 Good evening. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. There are seats on the left over here, so you're welcome to move over and sit in those seats to the left. The people that are standing in the rear. Welcome to July 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issues before us tonight. Do you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight? Please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those of you who wish to speak, please state your name and address clearly when you come to the podium and please speak clearly into the microphone. Each side, those speaking in favor of an issue and those speaking in opposition to an issue will have 10 minutes to present each side. The time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak. If you are here opposing a rezoning tonight, you should be aware of what is called a protest petition. A protest petition can be very helpful to those residents who live in the rezoning area. Please consult the Planning Department staff for any details on 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 recommendations for denial. Thank you and tonight we have new members on the commissioners, so we will have a roll call by the members introducing themselves and just tell whether you are a county appointee or a city appointment or a district appointee and I'm going to start to my right and we will come around. Please use the mic because we are being televised. Josh Hollingsworth, I'm a county appointee for the Triangle Township. Melvin Whitley, I'm a city appointment appointee. Good evening, I'm Mayor Kinchin, I'm a county appointee. Nill Gose, county appointee. Becky Winder, city appointee. David Harris, city appointee. Tom Miller, city appointee. Deidreana Freeman, city appointee. Ryan Busby, city appointee. Linda Huff, county appointee. Elaine Hyman, county appointee. And Mr. Charles Huff has asked for an excuse of absence. He has sickness in the family and I mean Charles Gibbs and so he has been excused because of a family emergency. So okay, so we do have a quorum present. And the first thing on the agenda is the adjustments to the agenda or the inadjustments. Good evening, Chair Harris and members of the Commission, Pat Young with the Planning Department. I do have one proposed adjustment. Item 6a is our resolutions honoring former Planning Commission members Frederick Davis and Ricky Padgett asking that the agenda be adjusted to have that item immediately following this item. I'd also like to certify for the record that the public hearing items before you tonight have been advertised in accordance with the requirements of law and their affidavits to that effect on file with the Planning Department. Okay, are there any objections? You gonna give me a motion? I move that we have a celebration for two of our former board members right after this. So the motion is to accept the agenda with the adjustment. I have one other item for the agenda. For the agenda. Okay. For some reason, we have not been able to get planning to put holes in our that's not an agenda item. I'm gonna rule you out of order right now. That's not right. We bought it up on on three different occasions. Okay, I put this down here under new business, but okay, and we will address it on a new business. So you have Yes. I would like to make a motion to approve the agenda with the adjustments with those adjustments. So I can all those in favor please let me know my show in your right hand. Commissioner Davis. Frederick Davis. Would you join me, please, sir? Resolutions of appreciation for Mr. Frederick Davis. Whereas Mr. Frederick Davis was a member of the Durham Planning Commission from May 2009 through June 2015. And whereas the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens of Durham, citizens of the citizens of the city and County of Durham has benefited from the dedicated efforts that he displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission. And whereas this commission is I to express its appreciation for a public appreciation for the public of a job well done and be it therefore resolved by the Durham Planning Commission that this commission do hereby express its sincere appreciation for the service rendered by Mr. Davis to the citizens of this community that the clerk for the commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official minutes of this commission. And this resolution be hereby presented to Mr. Davis as a token of a high esteemed hell for him adopted this day the 14th day of July 2015. Thank you sir for your service. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be brief. I know other people have more pressing matters here today. But I do want to thank the county commissions for my appointment over the last six years. It's been a pleasure to serve as a commissioner and outgoing vice chair. I initially started as a pursuit in planning while I was earning my degree in a master's in city and regional planning from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. And I was also a delight to know that I could use those talents and studies to better help the citizens of my own community. So it's been a great pleasure for me to be on this board. I want to take the time to thank my lovely wife Josephine who's with me who's been able to share the planning commission with her husband over the last six years. My son who's not here six month old Frederick III hopefully his father represented him well. So I leave you with hopefully to the new planning commissioners and existing make sure that we are very efficient. As you know I was on this board efficiency was very key to me so make sure we do our due diligence and study the material prior to the meeting for not only other fellow commissioners but the citizens who will be waiting patiently for their item to come up before the agenda. Good luck to you tonight. Looks like it's going to be a long one. Hope you guys have ordered takeout. But again thank you so much. Commission of pageant resolution and appreciation of Mr. Ricky pageant whereas Mr. Ricky pageant was a member of the Durham Planning Commission from June 2012 through June 2015 and whereas the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens of the city and county of Durham have benefited from the dedicated efforts that he displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission and whereas the commission desire to express this appreciation for the public of a job well done and therefore be it resolved by the Durham Planning Commission that this commission do hereby express his sincere appreciation for the services rendered by Mr. pageant and to the citizens of this community that the clerk for the commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official minutes of this commission and this resolution is hereby presented to Mr. Pageant as a token of the high esteemed health for him adopted the 14th day of July 2015. Mr. pageant. Thank you sir. I know this is a shock to some people but I'm going to be very brief. You know when I served on on the commission for the three year term it was something that I had no clue what was coming. It was something new to me. I would say to the new members listening closely vote your conscience be true to yourself and you'll do fine and the other advice I would give is drive slow be careful and enjoy life. I have one other acknowledgment that I would like to give while I'm here we have three members of the planning department that have achieved a milestone by passing a professional planning certification exam. We have Lisa Miller Lisa here. We have Hannah Jacobs and we have Bo debris ski. This debris Zen ski now that during the membership of approximately 15 professional planners worldwide. So and I like to also commend our planning administration that makes Durham to have 14 with this certification out of 1500 this worldwide I think that's commendable for this organization to have 14 of 1500 this worldwide. So I like to thank the administration thank the council and the commissioners the county commissioners and the city council for supporting continued education for our staff and our planning department. Thank you. Could someone bring the list up to me before. Okay before we have the staff report. I have one two three four five six seven eight. I have eight people who wishing to speak against and three people wishing to speak for it. If those eight people that speaking against if you're saying the same thing and you can consolidate someone would like to yield their time because each side has 10 minutes and if we could get that eight down to six we can probably give each person two minutes each to speak. So while the staff report while the staff is given their reports if you would like to consolidate the speakers and those against you can do that while the staff is doing that report. So at this time I would like to open the public hearing. I'm sorry before we do that. I need a motion to approve the minutes from June 9. Mr. Chair I make a motion I would like to make one amendment to the minutes on the page three of the written comments that we made under the affordable housing and parking discussion. I just would like to change my comments to say Durham's affordable housing issues. There's just a typo as opposed to Durham's affordable hanging issues. Often I'd let a typo slip by that seemed important. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve it with that correction. Mr. Chairman I second motion. Okay. Motion second that we approve the minutes with the correction made by Commissioner Buxby. All those in favor let it be known by showing your right hand. Thank you. The motion passed. Now the we will open the public hearing for Conwallis Road project a one four zero zero zero one one and a zero one. I mean I'm sorry ZZ one four zero zero four zero. Good evening. I'm Carla Rosenberg with the Planning Department and I'm here to present the plan amendment case for a fourteen zero zero zero one one Cornwallis Road property. So the applicant Pulti Holmes is proposing to amend approximately 13 acres of the future land use map from low density residential and commercial to medium density residential. And this change would allow the applicant to construct a residential development containing approximately 230 townhouse units. Here's a map showing the future land use context of the subject area so the US Highway 15501 runs north south just east of the site. The site itself is adjacent to both low and medium density residential land uses and is otherwise surrounded by recreation and open space. Immediately south of the property lies a stream bed for the Sandy Creek a Jordan Lake tributary. The Duke Lemur Center educational building is situated approximately one half mile to the north of the site and a multifamily development colony hill is lies just south of Sandy Creek. I'd like to correct for the record regarding the historic structures located within the project area. The bungalow house reference in the staff report is not located on the site. It is nearby and will not be affected. There are five older structures on the site dating from the 1940s and 50s that were not inventoried. There have been some minor changes to the future land use map for these parcels over time. An earlier small area plan called for this site to be designated as flood plain commercial high density residential and low density residential. The 2005 comprehensive plan called for commercial and low density residential. In the justification statement the applicant suggests that the current land use designations of commercial and low density residential ought to be amended because it would provide a more gradual transition between a heavily traffic transportation corridor to the east and existing lower density residential uses to the west. In addition the reduction of intensity brought by converting commercially designated property to medium density residential would mitigate future development impacts on the site. And this is because commercial development typically requires extensive regrading and impermeable surface area. Finally the proposed designation of medium density residential is congruent with parcels adjacent to the subject site. Staff has reviewed the request against these four criteria found in the unified development ordinance. And we found that the proposed amendment is consistent with land use policies in the comprehensive plan specifically the policy regarding contiguous development. And this policy supports orderly development patterns that take advantage of existing urban services and avoid in so far as possible patterns of leapfrogging or non-categous scattered development. The central portion of the project area is already designated medium density residential. This is an area of rapid residential growth potential because of its position along a major traffic corridor. We determined there to be no substantial adverse impact with regard to infrastructure and environmental protection or future demand for land uses. And finally staff determined that the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed residential land use. And so the request meets all of the criteria for plan amendments and staff is recommending approval. I'd like to now introduce Amy Wolfe. She'll present the zoning portion of this case. All right. Thank you. I'm Amy Wolfe with the planning department presenting the companion zoning map change case. This request Cornwallis Road residential case Z one four zero zero zero four zero is put forth from Polty Homes. It is within the city's jurisdiction and the request is from the present designation of residential suburban 20 and commercial general. And the request is for the district of planned development residential or PDR at a density of seven point nine zero seven units per acre. The total site differs from that of the plan amendment which you just heard in that the central portion of the site is already designated as medium density residential. Hence the acreage difference or area difference. The proposed use is for 230 residential units. The site is in the suburban tier. And as Ms. Rosenberg mentioned it is on the along Cornwallis Road and the US 15501 Highway. And it is currently thirty nine point one four acres of residential suburban 20 or RS 20 and one point eight one acres of commercial general. The request does meet the criteria for planned development residential zoning district. The site is forty point nine five acres. The requested density is seven point nine zero seven dwelling units per acre and that's that's based on a net acreage which accounts for eleven point eight six acres of environmentally sensitive areas. And the maximum height would be thirty five feet. And I'll elaborate on that in just a moment as well. The existing conditions on the site are shown here. We have. Grandville Circle which is a private street which runs through the eastern portion of the site I'd like to point out that to the left of the screen is north. So to the east on the eastern northern northeast portion of the site is Grandville Circle which is a private street. There are some structures on the site some are historic and there have been commitments made in that regard I'll elaborate on that in a moment as well. Sandy Creek and floodway and related floodway and floodway fringe are along the southern boundary of the site. As well as a farm pond that is shown. Central or internal to the Grandville Circle private street. The proposed conditions are shown on this this sheet. This is essentially the development plan where you'll see some graphic commitments that I'll point out. And I'll probably say more than one time as I point them out and then reiterate them in a moment in a few slides. So a development plan has minimum criteria to to be considered a development plan and there's everything on the sheet is considered a commitment. So what we generally look at are access points. There are two access points shown along West Cornwall is as well as a building envelope which in this case stays out of the flood plain. There are tree save areas three tree preservation areas have been shown one along the northwestern portion one along the eastern portion as well as one along the south. There are the required boundary buffers are shown there's a boundary buffer required against the commercial general adjacent to the site on the west as well as to the south. There's additional buffers that have been proffered by the applicant that are beyond what we would normally require in between these two zoning districts and those are as follows. There is a 50 foot point for opacity buffer that has been proffered along the western property property line on the northern part of the western property line as well as a 20 foot point for opacity buffer just south of that along the western property line. There is also a 20 foot point six opacity buffer that has been proffered along the street frontage and there are a number of commitments for for easements in the site. There's two greenway easements that have been committed on this plan. One is from on the western property line. This is Tanglewood Drive. There is a commitment to dedicate a 50 foot greenway easement from the Tanglewood Drive entrance to the south of the site as well as along the existing gravel road of Granville Circle to connect to the southern boundary line. There is another arrow depicted here which is also reflected in a text commitment and a graphic commitment for the location of a 10 foot pedestrian easement within the floodway, floodway fringe and I'll elaborate on these in just just the next few slides. So the intensity of the site is 230 residential units. There are two vehicular access points. The impervious surface maximum is 70 percent which is the maximum permitted in the FJB Watershed Protection overlay which does encompass the site and tree coverage area of 20 percent. There are some graphic commitments that I had pointed out but I'll reiterate them here. The location of the two access points, the location of the three tree preservation areas shown, the building and parking envelopes which are shown outside of the floodway fringe, the location of the 10 foot pedestrian trail which is within the floodway fringe, the location of greenway easements, also within the floodway fringe, the location of the buffer along the western boundary. Portion of it is 50 feet and a portion of it is 20 feet both at 0.4 opacity and the location of a streetscape buffer which is 20 feet and 0.6 opacity. I'm going to summarize the text commitments here. There's a number of text commitments that also reiterate some of the points that I made. The proposed development is limited to townhouses and accessory units so that's 230 townhouse units. There's a 50 foot wide opacity buffer which I mentioned and the 50 foot wide 0.4 opacity buffer and the northwest boundary of the site with specification on plantings to be provided as well as 20 foot buffer just south of that along the western boundary 20 foot wide 0.4 opacity buffer. Additionally there's a 80 foot building setback from that western property line which is within the location of those said buffers but from the property line there's an 80 foot building setback, a 20 foot planted streetscape buffer along Cornwallis Road. There's also street lights and parking lots to be full cut off type fixtures and I mentioned on the existing conditions that there are some structures on the site some of them historic. There's a text commitment to offer those up for within 90 days for the purpose of reconstructing offsite prior to building permit. There's some commitments as well dedicate 10 feet of right away along West Cornwallis Road recombine the plots around Granville court to eliminate the existing street right away. The 50 foot to dedicate the 50 foot Greenway easement from Colony Park subdivision which is where Tanglewood Drive is. This is the short connection I showed at the southwest corner of the site as well as a 50 foot wide Greenway easement from the existing entrance or the existing gravel Granville circle all the way through to the southern boundary of the site and a 10 foot wide pedestrian easement and that also starts from Tanglewood Drive and shows it connecting up to the 50 foot Greenway easement and prior to this first any first certificate of occupancy can site access improvements at access point one or westbound left turn lane to widen Cornwallis West Cornwallis Road to a continuous three lane section between the two access points and to dedicate for excuse me not dedicate provide an additional four feet of asphalt to accommodate a bike lane along the frontage of the site. This request with the exception of connection to Tanglewood Drive. With the exception of this vehicular connection the request does meet the Unified Development Ordnance Standards. The Unified Development Ordnance requires a connection to external street stubs. The standard being the proposed street layout and new development shall be coordinated with existing street system with connections made at all stub outs. So the street system is not reflected as a stub out here. So that is the deficiency that staff notes with this request. You heard Ms. Rosenberg report on the future land use map. The orange color in the center is medium density residential to the west is this yellow color which is low density residential and to the east is commercial both the yellow or low density residential and the commercial are being proposed to match the central portion of the site or medium density residential. So presently this request is not consistent with the future land use map. But if the plan amendment is approved it would satisfy that criteria. There are other comprehensive plan policies we look at and all of them are met. We do reference the external connectivity standard which is implemented through the UDO which I described with the vehicular connection to the existing roadway network and existing stubs. So staff determines this request is not consistent with the connectivity standards of the UDO section twelve three one F three nor the comprehensive plan policy eight one six F. However should the plan amendment be approved this request would be consistent with the future land use map of our comprehensive plan. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you. All right. I have three people signed up for this and eight people against. I would. If I could ask the commission if they would be amenable to a. Twelve minutes. Okay. Okay with seven. That will be a minute and a half each. Okay. Make a motion to extend that time. Mr. Chairman I would like to it seems to me that this the whole point of this is a public hearing and to hear from the public and to make everybody condense their remarks into a minute and a half seems to be to defeat the whole purpose that we're here. There's only one case on our agenda. And given the fact that this case is generated a lot of interest. I would be more comfortable if we were to expand the time given both sides to fifteen or even twenty minutes. So that everybody who has something to say can say all of what they say and we can hear it all. Ten. I would prefer twenty. I mean that's what we're here for. Motion on the floor that we have twenty minutes in affirmative and twenty minutes in the. Those in opposition. You heard the motion on the floor all those in favor of a. Grant in ten minutes for each side I'm sorry twenty minutes for each side please raise their right hand. All those against. Motion carries eleven to zero. Okay. So we have Mr. J. Eaton. Good evening planning commission. Members I'm trying to get this. I was hold okay here we go. Even one second to get. Get set up here. Appreciate your time tonight and. Enjoying seeing all these smiling supportive faces here. For our project. Unfortunately there's a time limit or I would try to filibuster but I know I can't do that so. I'll I'll get through my presentation again. Appreciate your time I want to appreciate staffs. Work on this project we've put a lot of work in over the months and I appreciate the involvement we've had with the neighbors. With all the meetings we've had and we've had some constructive conversations I believe. So here's where we are today. I'm just gonna summarize the request we're modifying the future land use plan for a portion of the site as staff mentioned. You know close to twenty eight acres of the site already supports the zoning that we're seeking. We're modifying about thirteen acres. We are reducing a large portion of commercial. Future land use plan to. Load a medium density residential which is a less impactful designation what is there now. We do have staff support of the future land use amendment. As far as the zoning we are requesting about seven point nine units an acre. Again that's that's based on net acreage for the project if you look at the overall project boundary it's about five point six units an acre if you look at the overall project size. I did put here in in my haste that staff supports the request but as Amy mentioned there is a one outstanding issue with the interconnectivity to tangle with drive. Which I can address later in my presentation. As I said before we've seen this map you see a majority the site has the land use designation that we're seeking. Only a small portion along the western boundary that still designated for low density residential which is still up to four units per acre. Environmental concerns I'm going to touch on a few key issues. We have no development in the flood plain we have no impacts the streams or wetlands. When we design town home developments in this project. We'll act this way they tend to function similar to a conservation subdivision in Durham where you you put all your density in the upland area so you can preserve the environmentally important parts of the property. And we have about twelve acres of this property that's flood plain that's not being touched. It's being permanently preserved but in order to do that we have to put our density on the uplands it just makes sense. I've had some comments that conversation with neighbors about individual lot grading. In two thousand fifteen. Whether it's townhomes or single family may my firm is probably designed about. Two to three thousand single family lots over the past three or four years. They're all mass graded just to meet the current. Zoning requirements. To direct your storm water to where it needs to go. To meet the lot size requirements of the builders in the houses of people are buying. Your mass grading properties whether it's townhomes or single family if we were here with a single family project. We would still be mass grading the site. Exactly like we are tonight. We're incorporating some storm water management. This is required by the code you know there's no way around it. We have to provide total suspended solids removal eighty five percent. TSS we have to reduce nitrogen. And phosphorus. I'm not aware of any existing. Stormwater devices in the adjacent neighborhoods. So this project. As far as environmentally should function better in my opinion than adjacent neighborhoods. There's been some discussion of flooding. In effect of this project on on Connie Park namely. At the Sandy Creek basin to this point is thousands of acres I tried to measure it earlier today but I couldn't zoom out enough on the map to even measure it. It's thousands of acres of drainage. Coming to this point. We're developing twenty nine acres. So we're talking about twenty nine acres. Of thousands of acres of drainage basin to Sandy Creek. The fact of the matter is our stormwater is going to leave an inner Sandy Creek long before the rest of the basin has concentrated to this point. So I cannot see any additional flood plain resulting. From our development because the. The peak the peak times for the basin. Is so much further out than when our stormwater is going to leave the property. A couple of items from the staff report these are not my numbers. Transportation staff says that. The rezoning decreases. The total trips per day by about sixteen hundred trips. From the current zoning. The staff report says that Cornwallis Road has more than ample capacity for this project. And we're looking at twelve thousand seven hundred cars per day. As opposed to the forty eight hundred. Cars per day that currently are on Cornwallis Road. We are widening return lanes at each at each entrance. We're providing the two greenway easements that Amy mentioned before. We had two meetings out in the field with Durham Parks and Rec staff. In order to determine the appropriate location for these greenway easements. There's a great public benefit to these greenway easements. And like Amy mentioned we're installing a four foot bike lane along Cornwallis Road. Collaboration with with our neighbors admittedly we've we've focused on our neighbors in colony park because they're directly next door. As so we've had a total of six meetings we've had five individual meetings with. Our neighbors the colony park and they've been enjoyable meetings I mean we've had good conversation. They're good people. I'm trying to win them over as I talk here to get some support I don't know what I'm gonna get but. As a result of those meetings we did commit to several things as Amy mentioned they're above and beyond what's required by the code. You got a eighty foot built building set back along the western property line and I want to talk about that for a minute if you. We've been talking a lot about transition. You know what's an appropriate transition well. What's a better transition between. Town homes and single family. Eighty feet where there's nothing. Or a row of single family homes right against the property line I mean to me if you if you want to protect. The existing neighborhood you don't put anything there you don't just put single family along that property line for the sake of having what we might call a smooth transition. So we committed to an eighty foot. Building set back along there we committed to extra buffers the streetscape. The green way easements. And I do I want to touch on I said I was going to touch on later about the Tanglewood Drive. Access so. Tanglewood Drive is down here which is it's a paper street it's a non-existent street. And staff correctly. Requires that to either be. To be connected because that's part of the you do a requirement. I think one thing that we do agree on with Connie Park is it doesn't make sense to. Build a road from Tanglewood Drive into the flood plain. That just doesn't make any sense. So we let staff know we wanted to move the case forward without being an outstanding comment because it is common sense wise. There's no reason to build a road there. So rather than put a road we're committing to put. The green way easement. And in the Tanglewood Drive right away in the future could basically serve as a trailhead. If there are parks or rec chooses to do so. Again appreciate your time I just. I feel that the project that. It makes sense you know density next to 15 501. Makes sense you know we've done everything we can possibly do. To protect our neighbors. And still have a viable project. And I hope that you would see that sound planning should trump. A neighborhood opposition every time. I appreciate your time and. I'll be glad to answer any questions you have. All right thank you. You have. Mr Stewart. Good evening my name is Jim Stewart and I reside at twenty two twenty seven Parkside Drive here in Durham. I'm here today to speak on behalf of. The land owners who are my clients. Who are the descendants of Mr Albert Peel Stewart and his brother Tom Stewart. They planted this land to form the Cornwallis Village subdivision in 1940. Over the years the land has been conveyed to descendants. The current living members however are aging and find themselves no longer able to carry the burden of the land. The land carries with it a lot of history and the family members that are selling the land have carefully chosen. What they see is the next appropriate use of the property. While some propose to develop at least a portion of the properties commercial. Which would bring more money for the sale and indeed the portion of the land is already zoned for commercial use. The majority of the land owners think that the current proposed use fits into the Durham future use future land use designation. Of medium density residential which they feel is befitting befitting. The legacy of their family land. The daughter of AP Stewart Lena Marley moved to Durham and spent her later years. On the land. She attended Duke University and UNC Chapel Hill Graduate School. And later married Willard McCoy Marley. Together they operated the portal restaurant on UNC's campus. And they also operated the famous book exchange in downtown Durham. A store known to all college and law students in the triangle area that sought to purchase books at a reasonable price. Born to Lena and Willard were two children Francis and Bruce. These siblings grew up on this land. Francis recalls some of the experiences she had growing up on the Cornwallis Road property. And that the land which is now Colony Park. Was a pasture on which they played in road horses. She remembers the sale of the Colony Park property on which she used to play and recalls that the major portion. Belong to their neighbors the Tillies. Elaine Stewart Brown the youngest daughter of Tom Stewart and current owner of a portion of the site. Also grew up on the land. She is aging and in poor health. And in her earlier days she operated the candle shop a boutique for candles which was located at the entry ramp to fifteen five or one. The candle shop was historically the only commercial use on this site. The owners are asking that they be afforded the same opportunity to reasonably develop their land. Without objection as they did. They did not object to the development of Colony Park which brought great change to the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Is this Anderson. Okay. Commission members on Bob Anderson with poultry group. I just want to reiterate real quick. The time we spent with the Colony Park neighbors they not only they spend time with us but then they had to go back and spend time with their neighbors. So again after all those meetings it was a lot of time that we spent doing that. Secondly I just want to reiterate two things Jared covered most of them. The townhouse uses typically is a good transitional use low impact transitional use between single family and a major thoroughfare. A lot of times you'll have the commercial which is currently on the existing land use plan. And you'll have shopping center development at that intersection. So we feel this is a lower impact transitional use. It's not single family but it is lower impact than commercial. Secondly with everything that's going on in downtown Durham popular area of it with Duke University. This is going to provide housing. These units are going to average about two hundred forty thousand square two hundred forty thousand dollars. So right now to find something to purchase that close to the downtown area in Duke where all the employees are. It's very hard to find something less than three hundred thousand dollars. So it is going to meet a need for those that want to live and work within a walking bikeable distance to Duke University. So thank you for your time. All right thank you. Weston Weston. So what's your name. Okay I can't hear you. Okay Sigmund. Okay. That's fine. So my name is Christina Sigmund. Twenty nine ten Friendship Road here in Durham. I've lived in Colony Park twenty three years and the last ten years I've been the president of the homeowners association for Colony Park. And I feel that I represent the views of all but a handful of the hundred and twenty homes that we have in Colony Park right now. And I would ask anyone who's from Colony Park maybe you could raise your hands or something to sort of show how many we have here today. Okay. Also in our midst we have concerned citizens from other nearby neighborhoods including Trinity Ridge Welcome Circle Duke Forest Rolling Hill West Glen Garrett Farms Arrowhead Loch Nora Solterra and Colony Hill at least at least those are the ones I know of that have representatives here today. So it's kind of a broad representation of people who use Cornwallis Road and would be affected in some way by this development. We did provide a packet to all the members looks like this you probably have all seen it it's got a colored pictures on the front. So I hope in the interest of time you've had a chance to take a look at our position but if you don't have it today and you'd like it we have some extras here just give us the signal and we have someone up here who has them. We also have a handout if you're interested. I know you can't really see it and we didn't make slides but it's something that sort of shows it looks like this you can kind of see it. Sort of a dark area is what it looks like sort of in context with all the other homes in the area and it's kind of striking when you take a look at the difference between this development and the area around it. Indeed we did meet five times with Polti and their engineer between February and June of this year and it was definitely a cordial and constructive meeting. Pardon. Oh sure. Thanks. I didn't know that was there. It was a cordial and constructive meeting. I'm going to look at that. Okay thank you. I think I guess I can't really speak for both sides but I can speak for mine but I would think that from our discussions we would agree that this is a difficult and costly project property to develop nearly a third of it is in the flood plain which unfortunately compresses the area that can be developed and we feel like both parties compromised as much as we could. I mean I think we really tried but we just could not reach a satisfactory solution. As a result we ask you to reject both the amendment to the future land use map and the rezoning and support a lower impact development for this particular piece of wooded land that's surrounded by Sandy Creek and a flood plan, Duke Forest and our two home per acre single family housing neighborhood. I know you're already probably familiar with it so but as designated in the comprehensive plan section 7.1.2d low impact development refers to an ecologically friendly approach to site development and stormwater management and among other things this can protect drainage ways, vegetation soils, sensitive areas. It builds in customization of the site design to each site and incorporates wetlands, stream corridors and mature forests as site design elements which would be very appropriate in this area. We do realize we've always actually for years known that this property was likely to be sold and developed and we've worried about what was going to come of it. And we do not oppose all development. In fact, we've been, even before this, we're even looking for proper, looking for people who would come and develop it more appropriately but we didn't get there in time. There are places in Durham where this type of development would be just fine. However, we do not feel this particular site is an appropriate fit. So you can take a look on the picture here. Look at the proportion of the increase in density and how it stands out relative to everything around it. And I would say it stands out even relative to the Colony Hill development, which you see sort of in the upper right in terms of the density. And that's a town home development and mixed with a small, single family home development. It really is very, very different. Regarding your decision to amend the comprehensive plan, we believe that all four of the primary evaluation criteria within the UDO would not be met by this development, including we feel it's incompatible with existing and future land uses and that it creates substantial adverse impacts in the adjacent area. So we don't agree that it is in compliance. We also ask that you maintain zoning that requires a smaller number of single family or town homes. We feel that if you could lower the density, you could address many of the concerns consistently expressed by our neighbors about the buffer, density, traffic, stormwater runoff, and loss of tree cover. All of these issues have come up repeatedly on our listserv and also in our neighborhood meetings that we've had about these development. So we feel that a smaller number of homes would allow more natural trees to be preserved, which we believe would help prevent stormwater runoff and flooding, particularly of homes in our neighborhood that are near or even in the flood plain and the colony part playground and pool, which is in the flood plain. And we already have significant flooding problems we have for a long time and we can't risk anymore. And I believe you see some flooding pictures in the packet that we sent out to you. In addition, we think that the natural trees will blend better with the character of the surrounding area and help prevent chemical runoff heading into Jordan Lake and prevent air and noise pollution. In addition, we would like to provide whatever gets developed there. We'd like there to be a gradual transition from the backyards of residents on Tryon Road, who's all those by a whole row of backyards back up to this development. And we'd like to avoid, well, we've negotiated different things. But we'd like to avoid units directly in the backyard. We pushed them back 80 feet. Well, then guess what? The detention ponds are only 20 feet away from the majority of this row of homes on Tryon. Another option that was put forth was, OK, we could push the detention ponds farther back. But to do that, we have to build stormwater retention ways in the floodplain that actually is permitted with the permit, even with this development, if it were approved today. And that would involve cutting down a lot of trees and replacing it with an artificial wetlands. And that didn't sound good either. So we just haven't been able to come up with a proper transition that would actually work. In fact, not one resident along the full length of Tryon Road has been satisfied with the proposed buffers and transition options that have been put forth. And as you know, the UDO and the comprehensive plan call for a gradual transition. And it's not just about the 80 feet to the structures. And to get the 80 feet for the structures, well, we have to have a road. We're not thinking about here anyway. It just isn't as simple as it sounds. In addition, we believe that a smaller number of homes would allow a townhome development similar to nearby Colony Hill off of Pickett Road or Pebble Creek off of Constitution, where they've been able to leave natural trees and actually incorporate them into the design. And in the packet, we included some pictures so you could compare what those two styles look like. We also believe fewer townhomes would allow the stormwater detention ponds to be further back, as I said. We also feel that fewer homes would enable the principles expressed in the comprehensive plan and the UDO to be followed, such as maintaining consistency of character with the neighborhood, preserving the tree canopy, enhancing the quality of water and rivers and streams, minimizing flooding, improving air quality, preserving and maintaining the natural flood plane, and enhancing the aesthetic appearance of Durham as a means of improving quality of life and attracting new businesses and residents. We also have some concerns about traffic and safety, and we feel that fewer homes would produce fewer cars turning right at rush hour from onto Cornwallis Road at the 15501 intersection. And with the current development plans, there would be 1,328 additional trips out of the development onto this two-lane road. In addition, we would have fewer westbound cars on Cornwallis Road, which, as you know, is a two-lane road. And it's also the main corridor for the emergency vehicles from Fire Station 11 that need to come over the hill on Cornwallis and get onto 15501. And they really do. We hear the sirens a lot. So in summary, we want responsible and thoughtful development driven by an understanding of the area and Durham where we live. There's nothing in our area like what's being proposed. We believe it should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. We also want to keep safe the residents of Colony Park, the residents of the development and the travelers on Cornwallis Road. And as a result, we urge you to reject the amendment to the future land use map and the rezoning of this property from RS20 to PDR7.9. Thank you. All right, for the remaining speakers, the first speaker has taken over half of your time. So if she has already covered something that you were going to cover, please modify your presentation not to include the information she's already given us. OK, Weston. Good evening. My name is Raymond Weston. I live at 2518 Trial and Road in Colony Park. I served for 20 years in the United States Air Force. I think that the development and rezoning being proposed by a poultry does not fit in with our neighborhood and that it will have a negative effect on my property value. This is very important to me because I'm retired and have limited income. I'm asking each of you on the commissions here, what would you do if this was your community and the impact it would have upon you and your family living there? I'm asking you to reject this proposal for rezoning and development. Thank you. All right, thank you. Patrick Halpin? Good evening. Patrick Halpin and I'm a professor at Duke University at the Nicholas School of the Environment and I'm on the Duke Forest Advisory Committee. I'm here to summarize some comments and discussions from the Duke Forest Advisory Committee. If you'd seen the map on the screen a minute ago, there was a large open space across the road. This is the land managed by Duke University and Duke Forest. We have six major comments I'd like to summarize very quickly and I'd be happy to provide written version of our comments here. So first off is the traffic issues. The proposed development will require West Cornwallis Road to be expanded to accommodate a westbound turn lane and three and continuous three lane section. This expansion will likely impact Duke Forest property on the north side of West Cornwallis. In addition ramps to 15501 on the north side and are bounded by Duke University lands on both the west and east side of 15501. If increased traffic volumes forces expansion improvement to these ramps Duke Forest land on the west and Duke Forest land also in the east Duke University will be impacted. We're also concerned about the increased safety risk due to increased traffic density for neighboring residents and Duke University employees who travel this corridor. Second point, Duke Forest provides approximately two miles of contiguous forest land north of the project along the western edge of 15501 south. At present the forest cover continues south along the proposed project area eventually joining up with 100 acre Sandy Creek Park. Contiguous forest covers an important habitat feature for many animal species including spring and fall avian migrants. Every attempt should be made to maintain a contiguous forest buffer along the eastern and southern edge of the project property. The third point, the rezoning request states that it will meet the goals of planning policy 2.3.1a on contiguous development to maintain a transition of densities between parcels, designated medium density to low density residential. This statement is inconsistent with the reference to the northern edge of the property. It appears that it's only looking at the east to west transitions and not looking to the north to south transitions. The adjacent Duke Forest property along the northern edge of the rezoning request has a future land use designation of recreation open space. The zoning request will place medium density 6 to 12 units per acre directly adjacent to recreation open space and so does not satisfy the planning policy 2.3.1a as stated in the request. Point number four, the full scope of the development footprint including impervious surface and stormwater configurations is unknown and may impact water quality in Sandy Creek. Increase in impervious surface is likely to have a negative impact on the water quality of Sandy Creek. Immediately upstream of this site, Duke University has invested approximately $5 million in the restoration of Sandy Creek, including the construction of artificial wetlands, restoration meanders, and natural vegetation, along at least a half mile of the creek. In 2015, Duke University also invested an additional $11.5 million in a sustainable water retention pond upstream of this site. We are specifically concerned that downstream additions of impervious surface and adverse runoff will negate the significant and continuing investment Duke University has committed to protecting Sandy Creek watershed. I also have included a letter from Kurt Richardson, the director of the Duke Wetlands Center, specifically outlining these issues. Point number five, we are encouraged that the revised plan now includes a pedestrian easement to accommodate the proposed trail. Lands managed by Duke Forest are an active component of this regional trail and greenway system, providing the linkage to existing trails on campus, including the Alveuler Trail and Duke Forest Trail systems. And Duke University is a special stakeholder in this planning process. While we are pleased about the plans to complete the proposed trail system, we are concerned that the proposed pedestrian easement to connect these trails will be implemented adjacent to an unacceptably high density of residential development. Point number six, the final point, planning policy 2.3.3A states that the planning department should maintain zoning that only permits low-intensity land uses in critical watershed areas and states that this requirement is being met by the rezoning to medium-density residential. We feel that the density of the proposed development of 7.6 units per acre or 230 units in this adjacent slope area is incongruent with development in a sensitive watershed area. It is inconsistent with existing housing densities and open space we maintain in this corridor. Thank you. Thank you. Again, let me re-inerate if something's already been covered that was in your speech. We already know that. So, Larsen, Rick Larsen? I'm planning commission. I'm Rick Larsen. I live at 2439 Triune Road in Colony Park with my wife and son. We've lived in Colony Park since 2006 and I've lived in Durham since 1988. As a family, we love Durham because it's a place that's determined to be better and not just more of the same. So there are so many opportunities to make it an even greater place to live and work. And sometimes those opportunities, you all are familiar with them, take the form of restoring or repurposing existing assets, the American Tobacco Trail, Golden Belt Central Park, Durham School of the Arts, the renovation of homes in Waltown and the West End. And sometimes they take the form of conserving natural assets that all of us can benefit from, like West Point on the Eno and Duke Forest. So this property also represents an opportunity. So I'd ask you to ask yourself, does this proposed development that's this dense make the best use of this opportunity? Honestly, it doesn't. A development this dense is simply not compatible with this space. Think about it, the city is spending tens of millions of dollars to clean up Jordan Lake. So does it make sense to add more than 28 acres of concrete and asphalt directly, directly uphill from a Jordan Lake tributary? I don't think so. This development would add to flooding, it would add to traffic congestion, it would create unsafe conditions for our neighbors who are committing to work via car and via bikes. It's just not a good fit with this piece of property. So we think Durham can do better with your help. Let's keep the door open for development that will capitalize on this unique opportunity. Yes, it's minutes from Duke and from downtown, but we can come up with development and should come up with development that's also compatible with its surroundings and that does its level best to reduce its impact on the water and the air that we all depend on. We've got good models of development. One of them is right across Sandy Creek from this proposed development. We've got good models that could make this corner of Durham better. So let's use them. Let's not squander this opportunity. Our family urges you to reject this rezoning request and the amendment to the land use map. Thank you. OK, before I think it's Lenore B, before she speaks, we have 1.5 minutes. We have three more speakers. Do we want to extend the time for both sides before she starts her? Robert Chambers, Rebecca Ford, do you want to extend it by five minutes? Mr. Chairman, it's your suggestion. I'm pleased to offer a motion to extend the time for both sides by five minutes. Second. All those in favor, let it be known by showing the right hand. All those in opposition? Motion carries 11 to 0. OK, so we have six. OK, Lenore. Is it Lenore? I'm Lenore B. Hor. I live at 1821 Woodburn Road in Duke Forest. I've lived there since 1970, which is 45 years, and I've lived in Durham since 1958. I want to talk to you about the traffic problems in Duke Forest, which is adjacent on the other side of the proposed development. Now, the way traffic flows, if people are coming, I thank the gentleman who pointed out that there will be people working at Duke in this proposed development, because what we see now, people coming from I-40 and Chapel Hill along 15501 have a few ways to get to Duke. One is to exit at 751 Cameron Boulevard, and if you look at that between the hours of 730 and 930 in the morning, you see it's pretty jammed up. The other way, or one other way, is to exit at Cornwallis Road. Turn right on Cornwallis, and then what most people do is turn left on Woodburn. Why do they turn left on Woodburn? Because if they continue up Cornwallis Road to 751, there's a traffic light. So by turning left on Woodburn and speeding through the neighborhood, they've avoided one traffic light. Now, my observation is that between the hours when people are going to work and the hours when they're coming home, there is a lot of traffic. The speed limit is 25 miles an hour. It's never patrolled, and people rarely drive at that speed. There are no speed bumps, and there are no sidewalks. So what is going on at that hour of the morning? We have people who live in the neighborhood who are trying to exit their driveways to go to work. We have children who are convening to get on the school buses, and they're walking across the road, and there are no sidewalks, and they're standing waiting for the school bus. And there are other people who are walking, exercising, running, walking their dogs, and whatever. Right now, it is a dangerous situation. If you increase the traffic by however many people live in these 230 units that are going to Duke, I think you're asking for a substantial problem and a substantial expense to the city and county because modifications are going to have to be made. Those areas cannot sustain that amount of traffic. So I ask you to reject the proposed amendment. Thank you. Robert Chambers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time to speak to you and the board members. I live at 2,400 Tryon Road, and at the intersection of Tryon and Tanglewood. I'm a lifelong resident of Durham. I've been in the neighborhood for since 1983. Our community is not opposed to development, but this is not the right development for this area. It's particularly important to me because in this package you've got pictures of flooding. That's in my backyard. And this has been enhanced since the development on Ridge Road has occurred. And it's now at a point where if there's this much density put into an area adjacent to the floodplain, it will be a major problem for the neighborhood, the park, and particularly for my house. And the points that have been made, I would just reiterate, there's nothing else like this in the community. The issues that I've heard talked about is that somehow you gotta have this much development to make this work. My point is that there's the right developer that will come in and recognize these issues, and the parties, including the sellers themselves, will say, let's come together for what's better in Durham. I don't think this is an issue for y'all to try to solve because it's not right for Durham. It's not right for our community. And so from my point, I would appreciate y'all taking to heart what we're asking and to reject this plan. So thank you very much. Thank you. Rebecca Boyd. Good evening, my name is Rebecca Boyd. I live at Three Hopewell Drive. That is about a mile from this property. And I've been watching this with interest for many months now. When I first heard about this, I was like, okay, townhouses between 15501 and single family homes makes a good sense, sounds like a good transition. And I could easily picture in my mind something in the six to eight units per acre. But as always, the devil is in the dead details, isn't it? And as I've continued to watch this and really thought a lot about the pros and cons, I've got a couple of things I think you should consider. Regarding the land use amendment. I love losing the commercial block there. It's a horrible block for commercial. It's practically invisible at the bottom of the hill if anybody wanted to build commercial there, they'd have done it already. I like the idea of combining the R20 block to the west with the rest of it because having a bigger tract does allow the possibility of better borders around there. If that were to be developed as R20, you're talking things that would be maybe a 25 foot rear yard if the orientation of the house was different. I think it's like 15 feet on the side. Accessory structure, that's either five or 10. So that would actually involve building much closer to the yards than the 80 foot setback that the builder proposes. But again, back to the amendment. The medium density that has been recommended in this amendment is six to 12 units per acre. The most I can imagine on that site is eight in which case the amendment should be changed to be low-medium, which would cap it at an absolute max of eight. If the developer's proposal were accepted, that would still allow him to build, but it would not allow 12 units per acre, which would be even worse than you're seeing now. Regarding the development, they're proposing a 20 foot buffer behind some of these homes. However, they're planning to tear down the mature woods and plant trees in that 20 feet. And that's just criminal, having gone out there to see there. They should be like a 30 foot undisturbed buffer and they can plant some evergreens in front of that. They should not be grading up to the property line in that area, they need to leave the woods there on the edge. And finally, regarding it being under eight units per acre, technically, according to the rules, that is what it is. However, in order to get that, you have to include at least five acres that are in the flood zone. I only done a back of the envelope calculation, but best I could tell within the building envelope, it is over nine units per acre. If that's what it's going to look like, that's what it's going to feel like. Legally, no, it's below eight, but it's going to, because all of the unbuildable land is in the back, that nine plus units per acre is all gonna be clustered right up there on the road and next to these people's homes. So I think he does need to cut back on the number of units to make this workable. And finally, given their concerns about water, I think the developer should be putting up a bond so that if water remediation is necessary after construction, the money would already be in place to pay for it. Thank you. Okay, before closing the public hearing, the opponents, no, the proponents, you have 11 additional minutes, if you would like to speak more within the public or you can just save it to answer questions during the commissioners. So it's up to you. Thank you, Jared Eaton again. I'll be brief and we'll just, we'll get the Q and A as soon as you're ready, but I just want to touch on a couple of comments. A comment was made earlier that we're in the critical watershed, that's not correct. We're in the Falls Jordan B, we're not in the critical watershed in this location. And Rebecca had mentioned about stormwater bonds for ponding. That's a requirement in Durham. Yeah, when we build stormwater ponds, we have to post a bond, write a big check that goes into a big pot of money the Durham can use to retrofit and fix ponds if they need to. So that's a requirement of the UDO. Anyways, we'll be glad to answer any questions later. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone, any one in the audience like to speak to this before we close the public hearing? All right, seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. Do I have commissioners wishing to speak to this item? Commissioners Tom Buxby, Okay, commissioner Miller, I got with you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask a question of staff about this deficiency in the UDO that you noted. Is the fix proposed by the developer about making it a right of way for a trail or something? Is that, will that in fact fix the UDO problem? Good afternoon again, Pat Young with the Planning Department. Commissioner Miller, it would not the policy in the UDO, excuse me, the regulation in the UDO and the policy in the COMP plan identify vehicular connections as the intent. There are mechanisms administratively at the site plan stage for the connection to not be provided if there are environmental constraints which may well be the case here, but we still require the connection to be made on the development plan pursuant to the reference of this provision. Until that's fixed, it really can't go forward. Until they show that they're gonna build a road they don't wanna build and nobody wants, it really can't go forward. They can certainly go forward but we can't identify compliance with the UDO. All right, a follow-up question if I may, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, you have two minutes and 38 seconds. Thank you. If I can while you're still standing there, Patrick, if the community or if someone were petitioned to close the right of way associated with this stub would that solve the problem? Yes. All right, thank you. And can you tell me really quickly what can be built in the floodway fringe? So much of this property is in the floodway fringe, almost all of the property that's designated commercial is in the floodway fringe. But how can, how do you build in the floodway fringe? So, Commissioner Merrill, I'll answer that in two ways. The applicant in this case has proper to have no intrusion into the floodway fringe. I realize that, apart from that, just as a general conclusion. Sure, there are very few improvements that can be constructed in the floodway fringe. The only thing that can be done administratively is fill. So usually that's done to support parking lots or other accessory structures. And that has to be done through a detailed study called a no-rise certification where there's a flood study done to show that there'd be no impact on the flood, the level of future flooding. Actual improvements, anything other than one or two family would have to get a major special use permit. One or two family can be built in the floodway fringe if it's structurally elevated above the base flood elevation or elevated by design. So if we wanted to build like a convenience store down in that commercial portion, there would be administrative and quasi-judicial hurdles to overcome. There would. Thank you. Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman. I have other remarks later. Commissioner Bugsby, you didn't, Bugsby. Great, thank you, Mr. Chair. Two questions for Mr. Eatman or Mr. Anderson, if appropriate. One was just a general response to the concerns about the flooding in the neighborhood and just like to get a flavor of the discussion with the neighbors, any response that you might have to those concerns that were raised. And then I don't know if you had a chance to see the letter that we were just handed from Duke University, but was interested in any response to that as well. Yeah, thank you. Yes, I'll tackle this and Bob, if you've got anything to add. As far as flooding, I mean, we have, I know it's a concern of the neighborhood. I know they've had issues. My only response to that is, we have to install stormwater ponds. Our stormwater, it's not like it's gonna leave our stormwater pond and divert directly towards one of the existing homes adjacent to the property. We will be diverting our water towards Sandy Creek. And I made the comment earlier about how we're at the very bottom of a multiple thousand acre basin. So again, as far as peak flows go, I just don't see how this could increase the floodplain because of how the peak flows work. The other, and we got a copy of the letter a few minutes before. I mean, I understand some of the points being made, but when I read that, you could write this letter about every development Durham. I mean, you could impervious ads pollutants, impervious ads nitrogen and phosphorus. We need to retain woods. We need to preserve our streams. You could write this about every project in Durham. The good thing about Durham is there are a lot of environmental components to the UDO that require us to address the issues that were raised by the professor from Duke. So I don't have a problem with what's said here as far as goals of proper development. But I've rezoned countless properties and developed countless properties in a Jordan basin. And this one's no different from that. And we have to incorporate stormwater controls and treat the stormwater as a code requires us to, which achieves a lot of the goals set out in this letter. Thank you. Commissioner Huff, attorney Micah. For the developers. Is this a 230 house development or is it a 200 house development? What we did with this is we went through the site. We showed the neighbors the site plan as we were developing it, because it's the only way you can really talk about what the issues are. And the maximum we can get based on removing the amenity and including the buffers was about 203 units. 203. Three. Yep. 203. Okay. So that development, the limit on that development plan could come down to 203. It's, like I said, if you look at the site plan that the neighbors have and you guys have seen in our discussions, that's, we'll be lucky if we get that once Jared, if that's ever gets approved and if Jared starts engineering, we'll be lucky to get 203 because typically you end up with less than that. Well, I wanted to ask also about that site plan that they showed us. That shows development in the floodway fringe. I gave you two site plans. One was the original. No, they're not you. Oh, I'm sorry. That the neighborhood showed us. There was a site plan that Christine put up on the. Yeah, does that have a pool on it? Yeah, that was the original site plan. So when I, when we, when we discussed, we had the original layout, which had about 213 units and a pool of amenity. And then when we discussed moving the units adjacent to Colony Park, including the buffer, the units went down to 203 and we got rid of the pool of amenity. So, and also all the units came into the floodplain. I mean, I'm into that. Came out of the floodplain. Came out of the floodplain, exactly. Okay, so that, that isn't a current. I didn't think it was. I have a question also for staff. Patrick, you were just talking about what can go into the flood fringe and what can't. And, and you, you all have made an estimate about trips. You know, here that this, the impact of the proposed rezoning would reduce the trips by 1600 trips. But the likelihood of any kind of fast food place going into that floodplain seems to me to be very, very slim. And, and it seems to me to be a little bit deceptive to say that this, that this rezoning is gonna help traffic. That's what that suggests. I don't think it's gonna help traffic at all. I think it's gonna make traffic extremely valuable. And, as far as I know, there aren't any plans to improve those ramps on and off of 501, are there? So, Commissioner Huff, I'll address the question about the ramps to Bill Judge, my colleague with transportation. I think as Commissioner Miller alluded to, there are substantial hurdles to getting commercial development approved in the floodplain. Particularly a used permit, as Commissioner Miller referenced. However, in my tenure here, seven years in August, there's been at least one substantial development of fast food restaurant in the floodplain, which is redevelopment of the McDonald's at the corner of Holloway and US 70. So, it's certainly, we have a professional obligation to identify, as this commission has alluded to many times, the most intense use permissible within the zone. So, that's what we did in our SAP report. We certainly weren't trying to imply likelihood of probabilities of anything. We just wanted to make sure that it was clear that that's what's permissible with additional approvals in the current zoning. And, if you wanna have Bill reflect your question about the ramp on Cornwallis. Bill Judge, with transportation, there are no scheduled or funded projects at the US 15 501 Cornwallis Road Interchange. Okay, because I just wanna mention that I drove my son to Durham Academy and I had to get off on Cornwallis Road and the traffic backs up on 501 and it's extremely dangerous. And, if you're gonna add 400 more trips that are gonna use that interchange, I think it's gonna become deadly, frankly. That's my point. Commissioner Hammond. Good afternoon. I was struck by the comments made by Mr. Stewart representing the families who wanted to sell the property and so, and you kinda want to understand that position as well. But I also heard something and what I want to do is a reality check to see if I'm hearing some leeway. So I'd like to ask the president of the Homeowners Association to address this question. Are we at an impasse or when I heard some applause about wider buffers or natural trees or leaving some of the natural trees in place, is there some room for additional conversation or negotiations or is this project for the most part based on your working with all of the individuals dead? I wouldn't say that there's no room for further negotiation. I think that, in fact, we were the last ones to reach out to the developer and say, hey, we still wanna talk and we did that on June 22nd or we met on June 22nd. But I think, honestly, we are at an impasse because I think my impression from talking to them is that to make their financial numbers viable for what PULTI is requiring, they can't make any further changes. They can't lower the density. They can't back any farther off the line. It just feels like we couldn't get any further. But we'd be open to talking to them or any other developer that could address some of the issues that we have a little bit further. Thank you. Sure. One last question of Mr. Stewart. Does this mean that the project will not, if we're unable to move the project forward, does this mean that the project itself, that the family will not be able to sell the property to someone else or is that just to this particular group? Do they have an option? It would be up to PULTI to proceed with this development and they're not able to do so and they pull out and they've spent a considerable amount of money in engineering this land and trying to meet certainly the UDO requirements and they've tried very hard to meet the requirements of the neighborhood. I think it's not economically feasible to try to do all the things that the neighborhood may want to do. But I applaud their effort and what they've tried to accomplish so far. Thank you. Commissioner, we're just an advisory board. We can make a recommendation to the city council but they found a decision that the city council. Commissioner Whitney. I would like Duke professor to come for. You've said that Duke has invested money in Santa Creek and you are concerned about runoff That's correct. And you've heard the testimony from staff. They don't foresee any flood problems. We were concerned with impervious surface, high density impervious surface flooding down into Sandy Creek directly downstream from many of the improvements we're doing just across on the campus. Have you seen any, have you seen any problems since they've started to do the landscape? Structure the landscape? They have not. So there's been, to my knowledge, there hasn't been any. I thought he said he was, they were doing some development. No, no, not at this point. Not to my knowledge. What kind of flood problems are you talking about? Increased or? So the concerns, mentioned several concerns and one concern was increased impervious surface which causes more flashy runoff. So there is potential flooding problems. The neighborhood association has identified those and showed evidence in neighboring areas. It's also additions of pollution from runoff from parking lots and impervious structures that flow into the creek. So there's several different types of. Is it true that your petition was put in before you met with the developers? That is true. And the reason for that was because we were aware of the legislation that's been happening at the state level and we wanted to get it in place just in case the protest petition process was removed and we wanted to sort of go in early. Otherwise I think we would have waited, but that was why. Okay. Are you familiar with the bills that are in the house and Senate? Yeah. That's all. Once you met with them, did I on question, if you made a decision to oppose it before you met with them? Yes. Did you have some second thoughts after you met with? Well, I actually, we went back to, I mean, really the only people that can sign the protest petition is just a fraction of our neighborhood. It's the people whose lands directly adjoined the property and we did go back to them and talk with them again after we had more information. And actually none of them were willing to remove that protest petition. Not one person wanted to take their signature off of it. And that's still true now. So yeah, they've seen the changes afterwards and they didn't have any regrets. So your decision stayed the same. Thank you. I want to address the planning commission. You know, city of Durham is projected to grow to 500,000 half a million people. We're at 247 now over the next nine years. And housing has to take place somewhere. No. So I've been going in between this project, taking a look at it. I do not think that this is the right development for this land use. But we do need to create more housing. It's just that I'm concerned about flood plains and runoff. We already have a problem in that neighborhood and this might increase the problem. Thank you. I will vote again. Mission to Huff. I would like to ask the Duke professor a question. Have you, I'll let you get up here. Yes. Has Duke noticed or would you notice any difference since the Ridge Road development was put in? And I ask this because I became aware when I rode around the neighborhood that the Ridge Road development, which as Jared very rightly pointed out, it was clearly cleared of trees, although they appear to have left some mature trees around the edge of it. But even with that, there is a large area of impervious surface and apparently they've had to re-engineer their culverts because of the flooding. And the people who live in Colony Park have experienced more flooding since Ridge Road was in. So I just wondered what, if anything, Duke had done. We have not looked at that specifically. I don't know if I could lean on Sarah from Duke Forest to comment on land issues there. Please, if you plan to address the commission, please come to the podium as this is being televised and the people in the home cannot hear nor see you if you're sitting in the audience. Thank you. Please state your name and address, please. Sarah Child, 1707 Rosdale Avenue in Durham, North Carolina. And can you repeat the beginning of your question again now that I'm here? Well, what I'm wondering is, since the Ridge Road development was put in, has there been any effect on Sandy Creek adverse effect because apparently there was enough runoff, unplanned runoff from the Ridge Road development that they had to re-engineer their culverts. So I'm just curious to know if Duke or if anyone monitoring these areas has noticed a degradation. So to be honest, that was well before my time and I can't answer that question. Sir, can I be recognized? Yes. I'd like to respond to Linda Huff's question. My name is Francis Andrew Stephens. I live at 2812 Tanglewood Drive, Durham, North Carolina. Been in that house for 32 years. 1996, Fran gave rain nine inches. I have five inches of rainwater in my basement. I put in a 220-foot French drain myself, engineered it, put it in 1000 wheelbarrow folds of gravel myself. That's when I lifted weights and I was really strong and with it. I've since had to put in four other drains since the development at the Ridge Road, stuff at what Pathmark Drive and everything. And that was a smaller development because the results of the Colony Park response to that, they put in less houses in there and they also did not make an exit road to Friendship Road, okay? Now, this is the first I've heard. I don't live in Colony Park. I don't live in West Plain. We're living the oldest subdivision in that area, Tanglewood Drive, right up from Durham Academy. This is the first that I've heard that anything is gonna be done with the end of Tanglewood Drive that is just a little creek and it's not a road. On some maps of Durham it is a road, but it's not a road, okay? I'm gonna ask these two gentlemen from Pulte and I'm gonna ask you from Colony Park to please- Please address our questions to the chair. Okay, well, I'm concerned about the runoff and you can tell what I'm concerned about. I mean, I've had to spend thousands of dollars in drainage ditches around the perimeter of my property because of the development exactly uphill from me, north from me. And I don't wanna have to do it again with something else on the other end. I've seen it happen. So what was your question specifically? I was answering Linda Huff's question, sir. No, no, you said you have a question for them. I have questions about what's gonna be done to Tanglewood Drive. Right now, Tanglewood Drive does not end. There's two Tanglewood Drives. The maps in the city show it's continuous. It's not, at the end of it, there is a stream and it's not even hardly affordable by walking past, okay? I'll hand my card to these gentlemen at the end of this thing and I'd like to know exactly what's gonna be done. I'm afraid of traffic in Tanglewood Drive. If this is gonna be a footbridge, why do it? If it's gonna be a road, that's gonna affect me directly. I'm at the first house on Tanglewood Drive and there's gonna be a lot of traffic. I don't want to have to pursue with my neighbors speed bumps. But I'm willing to try that if I have to. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, Gosh. Gosh, Gosh, I'm sorry. I've got two questions for staff. I don't remember who said it. Someone suggested that the proposed development would require some improvements or road widening at Cornwallis. And my question was if this is not, if the amendment is not approved and the rezoning is not approved and the site was developed as it is now, would there still be requirements for road widening on Cornwallis and improvements there? Still judge with transportation, the development plan includes a proper to provide left turn lanes on Cornwallis Road at the two site entrances as well as additional widening for bicycle lanes. So those improvements would be part of this development plan if it's approved. If the site were developed under the existing zoning, turn lane improvements would still likely be required at any site driveways to Cornwallis Road, very similar. Okay. And my second question, the applicant stated that no matter the use clear cutting would be, is the only option. And I'm trying to get a sense of what planning staff's thoughts are on that statement. Commissioner Gochepat Young with the Planning Department. So I won't speak to the feasibility of developing the site without masquerading, but I can say that the unified development ordinance does allow masquerading of sites when associated with development with significant treatment for stormwater has been alluded to quality and quantity and sedimentation and erosion control measures to ensure that there's not runoff into a during development phase, but masquerading is allowed under the ordinance as long as it's associated with development. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Okay. To Jared, do you know right now what you plan to do with the Tanglewood stuff? I mean, we don't want to do anything with it. I mean, we don't want to extend it. That's the issue that staff has and staff's correctly following UDO. I believe it's one issue that we agree on. I'm looking for a nodding head, maybe. We don't want to extend Tanglewood. Why would we extend Tanglewood Drive into the floodway? It's not just the floodway fringe, it's the floodway, it's ridiculous. So we have no intention to extend Tanglewood Drive. The word's the gentleman that spoke. So, okay. So, okay. Okay. Okay, any other? Okay. I got one there who have. I'm here. I'm here. Yes, sir. I have a couple of questions for the developers and the president of the association as well. First of all, I'm curious, I have not heard whether there's any commitment to affordable housing. I think the prices I heard was around 230 per unit for that development. S.A. And then B, this is, I'm really struggling here. I hear a landowner who wants to sell her land for the highest and best use, which I think certainly I commend them for that as well. Community that says they're pro-development, they want a certain kind of development and they're not opposed to development. They want to make sure that it's done in a certain way. And the developer who's committed to doing what they can do and stands behind it as well. I'm curious as to what kind of concessions were, and I think there were six meetings all together, five with association and one more. What kind of discussions did you have and what kind of concessions were made? You know, and it seemed like we should be able to get to a win-win with so much at stake. And I don't know how far apart we are, but what concessions were made, and is there any way we can get to a win-win? Those are my two questions. To answer your first question, there's been no plans for affordable housing units within this development. To ask you your second question, in terms of concessions that were made, you know, like we started off with about 213 units in a pool amenity and units were backing up to Colony Park and we probably had like a 20 foot buffer or so backing up to that. And it came apparent through those meetings that they didn't want the units backing up to the backyards and them looking into them, them looking into the other ones. So that's why we got rid of those units. We got rid of the pool amenity to try at least keep the units around 200, 213 because otherwise it would dip down to 185 and that made the project unattainable. So we included a 50 foot buffer and then we included an 80 foot building setback and the building setback did two things. It keeps obviously the units eight feet away from the property line, but in terms of planning the site, it also keeps the entry drive at the high point of Cornwallis Road for safety reasons. So that drive was to push farther towards 15501. It gets on the other side of the ridge which becomes dangerous. So those and also staying out of the floodplain that was something that we realized was very important. So I mean, you know, just to keep in mind, I mean, this site is giving up, you know, protecting already 12 acres sort of protecting itself, 12 acres of floodplain that's not touched with anything. That's a lot of area on a 40 acre project. So I just don't feel like we're getting much credit for that. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and my fellow commission members, I'm gonna vote against this plan amendment and the rezoning. And I'd like a moment or two to explain why and then urge you to vote with me. I don't like the way this property is designated in the future land use map. I believe that those designations were put there without any clear understanding of its special environmental sensitivity. If we had thought about that, we would have drawn the lines differently that divide low density, medium density and commercial. I think we would have the way they're drawn and especially the way we're being asked to amend the plan puts different policies of our comprehensive plan and our unified development ordinance at odds with each other. Normally clustering is a good thing. It is a good thing to move and encourage people to move development away from the places we want to protect. But there's upward limits of that. It's a good thing for an ocean liner to have lifeboats. It is a bad thing to put all the passengers in one lifeboat. And I think that's kind of what's happening here. So while it's good to have medium density residential and have an in this area, if we could use all the property but we can't use all the property as a practical matter. And so if we concentrate all the units that the medium density residential designation these developers are asking for onto the buildable portion of the land, that actually works to fly in the face of other policies expressed in the comprehensive plan and the code. Especially what it does is it dramatically disrupts the established pattern of development in the area. It creates a non suburban atmosphere in a very suburban area. It prevents there from being a reasonable step down or transition of uses. These issues are very, very important to me. I would like to read if I can from the UDO. This is section 4.4.1 and it's the intense statement for plan density residential or PDR. I believe PDR is the right zone for this piece of property. I believe this PDR proposal is not the right zone for this piece of property. PDR district is established to allow for design flexibility and residential development. The district is intended to encourage efficient use of the land and public services and to promote high quality design that will provide a variety of dwelling types as well as adequate support services and open space for residents of the development. The district regulations are intended to allow innovative development that is integrated with proposed adjacent uses and compatible with existing patterns of development. But here because we are promoting the clustering which we should do which is our plans and codes require because we're promoting that though, we're defeating these other policy statements and I'm a little disappointed that in its discussion of this development the staff didn't recognize this as a problem. The staff by favoring this rezoning and this plan amendment says that this is a good PDR but where is the variety in housing? In several places in the comprehensive plan it talks about the need for variety of housing in new developments to relieve monotony but when I look at the proposed development arrangements of units on this property, the buildable part of the property is so constricted that there is no room for variety of housing types. There is no relief of monotony. Certainly there is no compatibility with surrounding uses. This property can support higher density residential. That's a good thing but this plan doesn't do it. 7.9 acres, I mean 7.9 units per acre given the special circumstances of this property and so much of it being really unbuildable as a practical matter is too high. I wish we could undo this. I'm gonna vote against this rezoning, I'm gonna vote against this plan amendment and I hope that this body at some point can send a recommendation to the Durham City Council to revisit how we've done the future land use map for this property so that when future development proposals come and a better one I hope will come that it will be guided by better policies than we currently have in our comprehensive plan. That's the appropriate time Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. And now I see it, okay. The motion of action. Thank you, I'm gonna speak to my vote as well. I've been listening very carefully to everyone involved, met with both sides and I appreciate that everyone involved reached out to offer their input. I've heard more on this issue than every other issue combined in the year I've sat on the Planning Commission. I plan to vote against the proposal as well. And here's the reason why. I think it's worth saying that I appreciate what the developer has done, the multiple meetings with the neighborhood folks, multiple offer text commitments with the greenways and the bike lane, the buffers. It's been fascinating to see and it's played out tonight as well. This has been one of the most civil processes I've seen with developers and with neighborhood association folks. I think you're all to be commended for that. Every communication I've received from folks opposed to this proposal have been very clear in saying we are not opposed to development. And I think that's important to note. I just don't believe this fits with the character of this particular neighborhood. I don't believe this is a good transitional development. I think it is too dense for this area. They're valid flooding and runoff concerns and traffic issues as well. I do hope that we can figure out what is the right path forward for this area because Durham, many of you have said this tonight and I agree, we wanna do this right. And so I hope you all do stay active and engaged in this process. Thank you. Okay, the chair will now entertain a motion. Commissioner Miller. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan reposed in case A1400011, I move approval of the plan amendment. Second. Who was seconded? Whitley. Seconded by Whitley. All in favor of the motion to approve A1400011, please raise their right hand. All those in opposition to the motion, please raise their right hand. Motion fails one to 10. Okay, zoning case. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to move approval of case Z1400040. Second. Motion by Miller, second by Whitley. All those in favor of the motion, A1400040, please raise their right hand. All those in opposition, all those in opposition. I'm sorry. It was motion by Miller, Commissioner Miller. Seconded by Whitley. By Whitley. And I vote no. All those in favor, all those in opposition. One to 10. Fail. Fails one to 10. All right, thank you so much. We're gonna be here another couple of hours, you guys can join us. Pat, can we just take a five minute recess? Yep, Mr. Chair, if I might, for the benefit of the crowd. The, this item is scheduled at this time to proceed to city council for hearing on Tuesday, September 8th, that normally the meetings are on Monday, but that's the Labor Day. Okay, so Tuesday, September 8th is when it go before the city council. And we're gonna take a five minute recess. Commissioners, can we reconvene? Commissioners, can we reconvene? Conversations in the back, if you would take them out into the foyer, we would appreciate it. Thank you so much. Commissioners, can we reconvene? The people in the back, if you could, if you could take a conversation outside, we would appreciate it. The people in the back, would you please take your conversations outside? Okay, the next thing we have on the agenda is the election of the vice president. Let me just read a couple of things with our, our procedures. 2.7B, a vacancy in the office position of vice president, shall be filled by election of a vice president from the commission for the balance of the unexpired term. And 2.6 said the chair and vice chair shall be elected annually at the commissioners regular meeting in September. So the election of this person will be for now to the end of September to our September meeting, so for two meetings. And we have the, I'm a city appointee, so the vice president will have to be a county appointee. We have four position, four people that's eligible to take that commission of gifts, commission of Hollinworth, commission of Huff, and commission of Hyman's. This has to be done by representative of the city council, so Pat. Mr. Chair, if I might, commissioners Goshen, Kenchen are also county appointees. Okay. So as the chair indicated, part of our responsibility is to conduct the proceedings during election for, election for chair and vice chair, so I'll take any nominations for vice chair from the floor, and nominations do not require a second. I would like to nominate commissioner Huff. Very good, thank you. Any other nominations for vice chair? Okay, with that I'll close the nominations and ask no second for these. So all in favor of commissioner Huff, please raise your right hand. Thank you very much. We've received something in the mail today about RTP. Yes, that meeting, you can speak to that because you said that earlier. So as the email said, and you all may not have all received it, this was this afternoon that I sent it. The staff from the Research Triangle Foundation had asked us to essentially convene or facilitate a meeting that they requested to brief you all, obviously this voluntary, but they asked that they have an opportunity to brief you all at their facilities out in Park Center. The address is in the email I sent to you all and that would be at 10 a.m. on the 28th, which is two weeks from today. Are open meeting laws implicated in this meeting? They are, so I'm glad you mentioned that. So we will be advertising that meeting with the understanding there would not be any business conducted but that it is open to the public because there will be potentially at least a quorum of commissioners, so that's a very good point. We will make sure that's advertised. And Grace will talk about the upcoming items for the August commission meeting. Good evening, commissioners. When I ran to make copies for Mr. Harris earlier and I left my papers over here, half of my items disappeared, I think, someone wanted some copies for themselves for tonight, so I'm gonna go off of memory. But you, young, you have a nice memory, so you can. I do, I do. I'm gonna give you an idea of what you can expect next month. And I'm very sorry about that, but they took my pen as well. I had to borrow a pen, so. Can't give her stuff back. Yes, and I don't know why they want this, but anyway, they got my agenda calendar, which is not very interesting, they'll find out later. At any rate, you should have three zoning map change requests coming before you, and I can tell you two off the top of my head were one with Southwest Durham Drive, which involves the future university board property, and then there is a Davis Park West case that's 100, Davis Park West, there's an amendment to their design commitments only, that's the only change to that plan. And there's another one, yes, there's another one, and I'm having, I can't remember that one because they walked off my list, and I'm so sorry, but I believe it's, it might be Garrett, it might be the Garrett Ridge phase three, but I'll double take that. RTP things supposed to be on August 11th too. Right, and well, I'm getting to those, and then there's several items from the Long Range Planning Group that are gonna be on your agenda as well, so either three or four items involving text amendments. But I will be glad to, I'm going to my office after this and I'll email you those cases. Mr. Chairman, can I ask some questions? Yes. So I've had citizens contacting me about two zoning matters. One is, the way it's been described to me is for a proposed self-storage thing on 751, a little bit south of the intersection with Renaissance. Have you received anything on that? There's several self-storage cases in, it is, yeah it is, it's actually very new though, it's not one of the ones that's moving forward, and you have 70 that's self-storage and some others that are moving forward, but there is a case and a new case. And that's been assigned a number, that's a real case now. It should be in our system, yes. All right, and then the other one that I've received a number of emails about and even sent them back to you guys just yesterday is the proposed zoning up on Rocksboro Road at Old Farm. Yes. Is that a case number two? That's Rocksboro Road retail and I can send you the case number, but yes it's in the system and under review, but it's not ready to come here yet. They were asking about what the effect of the protest petition legislation would have on their ability to file a protest petition and I gave them a lot of an answer if it was heavily laden with ifs and then I sent them to you guys to make sure that you were seeing it the same way and then I told them that, go with what you said. Right, we've had a lot of communication with some interested parties about that case already, so yes, but I will send you a summary after this with case numbers and everything, and I apologize. I would love to have case numbers also. Yes, I will include that one. But when do you see, I'm not so much interested in self-storage, when that Rocksboro Road case looks like it might be a big deal, when would that come? That's hard to say because it's still under review and I believe it's out for comments now. I can double check and let you know, but I don't see it coming before September. All right, thank you. You're welcome. Anything else, Pat? Just one more item, Mr. Chair. To Commissioner Whitley's earlier concern, we'll be happy to have these three whole punch. I certainly can apologize. We've had not to make an excuse, but an explanation. Ms. Cole is our fourth clerk in three months, so I think there's been some lost in translation in terms of our direction to her on that. So we'll make sure that that are going forward, that those are. Mr. President, Ms. Lemmon. Let me put you to turn the mic on so we can hear you. I'm sorry. Could I request, if it's agreeable to everybody, that the amendment part not be stapled to the zoning so that you have two different, because there are two different cases technically. Thanks. Commissioner Whitley. Turn your mic on. I can confirm that I've had talk with the clerk and she assured me that our work will have three holes in it. Yeah, but at the time she told you that, she really meant it. Right. And I still mean it. I will make sure, Mr. Whitley. She told me tonight. Anything else to claim our attention? If not, thank you, Commissioner Boyd, for being with us tonight. And if you would turn your mic up a little, how do you go to get that just in the comments and if you want to make, if you put that right here.