 Good evening. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to elected officials. You should know that elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak on agenda items tonight, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those of you who wish to speak, state your name and address and clearly, when you come to the podium, please speak clearly into the microphone. Each side, though speaking in favor of an item and though speaking in opposition of an item, have 10 minutes to present each side. The time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak. If you are here opposing a rezoning tonight, you should be aware of what is called a protest petition. A protest petition can be very helpful to those residents who live in the rezoning area. Please consult the Planning Department staff for any details on a protest petition and they will be happy to help you. You should also keep in touch with your Planning Department as when your case will go before the elected officials for the final vote. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative, so if any motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. Can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Bielin, Commissioner Busby, Vice Chair Davis, Commissioner Freeman, Commissioner Gibbs, Commissioner Huff, Commissioner Hollingsworth, Commissioner Hyman, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Padgett, Commissioner Whitley, Commissioner Winders. I received an email yesterday. Chair Harris will be arriving late and so I took on the initial responsibilities, but he will be in attendance. I didn't hear anything from Commissioner Whitley. We'll move forward. I think there are some adjustments to the agenda. Good evening, Vice Chair Davis. Members of the Commission, Pat Young with the Planning Department. We are requesting one adjustment to the agenda. We received notification today of the email from the applicant's agent for case 5C Google Hub parking expansion that they intend to request for a continuance of the item, so we are asking that you move that item up to item 5A so it can be heard as the first item following the approval of the minutes to make that request. Is there a motion? We should move second. It's been properly moved and second that we move item C on the agenda to first for today's hearing. All in favor, raise the right hand. All opposed. Motion carries 11 to 0. Moving on to approval of the minutes. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the minutes. Second. It's been properly moved and second. Approval of the minutes. All in favor, raise your right hand. Opposed? Motion carries 11 to 0. Since I don't really get to do this much, I'm going to open the public hearing on the first item, even though Chair Harris is here. We'll start by item C, golf, parking expansion, excuse me, plan amendment A140007. Thank you again, Vice Chair Davis and members of the commission. Pat Young again. In lieu of the staff report for this item, I'm going to ask Howard Partner, the applicant's agent, to come up and address the commission again with the understanding that he's intending to ask for continuance. If that's not granted, we'll of course be prepared to provide the staff report. Could you please speak into the mic, sir? Thank you. Okay. How's this? Is that good? Okay. My name is Howard Partner. I'm a landscape architect and I'm the applicant for the Google Hof parking expansion. We have been working with the Tuscaloosa Lakewood Neighborhood Association to come to an agreement with them for some additional conditions beyond the actual rezoning request. We're very close to an agreement. We thought we would have it prior to the beginning of this meeting. There are a few technicalities to work out. And so if this time, in order to bring on the support of the neighborhood for our rezoning request, we are requesting that we be granted a one-month continuance so that we can come back to the board with the support of the neighborhood. And I think we should be able to have it at that time. I'll be glad to answer any questions if you need any clarifications. Thank you. Before the board for motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the hearing in case 5C on our agenda today until our meeting in March. This has been probably moved in second for a continuance, one-month continuance on Plam amendment case A14007. Mr. Vice Chair, can we also clarify that it also includes the zoning case? Okay. It has been probably moved in second that we grant a continuance for the applicant for Plam amendment case 140007 as well as zoning case 140027. All in favor raise your right hand. All opposed? Thank you. Motion carries 12 to 0. Thank you very much. Thank you, Board and community. And I apologize for my tardiness. Just one update. Commissioner Whitner has an excuse absence. I don't know if that was brought out during the roll call. Yeah. Okay. Now I will open the public hearing for item 5A highway 54 residential A14005 and complimentary zoning case 1400018. Mr. Chair, Pat Young again with the planning department. I'm going to turn it over to case planner Carla Rosenberg in just a moment, but I can first certify for the record that all public hearing items before you this evening have been advertised in accordance with the provisions of law and their affidavits to that effect on file with the planning department. Thank you. Good evening. Carla Rosenberg with the planning department presenting case A140005 highway 54 residential. The applicant is hopper communities and they're proposing to amend approximately 21.72 acres of the future land use map from office to medium high density residential. And this change allows them to construct a residential development of approximately 300 apartment units on the site. So here is the land use context map showing the broader area. You can see that Interstate I-40 runs just north of the site and highway 54 just below it. The site is mostly surrounded by residential land uses and there's a multi family development Waterford village that sits directly east. There have been a few changes to the future land use map for this parcel over time. The 1993 Triangle Township Plan recommended office in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan also recommended office. So in the justification statement the applicant suggested that the current land use designation of office ought to be amended because it would provide a better transition between the low density residential uses to the south and east and the office to the west. It also supports future mass transit along the NC 54 and I-40 corridorists and then other medium high density residential projects are found adjacent to the site and also are planned around it. So staff has reviewed the request against these four criteria found in the unified development ordinance. And we found that the proposed amendment was consistent with land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan including those regarding suburban tier and continuous development. The first encourages lower density development outside of the downtown and compact neighborhood tiers and suburban transit support areas and the second supports orderly development patterns that take advantage of existing urban services and avoids the progging patterns of development. Much of the surrounding area to the parcel is already designated residential with medium high density residential as mentioned directly east. This is an area of rapid residential growth because of its position along the two major traffic corridors and their expectations of future mass transit as well. We determined there not to be any substantial adverse impact with regard to infrastructure environmental protection or future demand for land uses. And finally staff determined that the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed residential land use. And so the request meets all of their criteria for plan amendments and staff is recommending approval. Thank you. And I will leave for Amy Wolf to present the zoning portion. Good evening. Amy Wolf with the Planning Department. The accompanying zoning case is Z1400018. And the request is from Hopper communities and it's in the city's jurisdiction and the current designation of the site is Residential Suburban 20, Office Institutional, Office Institutional with the Development Plan and the requested zone is Residential Suburban Multifamily with the Development Plan. The site is 21.72 acres and the request would be for 320 multifamily residential units. Again the site is, well it's four parcels along NC54 Highway opposite Revere Road and east of Barbie Road. It is in the suburban tier. It is also in the FJB Watershed Protection Overlay as well as the major transportation corridor overlay. The northern portion of the site is within the MTC or major transportation corridor overlay. The request does meet the minimum standards of the Unified Development Ordinance for the RSM district as shown here. The existing site here has some environmental features. There's three non-jurisdictional ponds, intermittent streams and associated wetlands. There was some previous agricultural use on site and the frontage is solely along NC54 Highway. I'll clarify some of the proposed conditions in a bit. Here's the graphic representation showing the stream buffers, the project boundary buffers, the access points. Other commitments on the site include, I do want to refer you to along NC54 Highway along the bottom of this slide. The access point to the right is Site Access 1 and to the left is Site Access 2. That'll become important in a moment. The maximum request is for a maximum of 320 residential units. There's one potential stream crossing. There's five Site Access points, two of which are along NC54 Highway. Maximum impervious surface of 70%, which is the maximum for the FJB Watershed Protection Overlay and tree coverage at 20%. The graphic commitments are the tree preservation areas, the location of those, the access points and the potential stream crossing. Other commitments include the housing type, which is apartments and or townhouses and their accessory uses, dedication of right away along NC54 Highway. There's improvements to Site Drive Access 1, which is the eastern most Site Access point. This would be a temporary Site Access point with associated improvements for that use, as well as Site Drive Access 2, which will be required. Additionally, with the right away dedication along the frontage of the site, four feet of additional asphalt pavement will be provided to accommodate the bicycle lane and constructing a bus pullout and concrete pad or shelter along NC54 Highway. There's design commitments associated with the site that describe the style, roofline, building materials, any architectural features and how the site will transition to the context. And the site is not consistent with the future land use map, which designates the area as office. You've heard the plan amendment report. The request, this should say no. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies that apply to the site. And should the plan amendment be approved, this request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable policies and ordinances. And staff is available for any questions. Thank you, Amy. I have one person signed up to speak. Attorney Eaton. Good evening. Jared Eaton with Eaton's Land Court. I'm here representing my client, Bart Hopper, with Hopper Communities. I'll try to be brief. I know you've got a long agenda tonight. Appreciate staff's summary of our request. I'm just going to reiterate a couple points and clarify a couple of items. We are requesting rezoning a land use amendment for a multifamily development. In our opinion, this is a sensible request. If you look at the area along 54, if you look at the access to retail and the availability of transit along 54, this seemed like a logical request. We did perform a traffic study as part of the project. The traffic study was approved by both NCDOT and City of Durham staff. All the improvements listed on the plan are as a result of that traffic study. I do want to clarify the road improvements mentioned when I talked with staff, I want to make sure I clarified this, but items three through nine of the text amendments, which mention all the specific road improvements. Those are required prior to the first CEO for the project. It's a little unclear how we have it listed on the plan, but it's required prior to CEO not required prior to building permit. We did have a neighborhood meeting in June of 2014. We only had one person actually on the on the signing list. We have no opposition that I'm aware of. We have staff support here tonight. Be glad to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Are they any other people in the audience wishing to speak on this item? We have anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? If not, I will close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. I have Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Huff, Commissioner Winder, Commissioner Huff. You have three minutes. Jared, could you explain to people that there is a second development next to this one that is going to explain to him about that access that that access row that is not going to be permanent, the one that's across from from Revere? Correct. Yeah, so east of this project is we had a zoning here several months called the Madri parcel, which was approved for a townhome development. That parcel spans from our property, our western property line, I said east, our western property line over to Barbie Road. So our eastern most access point, which is closest to Revere Road is a temporary access point. And what we negotiated with the city and DOT is when the Madri parcel is developed adjacent to us, which will provide connectivity over to Barbie Road, we will remove the eastern most driveway to 54. So the permanent access will only be one drive to 54, which obviously DOT was very happy about. And it still works for for our layout. Thanks. Commissioner Wayne, support transit better than yeah, so we honestly we haven't had a lot of conversation about that. My client it's it's we're looking at it as a market rate multifamily project. I know you and I have had several conversations in the past. I mean, my my personal opinion is the affordable housing issue in Durham is something that needs to be tackled at a larger level than just a piecemeal project by project approach. I think if the ordinance was re rewritten to give a little more incentive, maybe a little more density bonus and what is in there now you'll have more people trying to take advantage of it. I think the way it's currently written, you don't see a lot of projects like that because there's just not enough incentive from the developer side. So I understand it's an important issue to you. And I agree with you. But I don't think it's we can approach it on a project by project basis. This is my opinion. So we have not had a lot of conversation about that for that reason. Commissioner White, would you speak in the in the mic? We can't hear you. So can you tell me about the mix the mix of housing types and costs that are expected in those two developments that are going to be a well, maybe we should leave it to this one. But but it seems to me that those two developments on next to each other are going to kind of function as one neighborhood is would that be correct? Yeah, I mean, with interconnectivity, like uses next or it may feel sort as one neighborhood, I mean, we're requesting multifamily here with the flexibility of doing apartments and townhomes. I mean, most likely, the majority of the project, it's an apartment site, most likely. So as far as product mixes, there may be a small townhome component. But it will mainly be apartments, I'm sure the property to the West will probably most likely be townhomes. Yeah. Okay, then on on the transportation issue. The I know there's a policy about the road capacity capacity can go up to 100 or the traffic can go up to 110% of the road capacity, I believe. Yeah, he took some of my time. And I was just, it seems to me that traffic is pretty bad around there. And we mentioning several the intersections are operating at f and and there they will be at f after after before and after get to your question, get to your question. Yeah. But the question is when you do the traffic study, you done and this may be a question for Mr. Judge. But if do you include you've in cotton computing the projected traffic, do you include the expected developments that aren't develop aren't built yet, but that we have approved? But do you include other developments like the the two corner sites on Barbie and and I think we have your question, Mr. Judd, you like to address that? Bill Judge, City of Durham Department of Transportation, yet the traffic impact analysis doesn't include any other developments in the general vicinity project study area for which we do have traffic impact analysis for those smaller projects like the one immediately adjacent to the west and reviewing the staff report and there's a comprehensive plan section that you're referring to with 110%. We did look at the the capacity of of that development as well as the one across the street to the south. And I thought those numbers were in your staff reporting. Yeah, they are. They're in there. What I was wondering about though, was, do you have to do that traffic impact analysis on a project that doesn't have to have a rezoning, or, you know, like a by right type of project? Do you have to do a traffic impact analysis? And is it include would it be included in this? There's other vacant land there in the in that area, you know, that will impact. Yes, we, we do not assume any existing vacant parcels that don't have any print pending developments, we don't assume any by right land uses and association with comprehensive plan or anything density on on those projects just because it's too open ended with the number of cases you see in. But we do include those that have site plans or zoning spending. Okay, thank you. Commission. Yes, ma'am. Hi. I see mention of room for allowing for a bike lane. And I see mention of an asphalt pad for transit stop. But I don't see any mention of sidewalks. Is there any consideration to adding sidewalks along that frontage? Yeah, we generally we don't we don't proffer that as a specific commitment because it's required by city code. So when we go through the site plan process, we will be required to build sidewalk along the frontage. Okay, thank you. Okay, what's your pleasure? Mr. Chairman, if the commission's ready for a motion commission, Mr. Chairman members of the commission, I move that we approve this particular item, which would be five a on the agenda, both the plan amendment and the rezoning. I think we'll have to take them separately. Do we? Yeah. Alright, then I move the plan amendment. I'll second motion by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner Padgett that we approve item five a the tax amendment, all those in favor that it be known by the right hand plan amendment. Okay. Motion carries 12 to zero. Okay. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I move that we approve the rezoning that's embodied in case five a on the agenda. Motion by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner Freeman that we approve item five zoning case. All those in favor let it be know my short right hand. Opposition likewise. Motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you. And commissioners and people coming to the mic, please speak directly into the mic because this is being telecast and we want the general public to be able to hear what you're saying. So thank you. Okay, so item five be Hamilton Center to a 140006 and zoning case 1400021. Carla Rosenberg with the Planning Department. This is for a 140006 Hamilton Center to the applicant who are that associates proposing to amend approximately five acres from office to commercial. This would allow the applicant to develop a greater variety of commercial uses, including restaurants and retail. The future land use context map shows that the site is situated southwest quadrant of NC Highway 54 and NC Highway 751. The current land use designation of office creates a transition between the commercial node to the northeast and the medium density residential to the south. Actual uses in the area include a strip style commercial commercial development Hope Valley Commons to the east across Highway 751. There are single family homes and multi family residential to the immediate south and multi family residential copper mill to the west and just north of the site is a ride aid and animal hospital and a dentist's office. An earlier small area plan called for this site to be designated as high density residential, which at that time signified eight density units per acre dwelling units per acre or more the 2005 comprehensive plan recommended office. In the justification statement, the applicant suggests that the current land use designation of office ought to be amended because the current commercial designation is more compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. Staff has reviewed the request against these four criteria found in the Unified Development Ordinance. And found that these policies apply. The first discouraged discourages auto oriented strip style development in favor of commercial nodes placed at regular intervals. And the second calls for commercial nodes facing of at least a half mile with clustering at major intersections. The majority of the area surrounding the parcel is already designated office. While the current designation of office intended to create a transition from a commercial node into the surrounding residential area. Numerous multifamily developments are now located south and west of the site that do not necessarily require this transition. We determined no substantial adverse impact regarding infrastructure environmental protection or future demand for land uses. And we determined that the site is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the proposed residential land use. And so the request meets all of the criteria for plan amendments and the staff is recommending approval. I can take any questions after Amy Wolf's presentation of the zoning portion. Thank you. Good evening Amy Wolf planning with the planning department. I will present the zoning case associated with this plan amendment. And this is for Hamilton Center to KZ one four zero zero zero two one. The applicant is Horvath associate. This is in the city's jurisdiction and the request is from the present designation of office institutional to the proposed district of commercial general with a development plan. The site is five point oh two acres. And the purpose is to allow for retail and restaurant uses on the site. The site's located at 70 10 North Carolina 751 Highway. It's in the southwest quadrant of the 751 and NC 54 intersection. The site is within the FJB watershed protection overlay. This request and the associated development plan does meet standards for the commercial general district. And the proposed site. There is development already on the site. It's built for all essential purposes built out. There's four buildings and a stormwater feature to the south of the site. And there's two site access drives. To NC 54 excuse me NC 751 Highway. The proposed development plan shows and I want to make a correction in the staff report in table D five. I indicated one site access and the actual access points are four. There are three cross access points one to the west two to the north and then one on to NC 54 Highway. Commitments of this development plan include a maximum 40,000 square feet of non residential use area. And again this this should be corrected to read the total of four site access points. Impervious surface maximum of 70 percent and tree coverage is 14 percent. The location of the access points are committed as well as tree preservation areas in the building and parking envelope. There's some text commitments associated with request that include a concrete and bus shelter along the frontage of the site along NC 751 Highway as well as limitation of peak hour trips. There are design commitments as well that specify the architectural style roof lines building materials architectural features and the transitions or context to the context area. The request is not consistent with the future land use map which designates the site as office. You've heard the plan amendment report that request does meet the requirements and the policies of the comprehensive plan that are applicable to the site. And staff determines that should the plan amendment be approved this request the zoning request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances and staff is available for your questions. Thank you. I have one person signed up to speak right back. Evening Mr. Chairman members of the board. Let me apologize before I begin. You're going to hear me on three cases tonight and I'm taking Clariton D and it's doing a wonderful job drying out my sinuses but it's also drying out the mouth. So I apologize up front. Ron Horvath Horvath associates and representing Tycon development in this case. I won't go into a lot of the details of this except if you've been out to the site you'll recognize that it's completely built out. The history on this project in later case you're going to hear Sutton station run parallel office projects within the UDO and zoning ordinance used to allow a certain percentage of quote accessory uses within an office development or office building of retail providing their office related restaurants retail shops like flower shops etc. That would be not necessarily destination. The UDO has changed over since two thousand six. That definitions becoming a little bit more firm and I believe Steve's here. No Steve Medlin made a called me in and said look we need to quit going on adding these accessory uses retail market and office market have changed they are getting smaller particularly the retail and pretty and neighborhood markets are requiring a mixture they want insurance office next to coffee shops next to dentist and sweet shops. So there's that mixture occurring and you're seeing that downtown as well as places like Patterson Place and a few others. This is the same thing we actually have approval to put some restaurants in this as accessory use. But when that restaurant moves out. We don't know that another one can come back in hence we're asking for the zoning. We originally went in as a neighborhood commercial but our square footage when you add all the buildings up is over the thirty thousand or twenty five thousand limit. So we had to go to general commercial. We are limited by the number of traffic the trips and what that equates out and I think Bill can check on this or confirm it for me. About half less than half of the total area in this development can be some type of retail business the other half has to can't be more than office and the controlling factor in a lot of that is your existing parking. So there are some give and take we did have neighborhood meetings and strong interest and support for the project but not strong enough for them to show up tonight. We have made all the improvements including bike lanes on now seven fifty one and roadway improvements. What you see out there is what the zoning will give you except it will have a mixture of uses within it. And by the way I go to my final point we couldn't do mixed use because it wasn't quite large enough. So we're kind of an anomaly and I asked for your support tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Are there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this item. Seeing no one else that would like to speak on this item. If not then I will close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. I have Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Miller. Really quick Ron. So the building that's there is the forty thousand square feet. Yes. So there's this this rezoning will not accommodate new structures or building or anything. Not additional no. All right. I do need to add one more thing if you'll let me when you get done. All right. And then at the at the southern end of the property you've got a buffer showing but I couldn't read on the map that we got in our packet what the width and the opacity of that buffer. It will match CG to residential right now I don't expect that property to stay residential. How wide is it. It's thirty seven and a half feet. With a burn. Thirty seven and a half. And what's the opacity minimum opacity. Point six point six. Okay. Excuse me I have to keep asking. I don't blame you. I have to. That's why I'm in. And then the last thing I wanted to know is is that the water retention feature that's shown on the map that's a commitment. That's built. Yes. It's built. It's got to be there. Yes. It's got to be there. And if I may add something else for the public record I forgot to. Since this is an existing development and we're changing the zone our perimeter buffers change as you brought up. Thank you for bringing that by the way Tom I do. Want to add one note that's going to be added to the plan. Portions of this perimeter buffer that we're showing the opacity and stuff. May be provided off site subject to the agreement of the Jason property owners. That note is going to be added to the plan. Let me explain that my client my client owns three sides. There's to the south they don't own. But he has buffers already on the west side. So we can. Build the buffers office office didn't need much now we need something. The only problem we have is to the north there's one property owner that isn't my clients the dentist office. There's plenty of buffer there but if they don't agree then we may have to remove some parking spaces. To build the buffer. And we believe that the between the drugstore and the clinic that that is a driveway that's exempt from it. So I'm adding this note officially to the plan. That some of our perimeter buffers may be off site. With the consent of the property. That's the staff having concerns with that. Mr. Chair members of the Commission pat young with plenty department again on as a point of information the required capacity of the buffer to the south of the point eight. The word into our as twenty. Just as clarification. Staff does not have any concerns with what the applicant is proposing they they are clear to discuss that with us today. That is allowed by right under the you know if there's not a zoning involved. But because there's a development plan zoning you all have the discretion as to whether record to recommend it or not but it's standard practice and meets the same intent is just on an adjacent property. If I may Mr. Chairman I have a question for Mr. Young. So I'm always a little nervous about these development plan provisions that. The these development plan provisions that involve properties which are not themselves subject to the development plan. If you recall we had one six or seven months ago that where we had to do a repair job on trails and what have you. What happens if a future owner of the property where the buffer is located. Decides they don't want the buffer there anymore what impact does it have on. Mr. Horvath's clients are they going to have to build a buffer where they currently don't have one. So that's a good question commissioner Miller in order to accept the offsite buffer we require documentation that there's a recorded easement of record on the adjacent property so it's it runs with the property and perpetuity. I thank you commissioners what's your pleasure. I was just going to make one additional comment and then I'll make a motion so I this type of change makes a lot of sense to me I appreciate the text commitment for the transit improvements as well and so I'm ready to make a motion to move a motion by C. A. one four zero zero zero six second. Motion motion that's the amendment. Yeah. Motion by Commissioner Bugsby. And second by Commissioner Miller. For approval of five B. A one four zero four zero six. Holders in favor of it let me know my short right hands. Our position. Motion carries twelve and complimentary zoning case and so move case number Z one four zero zero zero two one second emotional approval for Z one four zero zero zero two one all those in favor let it be known I show them the right hand all those in opposition motion carries twelve zero thank you so much now I will open the public hearing for five D my manola grill one four zero zero zero zero eight and zoning case one four zero zero zero two four which case Google how yeah who says I'm not searching for Carl Rosenberg planning department and this case Magnolia grill a 14 eight the applicant is Horvath associates proposing to amend 0.165 acres of the future land use map from medium density residential to commercial this would allow the applicant to create an outdoor seating area and emergency egress for an adjacent commercial structure this is the map showing the broader land use context and the site is located along Knight Street near the intersection with West Knox Street which you can see contains a jog at this point the majority of the surrounding area is designated medium density residential as is the subject site immediately south is a single commercial parcel and and other commercial uses are located further to the south current uses in this area include a fire station and an elementary school which are located directly across the street and then single family homes in the surrounding parcels an earlier small area plan called for this site to be designated as high density residential which at that time signified eight dwelling units per acre or more the 2005 comprehensive plan gave the designation of medium density residential 6 to 12 dwelling units per acre which is comparable to the earlier designation in the justification statement the applicant suggested that the current land use designation of medium density residential ought to be amended because the proposed designation of commercial will complement the existing commercial uses to the south the applicant further stated that the Durham comprehensive plan supports placement of commercial uses at intersections and the offset configuration of the Knox Street intersection places the site directly at the intersection staff has reviewed the request against these four criteria found in the unified development ordinance and found these following policies apply the first discourages auto oriented commercial strip development in favor of pedestrian oriented nodes and pedestrian friendly linear corridors where appropriate the second supports the spacing of commercial nodes at intervals of at least a half a mile and of clustering them at intersections the third encourages neighborhood scale and commercial nodes and linear development directly accessible to the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the fourth promotes compatible infill on vacant or underutilized property that reinforces the existing neighborhood character the majority of the area surrounding the parcel is designated medium density residential however Ninth Street is a vibrant commercial quarter further south and the commercial development in the area continues to expand we determined there to be no substantial adverse impact and finally staff determined that the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed residential and youth and so the request meets all the criteria for plan amendment and staff is recommending approval and as Wolf will present the zoning portion of this case good evening Amy Wolf with the planning department the associated zoning case is case Z one four zero zero zero two four Magnolia grill the geography of this site it encompasses two additional parcels than the plan amendment the applicant is one thousand two Ninth Street LLC and one thousand six Ninth Street LLC it is within the city's jurisdiction the request is from commercial neighborhood which are the two additional parcels I referenced and the residential urban five to district to combine them on a single development plan for commercial neighborhood with a development plan the total site is a zero point four eight two acres and the proposed use is for outdoor seating and dining area so again it's at one thousand one thousand two and one thousand four Ninth Street at the intersection of West Knox Street it is in the urban tier and again the two additional parcels are at the intersection of one thousand and one thousand two Ninth Street the request does meet the minimum standards of the unified development ordinance the development plan well this is the existing conditions shown on the development plan which show the existing building which is about seven thousand square feet it has the existing layout of the the parking area on the on the side there by West Knox Street as well as the residentially zoned parcel to the north the proposed conditions show a little bit more schematically the development area art is at closer to the corner of West Knox Street at one thousand and one thousand two Ninth Street the portion in the rear of the currently residentially zoned parcel says no enclosed buildings are permitted in in this gray shading to the rear of this parcel and then this this lined shading area is is shown as designated as outdoor use area there are three access points shown on the development plan one onto Ninth Street and two onto West Knox Street other commitments include a maximum of twenty thousand square feet of floor area the three access points maximum 52 percent impervious surface and tree coverage maximum let me clarify that in just a moment it's it's not 90 percent so let me let me get back to that in just a moment so other graphic commitments are the location of the access points the building envelope the envelope for the outdoor use area the proposed vehicle separation and the area that's prohibits enclosed buildings the text commitments include outdoor music and speakers are prohibited the dining area is is not to exceed 50 seats and the prohibited uses includes convenience stores with gas sales retail and commercial drive-thru facilities payday lenders and limited vehicle service request the request also includes design commitments in relation to roof line building materials architectural features and how it transitions to the context area a portion of the site the northern portion at 1004 Ninth Street is not consistent with the future land use map you heard the plan amendment on that the plan amendment request the request does meet the other standards of the comprehensive plan as indicated on this line and staff determines that should the plan amendment be approved this request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable policies and ordinances and back to the tree coverage this site is in the urban tier there's no required tree coverage staff is available for your questions okay thank you I have one person signed up to speak Ron you still on the pet on the floor thank you sir Ron Horvath again Horvath associates unique piece of property the building itself on the commercial land is a foot off the north or the western northern property line they needed an emergency exit as you know I we name this Magnolia grill so everyone would know where it was it's now mo nuts if you haven't been there it's operational the two lots they were sitting on or are sitting on our zone properly they needed an emergency exit out to the north and unfortunately that and it's owned by the same people its own residential planning director made a determination it even just to have a walkway has to have the commercial zoning so we started into this and we realized it would also make a very good outdoor waiting seating area and so we I think work with the neighbors very well and what we have before you seems to have gained good acceptance and I ask your support in this moving forward be available for any questions thank you okay thank you are the any other people in the audience yes sir if you will come to the mic and state your name and your address very clearly my name is David Jolly and I live at 1005 Ardell Street which is directly behind Magnolia grill mo nuts now and I just more questions than anything I've talked with the folks who have been working with you in the West Durham over the Western neighborhood Association and they've provided some assurances so when Magnolia grill was in this building it served dinner and only dinner mo nuts is open from I don't know 7 a.m. until 9 at night it's creating parking problems that may simmer down but it's immensely popular right now and people at mo nuts are really nice folks but they have no control over a very little control over what their customers do with their vehicles and they are parking them in front of walkways in front of driveways right up to the corner so that you can't see beyond you can't see what's coming in the cross street I just talk with them yesterday and they've agreed to post a request of their customers that they be courteous when they're parking their vehicles but they people at mo nuts themselves are having problems because people park they block their entries so that delivery trucks can't get in and that sort of thing I guess it's in part because people think they're only going to be there a minute to pick up a donut but the lines are out the door nobody's there so that's that's one hassle and I don't know that there's much to be done about it but I guess my point is that this new use of that spot is is changing some things that we were accustomed to and there was no outdoor seating at Magnolia Grill this is a residential neighborhood there are a number of residences behind it and north of it and now we're going to have people presumably sitting outside from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. right now that's their closing time I don't know that there's anything to prevent them from staying open till 2 in the morning and I'm glad to see that they're prohibiting live music and prohibiting a amplified music but even if they're you know they've got 50 people out there and by the way they serve alcohol and there could be some loud and rowdy people out there and you know maybe up till 9 o'clock at night that's not so bad but if they decide to extend their hours and I don't know what would prevent them from doing that if you know they're not just a donut shop they're a restaurant with a full bar license and and that changes things when you talk about outside seating so I have concerns about that and the hours of operation I see that there's nothing in this to limit hours of operation thank you all right thank you sir I have two questions and a concern first of all let me address the parking is it in it Mr. Judd or we don't have anybody from the police department which would be the parking problem it's nothing that because it is public parking right so it's not a function of the developer to handle that piece up well yeah the the site plan or the existing restaurant does have a parking requirement I believe the outdoor seating does not require additional because it's considered seasonal so the restaurant is is meeting the parking requirement that was in place when the building was built and then beyond that there is I mean the parking there is on-street parking available the city is leasing a lot further down 9th Street that has paid parking for most of the day with the pay station but this is I mean yeah it's not the first time we've heard complaints about parking in the 9th Street area it's a sort of ongoing issue that our department deals with on a regular basis okay and to run what is your operating hours right now as he said they're up to I think it's like 7 in the morning till 9 but any restaurant even operating now under its existing zoning their hours are flexible I mean Magnolia Grill served dinner but there was nothing to prevent them from serving breakfast lunch and dinner they had a full bar at that one as well what I will say is and it's not going to solve the parking problem we are going to be able to read by moving to walkway to the north side we eliminate the wooden ramp that exists on the knock street side that opens that up a little bit more and by able the developable area back behind the building often at northern part will give some more room to get parking now it's not going to be a lot but it does add but we did a parking count out there and we exceed by about four or five spaces that required parking we are talking and in conversation right now about installing they weren't required during their initial startup but put into bike racks and now and with the zoning approval since we got the required what would be required we can add more bike racks that don't necessarily have to be out in front but can be in the outdoor area because we did notice a lot of bicyclists coming to the area okay I guess they get their doughnut fix I'm not sure okay so that's all we can offer at this time but operating hours they're not gonna have outdoor music and it is seas and all if it's raining there's no roof covering it's not it's meant to be like the sidewalk dining it's if it's nice out they're gonna sit out there okay thank you you're welcome and sir I don't know what we can do about crowded people right but and the parking at this point it's not the primary concern I think it's the noise potential noise late at night and it seems like I mean the owners have made agreements about other aspects of this and I just wonder if you know the hours of operation could be taken into consideration in terms of those other so pat as is are there any regulations on how late an establishment can be open how long a minute I'm staff is consulting with each other I apologize for the delay pat young with planning department we have except the planning commission and the department have accepted proffers on hours of operation before there's no ordinance standard in this regard so it's legally permissible to do but it has not been it's not required and it's been a while since we've had one and it's very difficult to enforce we do have zoning enforcement officers at work nights and weekends on special occasions with complaints but not routine patrols okay wait a minute we're still in the public hearing phase of commissioners we're still in the public so could I get a clarification on what that means sir so pat young again with the planning department we have no basis to require any restrictions on hours of operation if the applicant wishes to voluntary proffer voluntarily offer restrictions they can be accepted and we can enforce them to the best of our ability but there we have no basis to require limitations on our city can't require it but the proprietors could offer to limit hours that's correct so would your sir you you hope step in your boundary right now okay sorry we can't even do that to it okay not not now we can't yes Amy Amy Wolf with the planning department I wanted to clarify the error on the slide that I presented in the staff report for 90% was not for tree coverage it was for impervious surface okay okay thank you sir is the anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this item if there's no one else then I'm a closer public hearing and bring it to the commissioners I have vice chair Davis commissioner pageant commissioner Miller I didn't see it okay mr. Bugsby Charlie Gibbs Adriana okay so vice chair Davis I originally had the same concerns as the resident nearby about the increased parking but again it is seasonal so you don't account for that thank you mr. Judd I do have a question for staff if the applicant was to proffer a limited access on the time of restaurant hours could we actually do that when the actual restaurant is not even in question this is a piece of land that is it going to be for the whole thing is it just going to be for the outdoor area that's proposed the planning department the request before you for the zoning map change is for the existing restaurant site so it's for three parcels that includes the existing restaurant okay with the addition of that residential property with for the proposed outdoor seating area but the request encumbers the the in the three parcels at the corner okay and then I have one more question for the applicant because of the need to go for the planning commission or to get this egress out because really this is just for an egress out but you want to take advantage of the potential outdoor seating are you willing to say we will not take advantage of the outdoor seating at this point and just use the request for the egress which it was intended for I don't I can't answer that tonight okay thank you I honestly thank you commission patch yeah just listen to the image a while ago my question it seems like we heard that the business has been a good neighbor they're not really they're not responsible for the parking that falls within the city city police department the there's only one resident here that's expressed any kind of concern about it for the for the process and you know and we're looking at what potential maybe so I think there's a lot of questions of what possibly could be I don't see anything there that causes me any concern so you know I'm going to support it but you know I just don't see a room filled with anybody that really sends up a flag to me okay thank you commissioner Miller thank you Mr. Chairman I have concerns about this too I have worried about outdoor usage and we'll ask you Ron if your clients would agree to a 9 o'clock limit for outdoor seating would they I take it they're not here tonight they're not I could answer this question if they were here I I feel comfortable in committing to a 10 o'clock no outdoor whether it's nine I would need to converse with them it doesn't apply to the rest of the restaurant or the parking area just the outdoor seating I feel comfortable at 10 o'clock because really it's it's more for people who are waiting to get in if you notice they have an outdoor seating area in the front people could actually eat out there but it's more like a waiting area to get inside but yes I feel comfortable with 10 I may be able to drop it back to nine but I won't be able to do that tonight all right I understand thank you for your response to that Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission with actually with that answer I'm going to support the plan amendment and the rezoning but I want to make it clear that in giving it to support I don't agree at all with the staff justification for the plan amendment change I just think it's all wrong but this isn't the 9th Street business district this is the Old West Durham neighborhood and we want in my opinion the best policy here is to draw a bright line between those two parts of the city the 9th Street commercial district and the Old West Durham neighborhood at Green Street and that needs to be a bright line one of the things that we do when we create these compact neighborhoods in my opinion that's extremely important not only do we free up the zoning rules inside the compact neighborhoods when we could turn them into design districts we need to tighten up the protections we give the surrounding areas because they become targets for expansion and redevelopment if we are serious about preserving affordable housing then then we have to do this and Old West Durham is a block of desirable affordable housing that in my opinion can't be replaced in if we get future requests to change the future land use map or the zoning in Old West Durham near 9th Street I'm going to look at it with very strict scrutiny this particular property though is exceptional it has the Scarborough grocery store on it it was built before there was zoning it's got a building that's one foot off the property line and so consequently we cannot have the buffer that normally we would want to see because that's there and we're not going to eliminate it I think then in this limited circumstances I would change the future land use map and the zoning to add that extra lot with the understanding that we're not going to expand the building buildings on to it and we will in thereby get the buffer that ought to be there under the current code so I'm supporting the rezoning we'll make an emotion at the appropriate time commission frame I just I just had a few questions about the grading there you mentioned that you were doing the bike racks I don't know how much of that property is being regraded none of it it there be a little bit towards the back if parking is put at the rear of it on the front bike racks that we're looking at right now will go in the front sidewalk area where the benches are if we do additional if the rezoning goes through on the northern residential piece then we can also install some bike racks in the area where the dining tables are because it's not required to be at the front door it's non-required bike parking so it won't take regrading or ADA requirements there the only thing we have to do is get a sidewalk and it can be wooden if it need be out from the building to the 9th Street along that and this wouldn't impact the back alleyway would it no commission the expert thank you you've dealt with my main issue which is the concern that was raised about the noise issue this was a difficult month to be on the Planning Commission to have to go to Monats and Google Huff to do on-site review of these proposals so I'm looking forward to next month but but I did see firsthand I was I went on a Friday morning and you could see the traffic issues I know that's something that we're gonna have to figure out but I do think I hope that the business will I appreciate the 10 p.m. noise limit I hope it's 9 p.m. because you do see the residential areas for folks with young families the difference between 9 and 10 p.m. you know so guys significant that's true as well so I hope I hope you will I hope they will take the 9 p.m. time I think it's better for them long term to work with the neighbors because there there are going to be more of these kind of concerns but giving your proffer I'm going to plan to support it to the 10 I just I need to get permission for the night absolutely Commissioner Gibbs thank you Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Busby have just about covered my questions nine thank you Commissioner Huff I am curious about this gray area that says no enclosed buildings per permitted yeah we didn't want to expand the buildings further north next to the residential there may be service areas out there as far as like some additional parking it's a dead end space we didn't want it for dining but we did also did not want buildings going out into there and so we proffered that there would be no buildings in that area to make the encroachment to the residential that much worse well I think I was curious as to whether it could be used for parking it's a possibility yes because it's way the parking set up they need a little turnaround area because you basically get in there and you have to back out so we're hoping to be able to use that to construct it okay thanks you're welcome thank you yes I guess this is a question for staff but if the commitment about the closing time or the the time beyond which people can't be out in the outdoor seating is committed to how does that affect any potential future owners of a business on the site Commissioner Bieland the commitment would run with the property in perpetuity unless there was a rezoning on the property okay Commissioner what's your pleasure Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion if I may hold on just a second I think that the limitation of the hours to the outside part it's a pretty good solution to this but how does it work are we going to be able to add that to the to the development plan now before we vote on it it would go before the city council it would it would go on on it as a recommendation before it goes to the city council so we'll add that to our motion okay okay so he was good he's good with it Mr. Chairman if I may then with regard to item 5d of our agenda which would be the plan amendment a 14 quadruple ought 8 I move that we approve the plan amendment second you want to add the time zone okay motion by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner next to that we approve 5d 1 4 a 1 4 0 0 0 0 8 all those in favor let it be known by show of hands that's what is on in favor show of hands right hand all those in opposition motion carried 12 to 0 then Mr. Chairman if I may make a motion with regard to the zoning case that goes along with this which is 14 triple ought 24 I move that we recommend to the city council that they approve this rezoning on condition that the developers add to their committed elements in their development plan limitation of business hours for the outdoor seating area to a time preferably 9 o'clock but not later than 10 o'clock you have a second yeah it's PM is okay second okay motion by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner Bugsby that we approve 5d zoning case with this stipulation that a time not time restriction also operation be if possible limit to 9 p.m. and no later than 10 for the outdoor portion okay all those in favor of that motion let it be known by showing the right hand all those in opposition motion carries 12 to 0 thank you so much now we will move to item 6 public hearings on the map change request for 6 a to auto park center z14 triple 0 11 thank you good evening Amy Wolf with the planning department you all have seen this case Amy I can't hear you you all have seen this case recently this item was before the Commission and at your November meeting the applicant has made some changes which brings it back before you today the case is auto park center z14 0011 the applicant is sheets it's within the city's jurisdiction the existing zoning is commercial neighborhood with a development plan and the proposal still remains commercial general with the development plan and I'll explain the difference in the development plan as we get to it the site is 6.23 acres and the proposed uses for a mix of retail and restaurant uses the site is at 75 20 NC 751 highway which is just north of the interstate 40 and 751 intersection and is between the army Corland you'll see on this map in the green shading area this site meets the minimum standards for the commercial general district as shown here the existing site is unchanged from the November meeting it is have forested areas there are some slope down to a stream feature towards interstate 40 it is shown here with the buffer and there is still a curb cut from 751 into the eastern eastern portion of the site northeastern portion the difference is on the development plan where the applicant has requested or changed their their proposed buffers along the the short it short property boundary to the north and the and the rear of the parcel up until the stream buffer the the plan that you saw in November showed a 30 foot 0.6 opacity buffer the one with the change before you today is for a 10 foot or 0.2 opacity buffer which shows subject to opacity verification offsite the Commission voted on this item in November with a vote of 12 to 0 as a reminder that is the only change between November's request and the request before you today all the other commitments and intensity and other minimum and graphic and text commitments remain the same they are in your staff report the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan the future land use map and staff determines that this request is still consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and staff is available to answer any of your questions okay I have one person signed up to speak attorney biker good evening Chairman Harris members of the Planning Commission my name is Patrick biker I live at 2614 Stewart Drive I'm an attorney with Morningstar law group in Durham I'm here tonight representing sheets for this zoning map change with me tonight from sheets are Jamie Gerhardt and Tom Anastasi along with our land planner Bob zoom off from McAdams and Frank Aminia from Davenport our traffic engineer first of all I want to thank our case planner Amy Wolfer clearly presenting why we are back before the Planning Commission long story short after we received your recommendation for approval back in November we started the detailed engineering work for this challenging site through that process we realized that we had overstated our project boundary buffer this buffer modification needs to be shown on our development plan and that's why we're here again this evening we wish to emphasize that we are not seeking any increase to the approximately 6400 square foot sheets convenience store that we have proposed at this location ever since we began working on this zoning map change same number of gas pumps same seating area same building envelope same impervious surface limitation as a zoning map change that the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended recommended approval for back on November 11 2014 accordingly we again respectfully asked for your recommendation of approval and our team will be happy to try and answer any questions you may have thank you very much for your time tonight are there other members in the audience that would like to speak to this item do we have other members in the audience that would like to speak to this item I'm going to close the public hearing and before I bring it back to the commissioners I don't have five a in my packet staff I don't have five a in my planning pack okay now okay let me bring it back before the commissioners I know Vice Chair Davis want to speak to this no no I have that I don't have this comments check one question for staff under the summary you mentioned that land totaling acreage a mix of retail and restaurant use is not committed why is that put in there in terms of not committed is there any other uses that may be put on this site if not committed oh yes sir Amy Wolf with the Planning Commission planning department excuse me there's no committed use for the site so anything permitted under the commercial general district would be permitted should council approve the zoning there's no limitation on uses is the specs of applicants this the reason why you guys did not commit to those uses are specifically well there is a small portion of the site that the only let me answer your question more specifically Commissioner Davis the only end user that we have for the site at this time is the sheets convenience store there is still a small portion of the site that's owned by that will be owned by the current owner now won't be owned by sheets and so just to maintain flexibility we're looking at any appropriate commercial use would be allowed on that portion of the site in accordance with the UDO thank you if I may Amy Wolf again the I miss both there are two text commitment in reference to what limitation of uses on the site the first one is that there's no electronic gaming establishment the second one is no residential uses but all other uses that would otherwise be permitted in the CG district would be allowed thank you for that clarification it's anyone else down here anyone on this in commission for even I just have a question for staff speak up I wanted to know is there any focus on time and location put in place for the planning and zoning on a property when they're close by I can I'm I mean my concern is the congestion is going to build up around 751 and 54 with both of these projects I mean coming at the same time I don't imagine and they're going to start at the same time is there anything that comes into play I don't Commissioner Freeman are you referring predominantly to transportation impacts like traffic impacts yes I'll let Mr. Judge talk a little bit about how we evaluate proposed or planned projects in terms of transportation thank you yes for this project there was a traffic impact analysis required so the applicant did prepare one and was submitted and reviewed in those traffic impact analysis to include any other developments within general area that that have traffic impact analysis associated with them the the rezoning we heard earlier down at 54 did not have one with this phase of the development so it wasn't specifically included but they do include within the traffic study a background growth rate to accommodate to basically adjust for those other developments that we anticipate occurring and then specifically like just in starting construction for both projects at the same time yeah well there's no real limitation other than if they're both working in the same area they do have to get encroachment agreements in this case it'd be from North Carolina DOT so they do control or not allow two different contractors basically to be working in the same area at the same time thank you Commissioner Miller and unless there are any other comments Mr. Chairman I'm ready to make a motion I'm ready hold on a minute Commissioner for Patrick point of information how come this buffer had to be reduced what's the what's the engineering if you look at the site it's very oddly configured site as very rough topography and we did not you know sometimes you're good sometimes you're lucky I guess in this case we were lucky that we started doing the detailed site engineering late last year and it simply didn't fit given how narrow the site is and so in order to provide for the you know we have obviously we have tankers coming in obviously to provide safe in ingress and egress for the public and for our providers we we needed a just a slightly bigger site than we had brought to you well it's not a bigger site but slightly more area and so that's why the buffer had to be reduced and when you look at the surrounding area you have to keep in mind there's 1,800 acres surrounding the site owned by the Army Corps of Engineers so it's really a something that's not going to have an impact on anybody in the real world no I was just but no it's a it's a it's really a safety issue thanks you're welcome Mr. Chairman at this time I will move that the Planning Commission send this to the City Council with a favorable recommendation this is for case Z 1423 motion by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner Freeman that we approve 6a z14 triple 011 all those in favor let it be known by show of right hand all those in opposition motion carries 12 to 0 public hearing 6b Hendricks our point of all z14 triple 023 good evening Amy Wolf with the Planning Department this is another case that's or a portion of the site anyways that you've recently heard last month for Hendrick phase 2 was last month z14 0002 this month as a follow-up we have the for us z14 00023 for Hendrick South Point overall this request attempts to combine or does combine two recent zoning cases one that has not been heard before counsel yet but this board has seen it last month essentially there was a phase 1 and phase 2 for Hendrick South Point and here is the overall which attempts to combine the two development plans and remove the internal buffers the applicant is Hendrick automotive group it is within the city's jurisdiction pending z14 002 which it also includes an annexation this particular item assumes approval from counsel should counsel not approve it then we need to go back to the drawing board with this item so this was reviewed under the city standards it is a city case the request is from commercial general the development plan to commercial general with a development plan again there's two existing development plans on the site for the cgd district this combines them it is eighty point seven zero acres and the proposed uses for three hundred and thirty thousand square feet of commercial development and that is the same number if you added the square feet from each of those separate develop development plans the site is generally has frontage along Fayetteville Road and south of renaissance parkway it is does not have frontage on Massey Chapel Road but it's north of Massey Chapel Road there are seventy parcels and covered in this request and the western portion which you'll see here in gray is the part that's currently in the county pending annexation with the zoning case you heard last month and it will be heard by counsel on March 2nd the request meets all the requirements of the cgd district as well as the development plan here is a depiction of the site you'll see that there's two streams perennial along the south and an intermittent stream more to the north there's an existing building on the site that with more under construction there there were at the time of the development plans middle 31 single-family houses along the western portion and there's a number of right-of-ways through the site there's seven right-of-ways all are at various stages of being closed or the street closing process for consideration by counsel the proposal again combines the two development plans that this commission has seen previously it's first shows the required buffers and there was a number of commitments if you recall from last month that the applicant has worked out with the neighbors including the an extensive buffer and landscaping and wall along these residential properties to the west again this combines that or carries that over again 330 square feet of non-residential for the max square footage to potential stream crossing two side access points 70% maximum impervious surface 16.5 percent tree coverage area the same commitments carry over location of access points tree preservation stream crossings the the berm and evergreen planting the masonry wall and the closing of all the internal right-of-way are also included so number of text commitments they are in your staff report you this commission has seen them in the past they are carried over to this request there's a number of them that also include traffic improvements associated with a traffic impact analysis which is this particular request did not require a TIA the TIA or traffic impact analysis is good from the previous or still effective from the previous zoning the same architectural commitments have been made or just excuse me design commitments that separate the differences between the main buildings and accessory buildings and the request is consistent with the future land use map of our comprehensive plan as well as all the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan and staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances and staff is available to answer any questions okay thank you Amy I have one person signed up to speak Lewis cheek Lewis cheek for Hendrick automotive group as you've heard this is simply to create an overall development plan for phases one and two which have already been before the Commission I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have are they other members of the audience that would like to speak to this issue are there other members of the audience that would like to speak if not I will close the public hearing and bring it back before the Commissioners Commissioners who would like to speak Commission of Miller Mr. Cheek it's true that this eliminates the buffer between the two phases but doesn't interfere in any way with the buffer on the perimeter of the project or any of the other commitments made with the neighborhood that's correct Mr. Miller if the appropriate time I'd like to make a motion the appropriate time is now Mr. Chairman I move the approval of this agenda item which is the last item on our agenda no we got one more oh excuse me strike so it's the last rezoning case in our agenda no I lost my okay a second okay we have not ending the meeting but the motion we have a motion for approval by Mr. Miller and seconded by Commissioner Bugsby for zoning case 1400023 all those in favor let it be known by short right hand all those in opposition motion carries 12 to 0 thank you and the last public hearing for zoning case change Sutton station Z1400025 Amy Wolf with the planning department I'm sorry Amy how are you Amy Wolf with the planning department this case is for Sutton station Z1400025 the applicant is Sutton station LLC it's in the city's jurisdiction and the request is from the present designation of office institutional to mixed use with a development plan the site is 15.94 acres and the proposal is to increase the permitted commercial uses for the property or own the property the site is located at 5800 Fayetteville Road which is south of Woodcroft Parkway on the west side and it's between Fayetteville Road and the American tobacco trail it is in the suburban tier and is encumbered by the FJB watershed protection overlay the request does meet the standards for the mixed-use district the existing site has a total of 10 buildings currently there's 57 residential units and a little over 147,000 non-residential use area being utilized the proposal shown here shows three vehicular access points and two pedestrian connections to the tobacco trail shows your tree coverage areas along the rear and sides of the prop subject site other commitments includes the number of residential units at 57 and change the office use would be a maximum of 80,227 with the commercial at 67,387 square feet again this three a site access point of vehicular side access points and two pedestrian connections maximum of 70 percent impervious surface and tree coverage at 10 percent the location of the access points the building and parking envelope and tree preservation areas are committed there's a number of tax commitments associated with this including a bus pat or shelter along Fayetteville Road the limitation on peak hour trips as it relates to what is currently the current peak hour generation committed uses would be residential office and commercial minimum of some additional commitments are minimum of four additional bike racks two directional signs identifying the American tobacco trail connection improving the southernmost trail connection to six foot wide paid service and two pedestrian connections to the existing sidewalk along Fayetteville Street there are design commitments associated with this request that address the architectural style roof lines building materials architectural features and how the site transitions to the context area the request the future land use designation of the site is for office and this request is consistent with that mixed use does allow the office use there is a commitment for office it's currently office as well the site does meet the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan was identified here in this table and staff determines this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and staff is available for your questions thank you Amy and I have one person signed up to speak Ron have it evening again mr. Chairman members of Commission this is similar to Hamilton Place I won't go into all the detail and it was one of the first if not the first true mixed use project Durham got and I was proud to be associated with it back in the 90s and so it's getting its proper designation now and asked for your support thank you thank you are the other members in the audience that would like to speak to this if not I will close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners commissioners speaking commissioners speaking commissioners what's your pleasure mr. Chairman I move that we actually don't have a question I just was going to say it appears that you have addressed all the comments from the bike and pedestrian advisory commission which is greatly appreciated so thank you and I was then going to make a motion okay so I move we approve case number z1400025 it's a motion by a commission of Bugsby and seconded by Commissioner Huff that we approve 6c z1400025 all those in favor let it be known by showing the right hand all those in opposition likewise motion carries 12-0 thank you do do we have announcements mr. Chair this is Scott Weiman for the planning department next month you have three land new land use cases plus the continuance of the Google Huff plus the wireless communication facilities text amendment again okay this is this is the big one not the the limited slick stick one that you heard a few months ago are the other announcements yes this is just something that I uncovered when I was looking at the place on 54 that Arboretum at South Point the people at Arboretum at South Point not nobody there got any message that there was a rezoning the only the only thing that anybody saw was that zoning sign out there I even talked to the manager of the development art the manager of you know how it's not the owner but the manager you understand and she didn't know either so apparently the property owner got got a notification and didn't communicate it to anybody that was on that site people were very surprised and and I took a little time to talk to Marty Rup and Carbora about how we might go about notifying renters in a way that would be economically feasible so that this kind of thing wouldn't happen again because actually when I talked to Jared Eden's about it I told him some of the things that the renters had told me and he was very interested to know so I would like to I wonder if we could work on a work on a method of notification Pat Young with the Planning Department Commissioner Huff as you I think alluded to in your comments the current ordinance requires notification property owners and certainly appreciate your concerns about ensuring that renters are notified what I'll do is take that concern back to our we have a staff member Mike Stock you've seen present many times and a young supervisor and Steve Edlin put that into we have a weekly review of potential text amendments and we'll make sure that gets do consideration report back I would like to say in closing that that Marty had some very interesting things to say about it and how to how not to spend a lot of money notifying people who aren't there great thank you very much yeah like I said we'll get you some feedback and follow up with you offline to make sure we we have that information Carbora okay any other announcements or anything to claim our attention if not I receive a motion for German motion doesn't require a second just get up and leave