 Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the city council and the county board of commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue brought before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those wishing to speak in favor, for those wishing to speak, please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium. Please speak clearly into the microphone. Each side of those wishing to speak in favor an item and those wishing to speak in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes to present each side. The time will be divided amongst all persons wishing to speak. If you're opposing a rezoning tonight, you should be aware of what's called a protest petition. A protest petition can be very helpful to those residents who live in the rezoning area. Please consult the planning department staff for any details on the protest petition and they'll be happy to help you. You should keep in constant touch with the planning department as to when your case will go before the elected officials for a final vote. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. Can we have a roll call? Commissioner Bealon. Commissioner Boyd. Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Gibbs. Vice Chair Harris asked for an excused absence. Chair Jones. Present. Commissioner Huff. Commissioner Miller. Present. Commissioner Padgett. Present. Commissioner Smusky. Present. Commissioner Walters. Here. Commissioner Whitley. Commissioner Winderz. And we have commissioners Whitley and Winderz, both asked for an excused absence. And she said Harris. Commissioner Harris also. No motion for that. We'll move down to item three, adjustment to the agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pat Young with the planning department. No adjustments to the agenda tonight, but I can certify for the record that all public hearing items before you have been advertised in accordance with law. And we have affidavits to that effect on file with the planning department. All right, thank you. Can we get a approval of the minutes? It's been properly moved to second. All those in favor, let it be known by raising your right hand. Any opposition? Minutes has passed, 10 to zero. All right, thank you. Move down to item five, A. Open the public hearing for zoning case, 2919 Fayetteville, Z140003. Good evening. I'm Amy Wolfe with the planning department. This case again is Z140003. This case, if you'll remember, was continued from the April 8th planning commission hearing. And upon the feedback that the applicant received from that planning commission hearing, the applicant had come in and changed their application. You'll see here in red the changes that pertain to this presentation anyways, from the commercial general district to commercial neighborhood. Again, the applicant is AMAC properties. It's in the city's jurisdiction. It's 1.409 acres and the proposed uses for a commercial and retail. There is no development plan associated with this request. Again, the site's in the urban tier 2919 Fayetteville Street, north of the American Tobacco Trail and adjacent to the American Tobacco Trail and south of Fayetteville Street Elementary School. It's a single legal lot. There is existing development on the site. There's an existing building with various tenants. Some of the site requirements for the commercial neighborhood district are as follows in this table. The ones that have changed from the commercial general district that you saw the last time are highlighted. The first one, minimum site area, 5,000 square feet. The commercial general, just for comparison, is the minimum of 20,000 square feet. This site certainly meets that. And the minimum lot width is now 50 feet, whereas commercial general was 100 feet and the minimum side yard is 10 feet, whereas the commercial general was 15. Again, this request is consistent with the future land use map of our comprehensive plan, which designates the site as commercial. It is also consistent with the policies of our comprehensive plan and other adopted plans. And staff does determine that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. And just as a side note, I want to, in our analysis with the changed district, the traffic intensity did not change from the district. It's the same uses that were allowed in the commercial general as is the commercial neighborhood if approved. And also the impacts to schools did not change. There is additional apartments permitted, not that we anticipated to be developed as apartments, but additional apartments would be permitted at 19 if it were commercial general. And the impacts with the commercial neighborhood is 15, but it does yield the same number of schools according to our formula. So I just wanted to make that as a note. And again, staff determines this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Okay, thank you. We have one person signed up to speak. Mrs. Steele. Hi, my name is Maricoma Steele. I am representing AMAC Properties 2919 Fayetteville Street and we're requesting to have, to enable a commercial. Is it? Is it? Oh, thank you. Okay. Thought you had more. No. Okay, anyone else wish to speak? If not, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the planning commissioners. Anybody wish to speak here? Mr. Smusky. Okay, thank you. This question is for staff. Amy, if I can get you. If I'm showing the existing zoning is office institutional. That's correct. Okay. And so we want to go to commercial neighborhood. Now, those uses, are there anything, are there any uses permitted in the commercial neighborhood that would be under other restrictions because it's next to an elementary school? I don't know that off the top of my head. Perhaps, Yeah, we don't believe that there are. Okay, but those would be covered. Those other uses would be covered under a special use permit that they'd have to go through the Board of Adjustments, right? Yes, that is typically the case. If there's a use other than, that would impact an elementary school. Typically there are limited use standards that or minor special use permit required. Okay, thank you. And I also noticed that you mentioned that the traffic wouldn't go up from commercial general to commercial neighborhood, but does it go up from office institutional? That comparison is in the table and it does increase the traffic. Okay, that's all I have right now. Thank you. It increases the traffic over office institutional potentially by 2,348 trips potentially. Per day. Per day. Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to tell the applicant how much I appreciate her making the change. And I know that it was a hassle for her to do that and in a delay, but I do believe that the commercial neighborhood zone is more appropriate to the site than the commercial general. And I'm going to vote for this reason. Anyone else? Can we get a motion? Chair, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move approval of this zoning request. Second that motion. You can call that number out for us. Okay, I move approval of case number Z140003. And second. So we're moving property second. All those in favor, let it be known by raising your right hand. Any opposition? Case number Z140003 has passed 10 to zero. All right, thank you. Move down to item 5B, Harmony Road II revisions. That's case Z140008. Good evening, Amy Wolfe of the Planning Department again. Again, this case is Z140008. The case name is Harmony Road II revisions, otherwise known as Chamberlain. The name Harmony Road II just to clarify things was the name on the original development plan. And since the proposal is for modifications of the original development plan, we stuck with that name. The site is in the city's jurisdiction. The applicant is John Armick Adams. And the request again is to modify text commitments of the existing development plan. The site is 75.14 acres. And the zoning is plan development residential 2.710. I've had a lot of inquiries about the zoning change, PDR 2.710 to PDR 2.710. And that is in fact the request. There's just a little bit more to it in this case where there's modifications to the development plan. The site is in the suburban tier between, generally between Cook Road and Morningside Drive, which also connects to Sturbridge Drive. The site is partially within the FJB Watershed Protection Overlay. On this context map you can see the Watershed Protection Overlay line in blue. To the north is the Watershed Protection Overlay. And generally what that does is limit the impervious surface on a site. The site again is PDR, or plan development residential 2.710, which it's adjacent to other PDR, developments at similar densities. There are some residual RS 20, or residential suburban 20 zones, which are generally along Cook Road and two parcels surrounded by PDR to the west of the site. And this is taken from the revised development plan. There are three requested changes to the existing development plan. And I'll go over those here in more detail. The first request is modification of the existing commitments. And there they were added to clarify the timing of the commitment so that staff could better administer that these commitments actually get done. So provided traffic calming device approved by the city of Durham, north of Morningside Drive, cul-de-sac at the entrance of Harmony Road 2 project. And the addition was prior to the first certificate of occupancy on Kenny Glen Court, which is a named road in the Chamberlain subdivision. And that's a similar addition to the next commitment of by adding the name of the project as well as the timing associated with Kenny Glen Court, excuse me, this is to circulate a petition among owners along Morningside Drive south of Harmony Road 2 project. And if sufficient signatures are obtained, which is the threshold was set at the time of 75%, and the city of Durham Engineering and Transportation Department's approve, they'll install speed humps per city of Durham standards on Morningside Drive. Again, prior to the first certificate of occupancy on Kenny Glen Court. And I'll point that out generally where that is here in a moment. And then finally to modify the timing mechanism for construction of sidewalks along Cook Road or Payment and Lou, and it's my understanding that that's being taken care of or in the process of being, the sidewalks are in the process of being put down right now is my understanding. And the second request is to remove a commitment that was proffered on the original development plan. And that is the construction of a six foot north-south asphalt trail from the sidewalks within Chamberlain and to the city's proposed Greenway along Third Fort Creek and to the adjacent Woodcroft Community Trail immediate south of Morningside Drive. Again, that is being requested to be removed. And the other one request number three to be removed is to circulate a petition among the owners of property. And it's referring to properties that are that front on Morningside Drive that are adjacent and south of the site. And that of 75% of those owners agree they would develop a mulch trail as shown on the development plan. This is the proposed development plan of the site. The first, generally Kenny Glenn Court is up in this area. It is not, this configuration is not a committed configuration of this development. But again, the referenced Kenny Glenn Court is currently in this area. The paved six foot offsite trail was to connect from the sidewalks of this development south of the site through the Woodcroft Community Trails. And it's generally in this location. And then finally, the second commitment that is being proposed to remove is for a five foot mulch trail shown along here. There is a note on this trail that says location of five foot mulch trail. And again, that is being requested to be removed. And this is just a closer view of showing where the stream and Morningside Drive are and how it relates to the proposed subdivision. This request is consistent with the future land use map which shows the site is low density residential and low density residential is generally for dwelling units or less per acre. And again, this is at 2.71. So this request is consistent with the future land use map. And staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted policies and ordinances. All right, thank you. We have three people signed up four and two against. So we can have Kurt Everett, Patrick Biker and Jen McDuffie. Let me come up if you can state your full naming address. If you have 10 minutes from each side, I'll let you figure out who wants to divvy that up. Should be a lot quicker. Good evening, Chairman Jones, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Patrick Biker. I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm an attorney with Morningstar Law Group here in Durham. I'm here tonight representing Standard Pacific as the developer of Chamberlain, a single family neighborhood off of Harmony Road here in Durham. We are requesting your recommendation of approval for really what is just a couple of modifications to the 2005 development plan for this neighborhood, which was approved as Case Z05-32. With me tonight are this neighborhood's current land use planner, Mr. Bob Zoomwalt. And also with me is Mr. Gray Methven, who's the land development director for Standard Pacific. We are requesting these modifications primarily to address two committed elements from Z05-32, specifically committed elements number 12 and 18. In regard to committed element number 12, despite good efforts from our team and the Woodcroft Community Association, we could not arrive at a workable alignment for the asphalt trail referred to in your staff report. Last week we sent out a letter to each of you from the Woodcroft Community Association's attorney, reflecting WCA's position that it is not opposed to this modification to remove committed element number 12. We will give a copy of this letter to the planning department for its records, and if any planning commissioners still need a copy, please let me know. Second, we request that committed element number 18 be removed as the petition measure referred to in this committed element was rejected by the homeowners involved. We are sharing with you an exhibit that shows both of the trails referred to in committed elements 12 and 18, so you can see them in the context of the Chamberlain neighborhood. In conclusion, it is important to note that this neighborhood went into foreclosure during the Great Recession. Standard Pacific bought this property from a bank, and now is building what I think our very nice homes in Chamberlain, and this has created many construction related jobs. We would like to keep this positive momentum going, and so we respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval for KZ 14-00-008. Our team will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak forward? We'll move to against. No? You? Oh, sorry. Hello, my name is Kirk Everett, and I'm a homeowner with Chamberlain, and represent a small group of, sort of an informal group of homeowners we've been discussing the zoning changes, and we've been working with Standard Pacific to, you know, we're okay with the trail not being, with the zoning changes going in, but what we would like to see is the money diverted for these changes into other upgrades for our community, and we've had some productive discussions with Standard Pacific to come up with some ideas for, you know, adding some features to the park area and common area, and then have the balance of the money that would have been spent making these changes put into our HOA, and what I passed out there is sort of what we have right now for a letter that we're working with Standard Pacific to draft into a contract. So, assuming, you know, obviously this is contingent on the zoning requests being approved, and if we can agree on what's in here and through our discussions, we think we can reach that. You know, we don't, our group of homeowners in Chamberlain do not oppose the zoning changes. Yeah, any questions? Thank you. Okay. All right, anyone else? Yes, come on. Good evening, my name's Jonathan Nolan, and my wife and I own a home at 506 Morningside Drive in Woodcroft. I'd like to thank the Commission for having this hearing and letting our voices be heard. I'm gonna try to summarize some of the biggest concerns from a group of us who live on Morningside Drive. Some of us are here tonight, if you could raise your hand. Some of us weren't able to come, but we've been talking about this together, so we wanted to try to streamline our concerns rather than saying the same things over and over. We fully support Chamberlain's proposal to drop the trail system to connect our neighborhoods, and many of us have already reached out to the Commission. We'd also like to thank Tom Miller for coming out on Sunday afternoon to spend some time with us and see the site. A lot of us who are here tonight have been opposed to this trail since the original meetings, which happened in 2006, as I understand it, and the builders of Chamberlain have changed. The plan for the proposed trails has changed several times, but none of us have ever supported it. Included in this proposal is a wood chip or mulch trail that runs directly behind the houses on the Chamberlain side of Morningside Drive, and during previous phases of construction, some of these homes have been burglarized. So those of us who are here tonight from Morningside Drive would like to reinforce that the proposed trail would provide easy access to the rear of homes and would compromise the safety and privacy of our neighborhood as a whole. Also, all of us who have concerns about the asphalt portion of the trail, too. The latest version of the proposed trail that we've seen, which is from April 2014, includes building sidewalks in people's front yards. My property would not only have a trail alongside and behind our house, but it would also have a sidewalk straight across the entire front yard. And that sidewalk would continue into the yards of six other houses on Morningside Drive and Fortunes Ridge Drive. And this would be the only stretch of sidewalk on our street and the only stretch of sidewalk in the Fortunes Ridge subdivision. And to my knowledge, the only stretch of sidewalk in the front yards of any homes and all of Woodcroft. So it would drastically alter the sort of aesthetic look of the Woodcroft neighborhood. I'd also like to point out that the way that the trail access works throughout Woodcroft is that all of us walk on the street to get to where the trail picks up. And if residents of Chamberlain would like to use the Woodcroft trail system, it's less than a 10-minute walk from the proposed asphalt trail to the point where Morningside Drive connects by roadway to the Chamberlain development. So please allow Chamberlain to drop the proposed trails. They're not necessary and they compromise our privacy, safety, and the aesthetic appeal of the Woodcroft neighborhood. And thank you all again for hearing our input on this. All right, thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak for? We have two people signed up for against. So that's Jack Warman and Jen Bigduffey. Good evening, my name is Jack Warman. I live on Swallows Ridge Court, which is in the Woodcroft neighborhood and backs up to the Chamberlain neighborhood. I'm here to speak against the applicant's proposal to drop the committed elements that were proffered in 2006. The promise that was seen in that trail in 2006 has been realized through the development and the city's investment in the Third Fort Creek Trail. And to connect to it would increase the value that the city is able to derive from that investment. It's also, that value has been formalized in the form of the Durham Master Greenways and Trails Plan in which the Third Fort Creek Tributary Trail is listed there. This particular trail for the residents of Chamberlain connecting into the Woodcroft trails would provide a safe routes to school and bicycle and walking friendly means to get from Chamberlain to Southwest Elementary as the area in where it was scheduled to connect or planned to connect does connect by trail less than third of a mile directly to Southwest Elementary. It would by connecting to Third Fort Creek Trail, it provides in addition to recreation for the residents of Chamberlain and also a connection for the residents of Woodcroft. It also provides access to amenities. On one end, you've got the Woodcroft Shopping Center where you have groceries, a hardware store and many restaurants. On the other end, you have groceries, a drug store and a Walmart. So it would provide a more bicycle and friendly way to end pedestrian friendly way to access those amenities. And also for those of us in our section of Woodcroft and for my family specifically, my wife and kids and I would have a more friendly way to walk or bike over to the Hope Valley YMCA that would be easily accessible via a couple of neighborhood roads right after the trail. So thank you for your time. Good evening. My name is Jen McDuffie. I live at 4121 Settlement Drive, which is also in the Woodcroft community. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Planning Commission this evening. In addition to being a resident in the neighborhood in question, I also serve in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission as chair of the Education and Encouragement Committee. And I am in charge of our five-year initiative to increase safe routes to school. I am also co-chair of the Partnership for a Healthy Durham, which is through the health department here in Durham. And I am against the request to remove the asphalt portion of the trail. Because as Jack mentioned, this makes a perfectly safe, connective route for all of the children in the Chamberlain and Woodcroft communities to be able to get to Southwest Elementary School, either walking or on a bicycle. And we all know that childhood obesity is a problem across the country. It crosses socioeconomic boundaries. It crosses gender boundaries. It crosses age boundaries. If you graduate from elementary school, overweight or obese, you have a 50% chance of not becoming an overweight or obese adult. And walking and biking to school is a wonderful way to put daily activity into all of these children's lives. I am also speaking to you as a member of the Woodcroft community. If you look at my property, the entrance to the Woodcroft trails, one of the entrances is right behind my house. I love it. I've gotten to know a lot of my neighbors that way. I recognize who's supposed to be there, who's not supposed to be there. It increases good feelings in the community and increases neighborliness. And I think sometimes you just have to think about the greater good of the entire community instead of what you just want in your front yard or your backyard. So I'm speaking against the removal of the asphalt portion of the trail. Thank you very much. All right, thank you. We're going to close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. I have a commission on board signed to speak, commissioners Smusky. When this first showed up, it looked like it was going to be, no brainer. But the more I looked at it, the more concerned I became. And I have a lot of things that I'm disappointed in. I am disappointed that we were not provided with more information about the third fork trail in our packets, as well as the version of the plan that actually corresponds more closely to what they actually built, which helps to evaluate its usefulness. I'm disappointed that Woodcroft was not able to work with you all to come up with an easement plan. This does not seem like an insolvable problem. I'm disappointed that people are so worried about someone in their backyard when access is already available that they don't stop to think about the benefits of having trail access that close. It's not right through their backyards. There is a respectable offset. And this is a mulch trail, not a walking trail. And I suspect that different ways of presenting it to those residents might have led to different results. But that is apparently done. Question for the applicant. Why are we being told that there is a sidewalk associated with the Zaspalt Trail when it's not shown on this picture? And where is the easement problem that you all are having? Do you guys need to project something that's not in this packet? Yeah, maybe an aerial would help. OK, maybe someone from the back room can help project. She'll come out and help you. She'll assist you in projecting that. So I'm with the planning department. We do have some material that was provided us to us by the BPAC committee liaison, Dale McKeel, which was some supplemental material. I don't know, Bob, if it's going to be exactly what you need. But we can show you what we have access to. We can also pull up an aerial off of the IMAP system. Can I just ask a point of clarification, Mr. Young? The staff report indicated that BPAC had no comments. Has that changed? They didn't have any comments. They provided some supplemental material at request of a commissioner regarding potential alignments for the trail. But that was not made known to the applicant. Am I correct? No. Thank you. Good evening, Bob Zellmall with McAdams. I just wanted to see if I can help address a couple of the concerns. The easement that was not able to be attained. I think you can see my hand here. The trail. If you can hang tight for one minute, she'll get you right upon it. I'm sorry. From this point down, this is on Woodcroft H-O-A property. So the proposed trail alignment was to build it this way through our site to the property line, continue it in this sanitary sewer easement up to Morningside Drive. And where we were connecting was a trail head at this location. With all of the additional floodway issues down in here, we tried to get a trail through here. It's just impossible. There's floodway everywhere. The neighbor's house is immediately adjacent to the floodway. And so what we proposed was to bring the trail here and then bring it within the public right away and run it a long Morningside Drive to here and hit the trail here so that we were making the connection within the public right away rather than trying to go down through this floodway in here. And that was what we're talking about with the trail being in the public right away in front of people's houses. I think that's what they're referring to. OK. So where you've got the dashed line, is that where these sidewalks are that we were told about? I think where they were probably talking about was, I think this is the gentleman here who spoke. This house, this house, this house. So the sidewalk would have come through here and got along the side of Morningside Drive and then run in the public right away along the frontage of these three houses and gone across the street. And then along the frontage of these three houses in the public right away to connect to the trail here. Why do you not just connect to the road? Because the committed element required us to connect to this trail specifically. And there was no way for us to get there without either going through this floodway and getting a bunch of additional easements. Or the planning department worked with us on this solution because we thought it was the least impactful to the neighbors to try to bring it through here and then bring it in the public right away so it wasn't going behind people's houses. But we weren't able to attain this easement. And the problem with the way the committed element was written, and I apologize, we weren't involved with the original committed element, it required us to have this built before a certain certificate of occupancy. So we're up against that where the whole project's going to stop. So that's why we finally, after trying to get this easement for close to a year, we just were up against a wall where if we didn't do something about it in that remove the condition, the whole project was just going to stop. I could certainly understand that dilemma. But I have to say walking trails in general and access to these Durham trails add a great deal of value to a residential neighborhood. And you can't just say, oh, sorry, we're not going to do it. We need to find another solution to this. At the very least, you need a signed contract with the residents to improve their neighborhood to add that value in another way. And I would like to see you, instead of proposing that you nuke the trail completely, I would like to see you propose that you modify this committed element to take it to the roadway that is nearest the connection to Third Ford Creek. That seems like a very reasonable path to me. I can understand that it's not included. The committed element as worded does not include it. But if you're going to change that committed element, you can fix it rather than deleting it. So I am going to recommend. Can you point to me where you're talking about? Where you drew it out, right there. We don't own that property. So there's no way for us to build it to there without Woodcroft giving us an easement to build the trail. We have a letter for Woodcroft saying they weren't opposed to getting rid of this committed element. What I haven't seen is a letter saying, we don't want this. If the committed element, hm? Excuse me. Finish your point. I will let you speak if you have a question after they finish. Is that OK? My point is that if the sole thing that they were presented involved running sidewalks across the front of their residence yards, if indeed they were presented with that, I could understand why they said no to that. But I think there's a compromise solution that with a little more effort could have given all of the benefits of the original committed element without the parts that people don't like. So I believe that before this goes to the city council, you need to make some changes to this to make it better. The first proposal we made was to run it exactly where you're talking about. And all the easements were rejected. By the individual owners, we were impacting. And so that's when we pursued this frontage along Morningside Drive around Fortunes Ridge and Down. What individual homeowners? I see Woodcroft property. That should be owned by the HOA. In order for us to get through here, we have got to get between this landowner's property line is within the floodway. Did you propose going this far? Ms. Bohr, Commissioner Bohr. Thank you. OK. You can continue your point. OK. Commissioner Smusky. Thank you, Chair Jones. And I just want to point out that I am the planning board's representative to the Durham Open Space and Trails Commission. And so I was concerned about taking away a trail. But I do want to talk about this. Ms. Bohr had a lot of good points, things that I wanted to bring up. First of all, trails do add a lot of value to the Durham community. And so there is a master plan to have a trail along the third fork creek. And so that is in the master plan. Now the question is how we get these people in the new development to that creek, to that trail. So when I was over there today, I go to the end of the developed portion right to the entrance of the new portion. And there's a little break through there. There are some stanchions. And then there seems to be some kind of asphalt or some kind. Can you explain to me what that's all about? I'm Gray Methan with Santa Pacific Homes. That's an existing condition that was always closed off between Hope Valley and Woodcroft. That's kind of their boundary. OK. And it was requested that that stay that way so there could not be any cut through traffic. All we did was improve the pavement and leave the stanchions there. Well, I'm not talking about vehicular traffic except for bicycles. Your bicycles can get through, still. Right. OK. What is the possibility of getting to the creek from that particular entrance? You'd be on the road, still, just like the people we're talking about before. You walk down Morningside to the existing trail. The other way, there's also sidewalk that goes within our community. It goes all the way out to Cook Road. If we'll Cook Road, you can get all the way to the tobacco trail, which I think connects up there somewhere to that. So there is a connection. It's just not the one through Woodcroft. OK, so from Morningside then out to Cook Road, is there sidewalk on the new development? The new development, we have sidewalk. Where we build the house, we put it in. There's sidewalk all the way. There's a connection. And then there's sidewalk down to from Cook Road down to American Tobacco. Well, that was part of that condition that we have to put in before the. OK, so that's kind of. I'm sorry. That was one of the conditions that was up for this rezoning was to just clarify that we either had to put down $50,000 or connect that sidewalk to the school. OK, so that's good. It shows that it's the long way around, but it shows like there is an alternative. Now, to the woman that spoke before, ma'am, from the bike and pedestrian group, Ms. McDuffie, I had a question. You say you're from the Woodcroft area. What is the possibility of finding a path from that place where there are stanchions down to the Third Fork Creek? Or if it hasn't been built yet, get it built. But then to hook it up with the Woodcroft trails that I'm showing right here. I don't have the name of these streets. Right here, say at the end of Normandale Street. There's several trails that hook up there. How can we get into there? What can Woodcroft do to help us with that? If you can come up to the microphone. I think the point is, Third Fork Creek Trail is on the master plan for trails. We believe trails offer a lot of value. So we do need to hook this up somehow. The question is, how can we do it? And the point that I wrote to the chairman and was very kindly handed to him is I think that perhaps this does need to be looked at further. And we could talk to the community association about some alternatives, because I live in Woodcroft. I would have never even heard about this, except that I'm also on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission. The residents of Woodcroft, the residents were never told that this was even an issue. So what has gone on from up to this point has been between the Woodcroft Association and whoever else? The residents have not had any input whatsoever. OK. OK. You finished? Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Huff. Well, first of all, I was pretty unhappy at what information was left out of this packet. It mentions the Third Fort Creek Trail, which is quite a distance from where this actual piece of trail is intended. This is the Third Fort Creek tributary trail. So it was mislabeled or mistakenly, I don't know what, in our packet. So I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how there was going to be a connection between Chamberlain going through Woodcroft to get to the Third Fort Creek Trail. When I finally got hold of people in transportation and got some maps, I could see, first of all, on the Durham Trails and Greenways Master Plan that the Third Fort Creek tributary trail is on that plan. And our packet says that this is in compliance with our plans. Well, it's not if we remove this piece of the Third Fort Creek tributary trail. It is not in compliance with the Greenways Master Plan. Secondly, I am with Ms. Board. I don't understand why this commitment couldn't be modified just to end on the street there. I walked out on the sewer easement. If you're worried about people in your backyard, man, I'd worry about people walking along a sewer easement, not walking along a trail. All of the information, if you care to access it, the research on the value of your house crime and so forth and the presence of trails is that there is no increase in crime, and your property value goes up. And I would, in fact, like to read you this. To be more specific, this is 2011 research, to be more specific, housing prices went up by $9 for every foot closer to the trail entrance. Ultimately, the study concluded that for the average homeowners, average homeowners were willing to pay a $9,000 premium to be located 1,000 feet closer to the trail. People will pay to be on these trails. They are good for your community. I feel like you guys have been ill-informed. I feel like you look in the newspaper and you see something's happened on the American Tobacco Trail and you're worried. It rarely happens. So, Ms. Huff, are you finished? All I think is that I think that people have not been informed. I think that this plan could be modified to end in the street and not run sidewalks along people's yards. Thank you. Commissioner Miller? Mr. Chairman, I believe one of the folks from Woodcroft you had told her that you were going to let her speak. Do you want to do that before I comment or afterwards? No, I'll let you comment. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had to comment and I'll come back to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say that I, too, found that the information sent to us in our packet a little bit hard to interpret. And had I not gone out to the site and met with the people who live near the proposed trails, I would not have understood exactly what we were talking about. But since I did that, and I do understand now, I have to say that I sympathize a little bit with these developers in that they're not the authors of the development plan and the committed elements that we're talking about. These are very unusual committed elements in that they are so dependent upon what other people will do or may do on other people's property when those other people weren't part of the development or rezoning scheme, it seems to me if we were going to have a committed element that was going to require connectivity of trails between two neighborhoods and two subdivisions, it would have been nice to have lined up the approval of the other neighborhood at the time we rezoned the property in the first place with the committed element. So that's a little strange and I hope we don't do a lot of this in the future. However, I do believe that developers ought to keep their promises, and I do believe that there should be trail connectivity. In this instance, Chamberlain residents are losing an amenity, a trail connection to a greater trail system. It's not one that this developer who looks like they're going to be able to force through if the Woodcroft people don't want to participate or have not participated more enthusiastically than they have up to this point. So if the Chamberlain people are going to lose an amenity, I do think it's appropriate that the developer work something out with their own homeowners to enhance other amenities elsewhere. And it's my understanding from the comments we've heard from the Chamberlain representative that that's actually underway. I don't see a mechanism, however, for us to make that sort of promise to the homeowners, a zoning issue or a committed element. So I'm not going to ask for that. I will support this rezoning if the developer will make a committed element, though add a commit element to their development plan that would make the trail area in Chamberlain open space, commit to open space so that the Chamberlain homeowner association at some point in the future, if the people in Chamberlain and if the people in Woodcroft want to create and connect a trail, they can do that together in the future. Since that's what this was always supposed to be was sort of a consensual thing, what I'd like to do is unhitch it from the future development of the project and let the homeowners associations work that in the future. I was wondering if the Chamberlain developer would be willing to make such a promise. Mr. Chair, might I provide a point of information before the applicant responds? Yes. It's my belief, and I'd ask Ms. Wolfe to pull up the background information on this. From the 2005, the Z0532 case that was heard in 2006 and approved by council at that time, there was a committed element that provided a 50-foot buffer to be undisturbed along essentially what is the rear of the north side of Morningside Drive's property, south side of the future Shadowhawk Drive and Chamberlain. And Amy can show you the language of that commitment. Right. It's my opinion that that meets the intent of what you expressed, but you would have to. No, actually, I'm not concerned about the. Can you show on the overhead the thing that you handed out to us? You can have mine if you want to show it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure this area here remains an open space. It's not on, so. This is above our pay grade. Yeah, and mine too. So looking at this, I'm not talking about the what you've shown in blue, which would have been, if my understanding, that was going to be the mulch trail. That was kind of stillborn because it requires the approval of the people whose backyards it would go through. And given that really steep slope where you've graded there, I just think, gosh, to crowd more elements in there is a bad idea. But the red trail, the trail that was going to be the thing that would connect the trail systems in the two neighborhoods, and then ultimately to the third or fourth Greek trail, that part so far as it is in Chamberlain and under your control, I would really like it if you would commit to make that open space, place it under the control of the Homeowners Association in Chamberlain, so that if in the future the two neighborhoods decide to create interconnected trails, they can do that. But unhitch it from your ability to proceed with your project. Patrick Beiker for the developer. We certainly agree with having the area shown with the red trail becoming part of the HOA property. We'll just need to work with the Plain Department on the appropriate timing mechanism. But we certainly agree to that. And when the property is conveyed to the HOA, it will contain the area around the red trail. All right. Do you have something? I'm afraid I do. It's my understanding that a portion of that area is through the current site plan committed to be part of the storm management facility for a later phase of the Chamberlain project. I want to be sure there's nothing that is either actually or perceived a conflict between the conceptual commitment, which is not our policy to accept without a two-cycle deferral, or in the storm water facility. So maybe Mr. Zunwald's the best one to address that concern. Yeah, this is why we asked for the deferral so that these can be vetted and evaluated for conflicts. OK. So what you're seeing underneath this exhibit is the aerial photograph. And that is the actual pond that was built. So there is room to build the trail. In fact, we actually had prepared a full set of site plan drawings to build the trail. So we know it'll fit there. Yeah, this section. So the pond. The storm pond ends right here. So this is essentially, I believe, is a storm drainage easement that the trail will easily fit in and can make its way ultimately all the way out to the road. So I would request, unless we want to have a two-cycle deferral, I would request the applicant provide some detailed language for this commitment that's going to be proceeding forward. If we can't get that tonight, I'm going to ask for a two-cycle deferral. OK. Because this is how we got in the situation we're in tonight is by commitments being made on the fly without thorough vetting of ramifications and legal enforcement abilities. So are you opposed to a two-cycle deferral? Just so it's clear, what I'm willing to do is if I can get some very specific language, I'm willing to consider it. Sure. But if we can't, then we're going to have to ask for a two-cycle deferral. It's you all's decision about how you want to proceed on it. Just one thing, Pat, just to mention, because I'm not sure you're aware of this, but every lot in the whole neighborhood is already platted. And so nothing would change. It's already in HOA land. So then why are we making a new commitment? Maybe the commitment is that it remains in HOA land. I don't know, but it's already there, right, Gray? It's on, I mean, Stampak technically owns it now because the HOA hasn't. Oh, speaking to the mic. They haven't turned it over to the HOA yet, but it is in common open space now. OK. Yeah. I need some language. I'm not willing to recommend violation of the department's policy for asking for a two-cycle deferral without some specific language that I can either accept or reject. Or the commission can withdraw its request, but I can't have a conceptual commitment that I can accept that's inconsistent with departmental policy. OK. So ponder on that vote, and I'll get to Commissioner Pageant, Walters, and we're going to wait and see about this two-cycle deferral because that might end it all. So Pageant. Initially, I had a lot to say, but watching this where it started, it seemed like certain planning commissioners decided to go out there and do whatever they were doing to represent the neighborhood. Not necessarily to be the planning commissioner, but glad to represent the neighborhood. They weren't communicating with the planning department. So when he gets here, it looks like it's the planning department versus the planning commissioners. Looks like somebody trying to throw the planning department up under the bus by not giving the right information. Problem is, we've got commissioners out there doing what they're doing at Hock and not communicating with the planning department. I think the biggest fail here is not everybody appears on what we're supposed to be doing as planning commissioners. If you have a problem, question, and issues, I always think we need to defer to the planning department. I do when I have them. My concern is, if we go out there and we start representing as people are clients and not listening to the overall case from both sides, what are we really doing here? I don't think that we need to be out there trying to mediate anything before it gets here. If the planning department has it, it's legal, they can look at it. Right now what we got is a planning department sitting there with a mess because the planning commissioners went out and created one. So I think from now on, what people need to do is communicate with the planning department. So when it gets here, we have all our ducks in a row and we can move with the vote. That's all I got. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Padgett. We have Commissioner Walters. Do you think more time is appropriate one? I think it would be great if you guys could actually get your language and have a chance to vet that. But I also think this ongoing negotiation with Chamberlain neighbors is not appropriately defined. The email that we got from Kirk Everett is great, but it's a lot of kind of if, this, then that. And I feel like one, I'm not convinced that all Chamberlain neighbors are aware of what's being discussed and considered. And I think that's really important. If we're gonna hold standard Pacific to that standard, I think it would be great if everybody involved actually knew what was being committed to. And then I have one question for clarification because it's not clear to me, although we've discussed this a lot already. Is it physically possible to make the connection between Shadowhawk Drive and Morningside Drive? I understand that south of Morningside Drive is problematic, but can you make the physical connection? Can you get the easements you need between Shadowhawk and Morningside? My understanding, Patrick Becker, my understanding, Commissioner Walters, I appreciate the question that was reviewed by the Woodcroft Community Association. And again, that was something that they were not willing to agree to. So I think it was discussed over the past year. Unfortunately, I think everybody had good intentions, but I don't think at the end of the day, there was able, an agreement was able to be reached. So specifically the distance between Shadowhawk and Morningside, not south of Morningside, I understand that south of Morningside is complicated because of water issues and also the sidewalk issue is concerning, but the piece to the north of Morningside cannot be, you can't get that easement from Woodcroft. That's correct. Okay, thank you. All right, anything else? Okay, so I'm gonna keep my promise to the resident. You can come up and state your name, ma'am. Three minutes might be enough. Three minutes is good for you? I'll try. Try? Okay. So I'll let you speak, ma'am, will. My name is Mary Catherine Krasinski. I live at 606 Morningside Drive. I've been a resident there for 15 years. I have been involved in the first planning development, the second planning development, and now this one, which we really haven't known anything about until the wood started being cut down. To give you some history, the Massey family owned the land behind where my house is and all the way out to Cook Road. Mr. Massey Sr., who was in a rest home at the time, needed money. So what he did was clear cut the land behind my home of all the harvested hardwood. The loggers came in, they made the roads, they finished, they left. Now I'd like to know how many people have had their home broken into? What happened was when the loggers left those roads, it allowed people to walk in those roads and enter my home, my next door neighbor's home, and five houses across the street without anybody seeing them. They went in, they trashed my home, they left and no one saw them. I am against the mulch trail. I do not want it in my backyard and I'm sorry if it has anything to do with obese children. No one can ride a bicycle on a mulch trail. I don't want it back there, the land won't support it. If you could please all come and take a look at what is back there and what we are up against, you will see that it is not a good thing to do. You are playing with our lives and the lives of all the people on mourning side. When you're saying, oh this is such a great idea, we don't need heavy children, we need trails, you are playing with my life and the life of all the people on mourning side who will look out their window and wonder, who is this person? Are they here for good or are they here for not? There is no reason that anybody walks on that trail, can't look at the back of my house or the back of my neighbor's house or the back of my other neighbor's house and say I'm gonna come back because I know they're not home. This is the only place I have ever lived where I have had to have an alarm system put in. And I think that's a shame because so many people say Durham is a great place to live, I don't think so. Thank you for your time. All right, thank you. So have we came to a resolution on the two-cycle deferral? Mr. Chair, might I add a couple points of clarification again before the applicant addresses your concern? Just for points of information for your deliberations. Okay. Okay, I'll be brief. The first thing I'll say is we did get several inquiry, supplemental information inquiries from commissioners. We tried our best to provide the information we had. I think what I wanna emphasize is the committed element did not specify a specific alignment. So we didn't have an alignment to provide. There was one represented in the site plan. The site plan can be changed administratively at the whim of the applicant as long as it's they have a legal authority to put it in where they're showing it. The, as the best we could tell, we did carefully evaluate the policy and ordinance basis for this commitment. And we don't believe that there is one. The Third Fort Creek tributary trail, the commissioner Huff or Smith, excuse me, represented does not appear to be on the city's adopted Greenway plan. It's possible that I had incorrect information, but we did vet that with staff internally. To the best of my knowledge, the only city adopted Greenway plan is the Third Fort Creek trail, which has been substantially constructed. The Woodcroft trail and the proposed trail tonight, although incredibly beneficial, are essentially private amenities. They're not public trails. The, I think the representations made by the commissioners about the values of trails and the contribution of trails to property value and amenities to the neighborhood and benefits to the community are accurate. So I wanna make sure that's clear, but there's not a specific policy or ordinance basis for this. So the information we provided you in your agenda package was related to the point that there wasn't a policy or ordinance basis for the commitment. And we tried to provide supplemental information upon request. The second thing I'll say, commissioner Miller alluded to this, and I think it's important. We, the plan department would not accept and have not accepted in many years a commitment of this nature because it's off-site and there was not illegally enforceable commitments such as an easement or real property ownership to enforce it. And so we would not have accepted it without some kind of a clause that talked about reasonable due diligence to try to obtain easements or property or other enforcement mechanisms. And I just wanna emphasize that for the record that this was done under a previous plan director and would not be repeated because of that concern. To the best of our knowledge, and we did work with the applicant extensively, there's no way to get from this subdivision to the Third Port Creek Trail without going through Woodcroft. So Woodcroft's approval is essential and it appears to have not been granted. You all will have to determine whether there was adequate due diligence or not, but without that approval, there's no connection to the Third Port Creek Trail. So thank you for indulging me, but I wanna make sure that all got on the record. Okay, thank you. Mr. Reich, you had a follow-up? Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on commissioner Miller's comment, believe the committed element that would, I hope this would work here, would be, quote, no structures or improvements by the developer shall be allowed on the 30-foot area adjacent to the eastern boundary of lot 116 period. It's a sanitary sewer easement, so to say it would be open space might be slightly misleading, so we don't wanna mischaracterize it, but certainly our client will not take any actions to improve or develop that area. Yeah, I think we, the planning department, can accept that as enforceable. My concern, this is, I know the engineer represented that it's not, doesn't conflict with the stormwater management facility, but I think any representations about actual trail access, we cannot recommend accepting without further investigation. There's a stream buffer, there's a sanitary sewer easement, there's a stormwater facility. The commitment that was just made, certainly we can enforce and accept. Okay. Thank you, we appreciate it. All right, who else? You had a question? No, Mr. Gibbs, I heard you, I'll come back to you. Okay, Mr. Miller was next. Actually, Mr. Gibbs, you hadn't spoke on this case yet. All right, so please do. Well, after all is said and done, I do appreciate staff and the parameters they have to work with and to guide us, but more to the point of this development and this trail, if this is supposed to be part of a continuation of a trail, the American Tobacco from Northern Durham all the way to Chatham County, this is an indication of what, I like trails and I believe in all the things, but this is, I don't know how to say this other than just go ahead and say it. When we plan trails and make it part of our long range plans without collaboration with residents and how they feel about it and I'm talking about people and how they feel safety-wise or if they just plain old, don't want it. I know this is a particularly special case because it's running right between two developments, but to get this particular issue solved, I think, and I'm gonna agree with everybody else, there needs to be an extension and something worked out and between the two and it's gonna have to be between the two. We're not up here to be, and neither is the staff or the city council to be arbitrators of whatever is going on between the neighborhoods and the Open Space and Trails Committee, they can advise, but it's up to the residents of these two communities and that's the way I see it. So, but I do support an extension on this for you to come to some kind of conclusion. Okay, all right, thank you. It's, so I'll give my remarks and I'll turn it back over to, actually, Ms. Davis, you wanted to speak? Okay, is there any other commissioner who has not spoken? I won't be long. The Woodcroft Association represents the residents. I think they would have the best interest of all the residents of Woodcroft and so when they say they don't have a problem with us not being here, that means for us as commissioners that the residents as a whole say that this does not have to be here. All right, that's my first point. I think Patrick, I mean, I'm Patrick, yeah. Patrick said that this is a private trail. This is not a trail that myself can go on and get exercise or go from the end of Durham to Chatham County. So this is not benefiting the greater part of Durham. To my knowledge, there are sidewalks within Hope Valley and Woodcroft. So there are safe routes to the amenities that the young lady mentioned. There are safe routes to the elementary school. They may be a little longer, but there are safe routes because there are sidewalks. I don't think we need to delay the commercial developers. I think all the parties that needed to be a sounding board have sounded off and I wish that we can just move forward and approve this today so they can continue to build great homes in the city and county of Durham. Okay, we're gonna do, actually, has everyone spoken? Who wants to speak at least once? All right, so we're gonna go back. We're not gonna do this long. So if we get one minute per commissioner who wants to speak again, okay. Yes, Mr. Miller, Ms. Huff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Commissioner Davis. This is a matter about private trails and what two neighborhoods can work out. It's not a public trail. It's not the Third Fort Creek Trail. And so with the proffer that the developers have made that would allow these developers, I mean, these two neighborhoods to work out a private trail if they want to in the future, that's what we ought to do. Vote this through tonight and you'll let these people get on with their business. So I support this rezoning with that proffer. Would like to make a motion at the appropriate time. I did want to respond. I think people pretty much think the mulch trail is a bad idea. Okay, I think that my concern has always been with the asphalt trail and how it would connect down into the Woodcroft trails. And I walked on that sewer easement and it looks to me like it would be. It would be better as a paved trail than it is as a sewer easement. I think people will go on that sewer easement regardless it's open enough. But that's just my opinion. You don't need to respond to that. Yeah, well, that's what I, okay, thanks. All right. Ms. Ward. Just one quick comment. If this does move forward without a committed element for this trail left for the HOAs to work out in the future, I believe the developer needs to also fund the HOA with the money that they would have the option of doing this. HOAs generally don't start off on great financial footing. And if this is going to be a possibility, then the money that would be spent to build this committed element needs to be made available to the HOA to potentially do so in the future. All right, last one, Ms. Muskie. Thank you, Ms. Jones. With regards to this particular development, this trail or these trails are not part of the master plan. And DOS has no vested interest in them. The Durham Open Space Trails Commission, we don't care. So, but I wanted to make sure that trails were considered as part of the agreement. And so we do have alternatives. We have the sidewalks along Cook Road. We have other things. We have the developers, the HOAs, and the neighborhood interested in connecting up to the third, fourth creaking. That's good. Now, as far as the commission's concerned, I'm surprised that Ms. Young accepted that proffer because we developed, before Mr. Miller came on the board, we developed an agreement that we would not accept proffers in the meeting because of these kinds of things. These trails were never part of Durham Open Space, and Trails Commission, they were part of a proffer. They were part of something a former planning board requested. And this is the situation we get into. And so our board has taken the position that we shouldn't be asking for committed elements in this session, and we shouldn't be accepting proffers, and there's no way to hold them legally to that anyway. So, with that, I'd like to move approval. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this matter tonight? No. All right, thank you. And I'll have a brief comment. You know, as we look at through Durham, and we see how different communities are built, and during the recession, a lot of communities got abandoned, and luckily some developers came back around and tried to finish out these communities. This probably will not be the last case we hear of this magnitude, where it has two different subdivisions trying to make amends to a previously agreed to committed element. And I think this case, it was a few things that kind of got lost in the cycle. And to Mr. Padgett's point, I think what I would say to the fellow commissioners is be sure that when we are out in the community, doing our community involvement, that we are not representing the commission because no one is authorized to do that, except for the chair, unless he designates someone to do that. So it's one thing to take a citizen inquiry, it's something else to represent, then it kind of reduces the confusion when we come to the meeting. So that's just my point of emphasis. So if we can get a motion on this case, then we can let everyone go home. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move approval of case number Z1400008. All right, so moving to property second. All those in favor, let it be known by raising your right hand. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a substitute motion. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve it with the proffer that was made by the developer. Okay. So the way a substitute motion works, if it does not get a second, it doesn't go back to the original motion. So do we get a second on the substitute motion? I hear no second, the substitute fails, so we go back to the original. Can you restate the original? Turn your mic on. The motion is to move approval of case number Z1400008. All right, moving property second. All those in favor, let it be known by raising your right hand. Any opposition? The motion Z14008 has passed seven, four, and three against. All right, thank you. We'll move down to item six. Thank you. Which is new business, any announcements? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pat Yan with Planned Department. I have I think two pieces of new announcements. One very good news, one very bad news. One is that the, we do not have any cases ready for the July meeting. I think it would have been scheduled for the eighth, whatever the second Tuesday is and I'm the date in front of me. That meeting has been canceled. And I think you all received a notice, subsequent I just want to get that on the record. We will have our August meeting. And of course, so the very bad news is the chair has chosen not to reply. And so this will be his last meeting and we'll be honoring him with a resolution and recognition in August. And that's all I have. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. And like you said, this will be my last meeting on the Durham Planning Commission. I elected not to seek reappointment. For you who don't know, I gave birth, my wife gave birth, not me. Not me, but we, we, my wife and I, we gave birth last month on the 14th of our first child, my son. And I'm also in school working on my doctorate. So I decided not to seek reappointment. However, I'll still be in Durham. I'm not going anywhere if you need me, call me. It's all good. But, of all hearts and minds, it clear we'll go ahead and adjourn. Actually, we'll wait. One more announcement. Sorry. You have an announcement. I do. At the last meeting, I talked to you about the protest petition. Actually nothing has come up so far in the General Assembly. I don't think it, I think it's still possible that it'll come up in the Regulatory Reform Bill of 2014, but so far it's not. So I don't see any reason for us to take any action until we know what we're taking action on. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. All hearts, minds are clear, we'll adjourn.