 I can actually see this. Oh no, here he comes. Where's Busty? Susan is not coming back. So we're going to have Jakob and what's the new lady? That's what they said. It's like we're going to see how this goes. I'll be doing it. They were asking me the same thing that we were talking about. I was like, I don't need a minute. So now we got somebody else. I'm really going to have to. Alright, we're getting ready to have fun. 528. Okay. It comes Patrick and company. How are you? Good afternoon. 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 before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those of you who wish to speak, please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium. Please speak clearly and into the microphone. Each side, those speaking in favor of an issue and those speaking in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes to present for each side. The time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. Can we have the roll call please? Certainly Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. Commissioner Elterg? Commissioner Johnson? Commissioner Gouche? Commissioner Brian? Commissioner Whitley? Commissioner Harris? Commissioner Busby? Chair Hyman? Commissioner Miller? Commissioner Kenshin? Commissioner Hornbuckle? Commissioner Van? Commissioner Gibbs? Commissioner Freeman? Present. Statement for March 14, 2017. Can I question Commissioner Bryan? Madam Chair, I have a correction on the minutes on page 4 under the Watkins at Witherspoon case. The motion that appeared in the, as shown in the minutes is to approve the case and that motion carried 8 to 3. I think there was some confusion because there was also a motion to defer the case which was failed 3 to 8. Thank you. Are there any other corrections to the minutes? Just one observation, my comments was not included in the March statement. Are there other comments concerning or corrections for the minutes? So corrections and comments will be duly noted. So I'd like to have a motion to approve the minutes and consistency statements for March 14 with the identified corrections and adjustments. So move. It has been moved and properly seconded, moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Bryan, that we approve the minutes of the and consistency statement with corrections for the March 14, 2017 minutes. Are you ready for the question? All in favor of this motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. All opposed? Motion carries 14 to 0. The next item we have adjustments to the agenda. Good evening, Madam Chair. I'm Scott Whiteman from the Planning Department temporarily filling the role of Grace Smith. We have two requests for adjustments. One is to under unfinished business to add a recommendation on the Planning Department work program and then under new business as we had sent to the Commission earlier this week, we'd like to add a preview of the Durham Bike Walk implementation plan. If I may, Madam Chairman, is there not also to be a change of correction to the January minutes? That's correct. My colleagues are whispering loudly in my ear that we need to add that as well. Is that another item for unfinished business? That's right, a correction to the January minutes, which you should have found at your place on the dais. Thank you. Our next item is... Madam Chairman, I move that we adopt the agenda as modified. Thank you. It has been approved by Commissioner Harris and seconded by Commissioner Busby that we approve the agenda as modified. All in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand. Motion carries 14 to 0. Thank you. The next item Public Curing Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendments. Staff, please. Madam Chair, before you open the public hearing, let me certify for the record that all application has been carried out as required by law, and affidavits are unrivaled to that effect. Thank you. The first case will be under Item 8, Public Hearing Zoning Map Changes Case Z1624. Okay, the first one is... Okay, the continuance. Yes. Okay. Hi, good evening. Good evening with the Planning Department. This matter was carried out. I've continued from the February 14th hearing and there have been no changes to the application. I believe there are representatives from the applicant here that may wish to speak on the topic, which was there were some comments from the adjacent school across the street. Thank you. We will open the public hearing. I have two individuals who have signed up to speak. Chris Maill, four, and with Eden Land, and then followed by Jeff Ammons, four. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Chris Maill, Director of Civil Engineering Services with Eden's Land, 2314 South Miami Boulevard, Durham. As you recall, two months ago we were here to speak about this project. There was some discussion regarding the neighboring Montessori School and their entrance. Since that time, my client, M.I. Holmes, has met with representatives from the Montessori School. Also with NCDOT, both the district office and a representative who reviews all school projects for NCDOT. And the parties have come to an agreement. It involves an extension of the center turn lane, which will allow better turning movements both into the proposed Andrews Chapel Development and into the neighboring Montessori School. I believe they're on board with what we're proposing, so I'll allow Jeff to speak. Hey, my name is Jeff Ammons. I'm here as a representative for the Montessori School of Raleigh. My address is 4821 Boulder Creek Lane in Raleigh. Yes, 60 days ago, approximately, y'all gave us homework when M.I. Holmes came with their rezoning request. And as part of that, they have been very good to work with us. And we've met with DOT. We had an issue about the driveway, not lining up with ours, but we've worked with DOT and have a great resolution. We're extending the turn lane, so I just wanted to be here to show our support for that project and thank them for working with us. Thank you. I have no other individual signed up to speak, so I'm going to close the public hearing and give the commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. Do I have commissioners who would like to speak? Only one. Commissioner Bryan. I have a very minor question. It's on Attachment 7, Table 2. I noticed that the zoning in each case for each one of these is slightly different, but somehow we're reducing the same number of single family homes and town homes. And is that really correct? Yes, Jamie Sanyak Planning Department. The number of residential units has not changed, but as I noted during my presentation in February, there has been a state statute that amended the way that we can calculate the density and stream buffer areas can now be included as part of the calculation, so the number, the density number is different, but the actual number of units is the same. I just thought that since we were changing we were doing this to allow them to have more town homes and less single family, is that not? They are adjusting the range for the town homes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Are there other commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Miller. The center turn lane that you're proposing to lengthen, it's one that you had already committed to, and this is an Andrews Chapel Road. And the lengthening will allow more left-hand turns to be stored. Can you tell me how much longer it will be? Approximately 100 feet. Alright, thank you. We are recognized as commissioner Harris. Madam Chair, if I'm in order, I'd like to move that we send forward approval of zoning case 1600024. Second. Motion by commissioner Harris, second by commissioner Brian that, I mean Busby, I'm sorry, that we move Andrew Chapel Z1600024 forward with a favorable recommendation. Are you ready for the question? All in favor of this motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. All opposed. All opposed. Get your hand down. Motion carries 14-0. Thank you, Jacob. Next item we have in the public hearing is Fletcher Mills, item number Z1600034, our staff report, please. Madam Chair, before we open the public hearing, I'd like to inform the planning commission that my firm has been engaged on that matter, so I'd like to recuse myself. Madam Chair, I move that we recuse commissioner Gouche. Second. Second. Motion by commissioner Harris, second by commissioner Busby, that commissioner Gouche recuse himself from this proceeding. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by the usual sign of aye. All opposed. Okay. Thank you. Now, Jacob. Thank you, Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. This is a request for case number Z1600034, also known as Fletcher Mills. The applicant is Stephen Dorn with McAdams. This is a case that is located within the city of Durham's jurisdiction. And the request is to assume approximately 35 acres from residential role to plan development residential 1.964 for a potential maximum of 68 single family residential structures. The subject site is noted here on the context map. The left hand side is the current or existing zoning. And the right hand side shows the proposed zoning. These surrounding properties are also rezoned to RR. As you can see from the map, there are some PDR zonings as well as some RS20 to the north of the site. Please note that as you can see, the entire parcel is not included in this rezoning request. There is a corner of the southeastern part of the site which is located in the FJA watershed district, which is not part of this request. The existing conditions sheet as noted in the development plan is part of your packet. The site fronts along Fletcher's Chapel Road as well as some environmental features. There's a riparian feature in the northeast corner of the site and some wetlands along the southern border of the subject site. So standards for the PDR district as noted, the site is approximately 35 acres. The applicant is requesting a density of 1.964 dwelling units per acre. They're proposing a maximum of 35% impervious coverage, committing to 25% of tree coverage for the site and a maximum building height of 35 feet. The proposed conditions, which is their development plan sheet in your packet also notes access points, potential access points, riparian features as well as riparian buffers as well as some potential street improvements. A summary of some of those commitments, as I noted 68 single family units, they have committed to detached single family units, project boundary buffers, the tree preservation areas. Wetlands are noted on the site as well as required riparian buffers. The applicant is committing to three potential points of access. The left turn lane on the southbound portion of Fletcher's Chapel Road as well as a bicycle lane along Fletcher's Chapel. The future land use map in this area calls out the area requested for rezoning as very low density residential, which is two dwelling units an acre or less, and that designation is found in the majority of the area. Areas to the east of this site are rural density residential. There's also a small portion of resident, I'm sorry, recreation open space on the subject site. Comprehensive plan policies, some of the policies that staff reviewed this case against, as you can see, continuous development, infrastructure, school level of service and staff found that the request was consistent with all of those policies. And finally staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. Oh, no, I have them. Open the public hearing. I have one individual signed up to speak for and that's Mr. Patrick Biker. How are you this afternoon? Very well. Good evening, Chair Hyman, Vice Chair Busby, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Patrick Biker. I live at 2614 Stewart Drive here in Durham and I'm with Morningstar Law Group. I'm here this evening to represent Shamrock Capital Partners, which is the owner and ground developer of this location. As you've just heard from Mr. Wiggins, this is a very low residential density development. We really don't have a whole lot to add onto what Mr. Wiggins has just presented for the commission. So I would like to introduce our team here from McAdams. Stephen Dorn and John Moore are the land planners and engineers for this site. So if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them, but knowing that you have a lengthy agenda tonight, we'll be happy to just forego our ten minutes of fame and let it go at that. We respectfully ask for your approval and again, as you can see, it's less than two dwelling units per acre and we think this is the right fit for this location. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have anyone else who is signed up to speak, so I'm going to close the public hearing and give commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. Do I have commissioners who would like to speak to my right? Do I have commissioners who would like... Okay, thank you. And other commissioners who would like to speak. Commissioner Al Turk. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to just bring up a comment that was made by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission. They recommended that a text commitment be made to extend the sidewalk along Fletcher's Chapel Road. I know it is an off-site commitment to the intersection of Fletcher's Chapel Road and Sweet Road. Unfortunately, this is an old ditch section, NCDOT Road. We don't think there's existing right-of-way in which to put the sidewalk. If you go out there, you'll see that it's a road as I think Commissioner Gibbs knows better than anybody. Been here for a long, long time and we do not believe there's existing right-of-way in which to install the sidewalk. And also, if you looked at the location, in my experience, NCDOT would not allow a sidewalk where there is not any curb to prevent vehicles from crossing over onto the sidewalk and putting pedestrians in danger. So that one I do not believe is feasible. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Patrick, I'm sorry you sat down. Can you tell me why you cut the corner of the property off and left that one corner RR? I know you weren't going to be able to build on it, but it seems to me it would have added to your density calculation. To be perfectly blunt, it was in the stream buffer, it was in the FJA area, and so it was only 6% impervious surface that was allowed under the UDO and so we felt it was just a good environmental stewardship to leave it undeveloped and go with the 68 units. We thought that was the right density for this location. And if I may, I'm going to vote for this, but I would have liked to have seen some design commitments here, especially some guarding against the repetitious placement of garages and visual monotony. I realize though that with so much of this property being buildable, that means that your average lot size will be larger than we have seen in cases in the last few years. So maybe it's less important. By the day standards, the lots will be fairly large. I think that's a good point because a lot of times the lots are relatively small. Given that this is a PDR 1.9, it does give us flexibility for varying the street setback. Like I said, I would have liked to have seen commitments like that, but their absence in this case is not going to cause me to vote against it. And I did want to say that I also made the same observation that you did without any right of way reserve to put that sidewalk in. I mean we've had other cases where developers have committed to put sidewalks that were conditioned upon making agreements with other property owners who were not part of the case, only to have them come back after good faith efforts and have to amend their development plan commitments. I don't like those enterprises and so I don't blame you for refusing this one. An additional problem at this location is the surrounding areas outside the city's jurisdiction. I don't believe the city would be willing to use eminent domain if it were needed for a sidewalk. Thank you. Do I have other commissioners who would like to speak? Did you have some additional comments? Commissioner Gibbs, the chair recognizes Commissioner Gibbs. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this site has some challenges but it's the kind of site that I think lends itself to what could be an attractive settlement or neighborhood I should say. I don't think we need to worry about there being that many long straight streets according to the way the contours are. But I do appreciate the adherence to all the regulations for riparian buffers and there's a good move on just eliminating that little piece of land that is really not buildable like you said but this is the kind of thing that I've been looking at for the last so many for a long time and it's become more and more evident within the last week this whole area from Wake Forest Highway down through Meryl Springs Road and on beyond has built up so much and storm water, taking care of storm water on the higher elevations has been great in some areas which has nothing to do with this project because I'm satisfied with this project it's on some high ground anyway. Thank you Commissioner Gifford. Thank you. If there are no other commissioners who would like to speak the chair seeks a motion. Madam Chairman I move that we send a Z1634 Fletcher's Mill forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Second. by Commissioner Miller. Second by Commissioner Busby that we send Fletcher Mills item number Z1600034 forward with a favorable recommendation. All in favor of this motion. Let's have a roll call please. Commissioner Alturk. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Bryan. Yes. Commissioner Whitney. Yes. Commissioner Harris. Yes. Commissioner Busby. Yes. Chair Hyman. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Ketchin. Commissioner Hornbuckle. Yes. Commissioner Van. Yes. Commissioner Gibbs. Yes. Commissioner Freeman. Yes. Motion passes. Motion passes Thank you. The next item on our agenda is Carilla of Carillon of North Durham item number Z1600031 staff report please and thank you. Good evening Jamie Sonek with the planning department. I will be presenting case number Z160031 Carillon assisted living of North Durham. The applicant is Tony M. Tate Landscape The application is located within the city's jurisdiction. The request is to go from residential suburban 20 to PDR 3.906. The site is 13.34 acres and the applicant is proposing a facility with 56 rooms. As shown on the context map the site is two parcels. The address is 4112 and 4214 Guest Road. It is located on the east side of Guest Road just north of the roads of Sharon Road intersection and the case area is shown in red. The site is located within the center and within the Eno River E.B. Watershed Protection Overlay area and it is surrounded by the RS20 zoning. The area map shows that the property is located adjacent to single family homes to the east and to the west and there's a small commercial node at the corner of Guest and roads of Sharon roads to the south. It is just south of the Eno River and west point on Eno Park. The existing conditions map show that the property contains a single family residence and several accessory structures all of which will be demolished. The remaining area contains a mixture of pine and hardwood forest along with intermittent stream and a linear wetland as well as the middle Eno River bluffs and slopes to the east and west point of the heritage area located in the northern portion of the site. The site satisfies the criteria for the PDR district which includes a requested density of 3.906 dwelling units per acre, a commitment of 56 units, a maximum hard service of 24%, a committed tree coverage of 20% and a maximum development plan commits to the type of development, the number of units, the location of the building and parking envelope, the general location of tree protection areas and riparian buffers, the natural heritage area reservations and access points. These are also shown within the development plan as text commitments and graphic commitments. In terms of the design commitments, design commitments include the building being described as an American traditional style with pitched roofs, caught board and shingles siding materials, the main building will utilize gable ends and other architectural details to provide visual interest from the front. The building will be residential in nature and blend in with the residential properties within the area. The future land use map as shown here indicates the request is consistent with the future, the existing future land use which is identified as low residential development for dwelling units or less. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of being a contiguous development and compatible with the surrounding uses. There's adequate water, sewer and roadway infrastructure to support the development. The development is clustered to avoid disturbance of the natural heritage areas and the proposed traffic generated from this proposal will decrease compared to the present zoning designation. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have at this time. Thank you. I do have two individuals who have, I'm going to open the public hearing to give two individuals an opportunity to speak. First individual is Tony Tate and Bob, is that Stinson? Stinson, thank you. I may need some IT help here. Good evening Madam Chair, members of the commission, my name is Tony Tate. I'm a landscape architect and land planner here at 5011 South Park Drive in Durham. Here tonight representing Carolina assisted living of North Carolina and I've been happy to be a part of a large number of their facilities. It's over 22 across the state of North Carolina and we've been a part of the majority of those in design and development so I'm happy to be a part of that group of developers. Carolina assisted living is just that. It's assisted living for the elderly that need assistance and Mr. Stinson will be able to talk about the ins and outs and everything about their development in their business. The project before you tonight is on guest road north and it's right at the intersection or just north of the intersection of road to sharing road. It is a piece of property that is much larger than what it takes for us to build one of these facilities. It's typical on one of our sites to take up about three to three and a half acres of land. There are a couple other sites that we have that are larger, one in Nightdale and the other one that is operated here in Durham over on Garrett Road is on about 12 acres. The amount of area it takes is about three acres of that so this particular piece of property is much larger than what we typically take up and so on this scenario it's good for this project. This is another screen view showing the existing conditions back on the backside of the site. There is a natural heritage area on the back and we've shown on the development plan to stay out of that area. There's a stream buffer right there. There are steep slopes back there. There are significant trees back there on the back and so we're staying completely out of that area when we walk that site. This is kind of what it looks like back there on the back and so we're staying completely out of that area and we'll concentrate on development up front. So most of the traffic facilities out there have been upgraded. It's a four lane medium divided road. We'll have our entrance that comes in across from old road there. There's already a median break there. There's left turn lanes and so we'll enter the site there and create a smaller footprint as we can. We're not looking to go out there and develop the whole site and so we'll have a minimal footprint out there on the property. As you can see from the pictures it's a nice facility and again have a long track record in North Carolina with these facilities. With that I think I'll let Mr. Stinson speak now and kind of talk about Carolina assistive living. Good evening Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Bob Stinson. 4901 Waters Edge Drive in Raleigh is my address. Carolina is a local North Carolina company. We were founded in Raleigh and we're based here. Our closest facility is here in Durham on Garrett Road. We have been looking for a site in North Durham for some considerable time almost 4 or 5 years now to find a piece of property in the right place and of the right size and we think we found it here. Carolina is a very quiet use. A few of the things out there that are quieter than an assistive living facility by about 8 o'clock at night. It's a very low traffic use as virtually none of our residents will drive. There is a strong need for assistive living in this part of Durham. I just pulled some 2017 demographics today and there are 5782 seniors age 75 and older in the 5 mile radius around this particular site in North Durham and there are only 296 licensed assisted living beds to serve that size of community and only 20 of those assisted living beds are dedicated to folks suffering from Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. The Carolina facility will add 84 new beds to that total and 48 of those beds will be dedicated to caring for folks with Alzheimer's disease. So in short we think we found a good spot and a good fit. In addition we do bring to the neighborhood when the facility is fully occupied 55 to 70 good jobs in the location. The site as Tony mentioned we are preserving 30% of it from development as tree save and natural heritage. It's 4.2 of the acres and as he also mentioned the footprint this is going to be a single story building as you've seen in the photographs roughly 35,000 square feet in total. We don't produce a lot of parking because we don't need a lot of parking so the buffers to the surrounding neighborhoods are going to be by definition quite large. So I thank you for your consideration and I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. I do not have other individuals who have signed up to speak for so I'm going to close the public hearing and give commissioners I do not have other individuals who have signed up to speak so I'm going to close the public hearing at this time and give commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. Commissioners to my right. Commissioner Gauch. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Gibbs and Commissioner Freeman. Let's start with Commissioner Johnson. Thank you chairwoman. Just a couple questions mostly out of curiosity for Mr. Tate. So first thank you for coming in and speaking on the project tonight this evening. I'm curious as to what's the average size of a unit in a facility such as this. That might be a better question for Mr. Stinson on the inside. Most of the rooms are studio rooms commissioner and they average around 300 square feet so they're not dwelling units by definition of the building code bedroom with a private bath so they run about 300 square feet. All dining is done centrally. Thank you. And follow up. And my second question is I may be missing it on the plan map but is there is the plan for the saved wooded area to keep it as like no barrier towards the developed piece or is there going to be some kind of I don't know some barrier or something. We would have all of the required tree protection fencing and everything to preserve all the areas back towards the you know river. So all that stuff would be protected and no development back there. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Gauch. Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to express my support for this case. I have been to the facility on Garrett Ritz. It's a great facility very functional and I think it's a great facility to do something that we need in Durham and as you said particularly in North Durham. So just wanted to thank you all for bringing this before us. I will be supporting it. Thank you Commissioner Gauch. I'll start. Commissioner Freeman. Thank you. I'm glad that you were able to find a piece property that would fit your needs. I just had a quick question. You mentioned the 55 to 70 jobs. I didn't know if you might be aware or not of whether or not these jobs would be able to pay a living wage over 12, 55 an hour or not. Yes most of them will be. What we do at Carillon is we hire people who have the right attitude and the desire to care for our seniors and then we have an in-house training program that enables them to get licensed by the state as personal care assistants or medical technicians. There are also any number of management jobs, dietary directors, clinical directors and nursing positions. That's pretty exciting. Thank you. Commissioner Gibbs. I just want to say ditto to Commissioner Gauch's comments. Commissioner Miller. I just had a couple of points of clarification. Your pardon me. In the development plan your commitments refer to a main building. Do you in fact plan other buildings? Since it's a licensed facility the state DHSR division of health service regulation requires us to provide a certain square footage of storage per resident and so there will be a separate small storage building but it's a fraction of the size of the main building. It's a few hundred square feet. All right thank you. And also as a point of clarification tonight during your presentation you've shown us photographs of buildings and the purpose of showing those is not to commit to those but to demonstrate what you mean by an American traditional style. Actually I'd be pretty comfortable committing to those because what you're looking at are existing in exact carillon facilities. We tend to build to a prototype and that is the building that we propose for this site. It's our single story prototype. If you wanted to drive to a close one there is one in Hillsborough that you can see and these are actual photographs. I tried to let him off the hook and he just bit down harder on it. If it looks any real different than that then the company is going to be looking for a new director of development because this is what the boss wants him to look like. And then finally this is a difficult site. I went over and stood on the edge of the road and looked down into it. It's hilly and has steep slopes all over it in every direction so you're going to have to move a lot of earth around in order to make a flat place for a building big enough to hold 58 units. Is that right? Well there will be some. Fortunately there in the up near the front it's sort of a bold situation. It is a drop off against road down probably 6 to 8 feet but it levels off and then up on to the left there's kind of a ridge line there. There's a ridge line and it looks like from the topo I didn't go on to the property. It looks from the topo that there's kind of a flat place over there. Is that where you proposed to put the building? We're going to try and keep it on the flat area for sure. One of the things we need to stay out of, one of them is the steep slopes for sure and so we're going to try to massage in the flatest place possible because we don't want to move any more dirt than we have to for sure. And Madam Chair my final question concerns the availability of sewer utilities to this property. Can somebody show me where the sewer line runs? I think in fact we just met last week with the water and sewer engineers. If you could step to the mic. We met last week with the water and sewer engineers so the connection is to a line that runs to the landest road pump station and I think if Tony's trying to show with the cursor there is an existing city of Durham owned sewer easement that goes out to I forgot the name of the street behind us. Chaucer Drive. So that's where the sewer would run out to the line that's in Chaucer Drive. Is there currently sewer and guest road? I don't know. There's not. All right. Thank you very much. I'm going to before I recognize Commissioner Whitley I'm going to check back with staff to see if there are additional comments about any of the comments that have been made. Yes Jamie Sanyak Planning Department just quickly you I think Mr. Stinson mentioned a certain number of beds. 86 beds or something along that line. Yes 84 licensed beds. Okay the development plan indicates 56 rooms you mentioned that a good portion of the units are studios so I just wanted some clarification regarding that. A number of the rooms will be double occupancy in some cases because husbands and wives move in in other cases because folks choose to have a roommate. Also semi private accommodations is clinically most advantageous for people with Alzheimer's and so most of the time the rooms that are in the special care units for dementia care will be double occupied so the state will make you license it for what they think your anticipated capacity is and so it's it's a little confusing because it doesn't mean that there are 84 rooms but so there are some and several of the rooms are studios which have two rooms on either side of a central area. Okay thank you and you are going to be committing to that certain type of architectural detail and style that will need to be included as part of the development plan. Are you is that what you're indicating? I mean let's put this where we haven't built one that looks different yet but if I don't have to commit to it now I won't but I will be happy to if this is something that the commission would like me to do. Okay all right then in that case I wouldn't commit to it now just in case for some reason I don't foresee something coming up. That's fine thank you. Thank you. Now the chair recognizes Commissioner Whitley. Yes I'm going to follow up on Commissioner Johnson's question about the wooded area. When I was out there I saw deer baby deer and lots of wild rabbits. Have you thought about making it a little bit more appealing by putting shrubbery or something separating the wooded area from your developmental area not to keep people out. I doubt any of your pages are going to be going that way but to keep them out of you. So the facilities end up extensively landscape you've seen the one on Garrett Road we do do an awful lot of perimeter planting and shrubbery and plantings to address it. Because of the nature of the resident population I mean this is a residence for the frail elderly so all of the walking areas and outdoor areas for those residents are going to need to be really flat and up near the building just for resident safety so all of our outside sidewalks will stay in tight to the building and really far away from those steep slopes because they would be a hazard and honestly I know I was walking out there last week myself and it's pretty down by the river but I think some of there's a nice rocky promontory out there and I think the terrain itself is going to provide a pretty natural sort of break between the developed area and the natural heritage area. Does that work? No I don't think you answered my question. Des, you have in the backside of your building a wooded area and I was wondering whether you would consider putting some kind of buffer to keep any activity going spilling into your area or into the woods. Well there's not going to be any activity back there just because of the residence that he spoke of I mean they can't manage that terrain and so they won't be any I was thinking about the wildlife their home. Right I was thinking about wildlife coming into your area. I'm not sure I mean you take a tall fence for a deer. No I was thinking some vegetation that would react to the barrier shrubbery. We'll have to think about that I'm not sure how we satisfy a buffer to pre-over. I will. Thank you Commissioner Whitley. Are the other questions, are the other commissioners who would like to ask questions? If not I'm going to welcome Commissioner Busby. I was going to make a motion if this is the right moment. Great thank you. I move we send forward case number Z16 00031 to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Motion by Commissioner Busby and second I heard Commissioner Kitchen thank you. That we move item number Z16 00031 carillon of North Durham forward with a favorable recommendation. All in favor of this motion let's have a roll call please. Mr. Alturk. Yes. Mr. Johnson. Yes. Yes. Mr. Brian. Yes. Mr. Whitley. Yes. Mr. Harris. Yes. Mr. Busby. Yes. Chair Hyman. Yes. Mr. Miller. Yes. Mr. Kitchen. Yes. Mr. Hornbuckle. Yes. Mr. Van. Yes. Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Ms. Freeman. Yes. Motion carries 14 to 0. Thank you. The next item we have public hearings text amendments to the unified development ordinance. The first item is design district updates. Is there anyone signed up for TC 14 00003. No. Okay. Okay. I have a blank sheet. Staff. Staff with the plane department and happy Passover to everyone. Second Seder night. So I hope expeditiously moving through this so you can all attend your second Seder. I appreciate that. TC 14 00003 you heard this as an informational item at your last meeting. This is the actual public hearing item for it. I'm going to run through a similar presentation for the purposes of the public hearing and then for also for the benefit of those commissioners who are not able to attend the meeting last month. As we discussed before just a little history of the design districts in 2002 the DDO which is downtown design overlay was established and that was the precursor for design districts established for form based type zoning and introduced development in relation to the streetscape and public realm and also introduced the idea of the sub districts that you find in design districts core and support districts. In 2010 the downtown design district was adopted and placed all the DDO overlay and those base zoning districts and in 2012 the CD the compact design district was established over the Ninth Street compact neighborhood tier area and these are the maps for the DD zoning district for downtown you see the lighter color is core and then it gradients out support one and support two and then in the compact design district for Ninth Street again the lightest is the core and gradients out for support one and support two. The purplish is the special district for the pedestrian business district along Ninth Street. Since the adoption of the design districts we have had some technical corrections have been performed but as we try to do with new initiatives or substantial initiatives that have been adopted as part of the DDO we've constantly monitored the effectiveness and track of any issues that have been that come up through the ordinance provisions and we began these updates back in 2014 along with a technical set of corrections that were performed back then also. So just as a summary getting into the updates itself this is not a rezoning we're not changing the boundaries. We've come up with a list of the amendment in front of you reflects the list of issues and considerations that have been submitted to us by a bunch of different stakeholder and other groups. It also consists of new specific street typologies that are going to be codified. There have been numerous staff in interdepartmental meetings and reviews. We've implemented focus groups private design firm focus groups those who have worked with the ordinance in the past and those who have not to get different perspectives and we brought that up last time. We've had JCCPC review of this and then of course the info item that was presented to you and we received comment at that meeting also. And so just to get into the changes one of the big changes that is being proposed is creating a new article 16. Well there's already an article 16 currently the definition section that's being bumped to article 17 but the new article 16 will be design districts and that's where you'll find most of your design district regulations. One of the things that we've heard is that they'd like a more consolidated place for a lot of the regulations. We have kept the parking and landscaping requirements in their current parking and landscaping articles respectively because it just seems to work better in terms of review not only for staff but also for those who are developing the site plans and need to know the regulations. Again I'll go through the highlights. There are a lot of changes and the report hopefully goes into a good detail discussion of what those changes are. It's a similar report that you received back in March and I'll highlight an additional section of it when we go through this. But as we discussed before we're introducing new aspects such as focusing on non-residential uses in the downtown loop and the main street foster black well axes removal of design special use permits and we believe that a lot of the changes add more flexibility and have addressed a lot of design special use permit applications that have come through so far but we've also retained in a number of the sections especially the newer sections such as open space and the street typologies alternative forms of compliance where you can go for a minor special use permit so there is still ability to address specific needs or concerns there. We are introducing new open space requirements as we discussed and that's in keeping with the downtown open space plan that had been recently adopted and then we clarified and made a little more prescriptive service areas those loading areas emergency fire code access those kind of areas where they can go or more prescribed direction as to where they can go. Again getting into other sections we've talked about the biggest changes or how height is calculated we went from a ratio based format to just specific minimum maximum feet based upon ratios but it was just found that on both sides of the equation those were developing plans and those were reviewing plans the ratios just seemed to bog people down confused people so we just went with a straight minimum maximum heights there are some adjustments to the heights but there are also adjustments to conform to additional provisions that you could get so it makes those additional height provisions more meaningful if you're going to get those heights. The main revisions to the building and frontage types were taking structured parking out as a frontage type and just creating it as a standalone architectural section recognizing that it can be a component of a building or freestanding and then providing those architectural or design standards accordingly. Four courts we really got into more of the impact of the four court along the streetscape instead right now it's just raised court or a lighted lower court or a stoop and it really didn't address any effect upon the streetscape we also reduced a bit of the setback to the main structure from the street to bring the building a little bit closer to the street to create that more effective building or street wall and then we also revised some of the general facade requirements we heard from the focus groups that some of it was a bit too prescriptive and it really hampered a lot of innovative design which we kind of saw through. We took it, some of it was justified, I see Commissioner Miller giving a rolling his eyes. We took it for what it was but we thought that the changes were worthwhile for what we did. Sidewalk requirements we did tighten down on the sidewalk requirements specifying when sidewalks or even additional sidewalks were needed. Sidewalk is a big part of where design districts are going not only downtown but also the future rail stations and right now there was a lot of flexibility of getting out of doing sidewalk or even upgrading sidewalk. Again we discussed new street typologies this is new for the UDO itself it was something that was considered when they were working on the original design districts but it was seen as a kind of a beast in its own right in terms of developing that it had been set aside for a moment but we felt that it was a good time to at least introduce some basic street typologies that and codify them so they weren't mere recommendations through or suggested guidelines. Most of the design standards that you find here and the revisions are geared towards the regulations and the zoning that's currently in place some of it does look toward the future like the new street typologies and some of the buffer changes that we did there weren't a lot of landscaping changes that we did but we did add buffer standards for when you're adjacent to the suburban tier which wasn't originally in there because now we do have the compact neighborhood tiers hopefully future design districts that are adjacent to the suburban tier even actually non-jurisdictional districts too so that was considered and then we did do an extensive revision to the bicycle parking standards also we're implementing a new methodology of the types of bike parking that will be required short term and long term parking not something that's new out there a lot of different ordinances utilize that standard but we're going to implement it through the design districts a lot of this not just bike parking but some of these other like the new street typologies or even some of the other items we'll see how they work out in the design districts and if they can work out in other parts of Durham too we'll try to implement them there too bicycle parkings one aspect where it might be a good idea to start taking a look at short term and long term parking in a broader sense throughout Durham not just in the design districts that's all I have for that I do want to mention that I did receive some comments particularly from Commissioner Bryan thank you very much and in the good job and those have been articulated some of those have been articulated in the staff report as some of the changes that we made there's a couple other adjustments that we made based upon additional staff review if you have any questions about those I'd be happy to answer that or if you wanted to go into detail about it I'd be happy to there are minimal changes there's nothing substantial but we thought it was good it was one it was brought up after hearing about ADA accessibility we felt that that was an important notion but it was something that would be applicable to development throughout Durham not just a specific type of development within design districts so we added it to a general section general performance standards in the UDO and that's why it's there not in specifically design districts other items sorry adjustments to self-storage limited view standards suggesting maybe allowing for a little bit of office space for self-storage at ground level we thought that was a reasonable idea so we implemented that too there's a couple others in there too I know I walked through it rather quickly but I'll be happy to answer any questions as I indicated I have no individuals who have signed up to speak so I'm going to close this is a public hearing so I'm going to close it and then give commissioners an opportunity to ask questions I'll start to my right commissioner okay commissioner Alturk commissioner Wittley commissioner Miller commissioner Alturk thank you chair and thank you Michael for your presentation I had a few questions the about the height provisions in section 16.3.4 so I'm looking at the affordable housing provision for example if you have at least 15% of units meet the definition of affordable housing dwelling you can add 60 feet right to the height in the core of the downtown district but I was comparing that to the compact neighbor I guess the compact district and you can only you know you only have 45 feet extra that you can add to the top of the building I was curious why the difference between the six you know between the two districts in that case just because you expect higher buildings in downtown exactly we're maintaining the same proportional height requirements for downtown okay that's it okay my other questions or comments were all about bicycle lanes and parking and these are based on my conversations with members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission the first is that they appreciate a lot of the changes made including the requirement for long term parking the painting bike lanes a different color in areas of conflict and that the primary street type requires bike lanes now they did have a few suggestions and I you know related to the primary street type the first was whether the bike lanes in that primary street type can be painted a highly visible color because a lot of times or so that lane is right next to parked cars and oftentimes people are not aware and they open the door and hit I guess cyclists and the second suggestion was requiring a physical barrier in the two foot buffer between the bicycle lane and the I guess the parked lane and then there was a third kind of question about whether there was consideration for parking for bicycles with trailers something that's becoming more popular I guess so if you had any thoughts on any of those I would appreciate I don't have any thoughts on them particularly now I can't submit that what I would ask is actually just email with me those comments and we can take a look at that I thought we have so we're talking about the primary street type yes yeah so the primary street type there is already a two foot buffer that's built into it and like lane the buffers it would be so there's already a physical there's already a physical requirement within the buffers it's either going to be a raised median or delineated with striping and vertical bollards that's already in there and bicycle lane shall be painted green at areas of conflict such as but not limited to intersections and driveways I guess one of the comments was that in a street like this they would consider this an area of conflict just because of maybe the density and so we can take a look at that okay so I can yeah definitely sure you're welcome thank you Commissioner Ghosh thank you Madam Chair I just had a question about so this is creating a new section 16 and I'm wondering how you know future design districts how that section 16 will relate to that I don't necessarily have comments about how these new standards apply to the current districts but my concern is some of the design districts that are coming on board are I mean I don't think that they would fit with what is being proposed here you know a lot of the design elements for example can severely limit your ability to do types of uses such as gas station or something which like in the Lee Village it's not compact at all and would probably warrant a gas station somewhere in there and I think these proposed elements would make something like that difficult and there's probably some other uses as well so I'm wondering how this new section will apply or interact with future design districts and that's a very good point and I can't remember if I brought it up at the last meeting but I know I definitely didn't raise it here is that when we go and look at each individual design districts we are going to take a look at what's already on the books and see and also determine what are the unique issues with those districts and come up with either revisions that might be applicable to that and even all the design districts or additional standards that might be applicable to the unique issues that are raised within those other compact neighborhoods whether it's just additional provisions for uses that might be limited to a certain compact neighborhood here or something like that or even there might be even new special sub districts that might need to be developed to which will have their own host of regulations too so that's a very good point the regulations and the updates really are geared towards the current effective and we felt that that was important to get really to get it up to speed and get a new good baseline to work with and then when we go into Patterson Place and Lee Village and MLK and those other areas Alston and such that unique situations we wholly anticipate that some of those might require some additional revised standards some might not or it might be very minimal some might be a little bit more substantial. So ultimately you do anticipate creating guidelines for future districts that are specific to those districts. It's possible if the issues if the concerns warrant it. Excellent and then just on the kind of the same line and I don't really have a particular use in mind but I think that some of the requirements in these design districts can have a tendency to limit certain types of uses and the things I'm concerned about are things that you might actually want or need in a design district like a hospital. I'm not suggesting that a hospital couldn't be built under these guidelines but in my mind there's probably some things about a hospital that would be done better if they didn't have to adhere to these guidelines and so just imagine that in the future that some of these uses might run contrary to what's in here and maybe should be looked at at that time. It's kind of hard to anticipate what doesn't be right now but I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Whitley. Yes. Well you answered one of my questions but I have another one as I was looking through this I was trying to it seemed in our past development of downtown and urban corridors we missed opportunities to develop parking areas as if the future plan is for everybody to either be riding bikes and walking and I don't think that's going to be the case for the next 20-25 years and given that you're going to have a population growth all over the intercard as the urban downtown area and they're going to drive cars and so how do you, did y'all discuss this at all? Yeah and the only thing that these regulations do in terms of and we didn't actually touch the parking requirements at all so we're talking about existing regulations is that adjust the minimums required. So we're not prohibiting parking in fact there's plenty of parking that is being proposed with much of the development that's going on downtown and even the city is proposing parking structures so the issue of parking is a hot topic right now for downtown and it's a combination of what is the role of the city in providing parking and the role of how does existing parking and how people maximize out maybe existing vacant parking that is on private property how do you do shared leases that kind of thing so you're not planning for parking but you recognize that parking is a component of development the compact neighborhood tiers have minimum requirements and we're not touching those. There are maximums but there's even ways to go above maximums so there's nothing that's really prohibiting parking saying that we're not emphasizing parking as much because we need to reflect that we are want to become a little bit more multimodal in our ways of thinking in the future. Okay I would ask the question how smart is that? I think it's good planning that we recognize that cars are not necessarily should be the driving force for development in certain areas of Durham. Given that you're going to have even right now the population that we have downtown when events take place it is terrible if no one was thinking about how do you manage transportation so you're talking about the future that these things are going to take care of themselves. That's not the case. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Whitley. Commissioner Miller. Thank you Madam Chairman. I wanted to ask specifically with regard to the Ninth Street compact neighborhood tier and design district which is the only non downtown place that actually realized this process all the way through in that district we created a tier specific sub district which is the pedestrian which was meant to accommodate and preserve what was already there in terms of the commercial district on the east side of Ninth Street for that one block these changes in the regulations will not make any adjustment to that. The other observation I wanted to throw out in that same district we had some again district specific use regulations with regard to what can go in the various sub districts and these changes will not make adjustment to those. That's correct. And so as we go forward and we look at design districts for the other compact neighborhood tiers it is as it was with Ninth Street it is possible with each of those tiers as we go through the design district planning process we may identify the need for special sub districts or special use requirements. It's even conceivable I suppose that we might come up with additional or different building frontage types for the form based regulations in those districts. Absolutely. And as we bring those on we will add sections to this article of the review that will be district specific. Absolutely. So that's how that will function in the future. I also wanted to take this opportunity to observe how these districts function with regard to the creation of future parking in the Ninth Street area. There wasn't a lot of parking but when we imposed compact tier regulations and then ultimately design district regulations which so reordered the way the warp and the wolf of the regulations there we've seen a dramatic increase in development intensity and that increase in development intensity has brought with it because intensifying the development, the new developments have brought in lots of new parking. We have four new parking decks now they're private decks but each of these new projects has supplied its own parking in a way that the surface parking or the public parking or available private parking that was already there never could have done. And I think we're going to see the same phenomenon everywhere. So I do believe that while it's great to diversify some of our transportation expectations, ultimately I believe this design district process promotes parking especially structured parking in a way that nothing else does in the UDO outside the design district planning process. Is that correct? Yeah, I couldn't argue with any of that. Thank you. Pardon me, I did have another question. Would you explain one more time how the regulations with regard to the support to sub-district will perform as opposed to the way they perform now especially with regard to building height? That's a good question and I believe we did talk about it last time so we are adjusting the height requirements for ES2 when they are adjacent to non-design district areas and most of those are established urban neighborhoods. We realize that there needed to be some scale contact sensitiveness to that so measuring I believe 75 feet in on the property or the site you're restricted to a lower height, 35 feet I don't have it in front of me but it's detailed in there I think it's around 35 feet and then you can go up the height after you get to the left side of that 75 feet so it's trying to be contact sensitive to the neighboring adjacent neighborhoods around it. So currently the base height limitation in ES2 is 45 feet is that correct? It might even be let me just get to that section so I don't go off. I'm sorry I don't remember. It's somewhere around there. It was 45 feet yes we dropped it down to 35 feet in the CD and in downtown it was 50 and we dropped that also down to 35 feet in the 70 foot zone in that 75 foot zone right 75 foot zone but outside the 75 foot zone it remains 45 feet then you can go up to that and how do the height bonuses function in the ES2 under the new regulations? It would apply to either of those but the height bonuses are pretty much limited to affordable housing. Right and all right thank you very much that's all the questions I had. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. Are there additional questions from okay Commissioner Gibbs Commissioner Freeman did I see yes okay Commissioner Gibbs and then Commissioner Freeman go ahead. I just have a couple of comments about well I could go I've got a lot of comments or questions but anyway the first one has to do with the bike lanes and we do have a lot of our residents that use bike lanes and I have stressed to people that I know of on the biking committees and just general conversation about the safety and I mentioned something about I wish there was some way to provide a physical barrier between the bike lanes and traffic lanes not only for their safety but for the liability issues of the drivers and but that's that's just an idea I think that we should try to work toward and to be very careful where we put these bike lanes sometimes the traffic gets squeezed down and it really scares me that I'm going to come up on someone riding a bike that I didn't even see until I'm right ready I'm right on them and another part of it and I will close my comments after this I wish there was something in here that would encourage or almost require bikers to have a big enough backlight and front light that can be seen I have almost run over a couple of bikers that they had a little light blinking and it's about that size you know what I'm talking about and it's blinking it I just I hope that will be part of the thinking in the safety issues with bikes and the people who use them and I do myself a time or two but that's all my comments right now commissioner Gibbs commissioner Freeman thank you just a quick question I just wanted to get some clarification the notification areas not mentioned I just want to make sure it's in line or if there's been any changes to it I'm sorry notification area so in this pre application well in section 3.2.5 the notification in public hearings the summary of the notice required a notice you're listing when it's required and what method is required but it doesn't say the area that would be covered because I'm assuming it's not going to be the whole area the whole district receives notice but I just wanted to oh that's only in there to nothing is changing we're only taking out design or because there's no design special use permit so we're just removing that term okay there's no change in the notifications area now okay thank you if there are no additional comments the chair will entertain a motion for design district updates madam chair I move that planning commission send the proposed design district updates reposed in TC 14 three forward to the city council and this will also go to the board of commissioners and to the board of commissioners of the favorable recommendation motion by commissioner Miller and second by commissioner Whitley that we moved the design district updates item number TC 14000 three forward with a favorable recommendation all in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand motion carries 14 to 0 are there any additional staff comments okay he's just there all right next item that we have is airport overlay TC one seven zero zero zero zero three staff please thank you Michael stock again with the planning department let me get to that agenda item there one moment please thank you yes TC 170003 is a privately initiated application amendment application by Thomas Johnson junior for communication tower group LLC to amend section 4.8 of the UDO the airport overlay a with sub districts a 60 and a 65 in short the only change that is being the only substantial change that is being proposed is to the allowable uses within that overlay and this overlay as you see on your map effects only two parcels in Durham County the allowable uses currently are for residential and agricultural only the request is to allow consideration for utilities and all the uses that would be allowed under utilities including cell towers and as a primary concern of the applicant the request this does not change the permissibility of the base zoning district so if a use permit is required for the base zoning district it's going through a use permit if it is not allowed in the base zoning it is not allowed at all so it is still deferring to the base zoning it's just adding a permissibility allowing consideration of that use as allowed by the use table the it has been reviewed by the county attorney's office city attorney's office even though it's primarily it's all in the county at this point and has been sent to art the RDA authority and they had no concerns of this whatsoever. The other changes that you see in there are all technical in nature when we take a look at this and quite honestly if you don't deal with the airport overlay that monster is not a lot of concern to deal with the airport overlay but when we were reading through it a lot of the text was a little confusing and referencing areas A and B and that was a hold over I believe from the merge zoning ordinance quite honestly it gets you there but it says A60 at deal with decibel levels primarily there's very little in the actual regulations that deal with decibel levels is all restrictions on height and lighting and uses and such and also requirements for FAA and RDU approvals. Areas A and B again are a hold over and it's confusing as how that relates to the sub districts A60 and A65 so just clarifying that language the applicant is here and I believe he has signed up to speak and I'll be happy to answer any questions Thank you. The public hearing is open for comment at this time I have Tom Johnson listed to speak. Yes I'm Tom Johnson I'm an attorney with the law firm of Nexon Pruitt at 4141 Park Lake Avenue Suite 200 in Raleigh. I would just confer with the staff report I am the applicant in terms of the changes and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have with respect to the proposed amendment. I have no additional individuals to speak for this item so I'm going to close the public hearing and give the commissioners an opportunity to speak and ask questions I will start to my right commissioner Al Turk okay and to my left no one. You're all alone. Thank you This is the staff. To Michael this is maybe not the place to do it but why have it to where we say what is permitted rather than what's prohibited as it was in the MZO I guess rather than continuing to add permitted uses why not go back to the way that it was in the MZO which is all uses are acceptable except for the following is that I'm sorry I'm not seeing where you're so here we're proposing to add one use case that we're proposing to add utilities as a permitted use right but why not so on the first page here it says the list of in the merged zoning ordinance it had it to where it was all uses are acceptable except for the following I'm just curious I was just I don't know the reason actually why it switched over I was just sticking to the current format I didn't think about switching it back again quite honestly it wasn't a consideration May I answer that question? Yes, Chair recognizes Commissioner Miller So with base zoning districts we have a table of permitted uses and we say these uses are allowed and then when you add an overlay to it overlay districts function differently because more often than not they are districts which add restrictions to the base district they usually don't add permission so when you adjust an over the regulations in overlay district you're more often than not either making them tougher by taking out more allowed uses or you are allowing allowed uses that you had taken out originally and that's actually what's happening here is we are adjusting the this overlay district adds restrictions to the base underlying district which in this case is RR and so what we're doing is adjusting those additional restrictions to make them a little less restrictive by one identified use and that might account for the way it's worded Thank you Commissioner Miller Are the additional comments? If not the Chair will entertain a motion? Madame Chair I move that we send the changes reposed in the airport overlay change in TC 17-3 forward to the City Council and Board of County commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Motion by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner Al Turk that we move airport overlay changes forward item number TC170003 forward with a favorable recommendation all in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand all opposed? Motion carries 14-0. Thank you and the next item we have temporary outdoor sales temporary uses item number TC170004 Again thank you Michael Stock with the planning department this is a staff initiated technical amendment to temporary outdoor sales issue had come up current text restricts the area of a temporary outdoor sales to 400 square feet but it failed to take into consideration that there are some seasonal uses that require larger areas so it does two things recognizes seasonal uses specifically Christmas tree sales, pumpkin sales and fireworks and then also it does eliminate a redundant text item B you see crossed out that same text is found at the head of the temporary use section we felt it wasn't necessary to be redundant specifically in this section there was at JCCPC where they did review this and Commissioner Busby was there and he can correct my memory or statements if I get it wrong but there was questions about nonprofit sales markets specifically TROSA and maybe some others that come up and we did look into it further and it was pretty much determined also at that meeting that those are either handled through they have a permanent site plan approval for that or they're handled through a special events temporary use permit it's a different section within the temporary uses that actually specifies nonprofits and markets allowed for those nonprofits so those were the issues that were raised at JCCPC I'll be happy to answer any questions thank you since this is a public hearing we'll have to open and close it and give the commissioners now an opportunity to speak are there any commissioners who would like to speak on outdoor sales temporary uses to my right commissioner Freeman just for clarity so this does not limit the for profit businesses from having a food truck on their property no no no thank you madam chair and I would just echo that we had a good conversation at the joint city county planning committee Michael did a great job this is well thought out I'm going to vote to approve if there are no additional comments the chair will entertain a motion madam chair I move that we send forward the proposed changes to the outdoor sales temporary uses proposed in TC 17 for to the city council and board of county commissioners with a favorable recommendation second motion by commissioner Miller I did not hear that second commissioner van thank you that we move item outdoor sales temporary uses proposed changes to item number TC one seven zero zero zero four forward with a favorable recommendation all in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand all opposed motion carries fourteen to zero thank you thank you the public hearing text amendments to the Durham comprehensive plan staff is here the next item should be an item that was added under adjustments under unfinished business so we go none none so there's something under unfinished business thank you that's correct there are two items Sarah Young with the planning department the first is approval of revised minutes from your January 10th meeting you should have those at your places may I ask what the revision was it's highlighted in yellow I believe and hold on I don't remember I see the highlighting but I'm not sure I understand the change I'm being advised by my very capable staff that in general the project description was wrong Madam Chair I move that we revise the minutes to our January meeting as proposed by the staff motion by commissioner Miller is second by commissioner Busby that we approve the corrections as provided by staff for the those with the January January minutes all in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand all opposed motion carries fourteen to zero and the next item we have is the work plan correct as you all recall I think we've had the work program on your agenda a couple of times since maybe December or so the most recent time being February at the time though we failed to get a formal recommendation from this body and we do need that in order to bring it to the elected officials I have placed a clean copy and you'll see it's so clean that it's a month ahead of time it's the May Draft which is the draft that will go to the elected officials I want to just to remind everyone there have been a couple of minor changes now if you don't mind I'll very quickly run through them we have actually five new work program items slated for next year the first is on page eleven item four point one point nine pocket neighborhoods the and that is to explore some more compact ways to develop and redevelop properties page eleven of the attachment the second attachment the full description the two items are on page thirteen four to nine and four to ten this is the south square MLK compact design district and Lee village we committed last or last year to the elected officials that we would initiate all five compact design districts within a two year time period so this is this would be initiating the last two remaining design districts beginning next year then on page fourteen item four three one historic preservation fund grant administration for an update to our city and county architectural inventory and then the last item which is really it's on page fifteen four point seven point one we have long used interns variety variety of projects this year our elected officials at the joint city planning committee asked us to formalize our internship program and so we have done that it is now listed in our work program and at their request we have added a little project for an analysis of further regulatory barriers to affordable housing so we hope to have some group of interns working on that and I'm happy to entertain any questions. Thank you for the clarification this is a document that we've had a couple of times I'm going to check to see if there are any additional questions by commissioners commissioner Whitley and commissioner Freeman we'll start with commissioner Whitley. Yes thank you I'm always amazed how much I mean how much this planning department is able to get through their work plan and how comprehensive it is but 32 years ago five different development plans for Eastern we have asked for some revisions in our quilt of different zoning and 32 years later we're still on the back burner I thought it was brought up in our January meeting by commissioner Miller at that time I thought there was a group conscious that this needed more attention and 32 years later we're voting on a work plan that does not include that. So if I may respond commissioner Whitley we did hear you in fact this is also a same or very similar request to what this body made last year and again we currently do not have given the other priorities that have been assigned to us by the elected officials the planning department does not have the capacity to initiate that project yet we will be glad in our staff report or our cover memo to the elected bodies when this moves forward to once again just like we did last year enumerate that that is a concern of this body and if they wish to change things in our work program reassign work et cetera we will certainly entertain that but we do not currently have the capacity to take on a project like that given the other priorities they've already set for us. Yes I understand that there are priorities but we have 38,000 residents voters that live in each dorm the downtown tier center dorm no bank not even one doctor office we've just lost a hardware store and we have small many focused business areas where you have 14 and 15 different zoning's in two or three blocks you know it stands as an impediment it stands as a barrier to smart growth and still and yet if it's not the planning department's fault according to you it's the elected officials fault then I'll state for the record we pay out taxes in the east dorm just like everybody else no and to be put off for 32 years is a little much thank you. Madam chair if I may last year the one thing that we were able to do in response to the concern the broader concern about last year was to add an item to the work program 4.2 4.12 on page 17 which continues this year since it's a multi-year project to reconsider the Andrew driver area and potentially put the commercial infill zoning district there as a small kind of start to this larger project that project is underway Scott Whiteman supervises the work on that project and he can give you a brief status I will tell you that going out and reaching out into the community we have heard concerns from the community about moving forward with any zoning changes in that area so I would defer Scott. Thank you Commissioner Freeman. Thank you I appreciate Reverend Whitley's comments Commissioner Whitley's right and I would like to offer some type of solution in this and that I've realized that it's not you know this work plan is like 15-20 pages long and if there's a way to identify neighborhoods that have had this level of neglect in zoning so that this priority because I do realize there's scoring there's methods in what you choose what needs to move forward outside of just city councils or county commissioners suggestions I would like to include environmental justice impact statement and I would be more than happy to send some verbiage on that which would allow staff to navigate equitable development planning moving forward so that it takes into account the impact and I recognize the comment that you made about you know the community itself saying they are concerned about the zoning moving forward because there's some concerns about gentrification I think that this would help so that you could start the conversation back up because there's some fear there is and one thing that we could do I feel to mention the third attachment is a Part C future projects which is a non-binding list it's not really part of our work program but it's kind of a holding cell for things that have been identified typically through the comprehensive plan although lately since our comprehensive plan keeps getting more and more out of date there are other non-compliant contemplated projects that have been added to this future projects list this is certainly an item that could be added to that list that may bring it more into the forefront of people's thinking as we move forward so that is something that we could do I'm chairman thank you yes chair recognizes commissioner Whitley I need to add south central the two largest low wealth neighborhoods communities are the two that are neglected and need that attention I echo Miss Freeman's suggestion that we need to take note of what hasn't been done in low wealth neighborhoods to come up with some type of recommendation that will move us forward 32 years is a long time thank you commissioner Whitley and I did hear staff indicate that they would include the additional comments that were made here tonight as a part of that not necessarily in the work plan but certainly as a part of the package any additional comments from staff okay thank you then the chair will entertain a motion Whitley next month madam chair if it's appropriate at this time I'm going to move that the planning commission send forward to the city council and the board of commissioners a recommendation that they approve the fiscal year 18 work program for the planning department and but to that I would like to say that we would like to append to it our concern that that the south central and east Durham areas are overdue for a thoroughgoing planning review and that comment to the work plan as we send it forward but the base motion is to approve the work plan submitted second motion by commissioner Miller that we move the Durham city county planning department FY 18 work plan with additional comments that have been made here today second by commissioner Brian that we send the item forward as indicated all in favor of this motion let it be known by the usual sign of I all opposed I okay motion carries 13 to 1 thank you well there is additional new business on the bike walk implementation plan is that yes my name is Brian I'm with the transportation department I wanted to give you sort of a brief summary and announcement about our bike walk plan update and I'm happy to come back and provide a more comprehensive update if you see appropriate in the future time but since last May we have been in the process of updating the bicycle and pedestrian plans for the city and we've combined both of those plans that were both 10 years old into one document so here it is it was released earlier this month and it's out now for public comment we're taking comments from the public through April 28th and we're hoping to bring this forward to city council for adoption at their May 15th meeting and just to give you a brief summary of what is in the plan we have looked at so the first section of the plan looks at the previous plans what's been accomplished in all these policies and we took a broad look at all the needs in Durham and so we had the public help us identify the places that they wanted to see bike facilities or pedestrian facilities we found that there was more than 400 miles of sidewalk needs in the city more than 400 miles of bike facility needs in the city and close to 500 intersections needed improvement so this plan is an focused plan so once we identified all those needs we had a series of prioritization processes that took that down to 25 corridor projects, 25 intersection projects and 25 sidewalk gap projects that we think will inform our work plan for the short to medium term future and so those projects are identified in this plan and have recommendations tied to them but it's not a comprehensive look at sort of like the Durham walks plan had a list of every project and a ranking beside those this plan does not have that but it is implementation focused and at the end of the plan there are 25 topics that look at everything from making regional connections to UDO recommendations so there are some good things in there and looking at what other peer cities are doing so that we can follow their lead and we are having a public meeting on this plan there's an open house April 18th next Tuesday from 4.30 to 6.30 that's at the temple building and so you all are welcome to attend and the plan is it's on the transportation website but it's also at Durham bikewalkplan.com so feel free to take a look and I'm happy to answer any questions you all have at this time I'm also happy to come back and give a more formal presentation if you see appropriate. Are there any comments okay commissioner Johnson? Not to belabor our time but just a quick question you said that the plan is basically an implementation plan is it connected to any financing plan like how we're going to pay for implementing the plan. Yeah so yes City Council has allocated $15 million to sidewalks coming out of the adoption of this plan so we are actually already working with public works and coordinating on some projects that have been identified in here because we are wanting to implement this plan so that's the focus so it was a process of balancing critical need and then constructability of these projects I know that there's been some mention tonight about sidewalks that are really difficult to build and that hampered costs when we have a really expensive sidewalk project so we have looked at that and we're hoping to really focus on the implementation of the coming year. Are there any additional questions? Madam Chair I would like to just make one comment in addition to that the sidewalks that need upgrading also benefit the disabled public to maintain their accessibility to a round town. Thank you. Any additional questions or comments? Thank you. Update sheet. Are there any questions you'd like to ask about this information? If not we have reached the end of our agenda. Any questions? Everybody has it. I was just saying this is very helpful. Yes I wanted the staff to know that we appreciate receiving this. Thank you so much. Anything else? Motion to adjourn. Second.