 Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issues before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item please go to the table to my left and signed up to speak. For those wishing to speak in favor of an item please state your name and your address clearly in when you come to the podium. Please speak clearly into the microphone. Each side those wishing to speak in favor of an item and those wishing to speak in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes to present for each side. The time will be divided amongst all person wishing to speak. If you are here opposing the rezoning tonight you should be aware what's called the protest petition. A protest petition can be very helpful to those residents living in the rezoning area. Please consult the planning department, staff or any details on the protest petition and they will be happy to help you. You should also keep in constant touch with the planning department as to when your case will go before the elected officials for a final vote. Finally all motions are stated in the affirmative so if a motion fails or ties the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. Can we have a roll call? Commissioner Board. Commissioner Beachwood. Commissioner Beeland. Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Gibbs. Vice Chair Harris. Chair Jones. Commissioner Lamb. Commissioner Huff. Commissioner Padgett. President. Commissioner Smusky. Commissioner Whitley. Commissioner Wonders. Can we have any adjustments to the minutes? Good evening, Chair Jones. Members of the Commission, Pat Young with the Planning Department. We do have two requested adjustments. The first is that we move item 8a resolution in honor of Commissioner Teji Kimball to immediately after the adjustments to honor Mr. Kimball. And then also requesting in the addition of item what would become 8c, which would be a resolution in support of affordable housing being requested by Commissioner Wonders. Approval of the minutes. Whole. Yes, sir. I would like to have a discussion about plant funding for Planning Department. New business. D. Second. So moved and properly second all those in favor. Let it be known by raising your right hand. Any opposition? The minutes carried 12 to zero. That state will move the resolution honoring Commissioner Teji Kimball. Before we open the public hearing. Let me walk down here. It's a resolution and appreciation of Mr. Teji Kimball and it reads whereas Mr. Teji Kimball was a member of the Durham Planning Commission from April 2010 through June 2013. And whereas the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens and the citizens of the city and county of Durham have benefited from the dedicated efforts he displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission. And whereas the Commission desires to express its appreciation for the public service or the public job well done. Now therefore be resolved section one that this commission does hereby express its sincere appreciation for the service rendered by Mr. Kimball and to the citizens of the community. Section two that the clerk of the Commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official members minutes of this commission. And this resolution is hereby presented to Mr. Kimball as a token of the high esteem held him adopted this the 12th day of November 2013 Chairman Antonio Jones. Mr. Kimball has a few words. Thank you. Mr. Kimball has a few words he would like to say. So we can give him his last three minutes. All right. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I definitely won't need the three minute time. But I applaud you for the resolution that you're about ready to talk about which is affordable housing. And the fact that affordable housing here in Durham needs to be at the forefront of our needs and how we answer it. And we've got to be able to answer it outside the box. Not everybody. While yet we're addressing it around our transportation hubs and the new proposed transportation there is a time in which affordable housing used to be called starter homes and starter communities and they weren't around transportation hubs. They happen to be out in rural areas. We now have people in northern Durham that live in houses that have to be heated by wood. And so therefore I ask that you open up your thought process to look a little bit beyond the walls of just transportation and look of how we can address this huge thing that is more than just the socially economically depressed but it is our firemen, our policemen, our teachers, those who do earn a living but it is not that in which we can live in the southern part of the county even though they would like to. It is not in the urban area of the county even though they don't want to and it may not be around a transportation hub that is proposed or currently a bus route that they would like. Just open up and think outside the box even though I applaud all of you for this resolution that's coming up on affordable housing. Thank you very much. Now open the public hearing for meadows at South Point 2 and that's plan amendment case A130007 and zoning case Z1300020. Mr. Chair, before I turn it over to Mr. Cain for your staff report, I would like to affirm for the record that all public hearing items before you tonight have been advertised in accordance with the provisions of law and affidavits are on file with the planning department for that effect. Thank you. Thank you. There we go. Okay. Thank you. Excuse me. Erin came with the planning department. The case before you is meadows at South Point 2, plan amendment case A130007. The proposed change is from office and commercial to low medium density residential. Here's a shot of the aerial map of the site. This site may look familiar to you. There was a recent case that you all saw maybe not even a year ago. In that case, the future land use map designation was changed from low density residential and office to commercial for a portion of the site. In March of 2013, that case went before the City Council. City Council approved the changes to the future land use map but did not approve the zoning changes. Therefore, an applicant has come back to change the zoning again and for that zoning change, they are looking to move it to low medium density residential. Their justification for low medium density residential is that the proposed use meets the goals of the land use planned by a comedy more residential growth in southern Durham. The proposed use is more compatible with surrounding land uses and the proposed land use will have a balanced impact to adjacent communities. The staff has found that the justification meets our criteria for justification and that staff agrees with it. So staff is reviewing it over against the four criteria for plan amendments that it is consistent with adoptive plans and policies, that the land use is compatible with existing and or future land use patterns, that the proposed land use does not create a substantial adverse impact and that the site is of adequate shape and size. We have determined that it is consistent with adoptive plans and policies, particularly those on residential growth and the suburban tier in which this case is, as well as the contiguous development policy before you. We have also found that it is compatible with existing and or future land use patterns as you can see from this wider shot of the area before you that the change to low medium density residential will have basically everything south of highway 54, the residential area will have a higher density than those things north of 50, more of the non-residential north of 54 and the higher density here provides a proper transition from the non- residential uses to the north and the commercial corner there to the low density residential to the south. We have found that there is not substantial adverse impact here. There is sufficient water and sewer capacity to handle the proposed development. While we are reaching our goals, we have found the projected demand for office. Those projections do not take into account the SRP and design district areas. SRP basically being research triangle park which handles a lot of our office demand so we feel overall including all of those areas we can meet our office needs over the next 25 years. And environmental constraints are sufficiently regulated through the UDO. There is one stream on the site but it will be buffered. The area is approximately 47 acres and is sufficient shape and size for a residential development in the suburban tier. So therefore the site meets the four criteria for plan amendments and staff is recommending approval of the proposal. And I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Good evening Amy Wolfe with the planning department presenting the zoning map change case associated with this site. It is case Z130020 Meadows at South Point 2. The applicant is Meadows Land Investment. It is in the city's jurisdiction and the request is from 36.4 acres of residential rural zoning and 10.49 acres of office institutional zoning to a plan development residential district at the density of 4.718 units per acre. The site is 46.9 acres and the proposal is for 185 townhouses and that is not a committed housing type. As Mr. Cain mentioned the site is in the southeast corner of NC 54 Highway and Barbie Road. As shown here it's in the suburban tier. It is within the FJB Watership Protection Overlay and a very small portion of it in the north corner is Major Transportation Corridor Overlay. It's two parcels and the residential one of those parcels is residentially developed currently with a single family house and existing driveway on Barbie Road. The request does meet the standards for the plan development residential district as shown here. The density of 4.718 units per acre would yield a maximum of 185 units. The existing conditions of the site is shown here. It is with the exception of the single family house as I just mentioned there is some young vegetation forested through the remainder of the site. It was timbered in 2008 but it has grown significantly since then. There is an intermittent stream on the site as you can see here Mr. Cain mentioned that as well. And the proposal for the site is shown here. It does include a number of commitments. There are two site access points one on Barbie Road one on NC 54 Highway. It also commits to 100 foot project boundary buffer on the east and west side in addition to the building envelopes staying generally north of the stream. There is a right away dedication along both frontages of the site. The tree preservation area is committed at the location that is shown through the stream buffer in the southern portion of the site as well as along the eastern portion of the existing single family parcel. Again there are commitments shown here. The maximum impervious surface is 70% which is the maximum permitted in the watershed protection overlay and the tree preservation at 20.1%. All the graphics that you see are committed. There is a number of text commitments as well including storm water control treatment, the water aeration, the 100 foot project boundary buffer as I pointed out on the east and west sides of the site. Dedication of highway and that is to accommodate also the four feet of additional asphalt widening for bicycle proposed bicycle lanes along those frontages as well as some transit amenities with the construction of a bus pull out and concrete pad or shelter and shelter. There are also some proposed site improvements excuse me site access improvements as indicated here as a summary at both accesses as well as the commitment to request a street closing for Huntsman Drive which currently would require connection from the south however if that street is closed no connection would be required to the south. There are some design commitments associated with this request which allow the housing type to be multifamily if that is the desired product. As mentioned here basically address the roof line and building materials. Again the request is not consistent with our comprehensive plan which shows the site as office and commercial. You heard the request to request, excuse me, low to medium density residential. The request does satisfy all the other comprehensive plan policies that are applicable to the site 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. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. We have four people wishing to speak on his item. None against. So we have those four individuals come. Mr. Bryan, thank you Mr. Stangiel and Spaulding, you have ten minutes. Mr. Chairman, my name is George Bryan and I would like to recommend if you would allow it that the representatives of the applicant, Mr. Stangiel and Mr. Spaulding speak first? Yes, that's my. Thank you very much George. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Ken Spaulding and I represent the applicant in this matter. We are in complete concurrence concurrence with what your planning staff is recommended in regard to the plan amendment as well as the rezoning. This case is less than a year old but we think it's a much better case that is before you now than you had before. We immediately met with the residents after we were unsuccessful before the City Council. After that we met with the residents. We met with staff. We tried to come up with both from staff, the developer and the residents what would be the best plan for this area. We had a number of meetings. We ended up being able to have complete concurrence agreement with not only the staff through their careful study but also through the developer and the residents. And so we are here tonight to say that we certainly hope that the planning commission will also be supportive of this action and thank you for your time. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is George Brine. I reside at 6505 Hunters Lane in Durham and I'm here tonight on behalf of many of my neighbors in the Hunters Woods area which is adjacent to the proposed development. We want to thank the applicant for coming back to us, for listening to us and working with us and coming forth with a proposal that we feel is substantially better than the initial proposal that he made. This proposal we do support. I do want, however, to mention that while we support this proposal we do have a concern about the full access driveway required at Barby Road. Making a left turn out of this development onto Barby Road due to limited site distances is going to be very hazardous. We believe that the right end, right out turn initially proposed by the applicant for that driveway is a much better way to go. Nevertheless, we still support this proposal. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? I've got to get it down to Barby Road. My name is Nancy Cifoni. I live at 1218 Little Creek Road, also in Hunters Woods. No, I'm not dressed to be goth. It's just that the weather turned cold and this is all I had that was warm. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the original plan and I am really pleased with what these gentlemen have come up with for this. Yeah, I would much prefer that we had a little nature park there that the deer and the foxes could live in, but I know that's not going to happen on 54 and I do think this is about as good as we're going to get and we have to be realistic. I am concerned about the access on Barby Road. I'm a cyclist and I bike that way and I do think a full access out of that development onto Barby Road could be extremely dangerous. It's bad enough in a car. The other thing I just heard was about the tree cover being preserved in only one small portion of the buffer and I really would hope that it was going to be preserved in the entire buffer and that just may be a detail that I missed. Anyhow, I really thank these people for coming up with something that while it's not what we really, really, really want, we can live with it. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? If not, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. Dr. Wonders. I would like to bring up the issue of affordable housing with regard to this development. I think that it is on transit routes, on the bus route and we have plenty of land already, plenty of units that can be built in the comprehensive plan and to allow more units to rezone things to residential on the demand. We don't need more land for more dense more units in the from the project according to the projected demand. However, we do need more affordable units now and I've been sort of you know on on my own personal campaign on on this over several cases and I've been developing my thoughts some and trying to get some numbers on it like what we're talking about and I looked in the the HUD consolidated plan for 2010 to 2015 and learned that the definition of a for a low income which would could live in affordable housing is a fifty three thousand nine hundred dollars for a three-person family and fifty nine nine for a four-person family and according to I made some rough calculations with this thing called bankrate.com and it looks like the low income you could a low-income family actually this is in the consolidated plan about rent that a low-income family could afford a four-person family that was designated as low income could afford fourteen hundred and ninety eight dollars a rent and a three-person family could afford thirteen forty eight rent and the mortgage was more difficult to figure out but I've my guess is about two thirteen or two twenty would qualify as affordable and I don't know what my numbers may be often I would love for the staff to fix up some numbers like that so we really know but it's would it be just really devastating to the bottom line to commit to and I know this the way we do things now we can't ask you to change the your committed elements at this point but just for for information going forward is it way out of line those numbers I'm George stands the out with Stuart I mean it's a very good question and we've talked about this on other projects I've personally been involved with discussions with the planning department about how we might proceed with affordable housing you know going going forward one thing I do want to mention there's a significant amount of tax credit housing in this air in this particular area of this project which means that it's a I think tax credit housing means that it's a hundred dollars a month these are rentals below the below the market rate of the apartments one of the things that that we talked a lot about even with county commissioners in a meeting about affordable housing was that it seems to be more achievable through rentals as opposed to purchase homes for purchase so in answer to your question about numbers if a project like this we're going to sell a unit at you know even if it were a two hundred thousand dollar unit it's probably going to be somewhere in the two hundred to two fifty range an affordable housing unit here in Durham based on Durham's criteria would be a hundred and thirty thousand dollars so when which makes a project like this unfinanceable from the standpoint of of getting you know getting financing for a project with with homes that are going to sell in this at that level and then some that would have to sell at as low as a hundred and thirty thousand dollars this is this is the thing that we're that we're fighting this not we're not fighting but we're trying to figure out as a community in terms of how do how we deal with with this this you know this discrepancy we're talking about different options for the city participating in affordable housing in other words rather than just density credits that it might be other types of items that the city would participate in fees and things like that that would make it attractive for developers to be able to develop units at that much of a discrepancy but it's in this part of the county along this highway at the at the cost of this land it just makes it very difficult if it were we were talking about workforce housing which would let you go up to say 220 that might be possible in this kind of development you know again it all depends on on you know what what it's developed at but the numbers that we're hearing and you know our developers here can speak to it we're hearing that you know this is going to be somewhere in the 2 to 250 kind of range in terms of the cost of these units that hasn't been totally determined you know it's not we're not that far along but I'm just trying to point out to you the discrepancy when you look at affordable housing versus market rate housing anyone yes it's up then the question for Mr. Stantea when you're talking about $130,000 a unit are you talking about a single family home are you talking about a condominium it wouldn't matter it wouldn't matter it's a it's a function of the of the pat to probably describe it a little better it's a function of the median income in the Durham area if I might Mr. Chair and just to bring some a little bit of additional information the 2013 80% so 80% is traditionally considered low moderate income again defining term here is important because it does change the amounts we're talking about significantly but for a three-person household is 48 750 and for a four-person it's 54 150 and so the average housing and utility costs at 30% on a monthly basis would be about 1340 1350 so that could either be rent or mortgage and so what he's saying is I mean it the amount that someone could pay for a unit whether it's a condominium or town home or a single family home is a function of the median income and a certain percentage of the median income and I don't know that exact calculation right now but that's generally how it's done I understand that actually that was not what I was getting at okay if you're if you're developing property a little more densely it would seem to me you said that you can't because of the cost of land you can't develop this property in such a way as to have affordable housing I'm not well I mean it's it's you know I mean a piece of property has a certain value right it's sold at a certain amount there's got to be a certain return on investment and in order to get that return on investment units have to be sold at a certain amount depending on how many units there are when we came here last time for this project we had three hundred and sixty some units you know we're now down to one hundred eighty five units so okay you know it's a different type of unit those were rental apartments these are for sale okay thank you commission gives well I guess with these comments we we can see what the the task is before the planning department there are probably as many options on how affordable housing can be implemented and meshed with all the development that's going on but and I would I would like to invite those who would like to learn more about what some of the initial steps are item 8c I know you're gonna have to wait a while but not too long but we're going to be discussing a resolution that Dr. Winder's it will be bringing before us and it will give you some more insight on what and it has to do with transportation and affordable housing but it also as general application and I wasn't gonna mention this but I and when in fact I want I'm gonna wait till item 8c comes up because if that's the more appropriate time I do have one question about this particular project the the proposed transit stop and shelter and I see that's on 54 that will be an accessible handicapped accessible shelter with accessible path of travel to and from the development and that's great and all that okay yes sir that that was my question I'd look I'm looking forward to seeing the the development here because it's and I appreciate you working with the residents anyway thank you thank you that's all commissioner pageant then we have a commissioner Beachwood after commissioner pageant it seems that every time we talk about any of these new developments to come in everybody gets on to the affordable housing I agree that we need affordable housing and I'd say let's put the model forward that the city has but the city politicians have no model you know what we get out of the city council is you know what we need to get out of his little less conversation a little bit more action because what we need to do is move forward on what affordable housing is and we can ask everybody what are you gonna do for affordable housing but if we can't define affordable housing ourselves how can we require anybody to talk about affordable housing so it's time to not look at everybody that comes up here and lay the burden on them on how we need to approach affordable housing we need to put the burden on the city council that's where the burden goes and until they figure it out we can't expect anybody else out here to figure it out so it's just the way it is and it's time to like I said this is you know it's time for the city council to put up or shut up they need to do something commissioner Beachwood from my interaction on the joint city county planning committee I'm pretty pretty confident that the city council has a pretty good idea of what the needs are and is learning and is trying to learn as much as they can about affordable housing is aware that a problem that is going to take significant public funds they're going to need to be very creative about how they approach the private sector and development and in terms of partnering with them to get affordable housing so I think that they do understand that it's a it's a very significant and difficult problem that is going to take a lot of creativity and some some difficult decisions some painful decisions financially I would also like to offer my appreciation to George Stanzel for his work with the community on this project it's it's very good to see thank you anyone else wishing to speak can we get a motion I'd like to make a motion of approval of plan amendment case a 1 3 0 0 0 0 7 all those is what moved and probably second all those in favor let it be known my raise in your right hand any any opposition can we get a motion on the plan amendment I'll make a motion of I did a plan I mean for zoning case zoning case Z 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 so moved and probably second all those in favor let it be known my raise in your right hand any opposition there we go plan amendment case a 1 3 0 0 0 7 has passed 13 4 and 1 and oppose of zoning case Z 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 it's passed with 13 4 and 1 against thank you we move down to public hearing item 5 B Chapel Creek plan amendment case a 1 3 0 0 0 0 5 and zoning case Z 1 3 0 0 0 1 4 good evening commissioners I'm Hannah Jacobson with the Durham Planning Department and I'll be presenting the plan amendment case for Chapel Creek case a 13 0 0 0 5 the applicant is David weekly Holmes and they are proposing to amend approximately 17 acres of the future land use map from medium high density residential to low density residential this change would represent a decrease in the allowable density from 8 to 20 units per acre to 4 units per acre or less the proposal incorporates 28 parcels which are located on the east side of George King Road and north of highway 54 the broader area is probably familiar to many to many of you this is a busy this is nearby the busy intersection of highway 54 and interstate 40 the site is located within a suburban transit area because of its proximity to the Lee village regional transit station located approximately here however it could shift as well as the alignments could shift a little bit with and with further study in the environmental impact statement the station is anticipated to be a very important station for the Durham orange light rail line that would travel between Chapel Hill and Durham it's expected to be a park and ride location as well as an important one for transit oriented development so if I could I would like to back up and explain a little bit about what we mean by transit oriented development there's an organization called reconnecting America that defines it as a type of community development that includes a mixture of housing office retail and other amenities integrated into a walkable neighborhood and located within a half mile of quality public transportation in Durham our approach to transit oriented development has been to designate areas around the proposed stations as either suburban transit areas or compact neighborhoods suburban transit areas are those that are reserved to eventually become compact neighborhoods and in either instance our policy and regulations are designed to encourage a mix of uses as well as higher density residential uses to support the transit and a question frequently comes up is what type of density supports rail transit there are a lot of studies and reports that have been published that emphasize that it's a context sensitive and dependent on a number of different factors however there is generally a rule that that the average density across the transit station should be approximately 25 units per acre no less than eight units per acre for a particular development in Durham we've recognized that density should be highest closest to this closest to the transit station and then the support areas should be less dense as you move further away and transition into surrounding neighborhoods this is a pattern that has been supported in the 2005 comprehensive plan the site is recommended like I said before for medium high density residential 8 to 20 units per acre in 2011 there was another study that looked into the transportation network in the area and the congestion that study was led by the DCHC metropolitan transportation organization but involved a lot of other organizations as well including the Durham planning department it involved a conceptual land use plan that looks like this this is the corridor this is it's a concept plan it's not parcel specific and but generally this is the Lee village station right here and it shows the most intense level of development right around the station and decreasing at a gradient with lower intensity developments kind of as you move away from the station the site of the proposed plan amendment is located right around here in this the palest yellow color that's indicated as being a residential 2 which is later in the plan described to be 6 to 12 dwelling units per acre the applicant refers to that study the NC 54 quarter study as justification for a low density residential saying it recommends a single family residential should occur there the applicant also makes points that low density is is more compatible with the surrounding existing development patterns and that would it would better protect water quality and flood control staff disagrees with the applicant on a number of different points first we don't believe that the circumstances that are surrounding the site justify a change in the future land use plan planning for the Durham orange light rail line has gained momentum in recent years there was a 2011 voter approved sales tax referendum there has been an adoption of a locally preferred alternative and a submission of a major funding grant to the federal transit administration that was the new starts grant so in other words we believe that the circumstances have changed in a way that emphasize and support the need for higher density residential around the transit stations not not the opposite secondly we also feel that the NC 54 quarter study does not contradict the adopted future land use plan for this area the study does call for single family residential built between 6 and 12 units per acre that recommendation has more in common with our group with our adopted land use designation than the proposed low density designation additionally I'd like to point out that medium density medium high density does not necessarily exclude single family from being developed and in fact many of the older traditional neighborhoods in Durham are built at unit are built at densities between 8 and 10 units per acre here's an example golden belt this is a one acre approximately one acre block block where there are nine single family dwelling units built there are examples and an old West Durham and a Northgate Park and here's another one in Birch Avenue where this is approximately two acres and there are 18 single family residential structures so density does not so single family does not always mean low density the point despite our concerns staff has reviewed the request against the four criteria for plan amendments found in the unified development ordinance we find that low density would be inconsistent with the adopted policies that are listed in the staff report report an overarching theme throughout the plan is to support compact development near the proposed transit stations and staff finds that low density does not contribute to these goals or outcomes secondly while the proposed low density is more compatible with the existing development patterns which include single family residential it's not compatible with the future vision which again is for higher density commercial and office thirdly staff finds that while the impacts of this particular project might be relatively minor for transportation and for other infrastructure systems that the potential negative impacts of setting a precedent to change the policy to low density and transit stations could could potentially jeopardize the ability for our competitiveness in the federal grants application process and that would be a substantial adverse outcome finally staff does feel that the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed land use however we are recommending denial based on insufficient justification and because the proposed land use fails to meet three of the four criteria good evening amy wolf again with the planning department presenting the zoning map change request associated with this site chapel creek z1300014 this is an initial zoning which means that there's a pending annexation associated with this request and after this request is heard before the planning commission it will be heard before council as a consolidated item with the annexation utility extension agreement plan amendment and the zoning case altogether the request is from residential suburban 20 to plan development residential 3.919 which is our low density land use designation that's 17.1 acres and the proposal is for a 50 single family residential lots and that is a committed housing type for this request the site is the east side of George King Road and north of Celeste Circle there are two undeveloped streets and and as well as dedicated street infrastructure through the site of Crossland Drive from Celeste Circle as well as Ridgeway Ridgeway Road off of Celeste Circle the site is bounded opposite on George King Road on the opposite side of George King Road is Army Corps of Engineer property which is used for a flood control the site is also encumbered by the watershed protection overlay and the major transportation corridor overlay on a portion of it the boundary of the major transportation corridor overlay is shown on this dark line it is 28 parcels currently at approximately half acre lot and and the the request again is for the 17 acres for a PDR of 3.919 this request does satisfy the requirements of the plan development residential district again 3.919 acres would yield a maximum of 50 lots and that applicant has committed to single family the existing conditions on the site are shown here it's a vacant forested site there is a gas line easement running through the the corner of it closest to NC 54 highway which is parallel to this other site line the proposal shows a number of commitments there's four site access points two potential stream crossings there's one coming in from Crossland Drive as well as another through the center of the site for a potential road layout there there is a phasing plan associated with this request because it is in the suburban transit area this request does show accommodation of our of adopted conditions that are on the site which include the the light rail along George King Road as well as the southern southwestern Drive which is the collector on the collector street plan excuse me so those commitments maximum of 50 single family lots access points impervious surface maximum is is would be committed to a maximum of 50% which would otherwise be allowed to be at 70% in the watershed protection overlay and the tree preservation is a minimum of 20% the only everything you see on the proposed site layout is committed and there's a number of text commitments being the housing type will be single family minimum lot size 4,000 square feet again dedication of right away for those adopted plans and constructing the collector street through the site as well as constructing the existing portion of Crossland Drive and Ridgeway Ridgeway Road which are off site from Celeste Circle the request is not consistent with the comprehensive plan which Ms. Jacobson just explained and I just wanted to point out to hear the purple line on this map is the suburban transit area and the proposed station is up on the northern top of the screen the request does satisfy other policies of the comprehensive plan and it is consistent with the unified development ordinance but this request is not consistent with the comprehensive plan in its entirety is but is consistent with the unified development ordinance available to answer your questions thank you we have three yes three people wishing to speak in favor of and three against the three four is Jared Eden's Lynn Scott and Chris Selby against Jared Harris John Eddie and Critters Booker we have Mr. Eden's go first thank you Jared Eden's with Eden's Landcourt I'm here representing my client David weekly homes I appreciate Amy and Hannah summary of the project they put a lot of work into this appreciate their time I'm going to point out a few things and I want to start I feel like I'm in bizarre a world because I as the applicant am coming to ask for less density than what the planning department is wanting me to ask for so that may be the sign of the apocalypse but this will be the first time that I've been asking for less density than what staff has been asking for the staff report refers numerous times to the highway 54 corridor study a lot of money was spent on that study that's a great tool but that's all it is it's a tool it's not the law it's never been adopted by city council it's been numerous opportunities to adopt it that's yet to take place but let's use it as a tool the tool that it is it does recommend six to twelve units an acre but it also suggests that this parcel is located in the residential two area with single family uses being appropriate you know Hannah had mentioned several neighborhoods in Durham that have 810 12 units an acre I have no doubt that there are neighborhoods in Durham that can hit that threshold but they were developed a gazillion years ago and they don't have they didn't have to give stream buffers and they didn't have to build stormwater ponds and they have to dedicate right away and preserve open space and have tree coverage areas when you take into all the things in the current code that's required for single family developments it would be really hard to hit that 8 to 10 units an acre under the current ordinance it's just not possible in my opinion it's hard to do it with townhomes much less single-family residential I want to want to keep in mind if I could rename this project I would rename it the transition at Chapel Creek because that's exactly what it is the Eastwood Park development to the south every parcel in that development is around 0.46 acres in size I checked numerous ones today when you subtract out road right of ways that's less than two units per acre is roughly what's running on Eastwood Park so you know Aaron had mentioned in the previous zoning case about an appropriate transition for the last zoning case on 54 well what to me what is more what is a better transition going from less than two an acre to 8 to 20 or going from less than two an acre to about four an acre and into the higher densities because we talk about transitions and planning constantly and to me that's what this project provides is an appropriate transition it also provides to me a buffer to a neighborhood that was developed 30 40 years ago long before a rail station was ever talked about this project at about four an acre will provide somewhat of a buffer to that existing neighborhood I think that's a positive thing when we talk about density you know Hannah had mentioned that you want an average of 20 to 25 units per acre for a for a rail area I don't dispute that whatsoever but I do know that this 15 17 acre site is not the be all end all last opportunity for high density and Durham near the rail station there's 65 acres to the north of us I'm quite certain that that the owners of that property are not going to jump on our precedent and come and ask for low density on that 65 acres I just don't see that happening so you can still develop this site at four acres developed the 65 acres at a higher density you will still easily get the net density of 20 to 25 an acre over the entire area so I still think we can support the rail even with this transition piece we had a neighborhood meeting back in May a couple weeks ago I had emailed everyone who attended let them know that the planning commission meeting is coming up if we have a woman come want to have any conversations I've received several positive emails about the project but again just a summary it's rare for a client to ask me to apply for a zoning designation that's not maxing out the density but we really feel that that you know is it a good project is it a good product I mean David Winkle Holmes builds great homes is it a it would it be a bad thing to go from two to four at the end of the higher density and my biased opinion the answer is no I appreciate your time I'd be glad to answer any questions you have I'm Chris Selby I own my home at 138 less circle in the city of Durham my property is right next to the Chapel Creek site my neighborhood Eastwood Park lies between Chapel Creek and the busy NC 54 a residential long-term land use for Eastwood Park was recommended by the NC 54 I 40 corridor study and I note that rentals go for about a thousand dollars a month here that are in our in Eastwood Park Chapel Creek will be a welcome addition to our local community Chapel Creek will be somewhat higher density than Eastwood Park which is consistent with Durham's plan to have increasing density as one gets closer to Lee Village the proposed transit center less than a mile away very close to Chapel Creek is a recently approved Carolina crossing to which is a very high density development with proposed medical use considered together Chapel Creek and the nearby Carolina crossing to constitute mixed use transit supportive development a concern I have is about accessibility they noted there are four points of access for their community excuse me sir do you need assistance with the PowerPoint no I got two of them two of them go into our neighborhood here and then there are two stub outs into the woods here that means all the traffic will go through our neighborhood on the NC 54 which is a mess and I would appreciate if it were possible to there are two cul-de-sacs on this side instead of a cul-de-sac here make it link to George King and create a cul-de-sac instead of a stub out here in the woods that would enable us to access Northern Chapel Hill Southern Durham a readily rather than go on NC 54 and that I'm fine I'm done but other than that I very much favor approving the application for annexation and rezoning and suggest a encouraging the applicant to improve connectivity in the area by connecting Chapel Creek with George King Road thank you good evening my name is Lynn Scott and I live at 211 Celeste Circle I'm a brand new resident of Durham County and City moved to from Kerry to to Durham in August I very much support this neighborhood and the proposal that's been put forward to me it completes the original plan for Eastwood Park which I have to say is a lovely community I never knew my neighbors in Kerry I moved to this neighborhood and we had a block party I mean just and I'd love to see that maintained and it's a working-class neighborhood and I'd like to see it stay a family neighborhood which I think this plan will do the other thing I wanted to point out is I will try to use this mouse we are right here when we bought this property the owners of that property put in $10,000 to solve the water problems I would encourage you to think about this land it's wetlands and I think the developer needs to be able to develop the land in a manner that will not create water problems those residents aren't going to want it there's a creek there and I think that needs to be considered I like the idea of having another access point so that the traffic can be dispersed but mostly I want to say how much I support this plan and I thank the developers for bringing it forward and I thank you for your time thank you have three wishing to speak in opposition to thank you my name is Jared Harris I live at 978 Cragmont in Berkeley California my family owns the 65 acres on the north border of the proposed development we've owned this land since 1979 we lived in the neighborhood we still own the house that we lived in we still love that house and we've gotten innumerable proposals easily dozens of proposals like this for the 65 acres we know we've always rejected them in the last 30 years so it started soon after we bought that land before there was even sewer or water available for it we began to participate in planning for transit in 2002 I attended a charrette early on in that process as part of the comprehensive plan revision that put the the Lee village transit district on the map so I've been very involved very supportive of the whole transit planning process for a very long time and we believe that the Lee village site is critical to support the proposed transit plans that are that are currently gaining momentum we've been concerned for many years about the district getting chipped away by various development proposals of course other people with land in the area have been approached in different ways at one point poultry owned 24 acres that got moved more into the Lee village planning when that was purchased by another developer and we agree with the staff analysis we think it would be a very serious blow to the overall plan if this was approved we think that the proposal goes in exactly the wrong direction it's not just that it down zones or down uses the land but it also sends a message that there's a lack of real commitment and it also says that people can get in under the wire and void having to pay for substantial transit or transportation improvements or other infrastructure improvements so it kind of gives the green light to a strategy that we think ultimately will destroy the potential for this kind of transit development so that that's our perspective on it you'll also hear from a couple of our neighbors in in that immediate area and I seriously hope you will follow the staff recommendation and reject this proposal thank you thank you commissioners my name is John Edie I live at 5708 Crescent Drive in Chapel Hill I'm the president of the Woodland acres homeowners Association which is composed of the residents who live along Crescent Drive Wendell Road Rutgers Road and part of Farrington Road some of whom are here today over the past decade our members have participated in numerous public charrettes workshops and study groups to provide our input to the Durham comprehensive plan we have been for the most part pleased with the outcome it is a good plan for this area and my association is opposed to this amendment to the plan I wish to make three points to support our opposition to the modification to the comprehensive plan the first objection relates to the foundational premise that for mass transit to work in this area there must be a critical population density that would make mass transit a viable and desirable alternative if you grant this amendment to the plan you will be subtracting from that population density and weakening the whole rationale for having mass transit to serve this area the second objection is if you grant this amendment you will be exempting this developer from his obligations to support and assist in the development of the infrastructure necessary to make the suburban transit area a reality the financial burden for the infrastructure would thus be increased for any future developer who would be willing to work within the guidelines of the comprehensive plan and when mass transit does become a reality the Chapel Creek development would increase in value and would have the advantages provided by the transit village but without having made any major investments into its creation and implementation the third objection is if you grant this amendment the developer will be permitted to generate even more traffic that will be dumped on a highway 54 thus contributing to this already congested area but making no contributions toward ameliorating the problem those are our main objections to the amendment having spent 10 or so years in developing the comprehensive plan it doesn't make sense to us now to start allowing bits and pieces of it to be exempted there is no sense having a plan if you're not going to follow it thank you my name is Curtis Booker I live at 5419 Farrington Road and my family owns property just north of the property that Jed Harris's family owns and I am what wish to speak primarily to the problems of Crosland Drive which in the Southwest Durham connector street plan actually becomes Southwest Durham Drive and provides the connection to NC 54 I do not think that this development allows for the improvements to that street at that point its connection to George King to the north and its connection to highway 54 to the south George King road from the point where Crosland and George King would meet is on the connector street plan abandoned and the reason that the connector street plan does not continue down George King is the problem of major grade separation at George King and 54 which makes it almost impossible to make the connection at that point that grade separation is much less it's about a fourth of what it is at cross it's about a fourth of the total at the end of George King at the connection of Crosland and old NC 54 so I think that this flies in the face of both the Southwest Durham connector street plan and the I 40 54 highway plans for that area which makes this a significant inner intersection with NC 54 Southwest Durham Drive of course begins now at in at us 15501 and it is slated to cross 15501 and move to Mount Lurie and then to Irwin Road and so this will be a major thoroughfare through Southwest Durham and I do not think this project allows for the proper development of that area thank you thank you do we have anyone else wishing to speak on this item so if you can state your name can you get it down in a minute and 38 seconds I can do my best my name is Patrick McDonough I'm the manager of transit oriented development and planning for Triangle Transit I apologize this is the fourth event I've spoken it today so if I sound like a frog in a trash bag you are free to laugh the reason I come here tonight is not to speak for against the proposal but to speak to two of the state and federal regulations that make adjudicate the rail project that's been discussed in some of the testimony this evening the first one is the newly adopted North Carolina state strategic mobility formula it does assess as one of the four criteria for fixed-gride guideway transit such as a light rail project the number of housing units and jobs expected within not only a quarter mile of a station but a full half mile of a station the more of both are in those two areas the higher the project is rated that is a state statute that was passed earlier this year the other item I want to share with you is from the August 16 2013 federal transit administration new starts guidance on zoning in terms of economic development it lists a high rating for projects that have not yet been opened as those where local jurisdictions have adopted zoning changes that strongly support a major transit investment in most or all transit station areas it rates as low those projects which are identified as no more than initial efforts have begun to prepare station area plans and related zoning existing station area zoning is marginally or not transit supportive the criteria they use to judge transit support of this include zoning ordinances that support increased development density in transit station areas zoning ordinances that enhance transit oriented character or station area development and pedestrian access and zoning allowances for reduced parking and traffic mitigation thank you sir all right thank you if we don't have anyone else wishing to speak I'll close the public hearing hearing and bring it back for the commissioners and we have commissioner board I live along highway 54 so I'm very familiar with the Eastwood Park neighborhood I'm also familiar with how this area was 20 years ago and I'm sure when Eastwood Park was built it was even more rural than it is now while I'm extremely sympathetic to the people who live there because I know my neighborhood hasn't really liked seeing things develop on highway 54 near us either I have to say I had I completely agree with staff on this one this is a planning commission we plan for growth going forward and I think that the applicants project only looks backwards it tries to build a project that is consistent with an existing older neighborhood part of its justification references a church which we already know the city council has approved that site for two seven-story office towers building something at low density in this area so close to the future transit stop just doesn't make any sense so my apologies to the residents of Eastwood Park but I will definitely be voting against this tonight thank you based on the emails that I've received and some of the conversations I've had with folks in the actual neighborhoods affected by this and from what we hear here tonight it seems like the majority is definitely in favor of this this project definitely I'll be in voting in favor of this but there was some question as to how the federal grants were going to be in jeopardy and I'd like to get a response to that how specifically what I heard was they could be in jeopardy as opposed to they will be in jeopardy in reality anything could be or would be but I'd rush over here closer to what what the facts are good evening again Aaron asked me to try to address this I think it's a good question first and foremost in terms of the application for federal funds for a rail project there are numerous categories that you're looking at from how the how fast the line is to its environmental impacts to affordable housing to how much development is in the station areas and on this criteria both of the federal and the state level more within the half mile of the station area you are definitely receiving a higher score for how the project rates for viability for both federal and state funds so I can based on the probability this project would be good for the for the process I think the answer I think the answer is when you're looking at the overall project and the type of expectations that the staff had outlined when we look at other cities that are permitting projects this distance from a station area the number of dwelling units per acre is probably in the 10 to 20 units an acre range so it'd be a from a different perspective would it be a positive influence for the rail I think what the guidelines would say is that they within a half mile generally guidelines at stations at cities that have been successful at obtaining those federal grants seek a higher density than what is on the table okay so I think that is a yes no I sir mr. pageant I think what Patrick's trying to say is that generally successful projects in the past at this distance from a from a station around a half mile typically the federal trans administration likes to see projects that have about 10 maybe 10 to 20 units per acre the applicant is asking for less than four the higher the note the dwelling units the higher the density the better your chances of scoring well with the federal trans administration the better your chances of getting funding correct mr. Gaines explain me better than I can myself what well you explain you're right I'm just trying to get the whole picture here that's all I know commissioner Whitley I want to it is it's kind of interesting that we have had two projects to come before us one that would have been an idea for low-income housing for affordable housing and this one you know there are plenty people in Durham that don't want to see the rail they would rather see Durham stay the small town that it used to be but we get Durham County is going to grow and we have to plan for growth and doing something to hinder the rail is not a wise decision and we need to start preparing for that you know we cannot be a automobile society for the future we got to look for other ways of transit and figuring out what's smart and what's better for our community I would ask my colleagues here to vote against this proposal commissioner question for mr. Edens presumably you can build this project without any change in zoning correct no you can't no you have I believe it's currently zoned RS 20 I think which would not allow this kind of density yeah if I might pat you on the plane department that the current zoning designation would probably yield approximately 33 35 30 this wolf is in a calculation apparently answers 30 30 I mean we are asking for an increase in density it's just not to the level that some would prefer another question does this rezoning affect your prospects at annexation made deferred a pat on that I mean it the way then the council is set up now is it's it's basically one vote if I'm correct so they'll it'll either all be approved or I'll be denied most likely but can I make one point about the transit can anyone in this room point to a map and say right there is where the rail station is going I can't can anybody in this room say it's going there let's pull a half a mile off that spot and see what the density is I don't think we can I mean the reason I say that is because I I received a new revised map even last week that I believe has a different location than what we were thinking for the past six or eight months so based on where the station is going to be this property may or may not be within one half mile of the actual transit station I just want to point that out I'll try to address that enough if Patrick McDonough from Triangle Transit needs to come up and help me out I'll ask him to do so if I say something that's not totally correct you'll correct me we don't know exactly where the station is going to be right now it could be up closer to Farrington Road it could be much farther I don't want to say in towards the large 65 acre tract that you see to the north of this so this this particular plot could be anywhere from about a quarter mile away to just over half mile away but the point I want to bring up is that as we use the half mile bit the half mile radius from a transit station for the walk zone as a guideline it's not as though somebody says oh that's 0.55 miles away I can't walk that's too far as long as the area is designed properly as long as there's an integrated system of pedestrian network there is not a sense that all of a sudden at a half mile transit support ends a walk zone ends it doesn't exactly work that way the half mile is a general concept that you start with from the planning process and then you work within the context of what's on the ground to find what exactly is the right distance for transit oriented development thank you for staff or for the person who brought it up what would be some of the infrastructure improvements that would that would be expected here that the developer is not addressing with this plan mr. Smosky if I might I'll make a try at that pat young in the planning department I think what several of the speakers were referring to a mr. Judge can maybe fill in some detail if it's necessary is that any large-scale development in this area that's that's likely to be transit supportive is going to probably trigger thresholds that have a very negative impact on NC 54 and would therefore require substantial infrastructure improvements and I think the city's vision and MPO's vision through the in the counties through adopted plans is that we would have a higher larger scale higher density development that would contribute significantly towards the needed improvements in this area including rail rights of way and roadway improvements to and I think what's been referred to is that the density intensity of the proposal before you is low enough that it doesn't trip any of these thresholds so it's able to go in without any substantial mr. Judge can again fill in the details any substantial investments in new transportation infrastructure anyone else you had a question oh mr. Judge if you want to comment bill judge transportation yeah mr. Young was correct I think the main concern as I understood the speakers was the impact of the future transportation plans in the area through the I-40 54 corridor study upgrading 54 to super street configuration those future interchanges as well as the collector street system for the for the roadway network to connect the 54 and just those infrastructure costs anyone else dr. Winters I just like to point out you know on the affordable housing theme again that people who lower income people have higher rates of transit usage and therefore affordable housing also supports transit thank you I got a question so have a commissioner pageant then we have mr. Eden my question is from a student you while ago said that there is nothing in the plan that shows that the rail is even designed to come through there for a there's nothing there's nothing pinpointed for that it says yep here it is here's coming now I think we have a general idea of the corridor of the rail and that speaks to when people make statements that this project is not contributing their fair share or whatnot we're dedicating a 60-foot right away for southwest Durham drive right through the middle of the property and we're going to build it and we're dedicating right away on George King Road for the rail station so property has value we may not be out wide and 54 but but the dedication right away has value and we have been we're complying with every adopted plan on record with this project to work with the adopted plans so yeah rail will come through I think along George King Road along the edge of the property and nothing I want to point out I keep going back to the residential to in the corridor study talks about residential single family being a good use here you just with the stream buffer and ponds and these right away dedications you're talking about you can't develop single family anywhere near the Unison acre you absolutely cannot do it period okay don't think I was I was thinking is when we listen to to the speakers they came up here earlier we heard from California we heard from Chapel Hill and maybe one person from Durham who was in opposition and again it just gets back to me you know I'm not hearing anybody from Durham actually opposing this project except for folks on the board you know the biggest the biggest sir could you come to the mic but I think your point is we have folks whose addresses are Chapel Hill however they pay taxes in Durham and along that line is vice versa so I think you get credit where your tax dollars go so anyone pay taxes in Orange County in here tonight no okay so we all dorm dorm residents didn't mean to cut you off unless you finish then I'll close it up now that's it that's it I think we got somebody paying in California too so and we're going from California we appreciate you paying your taxes in Durham we do he's getting hit by two whammies I'm sure California is a very expensive place too okay so so I'll give my two cents and I think we can take a motion after this this is one of these double-edged sword cases you know I think we kind of look for some cases where you can have a dime down zoning in various parts of the community however I think we need to look at this on a much larger scale so there's been a lot of time effort and funds poured into the 54 study and I'm not quite sure where we are in that process of getting the approved funding however what I do understand because I did a little research on it for project in grad school funding for major transportation projects are an extremely complex process so we talk about the scoring mechanism and whatnot and I think as a whole we will probably be disadvantaged as a community by having points deducted for a smaller scale development so I guess I'm in a position where we have to decide what's gonna be best for the community as a whole I think 15 20 30 years from now we don't want to go back and say that hey we missed out on a good transportation plan because we had some zoning issues that was below the I guess the cap threshold that the federal government would like however I think this be a great project probably elsewhere or had to have we if we would not have the transportation plans would be a great project but I think if we look at Durham as a whole probably be more to the advantage as a community for us to vote against this particular proposal but that's just my personal opinion and we can take a get a motion we'll see what the recommendation is we don't have anyone else wishing to speak no okay it's a chair move approval of tax amendment tax plan amendment a 1 3 0 0 0 0 5 a second so moved and probably second all those in favor let it be no my raising your right hand all those in opposition let me know my raising right hand can we get a motion on the zoning this chair move the zoning case Z 1 3 0 0 0 1 4 second it's been moved and probably second all those in favor let it be no my raising your right hand all those in opposition let it be no my raising right hand for a plan amendment case a 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 we have 2 4 and 12 against for zoning case Z 1 3 0 0 0 1 4 you have 2 4 and 12 against thank you we can move down to item 6 a monocled phase 2 zoning case Z 1 3 0 0 0 1 3 oh before you begin a man want to thank a triangle transit for coming out tonight we don't often see them but thank you for coming out tonight good evening Amy Wolf with the planning department I want to correct this slide right away the applicant is not meadowsland investment that's my error this is the city of Durham is the applicant this is an initial zoning case the request as case number Z 1 3 0 0 0 1 3 Montclair phase 2 it is from the existing zoning designation of residential rural to plan development residential at 2.0 0 0 units per acre the site is 12.0 5 acres and the proposal would allow a maximum of 24 single family lots and that is committed I committed housing type the site is located at 80 20 and 58 56 Farrington Mill Road this is south of Barbie Road just south of the previous case we were talking about this is in the suburban tier and in the FJB watershed protection overlay the request does satisfy the standards of the PDR or plan development residential district to 2.0 0 0 units per acre does allow maximum 24 single family lots the existing site does not have any road frontage it is two two parcels one parcel in its entirety and the parcel that fronts on Farrington Mill Road is only requesting to zone a portion of that parcel which is the rear portion of that parcel the existing conditions on the site are it is forested and again there's no street frontage the request however is to connect this particular site to an ex I recently approved zoning change to the east for Montclair one in this case which was recently approved for 52 dwelling units that did have access to the existing road infrastructure on the proposed conditions of this development plan you'll see five access points you'll see the stubs along the perimeter as well as a number of commitments again a maximum of 24 single family units the housing type is a commitment 24% impervious surface maximum and 20% tree preservation everything on the plan that you see is committed and again there is a commitment for the single family housing type the request is consistent with the future land use map of our comprehensive plan which shows very low density residential which is two dwelling units or less and it also satisfies the other Apollo policies of our comprehensive plan and for that reason staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and I would be happy to answer any questions all right thank you we have two people wishing to speak Jared Eden's and Tenny can't read the first name I'm sorry we get 10 minutes yes I'm sorry Jared Eden's Eden's Landcourt I'm happy to say there's no train station anywhere near this site you couldn't walk to I don't care what Aaron says you couldn't walk to the train station from this site again here representing David weekly homes this is phase two of the Montclair development we were before you I think back in December January of last year for phase one since that time the phase one development has the site plan has been approved for 40 in it with 48 lots construction will start on phase one early next year so this is just a continuation this does conform to the land use plan I'll be short and sweet answer any questions you may have thank you thank you Mr. Tenny yes sorry good evening commissioners my name is Julie and Tenny I live at 5700 Barbie Chapel Road Chapel Hill Durham County I pay taxes in Durham County proud to do so my husband and I actually own one of those the parcels under consideration I rise to speak in support of the map change request it's been interesting working with David weekly homes and their representatives because they're among the few developers that have approached the neighborhood in support of preserving the unique features of this diverse neighborhood for one thing they are they are making a commitment to assist Barbie the Barbie Chapel community where our homeowners excuse me our neighborhood watch group meets secondly I've heard a lot of discussion about density today and their density is is less dense than many of the other neighborhoods that are six shall we say coming down Barbie Chapel Road and will eventually I suppose in golf all of us and thirdly I worry about preserving the diversity of the community and less amenities are brought to the area and we see these homeowners not being able to continue to live in the homes that they already have because of the precarious septic situation that exists in that area of Durham County so I'm delighted to to support this project I look forward to having having Montclair as my neighbor and thank you for your time this evening all right thank you do we have anyone else wishing to speak on this item if not we'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the Commissioners have anyone wishing to speak if not we need a motion you would want to speak we make a motion sure why not turn your mic on all right I moved to approve zoning case Z1300013 second moved them properly second all those in favor let it be known by raising your right hand any opposition motion is care at 14 is zero all right thank you we'll move down to public hearing 6B triangle paintball zoning case Z1300 0 0 0 2 7 good evening Amy Wolf with the planning department with the final case of the evening zoning case the evening triangle paintball case Z130027 the applicant is German Garcia Fresco this is in the county's jurisdiction and the request is from residential suburban 20 to residential rural the the site is 1.84 acres of a 20.2 acre parcel so it is a split currently split zone parcel and this is to change the zoning to match the rest of the parcel and the proposed uses for outdoor recreation paintball and a parking lot the site is again a split zone parcel at 7460 Wake Forest Highway it is between Southview Road which is to the west and Coley Road which is to the east you can see Coley Road here along in your map it is in the rural tier it is also in the critical watershed overlay the FJA which limits impervious surface to 6% there it is adjacent to the Army Corps of Engineers land there's two riparian features on the site you can see one of those along the eastern property line and there's a portion of one to the rear of the zoning which again is in the middle of the entirety of the entire 28-car site there's a bike plan on our adopted plan that runs along Wake Forest Highway in front of this parcel there's also an inventory site which is the lower Lick Creek bottomlands and it's also within the Eastern open space plan in this area there's no development plan associated with this request so I'm just going to tell you tell you the requirements of the residential rural district which again this site is would when combined when considered with the entirety of the site would meet these requirements so there's a minimum lot area of three acres there are different standards for the rural residential zoning district depending on what tier you're in and what watershed you're in so the site would meet that in its entirety when considering the entire parcel the request is consistent with our future land use map of the comprehensive plan which designates this site as rural density residential which is a half dwelling unit and acre or less and it is consistent with the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan and staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted policies and ordinances and available for any questions we have one person wishing to speak in favor of this item Patrick biker good evening Chairman Jones members of the Planning Commission my name is Patrick biker I live at 2614 Stewart Drive I'm an attorney in Durham with Morningstar law group and I'm here tonight representing GNV business ventures GNV operates a paintball facility on approximately 44 acres in Durham County on highway 98 about one and a half miles west of the Wake County line you've just heard the Planning Department recommend approval so I'll just make two brief points first this is a cleanup of a zoning designation on our client's property that should not exist our paintball facility is in the rural tier well over a mile outside the suburban tier nevertheless about 1.8 acres of our frontage on highway 98 is owned residential suburban for 20,000 square foot lots we respectfully ask you to recommend approvals that our zoning designation will match our development tier second please keep in mind that our request is for a down zoning what you're asking for tonight what we are asking for tonight rural residential in the FJ a watershed overlay district is to my understanding the lowest intensity zoning available for this property under the Durham unified development ordinance we are asking for the zoning designation for a simple reason to make all 20.2 acres of this parcel zoned consistently accordingly we hope you recommend approval for just that and along with our landscape architect and my friend Kevin Hammack will be happy to try to answer any questions thank you right thank you we don't have anyone else wishing to speak on this item up close public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners Mr. Padgett and Ms. Huff I'll go ahead and let Ms. Huff start up. We'll let Mr. Padgett go first then you. I don't mind either way what I'm gonna say is that I've been in law enforcement for 30 years I'm very familiar with that area I'm very familiar with the paintball location well I do not know the business owners personally I do know we've never had any problems within the community for the paintball setup everything's been pretty compliant and you know like I said no problems no issues I think that what they're attempting to do or want to do is going to be a great asset not only to the community but to the public school system it'll be an asset to law enforcement because there's so many uses that that we can utilize out there and again I've not spoken to anyone about it but I do know that officers in the past have gone out there and you know practice and you know there are little entries and things like that for our CERT teams SWAT teams and things like that but but again it's just a very positive influence for Durham and anytime we can add something that we can put as part of a bigger picture of Durham then I think we need to really do that and that's why I stand on it someone supported just a quick question of curiosity yes ma'am how did this get zoned this way I don't know okay that's it in the immortal words of Homer Simpson it was like that when I got here thank you that was gonna be my question too how did they get like this and so we heard staff say that the 300 square square foot commitment or 3 acre commitment would be applicable on the whole so that that means that if we zone this parcel it goes back to the whole thing is that yes mr. Smosky this is Scott Layman from the playing department that is correct and when the county first instituted zoning in the 50s there was a designation called highway residential which went followed all the major highways 300 feet on either side so if you look at our zoning map you'll see all sorts of tentacles along the rural highways and ideally one day those will all be changed back to something else and so these applicants are helping us with at least one of those properties thank you thank you for that it definitely is rural so anyone else wishing to speak of not we'll ask for a motion this chair I move approval of zoning case 130027 that's been moved in property second all those in favor let it be known by raising right hand any opposition no thank you very much motion is carried 14 to 0 thank you move down to item 7 a tree coverage calculation amendment TC 1 3 0 0 0 2 thank you very much Michael stock with the playing department on TC 13 0 0 2 is a privately initiated plan of text amendment submitted by Horvath Associates and it proposes an additional exemption to the tree coverage calculations within the unified development ordinance and just as a little background the current UDO requires tree coverage as a technical requirement on most development within the suburban tier and within residential districts within the urban tier and it can be satisfied in a couple different ways to be satisfied by preserving a certain percentage of stands of trees that exist on site or providing tree replacement on the site or even a combination of both and there's percentages within the ordinance that dictate what an applicant would have to provide and concurrently with that the UDO also allows currently to exemptions to calculating that area the calculations based upon the gross area of the development site except for in two instances you can subtract out water bodies that exist on the site and you can subtract out area that is being dedicated for right of way the original proposal that's within your agenda packet it requests a third exemption or a series of modified exemptions that would include exempting utility easements of certain widths and parameters and also exempting storm water facilities staff had reviewed that application when it came in and the draft ordinance that's proposed tonight and what that was also presented to the JCCPC is a much more modest version of what is actually proposed within the applicant's proposal and that limits the exemption to only area within a very large utility easement that is already an existing easement of record that is at least 50 feet in width or more and that is the extent of the proposal the staff has met with the applicant prior to moving this forward the applicant indicated satisfaction with this revision to their application as I mentioned before JCCPC has already reviewed this application as it currently is before you tonight and they had no issues or concerns with the proposal I'll be happy to answer any questions commission of board and I just wanted to clarify this so you're saying that the change to a with storm water control measures has been removed from what we're voting on that's correct if you take a look at the attachment B which is the draft ordinance that is only what is being proposed for changes which is the last page there so okay so 30 gets changed to 50 and D goes away as well correct commissioners musky thank you chairman so when when I saw what went away what went away was the storm water basin okay what I was going to ask was since the tree coverage and storm water basin were required because of the development could the area of the storm water basin and the tree cover be counted as one for that calculation no the there's the current exemption does not allow to exempt out storm water basins or improvements because it's seen as an improvement brought upon by the development itself it's itself self-inflicted what I was what I was trying to say is there's a there's an air there's an area of the lot and because of that area we we need a tree coverage okay so what you're not what I'm trying to say is that that area that you calculate is it possible that you could include the tree coverage and the storm water basin as part of that calculated coverage area the stormwater is is calculated as the tree coverage area that this currently the stormwater any stormwater improvements are part of the tree coverage calculation that's what I was wondering great thank you very much anyone else wishing to speak what's the point of the tree coverage why was it adopted I'm just curious tree coverage was first adopted back in 1999 as part of the initial from part of the merge zoning ordinance as part of a series of environmental protection regulations so you're you're trying to protect against runoff and so forth right that is that's one of the goals for tree coverage okay well can't you build within the utility easement you can put parking lots and impervious surface and so forth development is extremely limited and we're talking about easements that are 50 feet or more wide which are most likely are going to be those transmission towers and you can't plant there's severe limitations that all have even planting in there and if you do plant in there they're usually taken down or severely named no so it's seen as up and if you can't even plant in there it's seen as you know providing forcing the developer to set aside additional land for that so right but but the difference between it in and say a pond is that you can develop in there you can you can put impervious surface in into the easement you can put a parking lot in the easement in some instances you can I can't guarantee it's always the case but that would in fact cut into or increase the amount the reduce the amount of land that was serving to protect you know water well if you're if you're putting impervious surface into the easement your impervious surface is still going to be right there's no regulation and there's no change in regulations for impervious surface or stormwater facilities right but it would be offset if if you leave this ordinance as it is now that would be offset by the fact that there would be a more of a tree coverage in the rest development right sometimes yes most of the time not necessarily a lot of times tree coverage and open space requirements and other requirements start to overlap so there's usually not necessarily a reduction in what's overall proposed it's just seen as this is a fair way to mitigate when there's an encumbrance upon the land of an extreme size any other questions now can we get a motion I move that TC one three zero zero zero two be approved second all those in favor let it know it's been approved probably yes sorry long day moved properly second all those in favor let it be known by raising your right hand in the opposition motion is carried 14 to 0 thank you thank you all right so we'll move down to item 8C which is the resolution for affordable housing and what we're going to do how we're going to handle this since we've had some good discussion about for about affordable housing already this evening I will let Commissioner Dr. Winder's give us a quick summary of this particular resolution and we'll refer to it in our packet so it gets to the elected officials is that fair enough and then if anyone has anything new to add that has not been said tonight we give you 30 seconds to say it since we've talked about affordable housing or we can just move it that's kind of our options I'd like to explain a little bit about what this resolution is it's not my resolution I did not write this resolution there a sort of loose coalition of groups has been meeting since at least the summer to to talk about affordable housing and transit there's and it's it's a there's a big concern that we need to act fast act soon to gets to acquire some land or to do something to get affordable housing into the planning for the areas where the transit stops are going to be and we we that through the lobbying of this group I believe in the groups you know that this this coalition I believe that we got the affordable housing assessment that was on the sort of alternate other list of things we wish we had to do but we don't have have resources for this year we got it elevated to the work plan that we discussed back in in July and the by by the city council but then when the county commissioners cut the planning budget request we lost the housing assessment again and this this group has been working since July to get funding replaced added back into the planning budget because we see this before this housing assessment is being kind of step one to getting going on on having affordable housing on on transit stops and as this this resolution has a page and a half of where as is and then gets into the the meat of the recommendations on the on the second page and that it is just a statement of the first point is a statement of policy a sort of setting a goal to of having affordable housing at the transit stops and I see it's defined this first time I realized this defined as 60% of area median income which is the which is the amount that Pat mentioned I believe earlier up mine was what I was talking about was 80% actually then but the other points are all planning related things so that we and it says within the next three three to five years we want to have the the housing needs assessment the the compact neighborhood plans and amendments to the UDO done in three to five years and we want to have a citizen's advisory committee to work with with the planning department on preparing those plans and that so what the what we this the coalition after we discuss all this stuff and somebody wrote this resolution then we sent everybody out to the groups that they were associated with to try to get support for the resolution that it's a show of support for affordable housing at transit stops and I think it's it's although it does not mention budget it is consistent with the group is also working on before restoring the planning department budget so I would like like to request or maybe I should make a motion or someone else should make a motion then that the the Planning Commission expressed support for this resolution and joined the coalition joined the other groups and requesting that the City Council and the County Commission make this commitment to affordable housing we don't have any of this I have some on readiness okay so we'll let Reverend Whitley then we have Mr. Padgett then we'll come to a Commissioner gives let me write this down then we'll come back to Commissioner Harris Rebecca would you consider adding to your motion for approval of this that the city and County replaced the money that was taken out of planning you would I think we okay I I wouldn't I don't think we could really change this resolution but we can say we support this resolution and we also call on the elected boards to restore the budget request of the planning department do you think let me ask one question of the staff I was told by other staff I just needed in the record that that the cuts that were made to planning affected planning across the board a good evening Pat young again with the planning department right so the the work program for the planning department that you all saw earlier this year and that was endorsed by you all in the joint City County Planning Committee would require the full funding we requested to implement and Joint City County Planning Committee reaffirmed their commitment to that original work program which would it which would require the full budget which would include the 80 approximately $85,000 that was cut today at the joint City County Committee the mayor publicly endorsed that the city provide that funding and I believe that there's going to be some consideration by City Council I don't have any details on that to do that so that's what we're proceeding forward with is to do the original work program which included the initiation of the affordable housing initiative program that you all have seen so sounds like we have some positive traction on the funding restoration to planning yes I think that's a fair characterization at the restoring funding would require action by one of the bodies through a budget amendment again I think that's what's in the offering we don't know the details yet from the manager's office but that was what was recommended today by the mayor at the Joint City County Committee okay good enough that would take care of my my second my item if we can combine these two okay so this is how we're gonna handle it we'll do two separate motions just so we can be clear as to the motions so what we have before us is the affordable housing so we have Commissioner Padgett then Gibbs then we'll finish this then we move on to your particular request okay my question was answered I wanted to make sure that there was no inclusion inclusion for funding or a resolution combined with this one and that was my concern I want to make sure we had a separate resolution because I've got a few words for that one right make sense Gibbs commission gives thank you it may be that my my concerns about accessibility at transit stations and hubs maybe it should be addressed in another place but I just wanted to throw that in because this is mainly about affordable housing and we do need to start thinking more and more just like our votes tonight about complying with the future land use plan and along those lines we need to expand I think we need to expand our thinking beyond even beyond transit stations for instance the last meeting well the Kennington Heights area I was going to mention something then but it would be totally unrelated to anything but I think there was a place where we missed the city missed the county missed a golden opportunity for some affordable housing those bunches of acres it was near transit it was near it was a I know it was on the south side and TG mentioned something about living on the south side tonight in jest but it would have been a good place for the city and county to have invested some incentive we incentives are handed out in so many other ways but anyway that one's gone but there may be some others coming up so I would think that if we expand our thinking even beyond transit stations to try to address and I know it's going to fall to the planning department to come up without implement all these things and I do not envy your task but we'll help you anyway we can but that's I think that's all I had to say for that thank you so much okay thank you so before we get to the motion like I said just keep this in mind this is really more of a starting place to start the discussion and along with the budgetary items that were discussed earlier today so you might not particularly agree with every word in here but I think we can get a nice discussion started so we can at least have a plan an official documented plan how we're going to address affordable housing in Durham and that's why I'm going to support this I think we have to have an official plan the implementation is going to be key but the planning is going to be so important before we get to implementing it because what we start to see what we see a lot in Durham and surrounding communities is we have plans for mass transit housing mixed use but what tends to happen is the citizens who work or no support functions or the citizens that may have the public sector jobs that may not make the whole lot to afford what they're actually building or being a part of those are typically the citizens that are left out literally in the cold sometimes so I think we start to address this as a city we can have a clear plan as to how we want to address it as a city as a county as various communities so I will be supporting this with some apprehension but I'll be supporting because I like the intent of it Mr. Chair I move that the Durham Planning Commission going record supporting the resolution supporting affordable housing around the transit station and bus hubs and send it on to our governing bodies with our hope that they would support it also second moving properly second all those in favor let it be known by raising your right hand any opposition motion is care at 14 to 0 thank you we move down to item 8d which is the restoration of funding to the playing department I think Reverend Whitley would like to say something additional maybe perhaps if not let's go you know it has been the intent first of all I want to clarify something that was said earlier Durham City Council has been in the front in moving affordable housing in fact they're the one that have pushed for citizens participation in setting policy for for affordable housing you can see that in what is going on in the Southside 149 different units that are being built as affordable housing to get to my point neighborhoods like Southside and East Durham cannot afford to be against development and and we cannot have smart growth in our communities with a government but governing body cutting money out of planning you know I think there's what 128 different priority items on the work plan 118 118 that we know can't be get done in in one year so to cut a positions out of planning means that we belong the process of healing our needed neighborhoods so I would ask this body to join me in approving sending a message to both the city and the county that that money must be restored it's been moved in yes sir any discussion and what form will we send in this and is there some type of written statement that you're making I would like to see that statement before I prove anything so they just well written and well communicated the needs that we as a body agree upon absolutely I agree with that as well so what we're gonna do is we're gonna we're going so yes so what we can do is we're gonna we acknowledge your resolution and we're gonna ask that revenue Lee perhaps work with other entities and perhaps provide a resolution written form next month that we can have something official that everyone can agree on the language with but I think in principle we agree but I think the devil is in the details revenue if I can use that okay yes okay so yes so for homework we're gonna have to do a resolution for next month then I think we can have some good traction along with what occurred today so that's okay can we table it yes all right so announcement so we have any announcement what do we have next month so we have four land use cases in one text amendment scheduled for the December meeting quick okay so if all hearts and minds are clear we'll go ahead and adjourn thank you