size? That means the density of the lots and I consider this a heart heart of Forest Hills, but it's not the larger lots down by the park range from 7,000 to 10,000 square feet quarter acre is 10,000 890 square feet. So the current Nature of our part of the neighborhood is greater than four units per acre Accordingly We oppose the future land use map designation of this area to low density residential Which is less than four units acre. It doesn't fit the developed portion of our neighborhood We do support designation of this area as low medium density residential four to eight units per acre Which does fit the existing character of the area And because of some of the confusion on this and also other lots that I didn't have a chance to look at I would recommend that a proposal be brought back that looks more carefully either with the applicant or the staff at appropriate boundaries to make sure that other properties aren't being pushed out of Floom designation if we're gonna fix this. Let's try and fix it right. Thank you. Appreciate your time Arthur Rogers Ray Williams Andrew Jacobson Good evening, my name is Arthur Rogers I live at 1535 hermitage court in far stills and I've lived in the neighborhood for 23 years. I Agree that the future land use map is not perfect. I also believe that the pinecrest development has merit Therefore, I simply asked that you delay this decision So that both the future land use map change and the pinecrest rezoning can be considered together. Thank you Thank you So Ray Williams and Andrew Jacobson My name is Ray Williams. I live at 1709 Wallis Street and Long Meadow And I fully Understand the concerns of the current future land use map having unintentional consequences on What is successful and built neighborhoods? The way I perceive it is that or what my concern is is The goal is to circumvent Unintentional consequences of of dense development within low density areas and It I would like to see the future land use map addressed holistically equitably through all neighborhoods in Durham I think when we look at it as all neighborhoods together Rather than peeling off certain neighborhoods Will correct what is wrong with the flum More successfully And Andrew Jacobson and Josh McCarthy We're ready for you. Good evening My name is Andrew Jacobson. My family and I lived for about five years at 2304 University Drive I Hate density Actually, it's that I think it's the term density that it is like The word density is often used in a negative context. It's a bugaboo, right? It's equivalent for many adults of Monster-hyden under a child's bed. It's used often equated with clear-cutting ugly building materials inappropriate buildings Increased environmental effects or pollution even reduced safety But I think density is Density much like other terms in housing and development context is a loaded term However density is often only recognized when it's done poorly Densities sensitive to neighborhood characters are achievable using techniques like high quality Construction high quality design retention of green space Matching existing building characteristics to the neighborhood things like that when done properly Higher densities can blend into the neighborhoods and are accepted There already exists within forest hills substantial variations in density. I Support increased housing densities in smart locations adjacent to city services Increased density and diversity in housing types increases efficiency of city services Dense and diverse housing types can mitigate housing choices and challenges And then almost in many environmental issues such as water quality climate change increased density Is environmentally beneficial? Proposed a flume amendment directly challenges the ability to increase the density and diversity in neighborhoods surrounding downtown I've read the staff report and I support its recommendations I think it would be wiser not to carve out an exception for forest hills and Stret and instead address issues of housing density and affordability Holistically through the comprehensive plan process that's forthcoming Thank you Hello again, sorry about before Josh McCarty 1613 Biven Street again So what what gets me worked up enough to try and skip everybody in line is that I'm passionate about Walkable dense mixed-use neighborhoods and packs passionate about good urban design Passionate about a lot of the things people have articulated here They have to do with design more than they have to do with an arbitrary measurement of how how we measure a place All right density, you know they showed some couple a couple pictures in that first presentation Was it six units looks like this 12 units looks like this well 12 units can look like a lot of things You'd be surprised how dense places like a lot of places that people have mentioned is being good places like Parts of Charleston Austin places like that even young not even have to go right in the core of them get further out Density doesn't have to look like like what you're imagining. So that's what I'm passionate about and I get really nervous when I hear when I hear efforts to try to restrict the ability to do development to You know all the great things that folks have been talking about the park all the amenities I Don't I don't want those things to be exclusive I want Durham to have enough space for everybody and part of that means that all the neighborhoods that are urban Have to accommodate that space and so let's talk about this map because I'm a map guy and this map doesn't make any sense to me So this is what I got in the mail and you can see like right here There's downtown right and so so this is this is right now. It's urban and this is going to become suburban Somebody called it regressive. So I've been thinking of it as a past land use map Because if you go back to 1950, this was probably the edge of well, no, it was it was the edge of town Well, that was a long time ago. So the edge of town is moved and then right now this is smack in the middle of Durham, I mean, it's it's not it's it's central. It's close to downtown. So It just doesn't make any sense to me to to create this suburban island right in the middle of the city And then you know, what what does that say? What precedent does that save set for? The other neighborhoods that are inside of this that Decide that they don't want to go by the comprehensive plan. Thanks Thank you. I Spoke to two individuals On Christy Ferguson and Tom Weisloff reserved time to Did I skip you Well, I apologize and I am going to give you Your time at this time my apologies. Thank you very much. My name is Bob Chapman I'm the one who thought it was a good idea to lecture everybody at the first meeting Considering that you all are so highly educated many professors I thought a lecture would be appropriate and I talked about Earl Sermon Draper and I talked about John Nolan Who is the father of the new urbanist movement, which is I'm part of I too with Josh was a sort of astonished by the pictures of density When you have bad design Density makes bad design worse when you have great design. It can make it better When I when the Siemens when James Siemens and Margaret Rich called me and said Because I'd been a long time friend of their family. They wanted some advice. I Went out and recruited the best designer in America Lou Oliver and one of the best builders Bill Clark I think when you look at the actual area The proposal was to build 4.8 units to the acre which is in the low to mid range density That was the 57 number That's 9100 square feet per house 552 of the 1370 eight houses within the radius of Forest Hills, which is 3250 feet Or smaller that's 40% as excuse me the lots are smaller higher density 20% of the blocks in Forest Hills Josh McCarty did a map and showed it to me Or at a higher density than being proposed I think it's very important and I would ask you all to support The comprehensive plan there were over 50 meetings public hearings Whatever they were called various get-togethers To prepare the plan and it makes sense and if we start taking it apart piece by piece Durham will not be able to provide the housing that's necessary and every house that's not built at Forest at Pine Crest Means that another house is going to be displaced somewhere else in Durham. It could be West End or East Durham and In the real estate development business The value of the land is 20% of the sales price of the house every time you cut back a house you increase You have to increase the price of the house to pay for the land If you had more houses and they were beautifully designed after a certain number the land is free So everyone you've cut out Requires the houses to be bigger and more expensive and I don't think that's the right way for us to go. Thank you Thank you. Let me clear something up. Mr. Chapman. I did not have your name on the list Were you speaking Yeah We had two individuals that signed up on the wrong sheets. Oh, okay. Thank you I meant it actually signed up on a different case and we had a thank you that had signed up on a different case Thank you so much Okay, and there is another individual that I have on this second list penny He's not okay Let me double-check to see if Chris woods is here Because I did hear that mr. Woods was no longer here. So you are Okay, so mr. Townsend if you will come forward I will put you on the correct sheet now you are four or Thank you. I think I'm four. Okay. I am We're my against That's what was very confusing today. I'm against the flume so you can you can call how do you want to describe? That would be yeah, sorry about my name's Doug Townsend. I live at 21 oak drive I appreciate the opportunity to quickly get up here and speak to you all tonight I'm first of all very pleased to hear the Durham neighbors together and Phil Clark are talking. I find that great I find it good for all of us at the same time I want all of you know that there are many people our neighborhood don't have an idea what a flume is I Want to speak to the side of I have originally very much against this but the more more I looked at it and looked at what Phil Clark's history is of the responsible development He does I think 13 acres in an urban tier is very unique. It won't happen much around here We have got to focus on quality builders that have plenty of capital behind them and can come in and do cluster development So that we can protect the trees and things that we have in this neighborhood I'm not at all afraid about what Phil Clark will come in here and do in this neighborhood I think he will be a great thing for forest hills I just want all of you all to know that there are very many a lot of us out here that feel very strong Lee that he would do good quality work for our neighborhood and we're very much supporting what he wants to do So, thank you very much. Thank you Now once again, I have completed the list, but I did have one individual to deferred time for rebuttal There were two individuals mr. Metzloff and miss Ferguson who deferred time for a rebuttal Yes, and I'm gonna take that time. Okay, mr. Ryan a little bit of it at least okay There are a couple of points that I think that are that need to be Addressed here that we'd like to say in light of what the comments that have been made first the notion that somehow That there can be no can we really didn't want to talk much about pinecrest And I don't want to talk about pinecrest now But but the reality is is that will I was there last night and we'll be there tomorrow night Or whenever it is we'd get together to meet again. We can continue meeting your vote on this We'll have no impact on that whatsoever and I would encourage you to go ahead and vote and be confident that it is going to have no impact whatsoever on our ability to Have a conversation about this going on About the pinecrest project which will be before you in 60 days or 30 days whenever it is The one thing I would like to point out and except for mr. Chapman who I must admit is Is unique in this regard? Nobody has come forward tonight to support the comprehensive plan as it stands now and there's a reason for that It makes no sense There is there that for this area to be in six to twelve unit first with the official policy Of the city and county of Durham right now is that all? Development and redevelopment in this area has to be a minimum of six units per acre That's what the official policy of the city of Durham is right now That makes no sense. It makes no sense for the city. It makes no sense for the for the for the for for the neighborhood We have moved to try to bring this issue to a head and to move the issue forward and We can talk about how the planning department is going to be addressing this over the next three to five years But we don't have three to five years in the in the given the way the market is moving right now We have plenty of open space There's plenty of spaces that are up for redevelopment and we're very concerned about that We want to be able to move forward now To address this this comprehensive plan future land use map issue and as a result We request that you support that you vote in support of the flow of amendment on the one hand and on the other hand that you vote Putting this off is not going to make it change. It's not gonna help It's not gonna do anything but but drag things out We're here to move forward. We would like to move forward. Is anybody else everything they want to say Not we appreciate your time. Thank you very much Thank you so much, mr. Bryan That completes the list of individuals that I have we have signed up to speak Once again, if there are no other individuals who wish to speak for or against It is time for me to close the public hearing and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions now if our commissioners Would like to ask individual A question of it particular individual then they will have an opportunity to come Forward and then speak to the commissioners Otherwise, no other questions can be entertained after I close the public hearing So I'm going to close the public hearing and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions I'm going to start to my right Okay, I'm going to start with Commissioner Al Turk Followed by Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Brian Okay Thank you vice chair and thanks to everyone here for coming and for the emails and for the input It's a it I think it's a good sign that we're all interested in how neighborhoods grow and how Durham grows It makes me a little anxious, but it because we have to vote on these kind of things, but I it is It is It's a good sign of How things are going in Durham I have just a few questions one for the applicant and then a couple for staff and then a few comments So the question to the applicant we have here in the staff report Some information about the meeting that you had in February. So is that Is that the only meeting that you had the only public meeting that you had and can you Is this the map that you showed at that meeting it is and we we held the public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the UDO at the Episcopal church we had two meetings, okay, and we had about I'd say 50 people maybe okay, but there were no Alternative maps or there was no discussion about you know, what were there any conversations about which? parcels should go in which Category in terms of the flum. I mean was that discussed a proposal that we that we floated at the time as the same proposal We floated today, which is to match the zoning designations to the flum designations. Okay. Thank you I have a question for the transportation folks You know someone mentioned that You know University Drive is really congested. I looked online today It looks like according to ncdot. There's 18,000 Trips a day. Do you know what the capacity is of University Drive and then I have a couple of follow-up questions if that's That's okay We usually have these in staff reports for rezonings, but I think for a plan amendment. We don't so yes bill judge transportation No for plan amendments. We don't typically look at it. So I'm not exactly sure which section of University Drive at 18,000 It was right right by the park I guess Or you know right there. Yeah. Yeah, typically a Yeah, two-lane Road with turn lanes with the left turn lane at major intersections Is a has a capacity of I believe it's 17,700 okay, so it's right above capacity and writer. Okay, and is there anything To preclude. I mean is from an infrastructure perspective. Why are there no buses that go down? I mean aside from whether Go Durham wants to have buses go down there. Is there something about the road itself that Makes buses go down, you know Not a good idea down that road on University yes No, I mean it is business 15501 State has designated it There's number of things that go into transit routing and We're constantly looking and adjusting routes, but yeah, there's no no known prohibition. Okay, so in the future There could be public transit there. There's and then there could be road improvements that would Increase the capacity of the road is or is there something about the again the something about the road that would preclude then Yeah, I'd have to go back and review our Comprehensive transportation plan to see whether or not a Widening would be proposed on university off the top of my head. I don't recall that that it has been As part of that they I guess a termination has been made that that the existing Cross-section other than I think it's probably just got safety improvements bicycle lanes sidewalks. I see but not necessarily a widening to like a Four-lane road. Okay. Thank you So that so I also want if you don't mind Carla. I just have a couple of So the map that we've been shown in our staff report is the Comprehensive this the flum right it is the future land-use map Attachment one. I'm sorry. Are you referring to attachment one? Yes attachment one, right? But there's no there's no zoning designations on that map, right? But when so again, I went online to make to check the zoning designations and most of the lots are zoned RS 20 RS 10 and RS 8. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, and so by by Just an estimate. I think half of the lots are RS 10 RS 8 which allow for Somewhere up to four and maybe more units per acre. Is that correct currently and then a third? I would say our currently zoned RS 20 Which would allow up to two units an acre? Right And so there are only about 20 lots I counted that would allow for apartments and duplexes currently Which are the Ru5 would allow for condos or and duplexes Down in the southern and then the southern portion. That's right where Summit and Roxboro intersect more or less And those and there are already apartments there, right? I mean those have been built I think those were built in 1970s and 80s So so it seems to me well, I guess let me ask you another question So if someone was to tear down a house on a half acre lot and wanted to build Two units or a duplex they would they would not be able to do so under most Under an RS 20 designation, correct They would have to come to us and the city council to get approving for approval for a rezoning That's correct, right? So in almost every for every almost every parcel that we under consideration here If someone wanted to build something a little bit more dense, they would have to come and get approval for a rezoning Right Right, okay, but part of the problem is if they do that they would have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan Which says you have to have at least six units and I think that's where there's some of the frustration But having said that so so there is inconsistency, but having said that That the impetus is still on the developer to Show to us and to prove to us that it makes sense to have something more dense in Forest Hills is that Because they would have to come here and and ask for a rezoning. Okay, so, you know, I I guess I mentioned all of that Just to say that we Again, the impetus is still on the developers to show us that more density is appropriate for this neighborhood I'm just very hesitant to vote in favor of an application that decreases the density of the flum this drastically You know, I think the proposed decrease from six to twelve units an acre To less than two units an acre in most or in a third of Forest Hills and to less than four units an acre in More than half of Forest Hills where it's orange right now Just seems too drastic of a drop to me if the proposal was to to To go from six to twelve to four to eight Which is the medium density Sorry, the low medium density, which is something that Jake mentioned, right? I think that would be a it's that would seem to me like a compromise between The flum which seems maybe a little out of place and the current Zoning designations of RS 20 and RS 10. So You know the flum as the name implies is forward-looking and I think that we should allow for some increased density in this neighborhood as You know Durham grows every neighborhood is going to have to bear some of the burden And I'm not suggesting the six to twelve units makes sense in This neighborhood, but I do not think that less than two units an acre makes sense for a Good portion of it and less than four units an acre You know it makes sense for more than half of it I also just a couple of things about process. I don't see the urgency in this. I I Looked at the county tax records, and I think there have been 16 new developments in Forest Hills since 2005 that's approximately one a year and There are almost all of them are single-family homes that it does not seem to me like there are g's You know these developers coming in and building high density apartments in Forest Hills And that it is threatening than the character of the neighborhood currently as it stands So for me the urgency is not there, and I'm not suggesting that it's not going to change the next 10 to 25 years And I'll just again I think we should proceed cautiously a number of people have said this that rather than focus on density We could focus on design like some people have mentioned like I think Connie and Josh mentioned and this I think can be done through the NPO process I Voted for the Old West NPO not only because of the contents of it, but I think because of the process There were multiple meetings. It was a multi-year process, and there were compromises made I think there is you know people here for it and against this flum, and I think that we need a if we're going to Make a decision about you know a considerable portion and a you know 220 acres and make this drastic cut I think it needs to be a longer process both with planning staff and With you know multiple meetings and and and I think for that reason as it stands right now unless I'm convinced otherwise I'm I'm will probably vote against this. Thank you. Thank you commissioner Johnson Thank You vice-chairwoman so I I'll start by saying that I concur with Almost all of the comments that My colleague here just made but let me start by just thanking everyone for coming out and sharing your thoughts and perspectives on The application that is before us tonight I won't I have a series of questions, but for the sake of allowing my colleagues here to chime in before it when starts falling asleep how I'll make a comment and then and pose a question or two to staff I want to start off by saying that from both the Proponents and opponents of this Application before us tonight. I think it's fair and to my to my colleagues on the commission I think it's fair to say that this is not a conversation about directly about affordable housing I would even be pressed to states to say that this Conversation and discussion that we're having tonight. It's not about workforce housing This is a unique situation about a higher echelon neighborhood in Durham, North Carolina That is looking to either preserve or maintain a quality of life that they have come to value. So there are tangential Implications regarding affordable housing as was stated by one of the commenters that if if someone is looking to put a high a high price house somewhere in Durham and Forest Hill, which is Repository of such houses is not a viable option It's going to go somewhere in Durham and that's going to take a space for a potential affordable housing or Or a workforce housing unit here in Durham So there are implications for what this discussion is about affordable housing, but it's not about affordable housing for this phone change So I'll just pose a question to staff a Number of the commenters tonight noted, you know issues about maintaining the aesthetics You know the feel of the Forest Hill community and neighborhood and so my question to you just for clarity and Correction of based on some assumption that I may have is that Will changing the flam as proposed tonight create any Barriers are restrictions in regards to the aesthetic nature of what could be developed on land Well Rosenberg planning department, so our unified development ordinance provides infill standards for new development Within existing neighborhoods within the urban tier and so those infill standards regarding setback Building size, etc. Would need to be met They don't specifically address materials and such but those could be addressed for Multi-family development in the future. We don't currently have infill standards that address Those factors, but we could develop those in the future We also have other tools such as local historic districts that allow it's an overlay a zoning overlay That could be used also to protect specifically the historic character Thank you, so and just so I can confirm that I heard what you just said, so One thing for the record mr. Johnson. Yes, so we the state Are enabling legislation from the state of North Carolina does not allow us to regulate Aesthetics on single family right now You may or may not have seen in the past a development plan that's come through that may have design standards for such That is totally a voluntary proffer that a developer could make But just run of the mill straight standard UDL language or every day unified development ordinance regulations does not Address aesthetics for single family. Thank you very much. So just Stare you may so just so I'm hearing Confirming that I hear you correctly if we were to vote in favor of this flam request change requests tonight We still could not leave here and ensuring members of the forest Hills community that Stuck oh our roof lines or whatever it is from an aesthetic standpoint Oh, you know what makes it for us heel from beyond the density would be a guaranteed outcome for whatever comes on to a lot that's torn down and rebuilt or an empty lot now So am I hearing you saying that there are other Processes or checkboxes that must be met beyond meeting the flam or complying with that in order to ensure that that is a an outcome in this community So Carla Rosenberg planning department and the flam does not dictate anything about aesthetics if somebody were to Choose to develop something and would need require a zoning change then they could Have a development plan associated with that zoning change and then proffer certain Things regarding aesthetics or building size or anything. There are a lot of Factors that could be addressed in a development plan. Thank you very much. And so am I concluding comment? I will say that one of the concerning Outcomes from this request tonight is the reality that what is being asked for is actually a Reduction in the density for this particular community and what was we're looking at where Durham is going in 2005 No, one I wasn't I was I came to back to Durham in 2012, but back in 2005 I don't think anyone would have foreseen just the rapid growth that's happening In this city across this city And so the reality my my take is that we all no matter what we live in Durham have to be willing to Share and what it means to grow and so the question becomes Where is the give and the take in regards to? the density issue if you're asking the Commission to vote in favor of reducing what could become a part of the Forest Hill community versus and I agree the The flam as it stands could be seen as a little extreme with the 6 to 12 But if you was asking me as a test question where it would be the middle ground It wouldn't be below the starting minimum It would be somewhere in the in the middle and that's something that's concerning to me and with that out See my thank you Commissioner Brian followed by Commissioner Satafee Thank You Madam chair. I also want to thank everybody for coming out tonight and for all your messages In fact, I don't think I have an email folder that's Ever been this full I Have some well one of the things that concerns me is that although I know most of you didn't come down here tonight to even consider pinecrest unfortunately this request for the tear change and the pinecrests thing do seem to be tied together and That bothers me because we've heard your side. I would like to hear their side I've heard a little bit about it, but I haven't heard the full thing I don't know for sure exactly what they might propose what might be on a development plan Etc. Etc. And For me in fairness to the effort that they have put in I would like to hear What they have to say before I would vote on what you've asked for that's just me But there's some other things too I think that The suburban tears that you're asking for May or may not well first of all, I think the boundary that you Have proposed might need to be looked at I heard what mr. Hale said What you're proposing doesn't fit with the part that he lives in We've received emails from a number of people who say we don't we absolutely don't want to be a part of it if they're on the edge of what you could exclude and And one thing that bothered me a little bit is that the letter I got From a law firm representing a property owner saying that the owner don't want to be in this Made me wonder if you if it was approved with somebody turn around and see you but I don't know Another consideration for me is I'm not sure that You're aware perhaps What can be done in the suburban district? I've lived in I live in a suburban tier of Durham and I've seen development go on very close to me If you care to drive down to where NC 54 and Barbie Road intersect and take a look around You can see something about what I'm talking about That's possible in the suburban tier and I don't think some of it the way it's done and where I live Would really do anything good For forest hills, but it would be allowed in the suburban tier and I think that you need to give that some thought In terms of infill Development and residential developments I've looked at My copy of the UDO and for both the suburban tier and the urban tier the infill standards Really applied to multifamily development on a site that's less than four acres If somebody puts together a piece of Property that's more than four acres and presumably these standards, you know, they're out the window and The second paragraph under both suburban and urban is that You can make neighborhood specific modifications to add further protection through the NPO and quite frankly I think the NPO is Really the best way to go in this case Now I also agree with Commissioner out Tert I'm not sure that I See the urgency of this matter either I Don't really want to Vote tonight because if you really want me to vote tonight, I would also probably vote no I would rather defer this now I know that a lot of you don't want to think about having it deferred But it is part of the process The last time as a private citizen, I was involved in A Development the development process. I think all told I made seven trips down the city hall before we finally got the matter resolved So if you're really keen on what you're doing You may have to accept the fact that you'll be here a few more times not necessarily before us all the time But also before council and then I Think there's a larger issue here as well as Mr. Bryant showed in one of his slides There are a number of neighborhoods like Forest Hills in the sense that They're really suburban in the way that primarily suburban in the way that's been developed, but they're in the urban tier What do we do about them? I mean it looks like when we started drawing circles on maps, you know these neighborhoods got included in those circles but Did we really mean to say that? Ultimately these neighborhoods are going to be urban densities And I would like to say I don't think we did but to be honest about it I don't think we gave the matter that much thought and I think what's lacking To support the flume in this instance is that we don't have policy in the plan And if we don't have policy in the plan, we may not have much in the UDO We just don't have the policies to tell us what to do So I would also encourage you to think about potential policy changes That might be made to help protect neighborhoods that are in this situation and I think that's about all I want to say right now, but When the appropriate time comes I will be If asked to make a motion to defer Commissioner Santa-Field Thank you vice-chair Hyman and thanks everybody for coming out and taking the time to speak on this issue Which you're very passionate about as you should be Though the pinecrest question has prompted the flume amendment request to me I see them as really two different issues and so I Would probably not be in favor of a deferral because I think this sort of the issue really is applicable to a lot of neighborhoods in Durham that aren't looking at a pinecrest potential development But to protect natural resources and for other reasons I Believe we need to encourage and fill in higher density development where we have the infrastructure and services to support that I also believe that it's important to preserve the unique character of our historic neighborhoods But in balance, I don't believe that a flume amendment is the best solution at this time I really believe that a neighborhood protection overlay or a local historic district is much better tool For doing those kinds of things. I realize that the forest Hills neighborhood is in a national registry historic district But that does not provide the kinds of protections that the neighbors or have expressed that they're concerned about most tonight I heard that the neighborhood protection overlay district is being explored But I wasn't clear as to whether The alternative approach that's mentioned in the staff report the local historic district designation is Being explored and so that was my question to staff As to whether that was also on the table as a potential strategy so Carl Rosenberg planning department We have received a neighborhood protection overlay application, but we have not received any request of petition for a local historic district Thank you And I think that's all I had to say and ask Thank you commissioner Durkin I think my thoughts have been expressed by my fellow commissioner so far I would agree that if asked I would defer the Decision and if asked not to defer I would vote no Thank you I'm going to start on my left Any other commissioners would like to speak I'll start with commissioner Miller then commissioner Gibbs anybody else, okay? And then commissioner in our kitchen So I'm going to go very briefly and I want to use the time I've got actually to talk to my fellow commission members But I want to talk to you folks first try very hard to respond to everybody that sends me a letter or an email I didn't get to you all this time And I apologize if you wrote to me in the last couple of days I tried to go back and forth and and read everything and and respond and I hope I responded to a lot of you But I don't think my position on this is a mystery. I am for you There is a problem here that's got to be fixed I am also very interested in seeing the appropriate development of the pinecrest property And so I like what the developer has shown and so far. I'm for The Clark proposal too. I Want to be able to solve both problems and I don't think voting tonight on the flum thing Is the way to go to get both of the things I want and so And I've said that to you in emails Over the last few days, so I want to now talk to my fellow commission members and say that I agree with mr. Brian That our comprehensive plan is a mess It's an ass and here's why it doesn't make sense And but I think it doesn't make sense on a lot of levels first of all If you read our zoning code and don't look at the maps you see that we have a tier system Increasing of decreasing density from downtown it makes sense and we then if you read our UDO we have Created zones zones with our I mean zones with With a you in them those are the urban tier zones and zones with an S in them those are the suburban tier zones and so that makes sense to we've got these concentric circles and In an abstract sense it all makes a lot of sense and you read the comprehensive plan And it's got provisions for the urban tier and a vision for the suburban tier And then you look at what we put on the map and we did it at the exact same time that we adopted the Comprehensive plan and the UDO. We did it all at one time. We created a system that has a certain somebody said elegant Sort of beauty to it and then we immediately ignored it and we didn't explain why we put neighborhoods that are developed as Suburbia in the urban tier and we zoned them suburban even though they are in the urban tier I Think there are good reasons to do that But we didn't say why and not by not saying why we set our policies against each other I've been calling it a policy dense dissonance that has to be resolved We cannot finish the business that you folks have begun without a resolution now whether it is a Tier amendment or a flume amendment. That's one way to go the staff. It obviously disturbs the staff They don't like the island. I have to say I don't like the island either But I understand that you didn't want to speak for anybody except for you forest Hills. I get that And so connecting the island to the other tier might have been an overreach Beyond your your writ and beyond your ability to pull off. I get that I Want to fix this and there are lots of ways to do it a point out to you It's not we've been calling this a flume amendment. This is way more than that It's a tier change amendment to and why do we have to change the tier? Because you can't just change the map there is a table in the Comprehensive plan That sets the minimum density for the urban tier at six units an acre and allows it to go up from there That's six units an acre is Unsatisfactory to you when you discovered it was unsatisfactory to mr. Clark when he discovered it because it wasn't the pinecrest Crest development that he had in mind when he started Drawing plans on a map And he has done everything he can in order to game These rules in order to get the number of units down to something that you can accept you're very close I applaud you for the meetings. I believe you're going to get there. So I want to see you in the next 30 days 60 days have a long it takes however long you're willing to give it to reach that agreement and come up with something For that gets the pinecrest rezoning done these are two issues that should be separate, but aren't separate You can come and say we care about the future of forest hills Well, so does mr. Clark, but he cares about the future of his pinecrest project So it may be a separate issue to you, but it is a it is a fully engaged Pig bacon Sort of issue with mr. Clark, and so it can be you know, the the chicken is involved with the egg But the pig is committed to the bacon And so I would like to see you settle your deal with with mr. Clark and then bring this whole issue about The comprehensive plan not the flume that's too small a concept Comprehensive plan in your neighborhood and my neighborhood in Watts Hill and Dale and the neighborhood next door at Long Meadow and Moorhead Hill and Duke Park and Trinity Park all the neighborhoods that are in the urban tier that are zoned with our suburban zones We've got to have clear policies in our comprehensive plan That's that create the the quilt that mr. Clayton talked about because it's not a blank sheet It's not we're not starting from scratch We have a built environment that is dear to us and defines the Durham that we know we have to be able to protect it Our comprehensive plan falls way short of that. It is a mess I urge you all to look at the comprehensive plan for Winston Salem It talks about all the issues we say we care about in our comprehensive plan But then it goes on to talk about how we do not have to sacrifice one thing in order to obtain another We can have both we can thread needles if we have to and they have a whole chapter chapter on neighborhood preservation I've heard people talk tonight about how the real solution here is an NPO or a local historic district Well, those would be great and when you bring your NPO to us you'll have my full attention but it doesn't solve the problem of the comprehensive plan and Suburban neighborhoods in the urban tier. It doesn't fix it And if all we do is put an NPO on this and not fix the other thing then we have failed We have failed in our duty here. You have failed in your duty out there as citizens because you are now all deputies in the planning process no and And Durham plans best when its citizens engage in a knowing and meaningful way and that's what's happened here This is the big plus in this because we have now have people who have crossed the threshold in terms of commitment so let's Commission members join me in deferring this for 60 days let these neighbors make their peace with mr. Clark mr. Clark It isn't interested in six units an acre. He's actually on their side. They just have to resolve their case Let's all come in together And then deal with this issue straightforward whether we change the flume whether we change the tier boundaries or whether or not we write Pro neighborhood policies that explain what we meant when we said a neighborhood that we zoned at two units an acre Should be zoned for six units an acre. We haven't resolved that I Agree, I don't think that we meant that that neighbor that urban tier suburban neighborhoods should go away But we without explaining what we meant when we did that that's the implication that we have created And it worries me because that's not that means that every time somebody Wants to do a rezoning in your neighborhood They have to come in at a density that's going to be unacceptable to you The cat fight will never stop the fur will fly for years Why do that if we believe that forest Hills and Watts Hill and Dale and Moorhead Hill and all the other neighborhoods similarly situated are worth Preserving and worth keeping because they're on the ground and they're functioning and they contribute to the fact fabric of our community Well, then let's create policies and our comprehensive plans that says this is what we're going to do with these neighborhoods We can do that we're that smart if they did it in Winston Salem. We can do it in Durham So let's vote to give this 60 days and come back Get get the rezoning done and get this thing fixed get this big issue fixed and still talk about local historic districts And still talk about MPM Thank you commissioner Miller commissioner Gibbs and then commissioner kitchen Well, I'm certainly not gonna follow up with any recipes on how to cook a chicken and At any rate there have been some really good comments tonight and I Love forest Hills I Know the the the developers and the early designers there and I'm not bragging about my age, but I Am glad to be talking about it, but I I do go along with Putting this off for for 60 days There is this overarching concern And I think it does need to be addressed more broadly with the flum and comprehensive plan When they drew the concentric circles, that was you know, that's a quick way of looking at things I'm sure when it was drawn There were things that could not be settled at that time and And and and you were reminded earlier about you you may not want to come back and other To maybe three times But part of the process in In in making headway in making our flum More applicable Fairer easier to understand and work with Is gonna is part of the process and it's going to take some time Well Every I agree with Just about every comment that was made My colleagues up on the the dies here I may have disagreed with the thing or two in the same thing with you folks But we do have even though it's not an agendized Subject We can't overlook the elephant in the room, which is pinecrest and it cannot be settled until This is If it were to be approved which I Would just have to wait and see how the votes go Then that eliminates pinecrest in its present Proposal and it is a great plan if y'all haven't seen it. I do hope it it becomes public somehow because and But at any rate I would I would I Do think that a 60-day deferral Would really help communication. It would certainly help me to understand more about how this thing can be done And there is no hurry. Nobody is going to overrun forest hills You can't build anything on either of the parks. It's in a flood zone Nobody's gonna build a whole bunch of I Don't think there's anybody here that's gonna sell their property get together and sell their property so that some kind of gigantic Development can be done that means they're gonna have to fix the roads all the way down That's not gonna happen. And I'm gonna stop with all these details because it's I Just would like to have more time and I think we all need more time to negotiate to Come to some conclusions Because I I agree with Commissioner Miller There is a solution and and we're almost there But anyway, thank you. Thank you Commissioner Gibbs Commissioner kitchen Commissioner Williams Yes First and foremost, let me say thank you for coming out I read every single email both for and against and I am a lifer in Durham grew up off of Barbie Road Forest Hills has always been one of my favorite neighborhoods that and Hope Valley and I hear you I Hear you loud and clear. I hear what you're trying to protect Understand why I am I'm a fan of architecture, but it's not about Aesthetics, it's about in the fall when the leaves change being able to drive down University Drive and To walk outside of your house and see the leaves change and what that looks like and having that change I'm also a student of Durham. I Took the opportunity to learn about mr. Spaulding and his history in Durham and also Miss Seaman the departed and who she was and what she meant and to know that her neighbor is one of the Dukes and one of the founding members of Duke University and that history is not to be compromised on Any platform at any weight and I understand growth in Durham is happening. I get it But at what cost? Durham has not seen growth before like this That hasn't happened Unfortunately, many of us were not alive when it happened, but it did happen before and Then the downturn hit and then we were stuck with houses Then nobody lived in and now we're revamping them and now we're talking about gentrification My mind is made up on this issue whether we vote now or whether we vote in 60 days But understand Forest Hills. I hear you These these are my comments. I hear you. I do think that a compromise from coming down from Possibly 60 to 50 to 40 and now 35 to 38 That's huge for any developer to be willing to do that It takes a lot of consideration into terms of how you guys feel The respect that you have for your neighborhood and what you're unwilling to compromise on I think that that is a Substantial starting point and I think it it takes some consideration. I think that looking at it being willing to understand that Forest Hills will remain Forest Hills At least for what is being proposed right now and I understand the need to come in and to say Well, we don't want six to twelve homes on an acre. I don't I don't want six to twelve homes on an acre Where I live and I live right off of highway 55 So I couldn't imagine what that would be like, but at the same time I think that you have to be willing to bend not for the sake of The fact that Durham is growing but for the sake of a developer that's willing to put in the work and From the standpoint of someone who designs homes for a living that is impeccable You can't you won't find that anywhere else You won't find another developer that's gonna come in that's willing to take this much time to hear you and be willing to compromise You might But who knows I don't think that some people will be willing to bend And I think that if it comes down to a vote of whether or not it takes more time And you're willing to go to the mat and I think it should be considered. I think it's worth the wait But I definitely understand and I applaud you for your efforts because this is not easy. This is not easy by far This is a very time-consuming process and there's a lot of you all who are invested and who are here It's not like it's five or six people There's a lot That's here And I think that if you've come this far then I think you could go a little bit further And we can find the compromise and I think that we can fix it I think that if you come to us with more than if we have to consider an NPO If we have to consider tier changes, whatever it takes, I'm about Durham. I'm not about a neighborhood I'm not about a developer. I'm about Durham the Durham I grew up in the Durham that brought people here people didn't move to Durham because houses were $450,000 they moved to Durham because of what the characteristics are and I think that we have to preserve that and Preserving Trinity and preserving Forest Hills and the characteristics of what takes it and understanding who mr. Spaulding is understanding who The department seaman is is a part of what Durham is and I think that you guys are on the right track I just think that it's going to take a little bit more time It's going to take a little bit more effort and if you guys are willing to do that and to keep going and not just Depart what what you've done. I think that you you'll get there You've got some good people on your side and there's a lot of character in those emails So those are my statements Thank you commissioner Williams, let me double-check to make sure there are Other commissioners who would like to speak Commissioner Johnston. Thanks your woman. Just a follow-up to comments made by commissioner Miller And you're urging and encouraging the members of the commission to vote for a Continuance Are there what is it that? Are you assuming are you hoping or is there something that you perceive that will be seen differently in regards to this particular? Request in 30 or 60 days that could potentially Change the conversation somewhat or in in your acts What what will we be seeing different in regards to this as we consider the pinecrest that could be Something that could influence how we're thinking today whether for or against So, thank you for the question. What I see we can do with the time we may not we may fail But I don't think we will I see The pinecrest neighbors and the pinecrest developer Working out their vision and coming together on a vision for the pinecrest property That then will if they do that for that to be meaningful there will have to be an adjustment somehow to the current Tier boundary change and flume request change So that's one change that will have to occur in order to accommodate whatever agreement that's made It's also time to consider some of the other issues that came up with the flume change But the main thing it does is it turns the developer from somebody who has to argue against his neighbors In order to preserve his ability and his vision for the pinecrest property It takes him out as a an opponent to the flume request And then we can talk about the flume on its merits without having to worry or without having Participants not necessarily on the commission, but in the audience of what the flume requests implications are for a particular development project I would love to write. We've talked about this as being two separate issues. It's not I can assure you to mr. Clark They these issues are deeply intertwined If we can take his anxiety away so that he becomes a forest Hills neighbor and not a pinecrest developer Then I think we can we can narrow down and drill down on these comprehensive plan suburban tier neighborhood issues And talk about ways to fix it. It also I hope will give our staff an opportunity to begin a Conversation to talk about the shortcomings of the comprehensive plan in this area and to propose to us perhaps other ways to go If we get to a place where we protect Neighborhoods in the urban tier. I don't care how we do it whether it's a A change of lines on a map or whether it's new text in the comprehensive plan. I'm interested But right now, but I will say this that I'm not going to rest until we do make those changes I think it's bad policy to have no policy And I will reject any attempt to have a policy that says because we have a minimum density figure of six Traditional historic neighborhoods in the urban tier must in time go away Because they do not represent our vision for the future I see our historic traditional neighborhoods in the urban tier as part of our future follow-up Thank you I feel this is important because we may have the cart for the horse here is we are urging for a continuance But we've heard from the presenters of the Request tonight that they would not like that as a option going forward. So my question to Mr. Brian one is it's a Multi-part question one is what would be your response to that? Secondly, you were you noted that an NPO application has been submitted and what is Acts as a flam in this tonight is what's in the NPO? So how does that impact what you're a West being acts and let me take the second question first because I think y'all Need to understand the NPO process a little bit better The staff hates it and the staff has tried to fight us on the NPO all the way down the line And if you look at your staff report The NPO wasn't one of the options the staff suggested It was our efforts before the joint city county planning committee that caused the JCCPC to prioritize Mm-hmm our NPO Otherwise the staff would have buried it and we wouldn't have had an NPO for the next two three years and as it stands We probably won't get into the 2019-2020 budget for the NPO process anyway. So our NPO Process is probably two years out It's going to take that long Especially if we have to with due respect to the staff who I work with all the time and I like Very much, but the reality is is that they despise it and they are fighting us at every single step of the way So the NPO isn't going to happen anytime Reasonably soon to dissolve this problem in the meantime There are many sites That are right for redevelopment The utmost obvious one is the old Peterson house Which can be torn down and turned into many many many lots it's and so That this is this is a problem which exists throughout forest hills and if the policy of the city is to Demand a minimum of six units per acre. It is a serious problem And it is an imminent problem given the heat in the market right now. You're right if the market collapses tomorrow then Nobody will want to build anything so it won't be a problem So with regard to your NPO that that's the answer to that question with regard to the the request for deferral We have heard what you've said and your desire to have us have this discussion in a context where everything is still pending rather than something has moved on and And my instructions have have changed and we are not we do not oppose deferral for 60 days So if you all choose defer, we will we will accept that except we have no choice but to accept it But we would be we would support that if that's what y'all want to do We're anxious to try to deal with plant crest as well and try to get it to a place where everybody can learn to live with it And God knows we've spent a lot of time talking about it with folks and a lot of a lot of shouting has gone on But that's part of the the deal But I would like to pick up on what mr. Miller said it's it's extremely this this I Was maybe some some of you were here in 2005 along with me and I remember when they did this I was on one of the I was back here back in the 90s when we did the 2020 plan and I was on one of the subgroups that worked on the 2020 plan and You know in 2005 nobody paid any attention to the comprehensive plan because the comprehensive plan was a very theoretical document It wasn't hooked into the zoning ordinance in any meaningful way. Nobody had to make any consistency statements or anything like that And it was it was a very gross thing nobody Participated in any of them. We even knew that there were hearings going on nobody even knew there were meetings going on and you know, we had a very What I would call very elementary process that we went through the 2020 plan was all about Compact neighborhoods for to build that we built for to try to encourage development where I'm places where trains were gonna come But never came And the you know, and then this plan was all about trying to revitalize the urban core in this very crude way By drawing circles around it and saying that's the way it's gonna be It's it's not the way to plan a city like Durham. Durham is a quilt. It is a patchwork We need multiple urban cores. We need multiple suburban cores. We don't think it's you can't this is not Kansas Or we're just gonna start off in the middle of downtown and then we're gonna build it straight out from the edge And so it is it is essential that we address this we tried to address it by Hooking the existing hooking the the land use plan to the existing zoning of the tracks that were there It doesn't prevent anybody from coming in and rezoning it doesn't prevent anybody and you know this you see this all the time Doesn't prevent anybody from coming in and doing a comprehensive plan amendment To change it to a different tier, but this this almost rigid this rigid Almost religiosity about the plan that somehow we can't we can't change the we can't create an island. Why not? Durham is full of islands. They talk about the distance between Forest Hills and downtown That's true except there's a major river that runs through the middle of downtown Separating Forest Hills from downtown called 147 It's not like you just walk on over to downtown from Forest Hills and these these major Impediments are things that that need to be taken into account in terms of planning that needs to be planned on a Neighborhood by neighborhood area by area basis If if getting us together so that we can work things out pinecrest Hopefully will will will will bring us to a point where we can do make meaningful changes For Forest Hills in the future to help protect that neighborhood. We're willing to take a 60-day deferral Does I hope that answers your question, sir? Thank you vice chairwoman and with that Commissioner Johnson commissioner Brian, did you also have I just wanted well first of all, it's been a long time since I've run into somebody who worked on the 2020 plan I just wanted to make a comment about the MPO and I'm sure that staff is not gonna like hearing me say that but You guys need to keep the pressure on Start with a joint city county planning committee and keep the pressure on the last MPO that we Actually considered on this commission To me one of the shortcomings is that the application had been filed at one time with a lot of signatures on it But by the time they started working on it about half of the people were no longer part of that neighborhood so Keep the pressure on Thank you There are no other comments. I'd like to make just one brief comment I'd just like to thank all of you for your participation and for your very thoughtful participation in this process and your professional decorum around this very passionate issue It is my task at this time to call for a motion Madam chair if I may Move that we reopen the public hearing that you previously closed and that we continue it for For two cycles or until the commission's meeting in the second Tuesday of October second It has been moved improperly second. Are you ready for the question because I did see yeah Yes, we have a discussion on that or can I because I wanted to ask the applicant a question and then or did Have I lost my chance to do that? It's okay if I have I'll ask him. Well, if there's some unreadiness as far as your Yes, there is some Unreadiness then I'm going to Request that you if you are going to continue the item that you continue to a date certain Not just two cycles or 60 days and I did continue it to the commission's meeting in October on the second Tuesday That's a date sir tonight. I just wanted to make sure we got that on the record It's October 9th. I didn't hear that. So excuse me. I apologize Staff well, let me ask another question at this time since I have some unreadiness for the vote Do I need to have the motion withdrawn to start again? I do have some unreadiness on the part of one of our commissioners No, he can he can ask his question if if if mr. Miller No, okay About my unreadiness keep it short. Okay. I'll keep it very short. So the last thing that you said mr. Bryan is that You know you you want the deferral if it means that you want you can negotiate with the pinecrest developers It sounds to me and it sounds to me like from other discussions that I've had from with others is that it is about getting them to agree to certain number of units and then other things Do you envision the next two months that you were going to? Revisit the application itself your application or is it just that you want to come up with some settlement? Well the pinecrest developers? Yeah, no, I actually We we What we what I've what we've heard is that you want us to come together and you want us to take 60 days to talk to the Pinecrest developers That's what I've heard the board say that's not well That's what other people the board have said now with regard to your question I think it's a the The answers yes, I mean there's no if if if what if to make this a more palatable and more effective Planning tool What we need to do is Address some of the areas around the edges or otherwise, you know increase You know the the density to four An acre whatever that you know to the medium density residential or whatever the case may be in certain areas We you have to understand when we started this process We did so With with the intent of not violating anybody's existing rights anybody's existing land use expectations So we didn't go in and say well down here by the park We think it ought to be denser and and see without you know and like try to engage in a long Discussion and then try to up increase people's density down there or to deal with other things So everything that we've done matches the existing zoning some of them some of what's built may not match the existing zoning But what we did was we tried to create status quo in order to create to to recognize the status quo in order to create a The a policy impetus in that would require developers to To come in and explain why they should go against the status quo rather than a policy of this that Suggests and in fact encourages redevelopment at force at 612 units for acre if you see what I'm saying, which is what we have now and to us which makes no sense so given Given that situation if if other people would like to come in and say we would prefer our neighborhood to be something different than What it's zoned as We wouldn't have a problem listening to that and would be willing to consider that. I believe I think that's a fair statement Okay, so we're wide open for that type of discussion. Thank you now. I'm ready. All right. Thank you We do have a motion by commissioner Miller and it was seconded by commissioner Brian that we Have a 60-day continuance with a specified date, which is October 9 October 9 We'll have a roll call vote, please Commissioner I'll Turk. Yes, commissioner Johnson. Yes Commissioner Brian. Yes Commissioner Satterfield. No Commissioner Durkin. Yes, mr. Hyman. Yes, mr. Miller. Yes Commissioner kinship. Yes Commissioner van yes Commissioner Gibbs Commissioner Williams. Yes Ocean carries 10 to 1 Thank you I'm going to ask that we take a two-minute recess to allow Individuals who were here for this issue to clear the room. Thank you so much Thank you, we're gonna return to order if you are Planning to stay, please get a seat if you are not planning to stay if you could take your conversations into the lobby that would be appreciated And I do want to thank vice chair Hyman for facilitating the last agenda item We are moving on and our next item is case Z1 7 triple zero three four This is the Carrington Woods proposal and We will start with the staff report And let me say actually before we start the staff report just to remind people I know some of you were in the hallway earlier because the room was full if you are Interested in signing up to speak on any of our remaining items this evening Please come to the table to my left and put your name down You can mark if you are for or against the specific proposal that is in front of us this evening. Thank you Mr. Wiggins Thank You chair possibly Jacob Wiggins with the planning department as you all may recall The commission heard this case on June 12th, 2018 So I'll be somewhat brief in my presentation as there's been no modifications to the request since that time So just as a reminder, this is a request in the city's jurisdiction. This is for an approximate eight and a half acre site The current zoning is residential suburban 20 and the applicant is requesting residential suburban 10 And the proposal does not accompany or is not a company with a development plan So any single family residential use is permissible in the RS 10 district would be allowed here The case area is highlighted in red the property is located at 833 Clayton Road Sumerial photos these are also in your staff reports the top left corner is in a view of the site itself And the three other photos are from the surrounding neighborhoods that connect to this property The zoning context map as I noted this property is on the RS 20 as you can see on the left-hand side And they are proposing the RS 10 district See on the right-hand side that would match the adjacent properties surrounding this site The current future land use map Recon notes that this site is designated as low-density residential the RS 10 district fits within that those parameters and The low-density residential category is the predominant use in this area Some RS 10 standards lot lot area minimum of 10,000 square feet obviously the Lot width of 75 feet Street yards 25 feet side yards 12 single 24 total and your rear yard is 25 feet in this district Comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request You see there are two key policies and the future land use map the request was found to be consistent with these three items And overall staff determined that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan I'm clickable policies and ordinances. I'll be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have at this time. Thank you Thank you very much this point we will open the public hearing and we have One individual signed up in favor for the proposal and three individuals signed up against we will start With the proponent. This is Ms. Penny Sadako Sadako, I'm sorry. I got this wrong last time as well. Hello. Yes, sir. There's a little misspelling there. It's actually saccadolo Great. Okay. My name is Penny saccadolo 9 2 2 0 Fairbanks Drive in Raleigh, North Carolina And yes, we did discuss this a couple of months ago at your meeting in June And since then we had a meeting with the neighbors at a location that they chose Which was at the library on highway 98 and we sent out letters to the same Addresses that the city sent out the original zoning request. There were 22 people in attendance at the meeting I think we had a healthy discussion. I can't say that I came away with any absolute concurrent Conclusion to that meeting it ranged from some people understood that the Reason we wanted to go for the rezoning was because when we when that when the client purchases property I traveled out there with them and we toured the surrounding neighborhoods we saw these street stubs into this property we saw the surrounding neighborhood and We thought it would be nice to match the existing neighborhood and to do that We needed to rezone it from RS 20 to RS 10 which gives us the same criteria that the existing neighbors are under We also Acknowledged that the three stubs to our property would give us sufficient traffic Access and so that's what we're proposing. I think this staff Will require us to make the connection to the three stubs on the east west and south of our property and so Although some people Understood in that discussion that matching the existing neighborhood is a reasonable request There were still some people there who are concerned about traffic and there were some people there that I dare say would like to see it Not be developed at all And so that's an honest opinion from from some of the neighbors. I will Respectfully request that you do approve this it is in keeping with all of the comprehensive plan It's in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood it Absolutely matches the current zoning that we're adjacent to and we would like to have an Affirmative vote from this council tonight I'll reserve any time I have left and see if there's any other comments from the people who were in attendance Thank you. Thank you and The three individuals who signed up to speak against Quincy Ratcliffe Ponce Mercer and Natalia Russell and if the three of you don't mind coming up You can come up to the microphone And if you can state your name and your address and then collectively the three of you just like the proponents You'll have 10 minutes collectively to share your thoughts. Thanks for joining us Good evening. My name is Quincy Ratcliffe. Thank you all for the opportunity to speak tonight I live on 32 19 with the M Park Road at the one of the corners where the main entrance of Carrington Woods is going to be Tonight we had three of the neighborhoods Here but due to the length of the last meeting some of the neighbors had to leave and It was Twin Lakes, no wood and metal crest My concern is not I'm not totally against it my concern is the length of traffic in the density of the homes that's going to be built in that area and Due to the traffic that we have for that section I don't think it has been totally observed There hasn't been All of our neighbors were not notified about the meeting that was has taken the meetings that have taken place So a couple of us of us within the neighborhoods have gone out and tried to notify neighbors about this development so We can come some of us can come on and speak because I was unable to attend all the other meetings But I did watch the initial meeting from that took place here Thank you. Thank you Good evening My name is Natalia Russell and I live at 3301 Woodland Park We've been living there for 15 plus years and I have severe concerns regarding the traffic The last meeting I did I was in attendance and we requested that DOT come out and assess the area before Development actually starts because there is a high school there And there is actually which we didn't discuss at the meeting at the library. There's already already an existing development going up, which is I Don't know the name of the new one, but it's across from Stone Hill, which is off of Freeman Road And there are two very sharp curves There's one that's right before you get to Woodland Park, which is The corner of Freeman and Woodland and then there's it is another that's right at the curve where metal crests which is another neighborhood that will be impacted by this development and The concern is we've already had we've already have had some accidents that have occurred with the existing neighbors that's over there and There's like I said, there's a new development going in and I don't think that that Traffic influx was taken into account along with this one. There's a lot of neighborhoods off of Clayton Road already We also requested if this development was to go into place If they would have access directly onto Clayton Road Without that additional traffic coming through Twin Lakes My neighbor that just spoke miss Radcliffe is on the corner of Woodland Park in Derry And I am across from her on Woodland Park So we would be severely impacted by the additional traffic flow Which they're going to have to come past our house because there's no other way for them to access Clayton Road So I guess I don't know if you know, this is going to take place regardless of what we say here tonight I definitely have concerns about Zoning for additional houses our Understanding was that she had Already gotten approved for 23. So we're not sure why the additional zoning is required We have concerns about them putting more than the 23 that she's approved for Again, everything is with traffic and safety We really don't think that has been assessed properly for the neighborhoods that are out there now The homes are very nice. It's not about the homes not being nice It's just about safety and traffic flow and thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Mr. Mercer Good evening. My name is Ponce Mercer. I'm at 3215 Woodland Park Road My concern is not so much building up the houses as it was recently spoke It's the amount of houses they're going to build I've been at my location for 25 years When I originally purchased it I was under the impression that no one could actually build behind me So I'm not sure what changed from when I purchased my home until now and where they're actually able to build behind me So that was something I'm not quite sure maybe she can address when she actually comes back up here And as well as with the traffic another issue that we actually have I would understand if she could actually have an entrance off of Clayton Versus having to come through Woodland Park because we have a lot of other neighborhoods the surroundings It actually cuts through Woodland Park. So there's much more traffic there now than it was say three years ago And I don't think we can actually accommodate additional traffic and I wonder how if there's any kids How will the school bus actually be able to come in and actually pick up the kids to actually get out of the neighborhood? Because I don't think buses can actually turn in the area what she's building and maybe she can address that Great. Thank you very much You do have remaining time if you'd like to make additional statements or to answer any of the questions from the citizens Yes, and and we we discussed this in the meeting and I'll discuss it again I did do a little bit more research when I got back after having the discussion with y'all The the frontage of our property is about 500 feet the distance between two existing roads which is the Matter crest and the road that comes out of Twin Lakes is about 760 feet distance between the two current intersections and the dilemma of putting any additional road in there would not be approved DOT requires a minimum of 600 feet between any additional Intersections and there's not enough distance there the city of Durham Transportation you may have someone here from transportation that could confirm it But they say that they don't require an additional connection if the current pattern allows connections within a quarter mile, which is 1,320 feet so we definitely meet all those criteria is not as an engineer It's not a good place for me to recommend adding an additional connection out to Clayton Road It would be too close together what it does do is the Metacrest entrance is a dead-end Scenario with a stub into this property It will allow those people to get have a secondary access in case that of an emergency or an accident at that intersection They now have a way out which right now they don't All of our streets will be built to city standards school buses will be able to travel on them It will provide interconnectivity. It will provide good traffic patterns including for emergency School buses and just the people that live there. We're talking a very small amount of people someone asked about Traffic count on one of the main roads if you go to exhibit six or attachment six It shows here that the current road Clayton Road has a capacity of eleven thousand four hundred Even the current traffic on there is seventy six hundred and Our impact will be a hundred and sixty four So we're talking a very small amount of traffic in the realm of what we're discussing So again, I asked for your approval. Thank you very much Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Yes, sir, please come on up And if you can come up to the microphone and let us know your name and your address and I believe There are still a few minutes left for those speaking against my name is Kenny Wiggins. I'm at 14 And I think the last time we were here I think we talked about her having a development plan and kind of some things we were told to maybe ask her for and We went to the library meeting She didn't say she said she couldn't have the development plan at all and that she wouldn't have it and We was like what you're gonna do with the property and She couldn't tell us and so I'm just wondering like my concern is how many houses are gonna go in there and What she's planning on doing with the property, so it's pretty much Because she doesn't have a plan and she's not telling us anything about it And everything we asked her for she said she couldn't get but she won't go and have so we don't know We asked for the development plan. She said I'm not gonna have it and we asked her are you gonna do? 32 houses because we were here the last time I thought they were already approved for 23 houses And we say it looked like you're gonna try to put more houses in and that and she was like no I couldn't put 32 in it in there if I wanted to but she didn't have a development plan They will lock her in to a number of houses to do so we didn't know so we left with I Thought when we left here, she was already approved for 23 So with the zoning that they had so now she wants another zoning But we don't we can't figure out why she wants the new zoning if she's already approved for 23 houses With the zoning that it currently has so that's the kind of the questions that we had like What is what is she planning on doing? How many houses are going in there and what's the plan? We really don't know Okay, thank you. Mr. Wiggins if you don't mind actually could you come up here? And we'll just have you sign in just put your name and address and we'll have you on the record Anyone else who'd like to speak on this item for the public hearing? seeing none, we will move to close the public hearing and Look to the commissioners any questions or comments from the commissioners. We'll start on my left I went right. I know they went right last time. So I want to go left this time anyone on my left commissioner miller So I have a question for you, uh, mr. Coddlow Just going to do the land planning for this Thank you pardon If you got a land planner for this I would do that land planning. Okay, and have you figured out If if you put as many units as you could under r10 in there Knowing that with three stubs to connect to That's a lot of roadway. That's more roadway than you would need Perhaps if the stubs weren't there As a practical matter, what is the maximum number of r10 lots you can get in there? Uh, the maximum number of r10 lots that I have been able to fit in there is 23 And I'm not quite sure I can get that many We have cruise cross this property with numerous streets. It's not just one street Well, yeah, because you've got one here one there and one there and they're not exactly in the perfect spot But I can make it work. Um, I think the current zoning allows 15 or 17 I get depending upon if you have to connect to those stubs. That's where I can't my guessing goes away I was coming up with 17, but that was that was on the high. Yeah, I think my sketch is about 15 I did take a sketch to the meeting at the library That showed the the 23 ish But uh stated that it's not a development plan. I'm not authorized to state that it is Let me ask you this. Uh, it's my understanding from having spoken with jacob That the wetland that shows on the map that that engineers have told you that that can be Eliminated correct. Um, I have a um documentation. Yeah, that's fine Yes, I just wanted to make sure that that we were working with that assumption Mr. Judge Can you tell me your traffic counts are based upon an algorithm on pure r10 or on an understanding that There's going to be 23 units The calculation was based on a assumption that 80 percent of the land could be built at the 10,000 square foot lots, so No, probably comes in around 23 Yeah, I don't remember the exact number, but that's generally how we do it when it's Yeah, and you reserve that other 20 percent for odd corners and roadways Exactly Thank you Those are my questions. Thank you, mr. Williams Yes, um I don't feel any differently about this proposed Zoning change and I did when it first came before us and Even more so having recently been Right at southern high school at one of their busiest times when they just recently had a football jamboree where People were parking parking in adjacent neighborhoods to find somewhere to go for the games because obvious reasons and the traffic out there Was horrible So you're not dealing with an elementary school where once the school closes and everybody leaves at about five o'clock in the afternoon You can pretty much take a break from traffic you have football practice and volleyball games and basketball games and Southern high school is now school of sustainability So their hours are a little bit different in the way that they function is a little bit different and I think that by adding more capacity than what is already zoned for only enhances that issue Is going to contribute greatly to The problem that is already existing in terms of traffic and travel Even though if there is an accident on clayton, you may be able to cut through this other neighborhood where other people are Already trying to leave and go different places Now you've got the traffic that would have been on clayton Diverting through this neighborhood. So it's not really easing the ability to go anywhere. You're just Creating another way for water to flow or for traffic to flow There's still going to be a huge impact on the people that live there Where if there's an accident on clayton now, if you know where you're going you go if you don't you don't but I don't I don't see where increasing the capacity to 23 homes or 23 ish if you will Is productive for this area. I I I just don't see that It's going to ease the concerns of the neighbors and I don't see where this is going to help the capacity of that particular area In any way it's not like Is there a grocery store? off clayton near there or What is it? It's on 98, right? Yeah, okay. So yeah, um And then I think the adverse of that is what stallings road The other access point of leaving to try to alleviate traffic but then you pick that up As 98 is becoming a popular route in order to travel to raleigh in order to pick up 50 and 540 so 98 hasn't been addressed yet But in time when that is widened and I think that that will ease the stresses Not to mention some of the issues that you have with stallings road and um a couple other areas Where flooding is a massive concern. So those roads shut down in heavy rains and then Coming in and backfilling or filling in a wetland area just for the sake of building. I'm against that as well So That's my standpoint Thank you commissioner commissioner van. Yes. Thank you very much. Um First of all, I would certainly thank both Um sides for having an opportunity to come back as we had requested and to uh have conversations around this I think it's important and um, I'm glad that happened. Um, but But it does lead to uh, you know, a few other questions. I guess I would have in my mind You know, I travel through this area at least, um, three to four times out the week Sometimes taking back roads when I'm leaving north valley central and on the way home Take the back roads, uh, which sometimes leads through clay road in all those areas And I I see the impact. I also see those who are fleeing from Durham going back to other places. Um, like raleigh I'm using how we nine eight in other areas Stylings and all those roads and I know the traffic. I Because I'm in and so, um So I always wonder about, you know, when we talk about these traffic statistics, whether or not they actually match with the actual realities of those who live there and who have to experience that and you have to take that into account At least I do. Um, and so while on one hand, um, I think what you have proposed here, um, you know Kind of punches all the buttons. No doubt. Um, but at the same time for me, I have to always think about Question of impact whether it was this neighborhood or any other neighborhood About the impact that it might have on those who are what I call the legacy residents those who have been there And been there when no one else was there. And so, um, for that matter, um, I always also think that Have sort of think about what's the good fit? Um, and whether or not, you know, um, the impact again getting back to That question of travel for those who are already overly burdened with the traffic patterns out there And so with that being said, I would and I will certainly um, um, I will oppose this Matter, um, I'm sure it might get approved, but I'll oppose it because I live out there and I know The impact that it might have Thank you. Thank you commissioner van commissioner kenshin Yes, thanks so much. Um I'm concerned because I think, um, you know, I see the students who are walking along those streets And they're not paying attention their horse playing. They're doing what kids doing me do And I have real concerns about the safety Not so much the traffic the cars but the the foot traffic the children the students who are walking up and down the street Now we've turned down. Uh, we've not approved things from the other side My daughter went to jordan high school and we turned down one at Garrett and 54 and they have way less traffic. Um, then what we see over here by southern So I would not be inclined to support this because um, I'm just real have real concerns about the safety of the students Who are up and down that street all the time? And I just worry about them because um, it's traffic like commissioner van said There's a lot more traffic, um, up and down those streets and there's no sidewalks Um, I just I just have a real concern about the safety of the students who are attending, um, southern high school So I'll be inclined to not vote in favor of this proposal Thank you commissioner dirkin I just had a question for staff the adjacent neighborhoods are zoned rs 10 But are they built to rs 10 or are they Reflective of a different density scale Jacob wiggins of the planning department, um That is correct. Yeah, if you look on attachments one in your packet, you'll see the zoning context map Kind of tan or tope color is the rs 10 zoning district Um, it's my understanding that most of those lots if not all those lots in that area are built to the rs 10 standards Any additional questions? Great. Thank you. Commissioner brine. Thank you. Uh Have a couple of comments for staff Uh, just on page three of the staff report Top of the page Southern high school was found just to the northeast We established two months ago that it should be southeast and on attachment five On the staff analysis of policy two point three point one a if approved their request would Permit up to blank residential units. I think you need to plug the number in and Uh, I have a couple questions for mr. Judge I heard what the applicant said about the distances, you know, they got 500 feet of fronage on Clayton road The other two roads that come out are 750 feet something like that So i'm taking it that you guys would not permit our ncd ncdot would not permit Link access to their property off of Clayton road. Is that correct? Uh Bill judge transportation We have not had direct contact with ncdot about that question with this site I would say in general if they can See that otherwise adequate access can be provided via those existing hubs They likely would prefer the connection not to be there If there were a connection there would likely be a turn lane required based on the volume on Clayton road as well and There's a street to the north. I'm drawing a blank on the name that it would like near the Uh western property line of the site that they would likely have to line up So it wouldn't necessarily be centered up in the center of the property Assuming that dot did permit it and Since we have these three streets or I think one of them's just sort of a stub Coming to this property. Are they absolutely compelled to connect to all three of them? Yes, the existing unified development ordinance would require connections at all three of them. Although there are Options at the site plan stage where if they can show environmental features steep slopes or other topography reasons why those connections are not feasible that they could request a waiver of that Okay, and final question Um if they connect to the stub off of metacrast and A lot of traffic goes out through metacrast. They're coming on the Clayton that what appears to be one of the bad curves Could Transportation infrastructure improvements be required of this development at the site plan stage to make that curve and that connection safer Uh Highly unlikely for the existing if they otherwise have the three points of access that would essentially be in Existing condition that um, that would have to be addressed Okay, thank you. Um just Some comments, uh I agree that Asking for the rs10 makes the zoning in this area consistent with the surrounding zoning And with all the streets That you're going to have to connect to Uh getting 23 lots on there Might be iffy as you said, uh, and for the benefit of the, uh Neighbors who spoke The number 23 and I may have been the one that threw it out at the last Consideration of this actually comes from the zoning map change application in which, uh 23 single family lots is what was written on the application Now since we don't have a development plan, we can't hold them to 23 lots uh What I don't like about this is is the fact that you are having to connect to Streets that would send your traffic through other neighborhoods And I agree with the comment that was made about You know makes it more difficult for the school buses to have to go in and out And that sort of thing Worry about the lack of infrastructure improvements on Clayton road and I think The traffic concerns really bother me And at this point unless somebody can come up with a good reason otherwise, I'm probably against this too Thank you. Thank you commissioner brian commissioner johnson Thank you. Um, so To uh, miss let me make sure I can say this almost correctly. Sadako The cod low. Oh, we got a D wrong Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Um Um, would I be Accurate in my assumption that the goal is while you say 23 single family lots the Ideally an ideal situation you put as many Uh units on this this uh parcel is as feasible I'm saying from an engineering standpoint It's not feasible to maximize the number of units that the zoning would allow And so I am a response if we walk up tomorrow and some amazing technology Was before us and it allowed 23 units to become 27 units with that move you to Consider viably putting 27 units on and this is just hypothetical me me speaking here I I admitted in the meeting at the library that I am known for putting as many units as I can on a piece of property With and meet meeting all the criteria, but I can't see that magic happening. Okay. Okay. That's that's fair And so to an uh earlier question, I think it was from I don't know who it was one of my colleagues asks What was the basis of the transportation? analysis, so my peer Over on this side Pointed out on exhibit three if I'm correct. It's based on 30 30 units being on on that site So I think we were thinking it was 2015 versus 23 or something, but it's 30. So if you so Maxing it out Doing my rough work comes to about 34 units 32 to 35 units Taking the 20 off to use his algorithm gets it down to about 27 26 Depending upon where it all lands And so um If we're assuming based off of what I've heard from from transportation that the three stubs will be basically Required to be the connection points um One could Assume but since it's not committed That the maximum number of units would not be able to be programmed on that site but we That's my hypothetical question which leads me to the quality of life issues So one thing that I and I apologize to the neighbors is that I tend to take trips during different times of the day To see what it looks like and I didn't do it for this For this application So I'm I'm thankful to my colleagues who pointed this out because that sways my thinking on the issue of of basically up zoned Ups on the inform for higher density because if there are People in general but kids walking in that I drove it today And if there are people walking on that of the roads that That's an issue like and I don't see anything coming over from a transportation improvement On uh, it's a clayton road or in that area anytime soon So with that being said I am inclined to not be to be an opposition of the request here For higher density on this and even though the map make looks from a visual standpoint it makes sense visually But when you incorporate the quality of life thing, I'm just not Comfortable Thank you commissioner johnson any other commissioners who'd like to speak commissioner miller So I have but when we talked about this in june I was gently urging people to look at a development plan and And if you're going to do your own land planning, uh, it seems to me that you would be in a position to do a development plan This unit count and its consequent traffic impact Question and Perhaps some other issues That could be resolved to give greater Certainty to the neighbors. It seems to me Especially since you're in a situation where you don't have to pay somebody else to do a development plan It seems to me that the short route to success here And You had a meeting with them where they talked about a development plan I had a meeting with them where we talked about what might be accomplished in a development plan Um, I agree that this rs10 idea is not a bad thing Um, I mean, it's a logical match But it is an unusual situation where where a new subdivision isn't connecting to the main road that serves it That is depending upon filtering its traffic out through other subdivisions. Now, it's it's that I mean that's to me That's less than perfectly satisfactory I understand the provision for connectivity and and the requirement for stubs and i'm not suggesting that it's a bad thing But when we do that instead of also connecting to the main road It it rubs me the wrong way now It would be a matter of considerably less concern if we had a development plan that said that that rs10 d the maximum number of units will be Uh 20 21 23 something like that Then I would my own anxiety about how you might maximize the development potential of the property would go away um And while at site while we do require stub connection We also have a provision in the code code as mr. Judge told us That with the right circumstances you can apply for and be relieved of Uh the obligation to connect to one or more stubs environmental Uh concerns are one of them and I know that this wetland uh that I know that you can make go away Is right there where the alpha drive stub comes in so um Because there's no development plan and because I have a tenant I would prefer to Want to see a development plan that's that gives everybody the certainty here And it doesn't seem to me that this would be the most a very complicated development plan. So Uh without it i'm voting no, uh, if you told me that you would Wanted to somehow work out a development plan and fix that number of units Then I might change my mind and may and urge the council to to Uh, I get make a conditional recommendation to the council to approve it with an appropriate development plan Not stopping it here not another delay But going forward knowing that that you would make a development plan and fix that number of units And uh settle this issue of how the traffic impacts are going to work Commissioner Gibbs Well, I feel somewhat the same way without a development plan It's it's a little up in the air, but Uh in looking at the other Development around here that they're all interconnected And this is a very small comparatively speaking small frontage small in in area Uh Even though there's not a development plan It's something that you know, I don't think it should be controlled by What little bit I think it would contribute to any traffic flow on on Clayton road This is another one that it's it's hard to come up with A definitive yes or no Right now without a development plan I'm I would have to Tend toward not approving it That's it. Great. Thank you. Are there any final comments before we have a motion for approval or have one more question mission Miller, uh for this is for staff based upon your experience, uh with a Residential development of this size Will a certain amount of this property have to be taken up with some sort of stormwater BMP Jacob Wiggins will the playing department Yeah, I mean they will have to provide Either a BMP or other means of mitigation for this property. All right that helps. Thank you Thank you So at this point we'll take a motion a reminder that motions are in the affirmative and then we will vote for Against and again, we are advisory body only this will move forward then to the city council Commissioner gauche Was not ready to make a motion, but if that's where we're at that's where Sorry, I thought I saw your hand raised But I will I will take a motion from whoever would like to make a motion at this point Mr. Chairman. I move that we send case z 17 00034 Forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation second Motion made by commissioner miller seconded by commissioner brine and we will have a roll call vote, please Commissioner el turk yes Commissioner johnson no commissioner gauche i'm gonna vote yes Commissioner brine no Commissioner satterfield no Commissioner jerican no Commissioner hyman no Commissioner miller no Commissioner kenshin no commissioner van Commissioner gibbs no Commissioner williams no And chair busby no Motion passes a motion fails two to ten Great. Thank you all very much for your time this evening We will move to our next item. This is case z one eight quadruple zero eight 69 19 herndon road We'll start with the staff report again if you are planning to testify. Please sign up carlo rosenberg planning department. Um, this i'm here to present zoning case z 18 000 Eight six nine one nine um herndon road the proposal Um, excuse me The proposal is put forth by the city of durham the site acreage is 2.20 one located within the city limits The rezoning request is to change plan development residential pdr to residential suburban 20 rs 20 The specific request is to construct a new fire station for the city accommodating an 11 000 square foot building with drive areas and parking Because no development plan is included in this application No commitments can be made and therefore any uses allowed in the rs 20's district could be built here in the future In addition to approval of this application the fire station use would also require a minor special use permit from the board of adjustment So this is an aerial map of the subject area, which is highlighted in red It's located along herndon road just south of its intersection with massie's chapel road less than one mile east of south point mall And it's in close proximity to several suburban housing developments These are some images of the vacant site and surrounding parcels which contain single family homes This is a zoning context map showing residential uses to be the predominant zoning in the area The map on the right shows the subject area proposed to be rezoned to residential suburban 20 Which matches nearby zoning districts This is a future land use map showing the use of low density residential across the site and surrounding parcels The proposed rs 20 district aligns with the low density residential feature land use category This table shows the dimensional standards for new non-residential structures to be developed on the site Who require a minimum street yard of 25 feet minimum open space of 10 percent of the gross area A minimum single side yard of 10 feet total side yardage 20 feet 24 feet Minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet maximum building coverage of 60 percent And a maximum building height of 45 feet So in terms of the proposed fire station use non-residential development in residential districts Requires commercial level buffering which equates to a 20 to 30 foot vegetative buffer So the slide staff reviewed this item against applicable Comprehensive plan policies as seen here in an attachment five of your packet The proposal was found to be consistent with all applicable policies And finally staff determined that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan And the applicable policies and ordinance. Do you have any questions? Happy to answer them. Great. Thank you We will open the public hearing And there's nobody signed up to speak So I would ask if there's anyone here who would like to speak during the public hearing Seeing none this doesn't happen often We we're gonna go with it. We're gonna we're gonna move to close the public hearing Any commissioners who have questions Comments commissioner johnson Just a simple question for staff. Is there a particular reason why um, let me show i'm asking the right question. Yeah, no development plan was Provided with the application. Just curious Carla Rosenberg planning department. Um, the option was discussed with the applicant. Um, however, they elected to not use an amount development plan. Um I think a specific reason Yeah, we're probably better a gray smith with planning It'll probably be better for the applicant to to elaborate on that But it was our understanding that the the project is not in the design phase yet where they could Nail down the specifics and doing this type of zoning would leave the property Still zoned for a compatible use in that area if they did not build a fire station However, I think the applicant needs to address that question and not us, but that was our understanding Okay quick follow-up Two-part question. So when we say applicant, I'm assuming we're saying city of Durham So who is uh the human being that you are office that you would There's a representative from the department of general services here that could answer any questions about that And who owns the land does the city currently owns the land? If you yeah, you can come to the microphone, please give us your name your address and We appreciate you taking time to answer our questions Hi, I'm john potchess wiles. I'm in general services. I live at 7 13 west club boulevard in Durham So your question was about the development plan. I think that it just didn't seem appropriate or it didn't seem necessary Project is not in design yet. We don't have any We don't have any uh civil engineers under contract to work on the project And i'm sorry one more and so is there a possibility if you can get me on a scale of one to ten that this Proposed site could turn out to not be the site even even after the request tonight. I can't imagine a scenario where that would happen This the site was specifically sought for fire station and it's perfect for the use So that's that is 100 the intended use Thank you commissioner brian Before the gentleman leaves the podium a couple questions This is a new fire station not a replacement for the parkwood fire station I've you can come down to the the main microphone. That'd be great. Thank you I'm andy synipoli with the city of Durham fire department. So yes, it is uh the current station when we consolidated We started temporarily using the fire station that's within the parkwood neighborhood We try not to use fire stations inside of a residential neighborhood because where they're located and having to get out of there That station was never designed for continuous human occupancy When it was first built back in the 70s by a volunteer fire department and it's been retrofitted and it's not really up to a city standard and so we Acquired that property with the intent of building a fire station there and in in addition It's not the station location for the old parkwood station isn't in a great location if you look at our entire response Guidelines so okay, so this is replacing the parkwood. That's yes We don't actually own that station where we lease it from the county. No, I understand that but I mean Yeah, it's a rip this this one will appear and the parkwood. Yes, sir disappear. Yes. Thank you The one other comment I would make I know a request was made for a five foot bicycle lane and without a development plan There's no way for you to respond to that Uh or commit to that But my feeling is if this bicycle lane has been documented then it states that it has And Durham is one of the groups is Durham Chapel Hill carburel MPO If you if it's documented that way I expect the city of Durham to live up to what is in that plan And I'd like to see a bicycle lane I would agree with that If it's certainly if it's a requirement of of the udo of the of the project through planning Pulled by by that. Thank you Mr. Miller So my own view on this is We need to replace the parkwood station because it's not performing it it increases response times This is a 2.2 acre piece of property You even if you built a 20,000 square foot fire station on it It would be a pretty damn low intensive use You could put four houses on it zoned in the zone the way they want it and you can put probably More than six on it the way it's currently zoned if they don't use it It's going to jump down to rs 20. It's unlikely that somebody's going to put four houses on it there They'll probably want to rezone it. So I don't see I think we've got fail safes and safeguards The area needs a new fire station The height limitations and all those things that that obtain for the rs 20 zone will obtain here I'm going to vote for it And I don't think it needs a development plan and you you actually heard that fall from my lips We're just going to pause for 10 seconds and let that sink in any other questions or comments from other commissioners If none, I'll entertain a motion Mr. Chairman, I move that we send case z 18 quadruple 0 8 forward to the city council With a favorable recommendation second Moved by commissioner miller seconded by commissioner williams. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, unanimously passes unanimously passes We'll move to our next case z 1 8 quadruple 0 7 weaving water It will start start with the staff report miss sannyak Oh, uh while jacob is setting up. I just wanted to clarify for the record that the carrington case was To 11 the vote was to 11. I didn't bring my notes up here. Sorry to 11 instead of 210. Great. Thank you We'll thank you jacob wiggins with the planning department This is a request for a case titled weaving water Which is located at 3912 and 3920 river mott road The applicant is miss daniel restill This is a request to resume approximately 12 acres from residential suburban 20 to plan development residential 1.9 64 Or pdr 1.9 64 I'm with a proposal of 24 single family units with a four bedroom rooming house The subject site is highlighted in red in front of you. You can see its location along river mott road And the property is just south of the, you know, river state park river motton is accessed from primarily from coal mill road and you can see this area is Just to the west of the orange county Durham county line Some area photos starting in the top left hand corner. You can see a photo into the site itself On the right hand side, you can see views of river mott road As well as access to a trail. This is located just a little north of the site and then on the On your left hand side at the bottom or i'm sorry on the bottom left corner there That's the entrance to a subdivision across the street from the subject site I'm looking at this property from zoning context standpoint rs 20 is the predominant zoning district in this area as you can see on the yellow in your map With rr located to the north There are a few pockets of pdr zoning Just to the southwest of this site along coal mill road On the future land you future land use map as you can see the site is designated as low density residential that is the predominant Land use category in this area. There's also some residential open space And we'll note that the other the ear is not complete It will there will be a couple of additional parcels that will show up as Residential open space if you can see them on your screens there This parcel will be designated as r. Us as well as these two parcels north of river mott road I'm in this bulky green area up here comprises a large part of the eno state park Proposed conditions. This is seen as the development plan in your packet As I noted the applicant is proposing 24 single family residential units With one ingress negris point off of river mott road located in the southwestern corner of the subject site Summary of some of the key committed elements as I noted the 24 residential units the four bedroom rooming house The one side access point and a maximum height of 35 raw units Comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request. There were two key policies as well as the future land use map And staff found that the request was consistent of all three of those policies And generally speaking the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan Plugable policies and ordinances and I'll be happy to answer any questions the commission may have at this time Thank you. Thank you. We will move to open the public hearing I will tell you in advance There are a lot of names crossed out and a few folks who put a question mark if they were for or against So just work with me. We'll figure this out I think some of these folks actually may have signed up for an earlier hearing on this sheet by accident But at the moment I believe we have two individuals who are signed up to speak for the proponents And we have two individuals signed up to speak against and three who gave a question mark So we will have those come after the individuals who are who are against So to start again, each side will have 10 minutes. We will start with Daniel Brestel and katie hamilton Good evening commissioners and thank you for having us. My name is katie hamilton. I'm here representing stewart Danielle is the applicant in this case And i'm going to let her speak first kind of speak about the intentions for this neighborhood and what she sees Leaving water really becoming Hi, good evening If you can start with your name and address, that'd be great My name is Danielle Brestel. I live at 2031 hillock place I am the applicant for this rezoning request I currently live in a single family dwelling about a mile northeast of the site Our property backs up to the eno river State park a state park that I love and where my family spends a great deal of time My interest in rezoning this property is to reduce the environmental impact of the current rs 20 designation This is my first development project I decided to develop to develop a co-housing community to provide a better quality of life for my family and others My parents moved to durham two years ago To be close to my family and especially my daughter They struggled to find a one story Modestly sized home in a natural setting that would fill fill their desire to age in place We also struggled to find accessible housing with a sense of community where neighbors looked out for one another like eno commons or solterra We're seeking to rezone in order to cluster our houses into multiplexes with a maximum of four units um, this is something that May be different than what the commitments currently state and katie will get to that um And also to provide clustered parking areas near the property entrance rather than driveways with parking at each residence We're interested in stacking units to provide some accessible homes for those with limited mobility For example, my family plans to live in a single floor unit above my parents single floor accessible unit on the ground floor um We planned to group two to three units of modest sized footprint prints ranging from 800 to 1800 square feet in a building Each building would look similar to a single family dwelling, which is consistent with the current neighborhood Our desire to develop intelligent two-story housing solutions and cluster parking is deeply connected to our desire To minimize impervious surfaces preserve water quality and forest coverage and encourage interaction between neighbors Compared with the current rs20 zoning our plan greatly reduces the negative impact on the watershed Maintains a forested environment to maintain the eno river state park experience several Several neighbors support this project including our neighbors to the east who are michael meredith and wendy jacob's We are providing original solutions for housing needs and expanding dorm housing choices in an environment like environmentally responsible way Thank you for your time Thank you so, um as danielle alluded to based on some recent um, thank you Some recent meetings we had um, we decided to modify the development plan text commitments just slightly Um, so I wanted to kind of highlight those changes from what we're in your staff report Um, what we've decided to commit to we realized we had made a slight error in our You know wording using the term single family units We'd wanted to differentiate between the rooms and the boarding rooming house not rooming house and the dwelling units But calling them single family would have required us to do lots and we really want this to be as danielle said more of a Community that doesn't have people having lots with their two parking spots on their lot in a very traditional subdivision So what we've changed that to is to say that we were going to have a condominium form of ownership for single family two family and multiplex units um This is exactly what we communicated to the neighborhood when we had a neighborhood meeting on march March sometime in march. Um, it was a saturday morning So they are aware that that's what was coming before them. We just had used improper Terms in our development plan We had a hard time hearing you do you mind just repeating the actual Of the commitment right before you talk about the neighborhood meeting Yeah So the commitment itself will say the property will be developed as a series of single family two family and or multiplex units In support buildings in a condominium form of ownership All land area not directly beneath an individually owned dwelling unit shall be held in common open space owned by the home owners association So that's the exact text commitment. Um And then the other text commitment we decided to add Based on some feedback from the neighbors who are concerned about the impacts of A different building typology and different residential typology on them was to commit to preserving the existing evergreen vegetation along river mott As shown Here in the development plan Sorry I'm gonna use this graphics. It's a little bit easier to see but this is the strand of Evergreen vegetation along river mott road that we have committed to not Tearing down to protect the neighbors to the west of us Um, we kind of wanted to go over why we think changing to the pdr is good as far as danielle was saying with environmental considerations This is our preferred scenario danielle has reached out to conservation agencies to see if we can As you see the existing conditions, there's two parcels and we're only Proposing to rezone 12 of the 22 ish acres The rest of it we really like to keep in conservation area and even if it cannot be conserved It's mainly non-developable due to steep slopes which you can see here in gray and the um Stream buffers that are on the site as well So we wanted to look at what would really happen with the existing zoning and what could be there versus what we're proposing Um, so the existing zoning for the entire project Done with a cluster subdivision and forgive us. We got a little overzealous at steward and put an extra lot on there Um This plan but would allow for up to 42 units and Recently the site could accommodate that in comparison if the pdr only has 24 lots within it's 12 units or 12 acres The rest of the pdr zoning would really only be able to support another 10 units So immediately you are getting a reduction of eight units Off the bat, which we think is appropriate for this area and this context right along the eno river state park um, I think So here's a little bit more on the and pdr impacts. These are again In your staff report another thing we really wanted to focus on is this impervious surface We're greatly reducing our impervious surface allowance 70 percent is what's allowed in rs 20 And we're only going to allow 20 on this. So we're we think we're really starting to respond to the environmental sensitivity of this area um and continuing to preserve the uh environmental features here that are so vital to dirhams success and with that I think we're gonna preserve the rest of our time to respond to any comments that opposition has Thank you very much. There are two minutes left that we can reserve And we had actually we had three individuals who signed up Against and I'll read off all of your names and I'd ask you to come up James king charles kozart and evan koresh And Then we also had Three that signed up just so we can make sure you're here michelle smith craig Hudson it looks like and jonathan benin, but again if you can come up and give us your name and your address And uh, you have 10 minutes combined If we could reset the clock, please Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'm i'm james king. I live at 12 graily drives And uh, there's uh, maybe one of the explanations for all the question marks is I think most of the neighbors realize that there's no stopping to the development It's just how it's done and um, maybe have some sensitivity to some of the not only the state park, which I think They have Going out of their way to do but I think some of the concerns that particularly I have is is some of the limited infrastructure That the uh, the neighborhood Particularly river mott road has to the development We uh, as I said, I live on graily, which is just west of the property, um, which we use river mott to access We have 26 neighbors right now along both river mott and graily Potentially we could double the amount of people that live along that corridor when we we go with Another possibly 24 units on the on the property um, we're concerned because there's That basically the even in the I notice in in the change report that They addressed coal mill road when they did the transportation calbs But nothing nothing really considered what effects it would have on river mott And those of us living on river mott river mott is is 18 feet wide or narrow however you look at it and 1800 feet long to the property Um, and it's not a lot of room and and it's taken quite a beating No, we've lived there for about three and a half years and and even in that short time period It's it's it's pretty rough. Um, you know, it's it it's it's basically a collection of of patch potholes and unpatched potholes Um, and it it needs quite a bit of repair So our concern is that you know with this growth this development down there that um That some attention be given to the street for safety reasons We have a lot of families that live there people like to walk their dogs. We don't have sidewalks on river mott So everybody walks down the middle of the street Which is usually okay, but doubling the amount of traffic on river mott Would cause me some pause and so I just I want to make sure that it's it's being done with some respect to the neighborhood and um Again, not not a not a Against progress because it's going to happen. Something's going to happen on that site. Uh, I just I just want to make sure it's done Right Great. Thank you Charles cozard Oh I'm sorry that that he did leave if if other individuals are still here that would like to speak. Please come up. Um, we have Evan koresh Good evening. Uh, Evan karish. I live at seven grayly drive um In contrast to the many people who have lived here for decades. I have lived here for Six weeks I came here in part attracted to the low density Of of the neighborhood. I was attracted to The open space the green space and the forest that I moved to seattle 35 years ago When it was a small sleepy town that nobody had ever heard of um It exploded The nature and character of the city because of unregulated Not growth but unregulated unplanned growth Really did destroy the nature and character of what many people moved to seattle for So it gives me great appreciation for the role and responsibility that you have in terms of Excuse me the future of Durham My concerns are three. First of all The information that was provided to you by the city does not represent In fact What is planned for the site? So all of the analysis and decisions that were predicated on the information provided Apparently are not correct My second consideration has to do with the nature and character of the plan development vis-a-vis The existing nature and character of the homes in that area And the third is an issue of safety Specifically for the people who live along river mott This is a a neighborhood of single family homes It is zoned rs 20 and the plan is to put multifamily multi-story housing With separated separate parking lots on that parcel That is vastly different than the nature of the single family homes which are currently in that neighborhood And that kind of the is is the kind of construction that you see in condo complexes Adjacent to shopping centers. That is not the kind of development that you see in single family homes My additional consideration and it was alluded to is is the safety issue river mott is is Approximately as we heard 18 feet wide You can get one car on it in some spots. You might be able to get two cars Passing not in all of the spots. There are no sidewalks alongside river mott And there are ditches on either side of the road at any point in during the day There are a great many people who are walking down river mott Who are pushing strollers down river mott? Who are walking their children down river mott and with traffic there is nowhere to go If there's more than one car on the road at a time There are no sidewalks. There's nowhere for people to move out of the way Of of traffic and I have concern for the safety of the people who live along river mott As well as those who are accessing enos state park So for those three reasons the nature and character of the plan development, which is inconsistent What which what was provided to the city considerations for the multifamily multi-story high density housing Which is inconsistent with the single family nature of the neighborhood And the third my concerns about the safety of individuals who live along river mott And the fact that that road is really not built to handle the kind of traffic And the nature and pattern of traffic that would result Those three reasons caused me to speak against the motion or against the plan rezoning Thank you. Thank you for your comments and welcome to Durham Michelle Smith Great, please come on up I'm michelle smith. I live at um 14 grayley road The first house that was built at the end of that cul-de-sac I've lived there five years We moved to Durham. We chose it After visiting numerous times over the years when our son went to duke Um, I love the community. I'm in I love the residential area. I'm in we are single family homes We are on We have we back up to the eno. We chose that lifestyle I took two years to find this home because of the lifestyle that we live there The eno that danielle likes State park is the same thing we do I appreciate that she is thinking green and all of that is just that And that property will not stay vacant forever. I mean, I miss the goats if I had my choice I would take the goats back, but you know As I've heard all night, there's I'm not the only one that's chosen to do. There's lots of people moving here Every neighborhood has to make room I just don't understand A multi urban very urban urban Sort of environment plunk right down in the middle of a very rural area and The traffic we get to the eno is a lot A lot. It's a very popular Place to hike to bring children and all that and the road just is not going to support that many families Living there. It's just I know you have some Mathematical things that you put together that you figure out how traffic works But for those of us that live there and maybe this is not important to you, but it is to me We have a variety of wildlife And that area they want to build in is a Traffic zone for all the deer that we have there and we have fox and we have Fox we have all sorts of birds we have rabbits, I mean there's We're trying to live with them as harmoniously as we can but that area is their their their space So thank you. Thank you Craig Hudson, I bet I got that wrong but please come on up and Let me know what I got wrong Yes, my name is Craig Hudson. I actually am The developer of greatly drive, you know fall subdivision. I have been living in Durham 55 years. I was born here I don't know that I am necessarily against the project. I understand something Can be put there. Um, no one would want to pay taxes on the rest of their life just to look at it. I understand that so I'm a little bit torn on the fence of it. Uh, I think as a developmental stand of it and the way it's looked at I'm not so sure that either any of you Or any of your parents Would want to go to the furthest House or dwelling And then let them off and then drive back and then walk in the rain or push a wheelchair back to the furthest one I understand we have a parking. Please continue parking area Um Am I done now you can please continue But you know I and again I And and if this is the most ecologically Friendly thing that we can put there. It's like I've kind of told A few people um have to pick our poison And I I do understand that something's got to be there. I just really would like you all to make sure that uh that you have Looked it over as best you can transportation wise impact wise ecological, um, you know water runoff develop developmental aspect of it just to make sure that this is the best thing that can be done and You know and and again to not be the dead horse rivermont is a complete travesty. I just called up Took me three times, but I got like 20 potholes fixed and I think that road deserves more and I think the people that live there deserve more than what is that um, so just There's a lot of ways and a lot of impact on a lot of different things. That's the reason the question mark you saw was on my name So thank you very much. Thank you. We have one final individual sign up to speak jonathan bennett Good evening commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is jonathan bennett. I live at 3804 rivermont road, which is uh three lots Down from one of the lots that we're talking about tonight I've lived there for 11 years now Uh with my family and my children Um Like craig who just spoke I don't have a very strong opinion either way about this particular development Other than the following, uh, and that is and it's been emphasized by a couple of speakers that rivermont is a narrow road and there's a lot of potholes and people litter there are no sidewalks except for a very short strip Uh And people walk with their families up and down that road and we are talking if we go with the numbers that that were quoted earlier About basically doubling the number of families that that use that stretch of road Um, that's not reflected in the report that was given to you all that that looked at the traffic on coal mill But rivermont is what you'd have to go down to get to the development that we're talking about So I do have a concern about the traffic and about the safety of Of people walking and it is a family neighborhood people use that road all the time every evening You'll see people walking up and down the street there So that that's my biggest concern about about this and I would ask that you consider that carefully Uh and make sure that that the safety issue and the transportation along rivermont is attended to. Thank you Thank you very much. I know the proponents you had an additional two minutes and we we let the Opponents and those with some concerns have a little additional time. So I invite you back for a few more minutes. Okay. Thank you um One thing I would like to highly point out is that we are not requesting additional density for what it is What the property is currently zoned? Uh as we pointed out earlier We could put Just as many homes on that property in its current zoning as we are proposing So as far as the traffic load goes is not significantly impacted um The other thing I would like to address uh is The unit type um, I know people are scared of what multifamily looks like in a neighborhood and Grayley road, which is um The newest development and where many of these people live have homes on them that are between 3000 and 4000 Square feet with attached garages Our homes will not be larger than that. They will just have two or three units within them So when you look at the property, it will look like Nine or ten buildings Which have additional units within them. So it will still maintain that feel of what a residential area looks like And I'd like I'd like to speak to the issue of rivermont road Um, and this is he or say so take it for what you will we did speak with a couple of residents along rivermont road That is not a true right-of-way. It is currently a right-of-way by maintenance the state park actually a Majority of rivermont's true roadway They do not want it paved. They have Bought against the dot and getting it paved in the past as the dot has tried to come through and make improvements on rivermont The state park did not want them This is my understanding through hearsay. So take it as you will But that's um based on a neighbor who lives on rivermont near valley springs Who's been there for a few decades and his recollection of what occurred. So I just wanted to address that Great. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in the public hearing? Yes, ma'am, please come on up again if you can give us your name and your address We would ask that you be brief in your comments Sorry, I wasn't planning on speaking My name is jennifer strobel and I live at 3704 rivermont road Which is snap dab in the middle If you're turning on to rivermont to head towards that property. I'm probably the middle house on the right hand side So I the area photos that I saw that you had put up don't really reflect Going into that area Like cutting through that neighborhood and just like The the neighbors that you mentioned on the valley spring side. That's On the other side of the development and that also is not paved. That's all gravel back in there So our end of the street is actually paved And safety is a huge issue Especially when you're looking at however many families are going to be pulling into that development They're pulling off of coal mill on rivermont Where the lane splits But it's not There's a light there, but it's past rivermont So you're looking at stopping traffic back there And then with schools and school buses both my children I've been there for 19 years too by the way on the street My kids have grown up on this road and we are the people who are walking My dog patrols the street If you're speeding he will he will run out at you if you're driving the speed limit. He will not but You really I Safety is a huge issue and that intersection is a big deal Especially if you're looking at a minimum of 25 cars If there's two cars per household or whatever you're looking at 50 vehicles Going in and out of there a minimum and you've got The narrowness of the road the potholes As well that are horrible that they fill but then the next day the gravel is all out of them again And it's just a different both ends are completely different Was there any consideration given to Baldwin being an entry point to that development Other than rivermont Thank you, ma'am actually if you don't mind if you could come and fill out This form for the record that'd be great. We are now going to move to close the public hearing Thank you And commissioners with any questions or comments. We'll start on my start on my left this time commissioner Our commissioner williams and then commissioner gibbs um, I have more of a Comment if you will um in terms of your design process and what it is that you're attempting to do here as aging in place is a huge thing um That not many people are addressing and I think that your consideration of rezoning to reduce the amount of actual properties and addressing the capacity of Having even though it will be multifamily but multi-story, but it has a single family appeal to it And the need of having if you're going to address the issue of aging in place Then long driveways and attachments aren't necessarily Beneficial to what it is that you're trying to do and I think that That possibly In developing in this area more attention will be driven towards the roads in an effort to make them better and more habitable And I definitely understand your concerns in terms of you walk on this road and your children play and It's more of a crossway my Other understanding is if they don't come through with the considerations that they have and because this land is still available Like it was stated before you're gonna have to pick your poison because other considerations may not be given So it may be a higher density and even more of a traffic headache if you will or A hazard if someone else comes through and they decided they want to develop an air seeking to Develop it as it's currently zoned In opposed to reducing the zoning requirements if i'm understanding this correctly. Um I think that from Your conversation about it. I think that what you're proposing Is a healthy benefit to this area and I think that it will increase traffic, but Given what the ideal? Target resident is I don't think that the traffic impact will be as vast It won't be as frequent and it will vary throughout the day. Um, especially Um Given the targeted areas some I think the maximum is like four persons per multi family or multi Complex well multiplex dwelling So that's not necessarily significant in opposed to having A facility or a building that is constructed where you have You know two parents two kids It's multiple. Uh, you got a minivan. You got a car. You got a truck. I don't think that that's where we're going with here I think that it's it's similar to what's Been proposed and I think that your your charrette process Was helpful because I can tell by the way that you're looking at constructing these buildings that you studied the area and you looked at it Um, I also have a concern that it sounds like most of the issues are about the potholes that I don't know that Whether we approve or deny this is going to change whether or not those potholes get filled by more than gravel. So I'm inclined to vote for it Thank you commissioner, uh commissioner gibbs Uh, I'm going to support this too. Uh, I like cluster Uh housing uh as a concept a building concept Uh, you get the very you can get variable density and and still Retain some openness And it's applicability for affordable housing and marketing marketable Development I also like the idea Because of my age, I guess Uh, but not necessarily Co-housing investment I think it's a coming thing. I we've already seen Uh about three in the Durham area and I I I think it this particular Uh proposal will work in this area and as far as traffic and Getting something done about potholes and paving and all of that The more people you've got there the more influence I hope With the city the county the state or whoever is responsible for that. So I'd I think it would be a plus So I I'm going to support this And thank you for this concept Great, thank you commissioner gibbs commissioner miller So I thought I understood this project, but now I'm not sure I do Um, so if if one of you could come and answer some questions, I'd be very grateful So it's your intention to make a co-housing project, but I don't see any commitment to co-housing In in the development plan. It doesn't have to be co-housing Correct. Yeah, I mean we did not commit to that with a text commitment, but it will be condos All right, and there's a 24-acre parcel that you own, but the rezoning is only half of that Yes, it's approximately 22 whole acres and then we are rezoning a little over 12 of them All right, and but we talked about the remaining property and putting that in conservation And the implication of that was is taking it out of development. Correct. That would be but there's no commitment to that Right So that may or may not happen Our goal is to I understand your goal. I'm just no by leaving the trying to understand the Legal limits of what we're talking about right by leaving the rs20 designation to encourage a Conservation agency to purchase the land. I appreciate that, but that's not there is not a commitment. We can't count on that Correct And somebody could turn around and build on the buildable parts of that. Yes, and and so help me to understand if I believe you said if if we were to develop the entire 22 acres As rs20, how many units would that yield? 40 42 pardon me 42 42 and The actual unit count for the 12 acres that's the subject of this rezoning All right, uh, how many would that be developed as rs20? 32 yes 32 pardon me 32 32, but you proposed to put 24 in there so that is a Reduction The remaining portion that's outside that how many you rs20 units could go on that if your rezoning passes But no conservation agency comes in and somebody maxes out the rs20 development potential of the property at 10 Yeah, 10 10 would be the absolute max and that's using a cluster subdivision. So we really did max it out, right? So so if This is rezoning is passed and you get to the 24 units that that will be Condoed and have some multifamily aspect to them On the subject property and then 10 there that's 34 as opposed to the 42 That if we didn't do anything at all So it is a net if the rezoning passes even if there's no conservation There's a net gain and if you do later get a conservation Agency to come and take that then the the gain is even better, but that's outside the scope of the rezoning. All right But I appreciate you tell us about it. I I just wanted to get these numbers in my mind One of the things that bothers the neighbors is It's not just density. It's form And you have tried to say well, we're going to build the houses across the street in the in that single-shot cul-de-sac. There's some floppy big houses down there and that you're saying your your buildings will not be bigger than those But we'll just be shared Living there'll be two or three units or maybe four units. I don't know But you don't have a commitment in your development plan Limiting the maximum size of any one of your buildings except for the rooming house can't be bigger than 4 000 square feet Correct. We are happy to add a commitment to that if you put a commitment in there that says that says no building on your property Will be bigger than a certain number of square feet That is a step towards your commitment to A single-family residential scale that would be at least similar to the top end Of the rivermont the paved rivermont community And it might make it. I know I would feel better about your assertion as to how these units will look If you added that in i'm not going to speak for your neighbors I also know that you say that there'll be no architectural style It might help if if you've got a concept for your architectural style or Arrange it might make them feel better and trust the that what is built there will be Residential looking rather than non residential looking if you contemplated A commitment to a one or more residential styles that you feel comfortable working with them. Those are just suggestions Other than that, even though there are not commitments for conservation and there are not commitments For co-housing I think that with commitments to maximum building size and architectural style Directed at this the overall Benefit for in terms of the impacts that the neighbors have expressed concerned about Is better Uh and I don't believe if you did not own this piece of property somebody soon would be developing it And they probably wouldn't be asking for our s20 They'd be in here asking for a pdr of something even more another kind of pdr that would allow them also to cope more more Fully with all the the environmental issues that this property is impacted by At a greater density And we would be considering it So I'm not sure that That if we rolled the dice again on this piece of property that it would come up with a better number for For the neighbors based upon the concerns. I heard them express I'm going to vote for this, but I do hope going forward you will consider those extra commitments Don't give away More than you can afford to but if you can give if you can give away something you're not going to use That makes them feel better then I encourage you to do that Mr. Wiggins, thank you. I just want to clarify one thing there commissioner miller The area that you're referring to for the conservation areas not subject to this rezoning So the applicant can't proper any commitments for that area, right? I wasn't asking them to just making that I was making that point too Mr. Durkin I just had a question on the traffic and access to the rivermont road your proposal will just have one Entry point to rivermont. So if they're if their rezoning wasn't approved Then you would have you could potentially have multiple driveways that would go right on to rivermont The way it is I can they see this There's an image I can see right here. Yeah, we've got it Okay, okay. Yeah, I guess I just wanted to make the and make sure that I was understanding the point Correctly that your plan would limit the access the direct access whether or not it would limit the number of cars I don't really that wasn't really my point, but just the impact of directly on to rivermont would be Beneficial I would think for the neighbors. Yes Yeah, and I mean we did not run The ability to put multiple driveways By transportation or anything. This is just a layout that was done schematically. Um, right. We are maintaining the existing driveway Entrance with our development plan. So it's really not any new driveway impacts on to rivermont Mr. Satterfield Thank you. Thank you chair. Um, I think that uh, commissioner miller's questions mostly Answered my concerns one of which was whether the development plan was sufficient without any additional tax commitments To keep this from going in the direction of just your typical condominium development as opposed to a co-housing type of a development But overall i'm mostly concerned with the Keeping the density down, but in particular The conservation of that northern piece even though that's not part of what's being Requested to rezone at this time As an additional buffer for the park and as an additional amenity for whoever ends up living on this property So even though again, that's not a commitment that you can make Um as part of this request, i'm hoping and urging you to pursue some strategy for doing that. Yes, we are Commissioner brane. Thank you. Um a couple of questions for staff on Attachment seven summary of development plan Uh on a required information It says on the on the summary it's three access points, but we've heard numerous times. We're only one access point And under tax commitments There's this statement about providing a contribution to the Durham public schools and I didn't see that anywhere Thank you commissioner brane for pointing that out and catching that that was on all that was in an early edition Of the development plan that is the applicant has since stricken that so that should not be there. So thank you. Okay. Thank you Uh, I also have a question for mr. Jed I'm probably gonna defer to miss thomas, but that's fine It will all be relieved if you do Uh, is this within the city limits? Is this area? No, it is not. It is not Uh Yeah, it is Sorry, do you rivermont wrote itself is in the city this particular parcel has a pending annexation petition So they are proposing annexation. Okay. So rivermont is in the city And that leads to the transportation question if it's in the city can't The city do to do something about improving rivermont Rivermont is a state-maintained road Well, can you see do t would be responsible for maintenance Can you guys uh Nudge the state do t in any way? I mean i'm sympathetic to their concerns But I think their concerns would not be as great If uh rivermont was in better shape That's where i'm coming from And I guess for the applicant thank you for the applicant Is there any way you can push getting rivermont improved? I mean if if it's going to remain a bad road You may not have very many people interested in your development I go ahead Valid concern um I The do t is notoriously fun to work with um, I think We can try our best, but that's all we can really promise. Um There's you know, we can ask I think but uh, again apparent As I said with the hearsay thing the do t has tried to improve this road and the state park worked against it so I'm not sure where how those two state departments aren't working together on that but um Let's start by pushing do t and see what you get Thank you Thank you chair So I have a lot of the same concerns that um, sorry commissioner miller About The lack of certain commitments despite the representations from the applicant About certain things so one of the things that um Commissioner miller did not mention, but what I heard today was That there there would only be like nine or ten buildings I do think that's something you could add a commitment to I don't know if that would alleviate any of the neighbor's concerns, but uh, I I just find it Odd that you would have a development plan that doesn't have some of those Like easier commitments that seem to be part of your Plan for development of this property in the first place um, the other thing is I don't think it was said here, but or said tonight, but I did get an email from uh, stewart the consultant group about The intent to preserve that Area that is that you own which is not part of this rezoning um And I guess at the time I didn't realize that it wasn't part of the rezoning and assumed that it was a commitment And not that I have I'm not making a comment on on whether that's good or bad I just confused as to why that is being um Why that is being offered from the consultant group but not being offered as a tax amendment in on the development plan It makes it hard to evaluate it because It was presented as that's what this project is but in fact it does not appear to be that way Yeah, I I'm sorry if the language was unclear in Any other communication, but because it's not part of this Piece of land It's not it's not in any way a commitment that we can make um, and just to speak One there's a financial aspect of zonings are based on the acreage So to double the zoning acreage would also have a fee that gets doubled and so when you're not getting any sort of When you don't need to rezone something you don't necessarily want to pay a fee that's twice as much to rezone it even if you do want to commit to preserving it in the future Then I know there was some benefit to leaving it as far as 20 as an incentive to actually um preserve it as an incentive to the preservation agencies to show that it could be developed as opposed to When you say it can't be developed because it's a commitment you then have no value in it It it will not earn you any money from An agency that would want to preserve it. Well, I I can appreciate that. Uh, I guess I would say Then maybe you should make your communications more uniform because that's not the case right now. Okay The Oh the other thing that I was gonna I think commissioner miller did mention this But we've heard several times that the buildings will be Residential in nature or whatever. I mean, there's an opportunity to add architectural conditions, which I think would You know make that part of this zoning case I Don't know if that's something you guys are interested in or are you know, what extra tax commitments you would be interested in adding um I for one would like to see them if that's something you guys are interested in and and not that I Don't support the idea of this case But I would be interested I mean if it's something that you're telling people you're gonna do and something that you were willing to Put into a zoning commitment I've been inclined to continue this matter so that you can add those commitments. Yeah, okay Yeah, I'm happy to make commitments to the the building size the number of buildings Calling it co-housing all of those things so if that helps Makes me more comfortable about what's committed. That's all Great, and do you do you mind Just repeating for the record and for the staff your commitments Or what what you just said what I just said was I'm happy to make commitments about the number of buildings The size of those buildings and the fact that it will be a co-housing community Jay Williams with the planning department. Can you repeat if there was a proffer? Will you repeat it, please? There's not a problem. There was no proper. I just I wanted to make sure that we were clear. I think it's a proffer for openness of proffering That's not a problem. Do you want to offer tax commitments today that are therefore put on our development plan for the next And then you'd say exactly what you're offering. I would encourage them to and you're gonna say between Okay, so can you say like Committing to buildings of Right, like exactly. So yes, if you would like me to make specific commitments right now, I can do that Thank you. Yep. Any other commissioners with questions or comments Missioner out turk Jacob are you ready And I will just remind the applicant that depending upon these proffers this may be subject to recommendation for an automatic two-month continuation Joe That's a very long time Um, so how do we evaluate whether or not that continuation would occur read your proffers, please Mr. Miller Well, I think the thing to do is just is to make your proffers conditional condition dot upon its response I mean, we'll let you unproffer them if if if you're not satisfied If it triggers a delay Commissioner Miller, I'm sorry to interrupt there. There's not proffering and unproffering We're either proffering commitments or we're not proffering commitments Well, um might I suggest that we give the applicant an opportunity to meet with The staff short like right now to talk about some of these and see if they change their answer to whether they're willing to commit to anything tonight I do have some other questions. So I think that would be a good time if you can Commissioner gosh if you have additional questions the floor is yours. Thank you. Um, I did want to address you guys I did want to ask mr. Koresh. I think it was Karrish, I'm sorry so, uh, your You had three points. I believe and number one was that Uh, what is in the city's or the city's assumptions are based off of maybe some incorrect information or something that is different than what is planned But I don't think you had an opportunity to Expand upon that and I didn't quite understand what these disconnects were and I was hoping you could explain that to me Certainly the the the development plan that I saw was the Multi-story multi-building condo complex design with remote parking lots a very industrial um suburban shopping center type of of architecture What I heard presented by the city at the beginning of the session Was a development plan that consisted of single family dwellings. I understood my point was that The information on which the city was operating and the information on which This body might be operating was vastly different than the development plan Which was in the minds of these individuals and there was a substantial disconnect Any predetermined considerations or decisions Based upon that original design plan wouldn't hold Based upon the design plan that was offered here. All right. Thank you that that that clears that up for me So staff, let me ask you all about that. My understanding is that I mean The assumptions that you all made Uh, we're about 24 single family lots and we have heard that In fact, it won't be single family 24 single family lots be 24 dwelling units. Um, I think most of these assumptions are related to transportation and utility impacts Do you have any comments on how The change in the product type would change those numbers? It'll have no impact Okay, so you think that in general it would be the same Yeah, generally speaking staff is going to go with the most intense option in terms of number generating Um, and usually that's going to be a single family structure. Understood Okay I see that the applicants and Uh, their representatives have taken a seat here. So I assume they may be ready to Make or not make some profit. So I would invite you up to the podium to do that or not Yes, um, so we are willing to commit that no structure be more than 4,000 square feet and, um, I'm not sure how to separate the Great the homes from the rooming house And a maximum of 12 structures Not including the existing barn correct Maximum of 12 structures not included the existing barn I should say say primary dwelling structures. How about that? Is that clarify it? I don't know it's staff to Mr. Wiggins I Don't I don't want to have a gazebo end up being or a play structure. I mean it would be considered a structure. So I would Yes, yes, okay. That is a structure a gazebo is a structure Okay, so I need to figure out how to use my terminology here then Inhabited dwelling structures dwelling structures Is that a term or I mean you can count that gazebo is one so you would have this have no more than So and then I Jacob Wiggins the playing apartment. This is the exact reason why staff has these rules in place. Yes, so If we need to wordsmith this then staff would recommend a continuation And I would I would recommend it's important to get this right Okay, and so if if you are able to do so, I believe it would be appropriate to have This continued for two cycles to ensure that what is brought back for us Works and and gets at what you're trying to achieve And to make sure that we don't have to then come back again in the future Commissioner Williams. Yeah, I I just I want to know like at this very moment whether or not these text commitments are proffered or committed to Does this affect anybody on the commission's ability to vote on whether or not they want to approve this tonight? Because if it doesn't then it seems like it's unnecessary pressure For them to commit to something if it's not going to affect your vote as it's already been presented So a delay in this is kind of delaying the inevitable in order to make us feel comfortable about something We either are going to already vote for or not vote for so interesting It's a fair question So I would ask this is the opportunity for discussion among the commissioners I would ask that you address the chair when you're Asking a question, but you may ask the chair to ask other members to share their thoughts So commissioner williams has asked the question and if people have Thoughts they would like to share. Please let me know Commissioner goshe. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I mean exactly that it would make a difference to me But primarily because of what we have been told here today and the opportunity I mean they have a development plan So I don't see why they would tell us any of these things that they're not willing to commit to that That's the only reason right Commissioner brian. I agree with commissioner goshe Other commissioners mr. Durkin. I'm ready to vote. I I don't think a delay is necessary Commissioner miller Quite frankly if they're willing to say no structure more than 4,000 square feet And we know how many units are going to build. I don't care how many buildings there are That's a simple empirical Uh proffer with that proffer alone. I'm ready to give this project my support I would love to see an architectural commitment going forward, but I'm not going to delay it for that Commissioner van. Yeah, I agree with um Miller and goshe and all um, I would just say that I just just think in the future You know, especially when we get to points like this, you know, you know, I'm a history kind of guy So I guess I see things kind of different for most of y'all But you know, um, I think when you have you're trying to work out some language And you know and what happens when you rush language? You make mistakes and these are mistakes that will have impacts not necessarily us It's going to impact you and and what we do here as well And so, um, I just think that somewhere along the line. We've got to get this process kind of cleaned up All around But I also agree that I think by now you you know enough about what you're going to do Whether you're going to vote or not And I know I'm ready to vote if That's my recommendation. Thank you commissioner Gibbs That's to get on with it. All right. I'm ready to vote So I just want to make sure before we vote I want to hear from the staff Uh, what are the what are the commitments that we have noted that will be part of what we are voting on? Thank you. Jacob Wiggins of the pine apartment. I have three proffers The first one being two that they showed earlier regarding the unit type As well as the preservation of the evergreen buffer And then the third most recent one was that no structure will be greater than 4 000 square feet And do the applicants agree with With this situation so we're all in agreement that these are the proffers that are in front of us Great. Thank you very much. This commissioner van is a perfect example of we took one extra minute And we all know what we're voting on so at this point. I would entertain a motion Or approval with these proffers. Mr. Chairman. I move that we send case Z 18 quadruple 0 7 forward to the city council With a favorable recommendation As long as it includes The three proffers which jake have just reviewed for us Yeah, second great. That is properly moved and seconded. This is correct. This is going to the city council given the annexation great We'll take a roll call vote, please Commissioner al-Turk Yes Commissioner johnson Yes Commissioner gosh Yes Commissioner brine Yes Commissioner satterfield Yes Commissioner durkin Yes Commissioner hyman Yes Commissioner miller Yes Commissioner ketchin Yes Commissioner hornbuckle I'm sorry commissioner van Yes Commissioner gibbs Yes And uh commissioner williams Yes And chair uh busby Yes Motion passes 13 to 0 Thank you. Thank you all for staying very late this evening for engaging in the process together So you might think we're done, but if you flip your agenda to the back page, we do have new business We have uh the sign ordinance provisions. This is an information item this evening This is item tc 17 quadruple zero two And here's the man with the information michael stock is what's between us and going home You thought you were going home, but lo and behold I love you got some Signed stuff to take care of or at least This is in form about Let me pull this up quickly I'm here with uh senior city attorney assistant Senior assistant city attorney uh donno tool who has been instrumental and with helping us uh draft these regulations and for um Some of the newer members on planning commission Sometimes we like to bring larger text amendments To the planning commission a month or so ahead of time to kind of just Refuse you before you're just jumping right into a public hearing setting, especially ones that are A little more complicated. Um, you might have questions or you might it gives you time to even formulate questions between now and the public hearing um If you catch a typo, let me know That kind of thing, but also if you do after this Uh presentation if you do have questions, you're more than welcome to forward them on to me and don and And we will either be able to respond to you then or bring them with us to the public hearing to address them with the body um This is uh revisions to sign regulations. I'm sorry. I keep thinking Uh, we're just this presentation is very similar to what was presented to the jcc pc in april and at a public meeting held in may Um, we're going to just give a project background how we quickly how we got here, um Don's going to go over a lot of the legal issues behind it and and so any of the the nitty-gritty law issues Don's here to answer or at least look into further if we can't answer it tonight um And same with the ordinance revision overview just kind of walk you through some of the changes I'm not going to go line by line with every change but kind of highlight the big changes And if there's something in there that you didn't see I that I mentioned But you notice within the within the changes again feel free to ask it wasn't meant to be all inclusive Um, and I don't actually I'm sorry. I don't know if I have the next steps and next steps is the public hearing itself um, so the background um back in 2015 the town of gilbert, arizona went Uh versus reed Went to the supreme court and it was a case uh focusing on non-commercial temporary signs And it resulted in a uh overturning of their regulations based upon Uh needing to uh focus more Strictly on time place and manner Uh provisions again, it was focusing on non-commercial temporary signs Uh, there were multiple and dine will get into it. There are multiple opinions on it Although they all came to one general conclusion on the case itself. There were Um multiple opinions issued Uh, so it made it a very tricky uh signs are tricky in and of themselves with uh first amendment free free speech issues Um, this ruling was even trickier because of the varying opinions Of how to handle signs So what we did was we did uh Contract with a consultant which did a they did an initial assessment and they did a presentation back Uh to the jccpc council and board of commissioners back in 2017. Unfortunately were released Uh due to issues we had uh with their uh work product and and uh Responsiveness uh, so I got to take it over Um in 2017 it it felt it primarily don and myself, uh, bryan mordell over at the county attorney's office also was involved um And other staff too, uh, we Drafted numerous uh versions and then we finally took it to the jccpc in april 2018. I was not at that meeting don was um, but um the draft you see here is 9.9 percent generally what jccpc reviewed. Um, and they had and and Chair busby, I don't know if you were at that meeting also But if my from what I was told and you uh chair busby and don can also correct me They saw no issues whatsoever and they kind of went through it in pretty detail Also, uh with it, uh, we did have a public review in may 2008 In may, uh, no substantial Comments were received the sign industry was notified Um about this and they actually did send in comments and most of their comments were kind of just preferential You should change some of the percentages of this and that there weren't any substantive like read like oh my gosh Your this isn't what read says kind of thing So now i'm going to toss toss it over to don to discover the legal background a bit more Good evening everyone and I know you've been here a long time. Try not to uh belabor things My name again is don oh tool. I'm an attorney with the city attorney's office And I have the good fortune of working with our planning department, which I really enjoy um, like mike said, um, repeat gilbert came out of the us supreme court in 2015 Just so you know the city actually was sort of uh thinking about thinking about our sign ordinance provisions As early as 2014 there were some signs that were put up Throughout the city that um were a little bit controversial. So uh attacking the county sheriff So there was some thought to uh, eventually looking at the sign ordinance provisions And actually a lot of what came out of the reed case We were sort of anticipating we might need to do with our sign ordinance the reed case this, uh, Town in arizona and I've never been to gilbert arizona But it's been described to me as a little bit like carry for what that's worth Um, I would argue that this is potentially a case of bad facts Or bad regulations or not knowing when to stop Um that sort of led I won't say bad law But basically a supreme court case that basically is upsetting Every municipal sign ordinance across the country And although this came out this case came out in 2015 Durham is actually on the cutting edge of sort of getting our sign ordinance up to speed with this, um With this supreme court decision. Let me just uh read a little bit of some of the facts of the case Just so you know what i'm talking about The um town of gilbert had a bunch of different categories of signs that they regulated in different ways One category and that's what was that issue in this case Was what the town referred to as temporary directional signs And they defined that kind of sign as a sign directing the public to a church or other qualifying event And then um the case goes on to say a qualifying event was defined as any assembly Gathering activity or meetings sponsored arranged or promoted by a religious charitable community service Educational or other similar nonprofit organization So if you were going to put up a temporary sign in the town and you fell into that category You then had to follow these onerous regulations and you can judge for yourself Whether you think these regulations are good or not you were permitted no more than four signs Limited to six square feet in size um And that size limit applied to any single property and this was the thing that really I think killed Uh or caused the supreme court to rule the way it did The sign could be up for no more than 12 hours before the qualifying event And one hour after the qualifying event here Read was the pastor of a very small church that did not actually have a fixed Sanctuary location so they traveled wherever they could find space and the church members Committed the onerous act or or the egregious act of putting up 15 to 20 signs around the town The members would go out early in the day on saturday to put up the signs So that people would know where church service was going to be on sunday And then they would take the signs down by midday on sunday And the town of gilbert decided to Bring down the hammer on them Needless to say I think if the planning department tried to do something similar in durham I think I think they would have the good sense not to do that But um, I would probably advise them to be cautious there So this um that sign ordinance that I just read to you is clearly content based In order to know what the rules are that apply to that sign You'd have to read the sign and then you'd know what the rules are the court said Whenever something is content based it receives what um in constitutional law terms is called strict scrutiny The thing you need to most Know most about strict scrutiny is whenever the court says that It's almost inevitably going to find that the act was illegal because it's a really hard test The test would require the government to show that it furthers a compelling governmental interest so we couldn't have churches put up signs for more than 12 hours And um take them down by one o'clock in the afternoon and that it's narrowly tailored to achieve that interest Like mike said one thing that the court pointed out is um Sign regulations that are content neutral that basically regulate the time that a sign is up The place that it can be put up and the manner in which it's put up Only receives rational basis review and basically all that means is the city council has to have Sort of a a good sounding reason for the rule Did i lose the power Okay Okay, so the the this opinion the primary opinion This current supreme court frequently has many different opinions, but justice thomas wrote the primary Opinion and he he sort of gave us three principles. He said there are some things. It's okay to regulate That that would pass um that aren't that are content neutral Size of the sign materials that the sign is made out of lighting moving parts portability um, he also pointed out that local governments are free to um impose Uh regulations on its own property as long as it does so in an even even handed method We can't say we like signs by democrats, but we don't like signs by republicans. Obviously that would be a problem um, and then the last thing that justice thomas highlighted is Signs um that are narrowly tailored to protect public safety would likely pass strict scrutiny So signs um and and you'll see this when mike reviews the ordinance But things like traffic signs in the right of way The government can pretty much say where those signs can be um the really useful opinion And most commentators have said this was written by justice alito because um, I think the justice is recognized how Sort of the effect this opinion would have and I think justice alito wanted to say Maybe the sky isn't falling. There are things that local governments can still regulate And so his opinion is sort of helpful because it lays out things that he believes Still would be legal Regulating the size of a sign the location of a sign where it's located Whether it's lit or not Fixed message versus electronic like digital billboarding kind of stuff Uh distinctions for signs on public versus private property similarly Um towns could likely distinguish between signs on commercial and residential property um one of the examples he could gave of um regulating signs in the right of way is a town could Theoretically have a limit on the number of signs in the right of way They could say no more than x signs per mile or something like that Off-premise versus on-premise distinctions Theoretically are still legal. So an off-premise sign is a billboard just so you know Time restrictions on signs. So if temporary Signs are allowed in the right of way saying they can be up for no longer than x period of time And generally to sum up what um justice alito said If regulations fall into the time place and manner category Then generally those kinds of regulations would pass constitutional muster All right, so let's get into uh the fun part. Um, let's we'll do an overview quick overview of what this these changes do and do not do One big thing that it that it does Before I get into the list Is that it does reorganize the section substantially So I apologize for a lot of the strike through and crossing out It was kind of the nature of the beast for this project. So I tried to Make it as clear as possible There's a lot of sections were maintained the wording was maintained or substantially maintained but just relocated So I didn't really highlight that in gray areas that are in gray. I tried to call your attention to as Areas that are either new or new wording altogether or substantially changed wording From from what's currently in the ordinance. So things that really haven't changed or had limited changes And I keep grabbing this which is not going to do anybody any good Are the lists of prohibited signs Um That list uh had some minor modifications to it, but overall has stayed as is again Most general sign standards. So height Sign area computation illumination everything you see on that list there has in change a substitution clause Is something that has come out that came out of a another supreme court case Um, I'm blanking on the name. Um, is it I think it's metropolitan Metropolitan where it says you can't show preference for Uh, commercial speech over non-commercial speech and you have to allow non-commercial speech wherever you allow commercial speech So it's it's not allowing that preference and almost every Uh Reasonable sign ordinance that you find out there is going to have some version of a substitution clause in there Where it says this ordinance is is not giving preference to commercial speech and and and such Um, and then most sign types that we come to just generally understand and see The freestanding signs those pylon and monument signs a wall signs signs a project from a wall We have a whole section on that And most of those standards really haven't changed we have tweaked some of those standards based upon comments We've got so we had a little bit of mission creep uh with the versus the read v. Gilbert Issues but overall those standards have stayed the same And they've just been kind of recategorized Uh, so what is changing? Uh, the purpose statements we've revised and updated them based upon the changes that we did to the regulations and to address Uh, uh, the read v. Gilbert issues Um, the definition of signs Um, we took a look at some other jurisdictions and saw their definition and actually we we we copied it from I believe Or at least mostly copied it from Greensboro to give them props We found a good general neutral definition of signs versus one that we have that kind of lended lent itself towards only considering signs in almost a commercial context Um, so we did create a new exempt sign category And so this is where we went into a little bit of content-based regulation And um, we've seen this in other Uh regulations or aren't a lot of other regulations to compare to as Don mentioned before we're kind of Doing new ground on this even some of the model ordinances out there are kind of like They they tried them out soon after read came out and then they kind of gave up because it's it's it's a real tough topic to deal with Um, we might be the first or second in the state to be really tackling this head on Um, but for exempt signs these are signs that are not going to be regulated by this ordinance They're either regulated By other ordinances or laws But they're primarily also just straight up government signs And if they're not straight up government signs, they are still signs that relate to safety or wayfinding They're not promoting a commercial or any kind of interest, but they're there's we feel At least in our best opinion That these represent a very limited but compelling governmental interest. So we've kind of the list is limited Um And we did that on purpose But we give that an exempt category There are a couple other content based regulations that we added in there for The electronic message boards real time changeable copy allowed for parking structures Based upon regulating traffic circulation Again, it's not promoting a certain parking structure. It's just They need to have that change to be able to say if it's vacant or full. It's very important that that you get that That real-time information The other new other new things are we set up instead of So we set up categories called temporary or permanent sign sections and replaces as it says up there This current section called signs without permits allowed without permits And those are the those signs that read specifically addressed. Those are all those kind of temporary Signs that were regulated based upon what the sign was doing So a real estate sign had a certain size and other parameters versus a banner sign had a certain size and parameters versus a real An incidental sign or an entryway sign So we categorize them as temporary and permanent sign sections There's also a section just for right-of-way, but we took that away and just built into right-of-way allowances into temporary or permanent sign sections Specifically for temporary signs We let we developed the sign budget for each parcel with a focus on time place and manner instead of type of sign And actually for single family and I believe even duplex Two family lots. We allowed just an unlimited number of signs, but regulated the size of those signs Understanding that People who live there might have Various things they want to say to their neighbors and people who drive by And put them on different signs and who are we to say how many signs they should say or what or what they should say Anyway, go back. What's that? Would you go over that again? Sure. So under the temporary sign section for Page 31 So under page 31 Under signs located on a parcel Single or two family residential signs each parcel shall be allowed an unlimited number of commercial Non-commercial temporary signs with a maximum height of three feet a maximum area four square feet Mr. Chairman. Yes So i'm a little concerned is that we were saying we weren't going to be making commercial non-commercial Distinctions, but we're making commercial nine. We never said you can't you can't that's actually one of the things that was left Uh, well, that's what I thought but I thought you said the metropolitan case actually eliminated. No, no What the metropolitan says that you can't preference commercial over non-commercial In terms of your regulations Right because we've always right and this is what it does it allows non-commercial speech Because we always had a distinction and that distinction survives. Yes. Yes. Uh, that's the substitution clause And then Never mind And then we do allow some additional signs When something is happening on that property. So if you're concerned about a real estate sign So when a property happens to be for sale or for lease you get a sign We're not telling you what the sign says. So if you want to put your sign up for proper up for Uh sale, but you don't want to put a real estate sign up, but you want to take advantage of that That's fine You're most likely going to put a real estate sign up But the avenue is not to focus on what the sign is saying But focus on the time place or manner of it It's a it's it's a plan words, but it seems to work And I've seen it and it's been mentioned in other references that we've we've gone over um Limited temporary signs allowances in the right of way Uh, one of the issues, um that was brought up and that the city currently has a policy on are the ghost bikes And other types of memorials Uh, so we've built that into allowances for the right of way Um, and then the Other signage allowed in right of way and don had mentioned, um The nefarious signs that were up a number of years ago So we've put in very specific time place and manner Uh provisions, uh four signs allowed in the right of way Based upon actually the time period allowed set by the state for election signs so And that provision, uh Uh would be so if you're not familiar with that you're allowed to believe 30 days or so before 45 days I'm sorry the current ordinance is for the first day of early voting So 45 days before the first day of early voting and up to and I have it in there somewhere But 10 days after you can do your election signs We're saying okay, we're not making a distinction between election signs and other non-commercial signs You can just have these kind of signs We have a parameter on the size of them But that would be it and those are your sometimes two windows a year I mean, it's generally two windows a year because you might have a primary in the general election Um when you can have your limited free for all for non-commercial signs And then we currently have provisions for sidewalk signs in very specific zoning districts And that was primarily maintained Like the a-frame signs or the temperature and which board signs. Yes. Yeah, we maintain that we relocated that Tweak some of the parameters of when they needed to be removed, but um otherwise remained the same There was another whole section in there too that related to some additional parameters that just actually didn't make sense So we just kind of took that permanent signs Uh We created a new minimum sign allowance for any property So any property doesn't have to worry about getting a commercial sign Permit at all up to three square feet of signage on their property once they go above that and that takes care of things like home occupation signs and other kind of small commercial type signs that Your ad t or cpi type signs or or that kind of thing that are Uh That require that kind of signage you don't have to worry about getting a sign permit for it But once you have signage that's above that three square feet then all your signage has to conform to the uh You have to get the sign permits and and meet those standards Um, again, we've maintained most of the current sign types and most of the standards are already time placed in manner So we didn't have to adjust a lot of those any of the changes that we did were suggestions or Addressing some issues with those signs and it was a bit of mission creep that we tried to keep down But we felt that while we're messing with the ordinance just take advantage of it That includes like clarifying the difference between a monument and pylon sign We removed the way finding standards and off-premise non-residential entry signs Thus that was the deletion of the way finding sign plan. We're handling way finding signs as an exempt type of sign And the off-premise non-residential entry signs That was something I was added in a couple years ago for a particular project and when we when we took a look at that in detail It just didn't seem like it could pass muster Mr. Chairman is to our opinion. Mr. Miller help me understand why a way finding sign is not Problem you have to look at it to determine to distinguish it from the Um, the sheriff is a is a dirty bomb Well, why is a way finding sign? Why can we make a distinction between a way finding sign and a sign that's not a way finding sign? Why is that not that's that's where we are taking and making an assumption? um And making a best educated Determination that there's a compelling governmental interest to get people moving in an efficient manner throughout the city and throughout the property And directing buses and calculated risk in other words. Yeah All right. Good traffic and yeah traffic and safety signs. Yeah Um, we relocated the landmark sign section into the actual landmark designation section in article 13 in article 3 Because it just seems to work better than that was another mission creed kind of Issue just to clean up that section. Um, and then we did as you'll note in there We made some modifications in additions to some definitions Um, so some of the things that Uh, these were notable considerations that we definitely brought up to jccpc and At the at the public meeting Real estate directional signs and maybe you have received emails and phone calls from Real estate folks and we have met with real estate folks. So this is not something that we are not unaware of They're currently allowed in right of way Um Right now as proposed they are would no longer be allowed in right except for during election period No, those are yeah, those are commercials. Those are commercial. Yeah, okay, so signage. So they would not be allowed at all Um Changeable copy. We deleted a larger allowance that was specific for theaters So we didn't see a compelling governmental interest to allow that Except for the allowance that we made for parking structures for full or or not full We removed a Conflicting a sign calculation area of aggregate sign area We have very specific sign allowances for the different sign types How much you can have for a wall sign and it was conflicting with the aggregate sign area Uh provision. So we felt that you know what it it seems And and the default has always kind of gone to the specific when there was conflict and looking at historically How it's been regulated It seems to be working. So we didn't seem to change need to change it. So we just got rid of this aggregate sign area calculation um And again the signs and we brought it back to their attention signs within the public right away Uh, it addresses those roadside memorials when there was a fatality. We that was one of the tweaks We kind of narrowed it down to uh, the type of incident in the um Right away and also, uh, tried to find that middle ground of not allowing Signs in an unlimited basis throughout the right away and also not going the other way of just restricting Signs within the right of way besides besides to say governmental or wayfinding signs in a way of trying to find that middle ground and using the election period As as at least a good middle ground Um Again, we have spoken to the real estate folks about it. We know their concerns Uh, we went over it with them Um We also said if they can come up with language that would help us that would work We are open for it. We weren't looking to be punitive just to folks um And um, and then also understanding that if city council and the board commissioners felt their their needs were compelling And they wanted to go in a direction that was Beyond the recommendation of staff. That's their wish to do so. Um, just understanding that it might not be what we're trying to do Is put something that's defensible Before them not guaranteeing that it's going to necessarily stand up to a court case But what we feel is at least reasonably defensible And in in july, I don't know about other commissioners that I believe we received a communication in mid july from the Durham realtors and the home builders that Said that they did have some concerns But then they would be back in touch with us in the next week or two And we haven't heard anything back has the has the staff heard any Thoughts they're working on it. Yes. They have not we we met with them Do we meet we met with them back in may and May and april that time period and we have heard nothing from them since that meeting And you and your memo says that this is likely coming to us in september Is that is that still likely or is that that's the plan right now if there's something that comes up We are going to be also meeting with some city council members. They asked to meet with with staff and we're going to meet next week with them They weren't specific as to why they wanted to meet with us But I have a feeling at least the real estate sign is one topic if not just to get a better handle on it And I know at least one of the council members we're meeting with next week was also on jccpc So he's already heard this. So I have a feeling they just kind of want to get a better grasp of the issues that they're hearing From there, you know through their emails and contacts and such and if there's If we get direction to go in a different direction Then we'll do that and we'll move it without way finding science Right. Yeah, and and you know again, this is our our our Best professional opinion as to a defensible Ordinance Understanding that there might be different ways to attack it and we're open to those options if it's an issue Are you commissioner miller? I have Some questions. I'd like to ask just to test my understanding Would it be a violation of gilbert if we required Everybody who posted a sign in the right of way in other words on public property city property To identify however small the print might be who the owner of the sign is to Enhance enforcement seems to me if we can have a permit requirement. We can have a An identification You can make that as part of the permit requirement. I don't see that as a violation of gilbert I think we are steering away from the permitting requirement because Well, I'm saying for an unpermitted sign for unpermitted signs in the right of way not in somebody's yard or something In the right of way, especially if you've got a time period And you also know who to cite if you get violations It seems to me that that is a reasonable governmental interest Or otherwise, you don't know. You don't know who's putting them up So that was that's something I'll throw out there so if I'm in the cherry lane subdivision Donald tool city attorney's office the one thing I could see is a potential objection to that I mean, I think we could have that requirement, but I could see someone objecting to um an argument Along the lines that the government is imposing speech on them That we're requiring them to put certain language on their sign I see that that's why I asked the question, but there are there is a compelling reason I'm not talking about all signs. I'm talking about the sign in the government's property Uh So then the another question so I it's a the cherry lane subdivision wants to put up Permanent signs either in the right of way or in their neighborhood or in On private property in their neighborhood that says that identifies it as the cherry lane subdivision What kind of sign is that and what are the regs under the new rules under new rules? It would still be a Actually, it would take the form of a monument freestanding sign and those are current regulations now that they're allowed to do that We reworded it a little bit to make it a little more read friendly One thing that we did remove was allowing them in the right of way So they would not be allowed in the right of way anymore And we've kind of in public works handles those kind of encroachment agreements and stuff And they were actually kind of thankful that that wouldn't be allowed in there because of kind of break away Hazard issues that they cause in the right way me so Talk about real estate signs Uh, the Shriners want to do a fish fry What happens moving forward with the fruit the the fish fry signs that get stuck up in the in the right of way For a week before the fish fry They're not allowed They're not allowed not allowed Yeah What about what I would call non-commercial message signs I want to Spread the gospel and so I put a sign in my yard That says the lord told me to tell the world that Jesus is soon to come Go for how big Let's take a look Go with yeah Is that the page 31 is that the three square feet thing? Yeah, let's do yeah some No hired in three square feet and maximum four square feet of each sign So you could list all sorts of proverbs from the bible that you like Okay, uh, what about the right of way? Only during the election time periods. All right, good to know that's where things it seems to have a lot of a lot of fish fries at election time And so yard sales Those kinds of yard sales. So under the single same section for under 31 A single and two family residential. So when there is a yard sale You can have a sign. We're not telling you it has to say yard sale, but it's when you have a yard sale and then okay What about in the right of way? What if I want to put it down the street? Those are those are done Oh my goodness. I see that we're going to have to figure out some ways to work on this Because those that's just life people are going to do that. Well, I mean quite honestly a lot of the stuff is Illegal anyway when it's put up. I mean it's put up on utility polls, which is illegal right now. So it's it's um, a lot of the things we're just Making it more abundantly clear that it's currently illegal There's also I mean enforcement is going to be what enforcement is So you're taking a risk if you put up a yard sale sign up in your corner So that's a strong reason not to put your name on right Any additional questions That's That's why I ask those. I suspected your answers I foresee trouble. It's not an ideal situation that we're in. We're not Arguing that this is an awesome way to go. Um, but it's kind of where we landed Right now and again, if someone has a really good idea that's not overly burdensome in terms of Needing additional staff and resources to create a permitting system kind of thing but is kind of equitable To everything we will be glad to take those suggestions and see how they work out So the church in gilbert if it was in Durham would actually be in trouble going forward with this ordinance The moving church the moving church. Yeah, yes So they shouldn't have to rely on email Um, yeah, but just one point just uh, you know, I know we're all sympathetic to nonprofit organizations And they're need to have fish fries, but that would be a commercial activity So if if city council wants to allow signs like that in the right of way We need to keep in mind that that's opening the right of way for commercial speech And then it's also opening the right of way for any kind of non-commercial speech So if that we can regulate it about how long they can be up and how big they are and where they can go And and without regard to the content that as early as 2014 we discussed um If we wanted to regulate that That would involve a pretty extensive permitting and enforcement program And i'm pretty sure that planning doesn't have the staff to take care of that But those are all things that could be consistent. I can do it Commissioner brine Thank you Most of the little things that i've marked i'll try to get sent to you Thank you But there are a couple of things i wanted to just mention while we're here On page 12 we're going to talk about, you know, hazardous signs, especially The ones that interfere with the line of sight And if you want an example of signs that interfere with your sight triangles Come to nc 54 and barbie road saturday morning And there will be there. There will be about a dozen uh One of the things that i think Might be helpful if you can get together with transportation and Work up a definition Put a definition of what the sight triangles are maybe those are in the ordinance already There are because i didn't see them. Yeah, there's a there's a section in article 12 that goes over maybe you should Reference it then And then the other thing that i wanted to mention this is on page 39 Under c area paragraph 2 You have this distinction Lots of the frontage of less than 150 linear feet Sign should be 12 square feet And then if it's 150 linear feet or more the frontage you can go up to 32 square feet That's existing text Yeah, well my point i want to make about it even if it's existing i think it's a big jump If i have a lot if there's a lot that only has 140 linear feet next to one to say it has 160 You know one guy can only have 12 the other guy can only go up to 32 I think there needs to be more of a graduation I understand where you're coming from. Um, we tried i by admission There has been some mission creep in this where there was some really identifiable where we've already recorded issues with the current regulations And we had an opportunity to clean it up while we were in there. We haven't heard any issues with that at all Um, so we hesitate to get into the weeds of the specific Uh time place and manner regulations that are already existing and weren't causing any problems I understand that but I understand your concern Commissioner williams. Yes, I would just like to uh Make a motion in the interest of time if possible To kind of wrap this up. I believe this is informational You can go. Okay. Well, thank you. You can leave But normally I would thank you No, I'm really grateful because this is this is going to be a difficult hearing I don't want to learn about this in a staff report in 10 minutes on each side Right, and I assume that's why we're here vice chair hyman And I still want to because I had some real concerns about the nefarious signs for so long What specifically would address those signs in the new language that they can only be Someone can still do a nefarious sign. Well, they still can. Okay, but because that's just free non-commercial speech And they put it on it's property voicing an opinion But I mean can they put it on its property the way that they did it can only be done during the election time period Right, so it can't be done kept up throughout whenever Okay Any other questions or comments or from either the commissioners or from staff Thank you. Missioner Gibbs This is going to be a mundane question with all the other details It's a real mundane answer It's something that means something to me when it comes to signage Any signage directions street names, whatever Is there anything in the law that says You're going to try to comply with the ADA as far as contrast Letter sizes If it's a lighted sign Is it going to be lighted in such a way that it's going to cause glare? which For some people would just eliminate it and I but that's important to me And a lot of other people with disabilities like that We do have illumination and lighting provisions We asked one of the sections that we did kind of tweak a bit is make it a little bit more specific as to How they're being held to certain lighting standards and directing them a cross-reference issue Like for sight triangles were cross-referencing to the lighting standards in the in the udo and the foot candle measurements and such for lighting so We we did address that in terms of illumination well, I'll tell you direction toward A person's eyes Is a big big issue That needs to be researched and understood Anyway No, those are good points throw that in there And thank you commissioner Anything else from from the staff Nope, unless something happens you will see this as a public hearing item next month, but You know, if not, then it will be soon after that You know, there's something that we need to address before we get to the hearing Great Well, I want to thank you both because this is very confusing and challenging and you sat here all night So we appreciate the time to explain it. Yes, and again if you have Comments or questions that you just want to forward to us Please feel free to do that and we'll try to address them if it warrants a change and We'll we'll say we made that change or why we didn't make that change or what have you That's great. Thank you before we adjourn. We have two final items Ms Smith since we're an hour six It seems like the appropriate time to maybe introduce a new staff person and to give us an update on what to expect next month Right, so there will not be an update on what to expect next month because I sent an email that I don't know what you should expect next month because I'm still catching up from last week As soon as I know what you should expect next month. I will let you know Great, and that will be sometime this week and I would like to introduce our new staff member Emily stroller She's actually not a new staff member. You may recognize Emily from working in development review She has been with the department since It's been a little bit for years. Yeah 2015 ish 14 late 14 15 ish She's joining our team because as you know, mr Wiggins is Traversed up to the front of the house and it's helping all of our wonderful customers in Durham with all of their Exceptional questions and land use inquiries. So Emily will be taking over In some of his cases, but also doing the similar work that he did and working with our team and you'll see her in the coming months So how frequently are we going to see Carla or what? Carla Carla has expressed Carla used to do flum amendments I think if you recall back in her earlier in her career She did flum amendments back when they were separated from the zoning cases and now we do a consolidated report And then she was focused in her time on historic preservation But she expressed an interest in learning some other things and then we were short staffed and we got really busy And we were like, oh, I said, you want to learn new things here do this I was wondering if she was involved in the forest hills thing because of the historic preservation aspect Well, she was unnatural for that one because she had a flum background and historic preservation background But she has actually expressed interest in just doing helping us and and we are trying to cross train our team So that we don't have deficiencies when we're when we're some of us are out or not in place. So So welcome Emily. Yeah, Emily. Welcome aboard every every night is this fun And mr. Wiggins whole new meaning Last month was 36 minutes. I was told One final item a point of personal privilege commissioner gauche. Thank you for a moment So I believe this is my last meeting as a planning commissioner So I just wanted to say a few words First, let me start by saying that I have enjoyed it I honestly can say that I have learned something from each of you So I thank you for that and I hope you all can say the same about me I want you to know that I think the work that the planning commission does is very important Which is one reason why I withdrew my name for for a consideration for reappointment to the planning commission last monday My involvement with the planning commission has become quite a distraction So I apologize if any of that has spilled over to you whether for political gain or actual concern elected officials have called my ethics into question With regard to my public service as a planning commissioner and my private service as an attorney And while I trust that none of you had any concern about the manner in which I conduct myself I am happy to report that both the city and county attorneys Have determined that I did not violate any code of ethics that governs it all of us It has been a stressful time for me and I would never wish it upon any of you The intersection of my work with that of the planning commission is tricky to say the least But recently I've noticed that my role on planning commission Has caused my interactions with elected officials and my professional role as an attorney to become increasingly antagonistic At this time, I think it will be best not only for me But also for the planning commission and the city and county of Durham for me to move on to a different role I will continue to serve on the planning commission until they make a new appointment, but I suspect that will be later this month But if you're not as many times I have recused myself from this planning commission I'm sure you will see me again only next time. I'll be at that podium instead of this one Truly it has been a pleasure serving with you all and thank you very much Well, let me say on behalf of everyone We really appreciate your service and I think we have learned a lot from you as well You brought a unique perspective and you are always engaged and active and very thoughtful Um, if you are still here next month, we will be Honored to have you join us. Um, and if there is a new replacement We also hope you'll come back so we can thank you for your service on the commission Mr. Chairman if I may I feel fairly strongly about this Uh, there needs to be somebody at this table that has your professional experience Which means that for each of us that comes bringing expertise there and a point of view because we're an advisory body, right? Uh They're going to be tricky times I thought you handled the tricky part Exceptionally well, and I think we're going to be impoverished by your laws Well, I appreciate that and on that unhappy note this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all