nt is proposing to have a comprehensive future land use designation for the entire site as part of this request um as you can see the surrounding area is primarily it makes a residential some industrial and recreation open space future land use categories the zoning context map as i noted the subject site is zoned cn the applicant is requesting the cgd district for this um there are no other commercial districts adjacent to this request um however giving the existing use at the subject site and that that does not propose the change i think staff blinked on the side for this application of the through this action the applicant is actually bringing this site closer into conformity through petitioning to change the future land use map to the commercial designation um generally in the cgd district you're looking at a maximum these are ordinance requirements a maximum of 20 000 square feet of floor area a maximum of 50 feet in height and as i noted the maximum of 12 fueling positions on the proposing additions look very similar to the existing conditions um with the the one caveat that the applicant has committed to those fueling positions the additional fueling position excuse me fueling positions um there are no other commitments um at least my general understanding can make other modifications to the site as part of this request um comprehensive plan policy is evaluated as part of this application um as i noted on the the future land use map it is both consistent and not consistent um the applicant is requesting to change the low density residential to commercial to make this wholly consistent um the continuous development um touched on the previous case i'll bring it up again to this one even though it's not necessarily consistent with it um given that this use has been established and been in this area for so long um i think staff finds that generally um this is uh through these requests this is trying to rectify an issue um so we found it to be consistent with that policy as well as the um suburban tier commercial development policies um having said that uh probably no surprise this staff determines this request to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and i'll be happy to answer any questions that the commission may have this time great thank you very much thank you at this point we'll open the public comment period we have one individual signed up to speak mr dan jewel good to see you good evening commissioners and uh thank you mr wiggins yes i'm dan jewel president of culture jewel towns 111 west main street also reside at 1025 glory avenue we've been asked by the uh the owner of the store mr richard block who's here with me this evening to help him in his request to get two more gas pumps on his property also with me tonight is martin colter uh my associate um according to bill sparrow senior who i suspect several of you know who with uh red mill nursery who was born raised and lived his entire life within about one mile of this property the existing store was built back in the late 50s so it has been there for nearly 60 years in fact the original structure that mr block uses is is still in in use today mr block purchased the store in 2004 and has turned it into the successful business that it is today he recently added a small kitchen but when he went to get permission to add more gas pumps he was told that the current zoning limit him to the four pumps or eight fueling positions that he has today and then he called us we are here this evening requesting the change to cg so that mr block can have a total of 12 fueling positions which is a text commitment on our development plan as mr wiggins stated um which translates to two additional pumps from what he has today along with that he would build a new canopy over those pumps to be a little more modern and and lit to current standards etc etc uh as mr wiggins explained there's also an associated future land use map request curiously the northern portion of the property which has minimal development on it right now other than a parking lot is already designated as a commercial land use on the future land use map even more curiously the southern portion of the property which has been occupied by this existing store for nearly 60 years is shown as low density residential on the future land use map even though i can guess that it has been in place through every concept comprehensive plan that was adopted and made over in the history of Durham so one way to look at it is we were are simply asking to bring the future land use map into conformance with what the site has been used for since the late 1950s we held a neighborhood meeting at the store back in June about half a dozen neighbors including mr sparrow showed up besides learning from bill that his wife dated martin's mother back in the day presumably before they were married the only real concern had to do with traffic in the area and also that the double and fact that they have a wide driveways and double driveways was also making it more and more challenging to get in and out of the site so we have committed as a text commitment to consolidate those driveways and narrow them into a single single driveway and the trip generation analysis that mr judge did shows that there is some additional traffic that would be generated with the cn zoning district not necessarily with what muster blocks proposing to do but that the adjacent roads are at roughly half of their available capacity even so we have witnessed and the neighbors know that the peak hour traffic in the morning and the afternoon has grown to the point where it has gotten much worse in the last five or six years they feel it is for several reasons one the expansion of murk aw and some of the larger industrial plants the good employers and trayburn who are using this way to get in out of trayburn the folks who live in person county who now come through the back to get into Durham because 501 and guest roads in duke street have become so congested in the morning and afternoon and also this was quite interesting to me they know that people who live in wake forest and are commuting to Durham and and and trayburn are actually using back roads to get into uh trayburn because 98 nc 98 has become so congested in the morning and if you've been heading to wake forest in the morning as i do on occasion you'll know that's that's true what we have agreed to do with these neighbors and church is to lead an effort to get up with nc dot and have them take a holistic look at this whole intersection of red mill road and the 85 uh service road because it is way beyond the capability of just one small uh property owner who's adding a few additional trips to to tackle that in this case it's been a death by a thousand cuts and they are now very concerned about traffic at that intersection the store is a popular spot for folks from granville county in points north to stop in the morning fill up get a breakfast biscuit in coffee or on the way home in the afternoon uh mr block has been a good neighbor for the dozen years he's been out there and provides we think a vital little neighborhood service center for folks who need to get a milk bread or various sundries without having to hop in the car and go very far i might also add that mr block represents the best of the american ideal i believe having emigrated from afghanistan in the 1970s with only the shirt on his back and then working hard to save enough money to be able to buy this store and support his family and the half dozen employees that work for him we hope you will agree that this modest request to add two gas pumps through this rezoning and expand an existing business that has been at this site for nearly 60 years and is an asset for the community and worthy of a recommendation for approval to the county commissioners thank you very much and happy to answer any questions you might have great thank you mr jule we will now move to close the the public hearing and before we move to the commissioners i do just want to check in with staff on the the proffer just to make sure that that was understood and is acceptable mr judge may also speak on this as well potentially i'm jacob liggins of the playing department are you referring to what mr jules talked about in terms of meeting within cdot we talk about that interchange um at least unless i'm misunderstanding i don't believe that was a voluntary proffer in nord okay those city county playing department can enforce it if that is uh mr busby what you're requesting absolutely uh it's not actually i'm sorry i misunderstood okay but what happens when you move the affordable housing debate to the start of the meeting okay that's okay if the if the proffer was like the driveway work uh i believe that's already on the uh plumber mr wiggins is taking commitment number two right yeah there is a commitment yeah currently there are two entrances or two points of interest and you go to the site and mr jule has committed to consolidating that into one great one access point for the site thank you let's move to the commissioners any commissioners who would like to speak uh commissioner bryne commissioner harris uh just a quick question um will you have uh your fuel pumps will it be diesel or other um that he already has one diesel pump he'll be adding two gasoline pumps okay because when i was out there there were far more trucks out there than any other vehicle and i thought diesel might make sense yes yes i understand understand thank you mr harris uh chair bryne and it's my good friend over there i i am concerned about the zoning map change you're not satisfying either of these two criterias however i am aware that uh it's not in compliance right now this will bring it more into compliance so i do plan to support it all although you're not satisfying any of the zoning map criteria here mr miller dan help me understand the buffer i don't understand the buffer that is going to have existing paving and buildings in it so um the uh the the so what we are that map up yes i'm not sure if i'm smart enough to do that but i will i will give it a try development plan map yeah there you go whoops oh i was there too quick too quick yourself short so um what what we are requesting to do right now is leave the existing pavement that is in place in place the um the mtc buffer of course is uh that wide zone adjacent to i-85 i'm not concerned about that okay not concerned about the 85 you're concerned about the landscape buffer i guess the buffer on the uh on this map on the south and to the east the south and to the east where it shows the parking envelopes building into what i think is the buffer area if i'm reading your design right you you are reading that so uh that that there is an existing small encroachment in the area that's shown as the landscape buffer on the south side that we would like to remain as is because as long as the the building and parking remain as is and similarly on the eastern side uh there is existing pavement in that area that we would like to keep as is again his request is simply to put the two gas pumps in a new canopy thank you i have a question for staff seems to me that when we expand a business and we rezone and change the land use map that the residential neighbors ought to get their full buffers shouldn't they um i mean ticket weekends with the planning department i think in this case the we're working with the idea of existing not conformities of the subject site i understand that but the the map this plan also says that it's going there's going to be a 50 foot buffer and it's going to have a 80 opacity this seem to be in conflict sure future um so this development plan will be establishing development standards for future development at the subject site so anything that would trigger additional buffering requirements in those areas the the app can maybe have to do some of that but again this would would trigger um sorry to interrupt just want to finish my thought um again so this is the an existing non-conforming situation so we it is i would say somewhat of an odd request in that regard considering this is something that has been in place for over 60 years um and probably before we had much in the way of land use controls in this area i appreciate that i'm just asking about going forward i read this this the commitments on this map is being in conflict with each other um um i appreciate that um and that that will be noted um i do not think that the additional two fueling islands that the applicant is proposing is going to trigger any additional buffering requirements in those areas um but we can in good faith allow the applicant to propose a buffer that doesn't meet the udo requirements and so that there is somewhat of a rub and i get what you're saying there's somewhat of a rub versus the with the ordinance acquires but also the also trying to work with the real world existing non-conformities at the subject site and trying to reconcile those two things and end up with a project that is closer to conformance with ordinance requirements which staff's position is that this request does that mr miller mr wiggins let me uh my understanding is that um it as long as it stays as is it continue to continue to remain but if mr block were to come in with a substance subsequent site plan that did knock the building down and redevelop it or redevelop that portion of the site then he would be required by the udo to put the full buffer in place as required by the udo we simply wanted to capture and memorialize the fact that there's an existing encroachment in place uh and uh as long as he does nothing but a minor improvement that minor improvement being the two additional gas pumps and a new canopy uh that he would not be subject to pulling that out but again if he came in with a more substantial site plan and this has been my experience in my 30 plus years of working in Durham he would have to meet the full udo requirement for a full width buffer and that's my understanding perhaps a staff person could clarify that or sure uh jakey wiggins i'm with the pine department i'd confirm what mr joel said every said a better than i this will establish i'm a level development going forward i'm i think something else so to keep in mind is that you know the applicant is coming to us and requesting this owning map change we as staff can't force them to make i realize that i'm not asking i'm just trying to understand yeah and again this is a very i think a peculiar request i think that's a fair statement to say um so yeah any major development in the future would have to uh follow these guidelines in front of you assuming this request is approved is there any way to put a note on this development plan that explains this so that somebody some other dummy like me reading it will understand what what's going to happen moving forward well first and foremost you're not a dummy mr miller and secondly yes we'd be happy to do that and maybe we can help craft a proper proper wording for that um uh you could even just like say that it'll remain as a non-conforming use pursuant to the udo section blah blah blah and that the but the buffer requirements will obtain moving forward something i don't know something like that because it would help me understand it i would appreciate it if staff is happy with that or as a revised wording for that i think we're happy with that i'm not asking for a 60 day delay or anything at just but words are important you're correct well jake wiggins with the planning department of staff is happy to work with mr joel and his team i think on a note to help clarify the intent of the proposed condition sheet i don't know if a proffered commitment is the the way to go for i don't i'm not looking for a proffered i'm not looking for anything except for an explanation sure yeah and i think that's fair i'm not asking for anything that's not on there i'm going to vote for it and i'm on record one understand it thank you great mr hornbuckle dan i just want to say i you know i mr block has he's done an admiral you know he's run that's i was i've known him ever since he's had that store there when he perched it for mr crabtree and uh he does and he serves part of the people in my community go that way because we don't have any gas in behemoth we have to go that way and he uh serves uh he provides quite a service to that community and and i think we should all fully uh support this plan any other questions or comments if none i will entertain a motion i'll make the motion mr chairman if we moved kz one seven zero zero zero two zero uh forward to the county commissioners with a favorable recommendation that would actually be a 17 quadruple zero nine oh my what am i looking at nine right yeah so um we will we will vote first on the the a1 seven quadruple zero nine uh the motion as amended uh made by commissioner hornbuckle seconded by commissioner brine all those in favor please raise your right hand any opposed motion carries 13 to 0 right thank you now we'll take the zoning motion if you will commissioner hornbuckle yes sir same by z one seven zero zero zero two zero uh forwarded to the county commissioners with a favorable recommendation properly moved and seconded all those in favor please raise your right hand any opposed motion passes 13 to 0 thank you very much same with you we are moving to our two public hearings on zoning map changes the first is 251 smallwood that's cases z one seven triple zero three three and we'll start with the staff report Lou Jacob wiggins again with the playing department um as the chair noted this is a request for 251 smallwood drive and this is a zoning map change only request the applicant is mr chug allen this is also located in the county jurisdiction and this is a request to change a portion of the the site located at 251 smallwood drive from office and institutional to industrial light um excuse me and ignore the part with the fielding positions this is not going to be a gas station um at least not out so the subject site is highlighted in front of you uh noted in red um as you can see it does have some frontage on smallwood drive um it also has some frontage on a public right of way that has access to page road um currently the site is a mix of wooded lands with some cleared areas the future land use map for this area and you see is primarily um fund industrial there are some pockets of low to medium density residential most notably to the north and east of the subject site um some of the commissioners may recall uh within the last few months approving a pdr request just north of the subject site so the zoning contacts map um and it may be a little hard to see on this map and i apologize the covers are very similar so on the left hand side you see the existing zoning um you probably can make out on your screen this uh blue line stream here so the portion of the site that is zoned office is this little area right here if you look super hard you might be able to see the the color differentiate differentiation uh the remainder of the site is zoned industrial light i'm mr allen as i noted is proposing to have a unified industrial light category for this site um as was the the case um with the project on lonely road earlier there is no development plan associated with this request either so the if approved any use in the isle district could be permissible at this site um also there is no annexation petition associated with this request so this would uh the next step in the process would be to go to the board of county commissioners for final approval um the requested isle district um udo requirements allows for a maximum 50 feet building height um again no development plans or potentially any permissible uses in the isle district um there's also a 40 foot street yard setback as well as project boundary buffers that are required for any development in the isle district um comprehensive plan policies evaluated as part of this request um the future land use map is already recommending this site for industrial um so it's consistent there there is industrial that is contiguous to the site um and there is infrastructure to serve the site if in the future they ever did want to petition for annexation um and there is adequate infrastructure there in terms of private septic and well service as well therefore um staff finds that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan applicable policies and ordinances and i'll be happy to answer any questions the commission may have at this time great thank you very much we'll open the public hearing and then we may have some questions for you mr wiggins we uh we have one member signed up to speak i am going to get the last name wrong because i can't read very well so i apologize mr doug jacobs jacobs apologize for the handwriting together we're going to get this done um doug jacobs i'm a commercial broker with a coal banker advantage at 1858 hillan dale road i am here to speak on behalf of uh mr allen philips and his wife terry and their company is triangle forest products they are under contract with uh mr chuck allen to purchase this property pending the rezoning proceedings uh to relocate their company from wake county to the site um they uh once rezoned the uh those who have the opportunity not only to meet their clients current needs but the the size of the site will allow them to expand uh their their business as necessary to meet future needs for their business and um um so we think that that in that case that the rezoning will bring um the entire site in line with the land use plan and the uh existing uses in the area as well as um um create a situation where an existing vacant site is utilized for employment purposes in derm county and um um that it'll pave the way for immediate employment opportunities for us uh citizens of the area um we think that in in this case it's a uh a positive not only for for mr missus um philips but for the local area as well and we certainly hope you guys will agree be glad to answer any questions you guys may have for us great thank you mr jacobs we will uh move to close the public comment period and i'll open it up for commissioners with questions or comments let's start to my left commissioner miller uh there's a stream on the property that's shown on the map uh can anybody tell me how it's classified and what uh boundary buffers might be required if any um does anybody know tikka wiggins of the pine department uh give me just one second to double check i believe i have that information and then while he's checking that uh for uh mr jacobs so that the way i got into the property was to run down the the the road from small wood yes and then through the mud those are my tracks uh and but there's another way in from page road but it doesn't look like it's part of the parcel does the owner of this parcel have an easement or right of way in over that road that one that's gated could commissioner miller that that would be uh paver lane uh and that is a public right of way that's public it's public right of way certainly as we verified that there's got a gate across it's got a gate on it because uh currently there's only one user and uh they are the uh a wholesale landscaping company that you may have seen back there and so the gate was up that was originally a private road that was dedicated and accepted for public right away and uh because they're the only user there's never been a reason for them to take that gate down however there will be so so you would have access that whoever develops this piece of property is going to have access from small wood and page exactly all right that's what i needed to know and i believe it's intermittent but i can't say for certain it's either intermittent perennial which would be either a 50 foot or 100 foot buffer from top of bank yeah i mean if it if it's a perennial stream that's a big chunk of the property that would would be uh undevelopable and it bisects the property which is a problem too but that's a site plan problem exactly those are my questions miller if i may um we have been presented a a site plan that is now expired that mr allen had approved previously that shows that only the very western portion of that stream and i i dare not say how far it comes in but i'm going to it certainly doesn't bisect the the partial as we see here it's it's only the the very western portion of that uh stream is uh perennial it's jurisdictional oh it's perennial well it's it's blue line anyway down to a 50 foot it's 50 foot buffer and there there are understanding from the site plan that that uh mr allen had approved is that uh he actually had approved to pipe the majority of that stream um so all right that's what we've seen i was just worried about that's why i was asking about access if your the property was cut that way but if you can get in on either side sure all right thank you i'm going to vote in favor mission of brian i was just curious about something uh when i went out there i went down the same gravel road about as far as the communication tower and there's i couldn't quite figure out what was on the property it's sort of like a grayish cover that seemed to have a lot of green fibers in it so so it's it's recently been hydroceded okay so that's what you're seeing that's what it is yeah okay yeah a lot of it got washed down hill the last ring yeah great tommy thank you any other questions or comments from the commissioners commissioner gibbs i do have a concern about i i believe you said that uh the owner said that he could or would pipe the stream no no sir uh commissioner gibbs i said that he presented us with a a now uh expired site plan that he previously had approved that had allowed that so obviously with the site plan um process that the uh new owners would go through would determine buffering for that stream that they would have to adhere to yeah i i just thought i heard the word pipe i would hate to think that a stream leading from a flood plain i don't think you can make a pipe sure i understand anyway yeah that that's my question okay that's my only question thank you sir great at this point entertain a motion mr chairman i move that we send z 17 triple zero three three concerning 251 smallwood forward to the county commissioners with a favorable report second properly motion by commissioner miller seconded by commissioner out turk all those in favor please raise your right hand any opposed motion passes 13 to 0 thank you very much and we move to our final zoning public hearing of the evening and that is uh nc 54 storage has returned it is case z 17 triple zero i'm sorry z 17 quadruple 0 1 mr chairman yes before we start on the report for this i need to recuse myself i had to recuse myself from the original zoning and i think it would be appropriate to continue recusing myself i gladly will make that motion seeing as it is not me that's recusing myself i move that we accuse mr brian from consideration moved by commissioner ghost seconded by commissioner harris all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed enjoy it out there it's nice yeah we'll start with the staff report good evening jimmy sonyak with the planning department this is case z 17 0001 nc 54 storage um it is a uh text amendment the applicant is tim cybers from whorebath associates the jurisdiction is located within the city um the property is located at 1003 east north um 54 highway uh the site is is 1.9 acres um if you recall a zone map change and future land use map amendment was recommended by the planning commission on august 2017 dual out for 120 000 square feet of self service storage since that recommendation the applicant has um requested some revisions to text commitments on the plan here are our summary of the changes there was a revised new text commitment on number three um let me just say that the the staff report highlights pretty much the entire project from the zoning map change and the plan amendment and the first page just outlined some of the changes um there were no changes to the development plan and the and the proposal on the site it was relative to the text commitments um again there is a revision to number three to construct an exclusive eastbound left turn lane with adequate storage and appropriate tapers on nc 54 at the proposed site access um a removal of a prior commitment number four to construct a westbound right turn lane with adequate storage and appropriate tapers on nc 54 at the proposed site access and a third text commitment which was number um six that was uh provided as a result of um comp plan consistency with policy number 8.12 h however based upon information that was provided to the transportation department um and the planning part earlier today um we all agree that that text commitment can be removed um um staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the apical policies and ordinances and the only action that would be needed if you found this um favorable would be a vote on the revised development plan which would be part of the zoning map change i'll be happy to answer any questions that you have at this time okay thank you miss Soniek we will open the public hearing and we have three individuals signed up to speak uh Jamie Shea Welder Tim Sivers and Earl Llewellyn and I am so sorry it's okay I am used to it um good evening Chairman Busby and members of the commission my name is Jamie Schwaedler um with Parker Poe at 301 Fayetteville street in Raleigh and I'm here on behalf of the property owner on behalf of the applicant Tim Sivers and we do have our traffic engineer Mr Earl Llewellyn here with us um Jamie highlighted all the changes that um I'd like to focus on um I would like to just go through quickly what those changes are to the plan to actually offer an additional um proffer here tonight that speaks to cross access and then explain why these changes uh actually better meet the comprehensive plan policies and work with the barbie road retail rezoning that was approved by council uh earlier this year um so as Jamie mentioned the the plan was before you in august to receive a favorable ruling um but there were some concerns raised at that time about should a new commercial node be created in this area what would the new council do and how these two projects would work together and at the time that we were before you that project had not yet been approved um and the projects hadn't yet had a chance to really work together because there was some uncertainty about what would happen since that time council has of course approved the uh future land use map zoning chain or future land use map change from office um to commercial and has approved that zoning project so that there is a a commercial node that has been created at the corner um and that we believe our new um proffers and the time that's passed would make these more consistent with the comprehensive plan in addition to uh that approval the applicant offered a um a cross access easement where council asked if they would agree to offer our property owner cross access easement and if accepted they would record it that was approved in september and they have not yet reached out to us to make that offer so what we'd like tonight is to make the mirror offer of that cross access easement that we will offer to make the cross access easement uh to them and that way it gives a kind of a belt and suspenders approach where we're going to work together um and try to to move forward they were not required to modify their development plan because they were already at council um and as we go forward if approved by the commission tonight we would update our development plan with those change conditions and showing um that that commitment as well um and if those are accepted by the commission tonight we believe that with the time passed and those conditions offered uh we're able to overcome some of the concerns that the commission raised before and some of the uncertainty that was before the commission and hope to leave tonight with a favorable recommendation um as jamie mentioned the three changes are the change to an exclusive eastbound turn lane into the site uh we're removing uh former condition four and this existing condition six so you might see on your plan um because at that time there was some uncertainty about whether those were were warranted and based on our discussions with uh mr judge and the planning department uh we believe there's consensus there to remove that condition six mr luan is here to address those traffic conditions specifically if you have questions on that but briefly the the the changes support um support approval tonight for both the land use map amendment and the zoning specifically with the land use map amendment one of the issues was that at the time we came through we didn't have that contiguous parcel issue that you looked at earlier on one of the hearings tonight now that that land use map has been amended from office to um commercial and we're asking for that same change it's merely just an adding on of that new commercial known expanding it by much less of a of an area and that's consistent with policy 2.3 point a which tries to avoid those patterns of non contiguous area and orderly development um and second the change from office to commercial makes sense here we talked about last time that the site is really too small to do office or uh or other types of uses and it really makes sense to do this commercial and with the development plan committing us to self storage we're not talking about any commercial we're just talking about a low impact uh low traffic type of commercial that makes sense for this this parcel and third it's consistent with policy 2.3.1 e which speaks to expansion of commercial nodes and this wasn't before you before because the commercial node didn't exist but now that the council has approved that commercial node it calls upon the commission to evaluate the requests um and determine if they've been integrated with the rest of an existing node to promote pedestrian and vehicular circulation and we have two commitments that speak to that the first is we have a four foot asphalt path that runs along 54 that provides either a pedestrian or a bicycle connection between the two sites and now that we've offered to offer the cross access easement that would also provide an internal point of connection between the two sites and to promote that pedestrian and vehicular circulation that cross access easement also supports several policies in support of the zoning change and that in a policy 2.2.2 e in the suburban tier we're to discourage our auto oriented strip development and encourage this commercial node again now that council has created that node this is just a minor expansion it's a complimentary expansion of that service oriented residential services area and this offers just a commercial expansion that makes sense and works with that type of use they also offer to the barbie road retail some limitations on their footprint I think they would believe between 15,000 and 16,000 square foot for the footprint ours is going to be smaller than that because our site is much smaller and so it's going to be that complimentary type of node not a strip development the orientation of this parcel along 54 truly lends itself to just adding on to that node and not having a long commercial strip as well and I'd also like to point out several text commitments that speak to that that node creation we have as I mentioned the limit on self storage is necessarily a low impact type of commercial use that speaks to that type of service oriented commercial use we also have a text commitment limiting the type of materials and committing to architectural features such as parapet walls and storefront windows that again lend itself to that complimentary node and not your type of auto oriented strip center and so for those reasons we believe the changes in addition to the new proffer of the cross access easement brings this more in line with with the concerns that the commission expressed before it brings the properties more in line with each other and brings them brings us more in line with the elements of the comprehensive plan that the staff outlined tonight and for those reasons we'd ask for a favorable recommendation forward to the council thank you thank you mr cybers good evening tim cybers whorebath associates 16 consultant place i just want to bring up a few points on the development plan um specifically some items that have changed and have not changed um self storage is one of if not the lowest re lowest retail traffic generator the additional trips for this site are 31 peak hour trips but i did want to note that this is not a change from what was previously approved uh the project boundary buffers to the northeast and west are shown in the development plan there were also no changes to those items from what was previously approved the minimum of 35 foot of right away dedication is also the same the site will have a single access point on the nc 54 again the same uh the only changes on the development plan are the cross access easement as well as the text commitment changes to the traffic improvements as as noted by jamie um again we just asked for your approval this project and we were available for any questions thank you thank you mr lawellen okay great he's just here for questions so at this point we will close the public hearing before we come to the commissioners i think i would like to just check in with staff on the the proffers make sure everything is acceptable and jamie sonyak with the planning department we had the opportunity to review the language regarding the cross access easement and it um is found acceptable so if it is found to be recommended that would be added to the development plan great thank you commissioners who would like to speak start to my right commissioner ghost mr ghost so uh i i voted in favor of this last time with the caveat that i'd like to see some cross access thank you for providing it i'll vote in favor of it again thank you commissioner meller so it's my understanding that the developer of the other project told the council that they would offer cross access they weren't required to include it as a requirement of their development plan and since having obtained their approval they've made they've not reached out to you that's what is that what you said yes it it actually was a requirement of their development plan i believe and i'm not sure it was timed to any particular timing assuming it would be at some point before their their building permit obviously um jamie sonyak it was tied to the site plan site plan but not the development plan so they can withdraw it anytime they want to i believe it was a it was an offer at the table that i that i was understanding was to become a text commitment on the development plan it's correct it's a commitment on the development plan but the requirement to have it in in place would be prior to site plan so it is in their development plan that's right but okay let's make sure i'm talking about the commercial okay i misunderstood you i thought you said that that the council didn't require them because to do it since they that they just made a promise no what i meant was it might not have shown up on the development plan going to council but it was at the table during the council it was a proffer made and then written in later yes as a conditional okay that helps i do understand and and i didn't mean to misrepresent that they're refusing to do it it's just they haven't reached i i because i misunderstood what you said i i i ran with it the wrong direction so thank you that i'm still concerned about this this is an unusual request it's 120 000 square feet of storage on a piece of property that is less than two acres with a building envelope that is essentially 75 000 square feet the fur acre i mean that's that is 63 000 square feet of building per acre that's pretty intense this property doesn't even include its own but boundary buffers they are on the boundary buffers are on neighboring properties i'm not saying that that's against the rules it's just something i don't like means that the that if we rezone this the property owner next door has to hold that it has to buffer whatever they choose to use their property for against this use rather than including the buffers on this site um i realize the code allows it but it's to me it's it's just wrong um it's also to in order to get 120 000 square feet of storage building on this site it's going to have to go four stories five stories four stories um thank you uh that's pretty tall this property sits up on a hill if you went up into the neighboring apartment complex the property rises above it those this building is going to tower over even the two-story apartment building next door um i just think that when we you know i fought against this commercial node it's there uh and it seems to me that when we expand a commercial node it ought to step down in intensity to residential not up in intensity to residential literally up and so i'm still going to vote against it however i do appreciate the fact that there's interconnectivity which in my opinion is a minimum requirement in order to even call this these two uses together a node any other commissioners with questions or comments um yeah just negotiation just responding to something i heard i think commissioner miller's comments are are well received i think one of the things that i find attractive about this development plan is that it limits the use to self-storage yes it's a lot of self-storage but in speaking about stepping up or down in intensity with expansions of commercial nodes towards residential areas at least the use is not very intense i'll just leave it at that thank you commissioner gosh seeing no other questions or comments this is the appropriate time for a motion uh one moment i apologize just before you do that uh jimmy sannyak with the planning department can the applicant just confirm on the record that um that text commitment number six is going to be removed that you're making that request yes we are making that request thanks i have one other question back to my point about interconnectivity is do you show interconnectivity on your development plan we haven't shown it but if offer if accepted here tonight we will they just made the offer tonight okay and so you're that's going forward all right very good thank you okay so just to confirm then we we're we have uh we have interconnected we have interconnectivity as a proffer that will then move forward and we'll show up as this moves forward commissioner hyman yes um chair busby i'd like to make a motion that we move case number z one seven zero zero zero zero one nc 54 storage forward with a favorable recommendation second properly moved and seconded moved by commissioner hyman seconded by commissioner harris all those in favor please raise your right hand and all those opposed same sign motion carries eight to four thank you very much thank you extra phone we're now moving to the home stretch text amendments to the unified development ordinance and we have a case tc one seven quadruple zero five good evening i'm scott whiteman for the planning department filling in for the world famous michael stock uh tonight before you is case number tc 17 00005 which is the 11th in a series of omnibus changes to the udo that many of you have seen before uh these changes are designed to be technical revisions and minor policy changes uh to the udo that can be adopted all at one time uh one thing that is different with this set is we're now trying to do them twice a year so that the list of changes is uh slightly more manageable than what you may have seen before i will the these changes touch uh many of the articles throughout the udo i'll be happy to answer any questions about any of the changes but i just want to mention a few of the the bigger things and highlights first we're adding some additional standards for minor preliminary plots we are adding parking standards to list of things that may be modified with the neighborhood protection overlay which is something that came out of the development of the old west germ npo it's a removal of parking requirements for accessory dwellings the clarifying text regarding outdoor activities for certain home occupations uh technical amendment regarding development in the rural tiers or areas not within a designated tier an additional height allowance for the il district within the suburban suburban tier adjustments to on-street parking allowances for parking requirements for single family and two family developments revisions to the support to 30 foot 35 foot height limitations in our design districts additional text allowing for a lot with flexibility associated with affordable housing developments removal of the dimensional requirement uh two acre minimum for the pdr district in the urban tier revision to household living parking standards for qualified affordable housing and clarifying the defined term for a flag lot this text amendment as per the procedure has been presented to the joint city county planning committee the staff would recommend approval and to be happy to answer any questions thank you very much we'll open i'm sorry we will we'll actually open the public hearing we have no one who is signed up to speak if anyone would like to speak this is your chance seeing now we will move to close the public hearing and then we will move to comments from the commissioners we'll start with commissioner gosch thank you um so i'm just going to go in order that of the handout i've made notations and i have questions and or comments throughout so hopefully i won't take too much of your time um okay on uh page five convenience stores of gas sales um i have a question about the limitation for this new provision which says that no more than 50 of required parking spaces shall be provided at fueling stations i just i guess i don't understand what the issue is that we're addressing there uh to me i mean i've worked with different gas stations to me you know this wouldn't affect something like sheets who generally tries to get as many parking spaces at their c store as they can but it might affect the mom and pop stores that have four pumps and not a lot of room for parking and if it if it did affect those uh those types of stores i mean i think it does so in a kind of negative way it would it would just require them to add more parking spaces which might mean more impervious for and i guess i don't understand the reason why what we're finding is with certain gas stations especially ones with a lot of pumps the they can fulfill all their parking requirements at the pumps which leads to uh parking issues and stacking issues bill judges here could probably give a more detailed third answer about the problem uh bill judge transportation that's that's correct what we found is that where there's a large number of pumps in a fairly small convenient store um that basically the parking requirements could be met just by people parking at the pump so we wanted to verify or provide that some of the that there would still be some parking provided okay i mean i that's that's fine i mean i was just looking for clarification i don't really understand it because i can't say i've ever experienced i've never circled the parking lot of a gas station looking for a seastore spot sometimes you have to queue at the at the pump it you know all the pumps are taken but i've never experienced myself haven't seen it but if it happens it happens um another question i had is uh on page six eliminating the requirement for one additional off-street parking space um for accessory dwelling units i understand that that might make it more of a possibility to be able to provide those accessory dwelling units but you know on page two one of the one of the justifications or statement i don't know what you would call this uh for that change was that um it's been determined to be unnecessary for additional off-street parking since single family lots generally have enough driveway or parking pad space to accommodate more than two vehicles i mean i think we could just accommodate that by saying you have to provide one off-street parking spot and it can be on your driveway or your existing driveway or parking pad that would kind of satisfy both it's it the current parking standards for single family do allow driveway but you can only have only stack two cars i guess what i'm saying is i think there's another way to word this such that you know it can address the exact reason that you're looking at this so you wouldn't have to provide an additional off-street parking space if you do in fact have enough space on your lot already we can certainly look at that see if it encompasses the same thing um and sorry again uh page eight b one um i think the wording is a little off uh i'm not exactly sure i don't have a i don't have a suggestion but a residential building shall also include a building converted to a non-residential use i mean it doesn't i don't know it just that that could be anything right i mean it should be a previously residential building that has since been converted you know something like that it doesn't doesn't quite jive i guess and then on six eight two same page six eight two b um the base zoning requirement for a lot with can apply for lots developed for affordable housing dwelling units there's another section that allows those standards to be changed for affordable housing dwelling units so i think you know maybe a no i think it's six six two allows you to change some of the uh lot standards so i think that needs to be recognized in this provision so you know or as reduced by you know pursuant to section six six the issue we're trying to rectify is that udo specifies that the most stringent should apply so if one is reduced but then one is increased yeah through the infill standards then you would have to follow the increase lots lot size through the infill standards or a lot with um so we're trying to rectify that that for affordable housing projects only you can you do not need to follow the affordable housing okay so maybe it is a maybe i maybe i misread it but yeah that's what i'm saying for affordable housing units you should be able to to reduce it um i i will admit that i didn't check what the current udo says but on uh six ten one a one a that's being at page you are please uh page eight thanks all right it says it the new added language says the standards for i zoning shall apply to i l zoning i mean that just seems i don't know it that's not true unless you're making it true you know it i l zoning is its own thing it's not i zoning so there's a weird quirk that we found in the ordinance where um i l zoning was not through the udo permitted in the rural tier um but the i zoning district was so there were no standards to the i l district included for properties in the rural tier you're just trying to match and so there are a few legacy i l properties and so we want to make sure that there is a zoning standard that applies to them yeah fair enough so this was the the quickest and even most reasonable way to do that i guess what i was saying is it certainly seemed like the quickest way i think there might be a better way to do um on page nine uh six eleven three b one instead of changing it to no minimum acreage shall be required i think it would be appropriate just to delete bullet point one for the urban tier because i mean that's essentially what you're saying right no we have some issues that because there are other tiers as well so we would apply that in the the pdr is not supposed to apply so we'll we'll definitely take that under consideration but i think it's clear to show that that's the standard for the urban tier is no minimum okay um and then uh on the table on the next page underneath there's a note there that says the rear yard shall be measured blah blah blah i was just wondering if someone could demonstrate with that i don't i don't recognize what the issue is there i don't know if there's a way to to demonstrate what that's addressing i don't have any other problem with it interpretive dance yeah sure that'd be great be fantastic yeah i would have a hard time uh demonstrating it without um one of those telestrator pens like they they use that football games got a dry erase board i don't think i think it's a bulletin board with commissioner miller and this city clerk would be very mad if i drew on that okay that solves that mystery i was wondering what this wouldn't tangle with it yeah uh my boss had told me that we can add an illustration to this as we move forward to make it clear the oh that might be help yeah the general idea is that townhouse developments don't have a rear yard that is associated with each lot like a single family house does so we need to clarify where it's measured from so but that's a good point if if you're having triple visualizing it lots of people have trouble visualizing it well yeah okay so now that wasn't my suggestion but i'll make it my suggestion now i think an illustration would make it look you're allowed to do that uh and that's all i got oh no i'm sorry one more on page 15 when we're defining flaglots okay i don't know that there's a better word for it or whatever but in the first part it says and is located behind another lot i feel like the word behind is not i don't know it could describe a lot of things and i think that might be an issue with the uda um i i mean generally i know what a flag lot is but i don't know that this is a better definition than what we had and then the uh the other thing is a number two it seems to suggest that a flag lot could only have one treat frontage and that's what i'm familiar with i just don't know if that's true though i feel like a flag lot could have multiple frontages and still be a flag lot but i don't know flag with more than one pole it could yeah uh i don't we'll double check to make sure that we're not accidentally prohibiting flaglots with two poles but this doesn't prohibit that it just yeah it just defines it i just wanted to flag only has to have one pole okay all right that's all i got thank you sorry for taking everyone's time that's very helpful commissioner brian thank you on page seven uh the section 6.6 on the affordable housing bonus uh i would uh just to soon not have to vote on that language tonight because this is where you conflict with affordable housing text that we looked at earlier and i think it needs to be worked out as to what language you're going to use in the affordable housing text i mean if you read dc 16 005 carefully these two sections don't exist anymore if i may mr chairman you may and welcome a staff responsive appropriate so if the there are two affordable housing density bonuses there is the one that the other text amendment that we considered earlier that relates to the affordable housing density bonus inside the compact neighborhood tiers there is also an affordable housing density bonus that is available outside those tiers anywhere where residential zoning is allowed that that certainly may be true but the point is in in the earlier text that we think the 66.1 applicability and 66.2 bonus program those were stricken oh those are stricken that is a problem and so and this is why you know the conflict comes in and i'm suggesting since i hannah's response to my question it about it was that they're working on it i think we should simply not vote on this particular piece well i would be willing to vote on it if i knew what the workout was well and and they they haven't apparently haven't solved it yet this is right to do we'll take anything that is covered in the previous affordable housing text amendment uh take it out case take out of this one and put it in that make sure that all those are rectified so that it's adopted at the same time should one be adopted one not or be adopted at times okay that that's good because it's the very first thing here on on a if you take out that language you're going to have to take it out some other places in the earlier text amendment that we considered you know little things like that it's a fair point i have one more thing bottom of page 13 methods to exceed maximum parking it says the additional parking spaces and drive aisles shall be pervious paving pursuant to the following but what's following is alternative to the essence of compliance so i think something's left out christa brian if if those are the those are my own comments great if those are your remarks we'll move to commissioner miller while the the staff the staff is back sir waitman back yeah we i think what that is it was referring to a definition and it was also listed in the the list of things we probably should have left the that list of things in here for context and we'll do that before we provide it to the to the governing bodies we are not changing what qualifies as previous thank you commissioner miller so i had a couple of questions uh which remarkably did not overlap much with mr. gauche amazing however i'm very grateful for the points you raised they were good ones um i thought i was pretty thorough i thought you were pretty thorough too but you're not so again this this relates to to help me understand and i'm on page eight what six point eight point one as changed will do give me an example so what this does is it takes things like a daycare that was a former house within a residential district the way pa's officer yeah it typically because this only applies to residential zoning okay wouldn't be a cpa's off yeah uh that because it's strictly worded as residential uses then that house which probably is in the historical context of the rest of the houses doesn't count so we're just making sure that anything that looks like a house on the street is counted towards the infill standards oh for the purposes of of setbacks mostly all right very good um and so um so my i have a similar question with six point eight point three a i'm you know that those language that we've used in these two things that structures which change their use it is possible i suppose to actually have as we have in my neighborhood commercial structures that were built as commercial structures that are now in residential zones how shall we treat those and they're not even some of them are not commercial their houses now and some of them are just strange things and they're so far away that nobody knows they're there admittedly this doesn't really address those it's not nearly as common i know there are some of those throughout especially the older neighborhoods lots of lots of little neighborhood stores uh and we've got a quonset hut in my neighborhood that is filled with pest old very very very old pesticides um i'll have to say that i've been mike and i and sarah and lots of the staff have been trying to tweak the infill standards to make them work well for years it's hard to hit every scenario i'm i've been just wondering is there is so it's possible that were there still there's still work to do yeah there's there's definitely still work to do all right we're we're just uh chipping away all right and then so if you would go to 1633 c1 a2 b and a3 what page is that oh i don't know um it's got to be at the back 15 so it has to do with the 75 feet i like the language in the uc zone that we call it the perimeter transitional area although we don't use that language here um i get very confused about i thought it was a great idea when you brought it to us but now it's it's got so many moving parts i'm having a hard time visualizing how it would work am i reading this right that the maximum height inside that 75 foot area for downtown is 50 feet and for ninth street it's 45 feet or 35 feet i don't understand why it seems to me if the impetus is the same then the height limit ought to be the same the idea is to not destabilize the outside the district traditional residential use and i don't understand why at ninth street the the protecting height is 35 feet and the and for the downtown tier the protecting height is a different thing i'm very confused about how it works can you run through it so there are two different standards that were adopted at two different times based on to the input of two separate mostly separate sets of stakeholders um this was not trying to change so it's very much so what are the what are the how does it work start with downtown so in downtown it's 50 feet if it's within 75 feet of a non-design zoning district the limit is 35 feet it's 35 feet within the 50 feet within 75 i'm confused okay sarah young with the planning department so in both cases in downtown and in the compact design district the default is 35 feet in that 75 foot depth that's okay that's our beginning standard so that's the that's the difference if we want to do something different inside the 75 feet what can we do and how do we get there so in downtown through a minor special use permit you can go up to 50 feet okay so that's option for for that one in sorry i'm skimming in cd so compact design the only one we have in places at nine street you can do the same thing but it only gets you 45 feet and i think it's an m up still still with an m up process yes correct and i think the difference stems and i would don't quote me on this because i'd have to go back and look we based the numbers based on what was originally in the two districts for height and they did have different they did not have the same heights in the various areas so that accounts for why one is slightly less if there's no significant you know feeling of difference in that five feet we can make them consistent if i'm not asking for that i just wanted to make sure i understood what i was reading this is for information and now with the affordable housing density bonus which isn't going to be available in the compact neighborhood design tier and probably immaterial in the downtown tier the there is at site plan inside the 75 feet i can go i asked this once and i'm already forgotten i can go up to how high in the 75 feet do you go up to 50 50 feet only with the affordable housing density bonus right and i don't have to get the m up i jump over that step that's correct okay all right i'm cool with that let's let's vote commissioner miller is cool with that so at this point i will entertain a motion for approval so i'm going to move that we send this omnibus uh text change tc one seven quadruple zero five forward to the city and to the county with a favorable recommendation but with some of the changes that my fellow commission members have suggested especially the one the apparent inconsistencies or potential for inconsistencies as uh in the proposals contained in uh this omnibus 11 and the uh compact neighborhood interim affordable housing bonus proposal um i would love to see all of those kind of worked out um going forward and i but also throw in i do see why uh in a system that creates a lot of of minimum acreages why you would want to have say zero when you meant zero so that somebody didn't think that something was just a hole in the in the ordinance a second of motion without the comments properly moved by commissioner miller seconded by commissioner harris all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed great motion carries 13 to 0 thank you very much and last but not least the compact neighborhood i'm sorry uh legal land yes leg and s and e case tc one seven quadruple zero six mr whiteman evening i'm scott whiteman i'm the planning department again this is uh without the shorthand uh technical updates regarding sedimentation and erosion control and state legislation uh half of this amendment is something you're also probably accustomed to seeing which is changes we must make to our ordinance based on laws that are passed by the state legislature it also includes a set of changes requested by our county s and e office and we have ryan eaves from county engineering to to answer any questions about those in general there's uh two laws that were were passed this year that we felt required uh amendments to the udo one was uh statute of limitations that was imposed for zoning violations and the other was um how the city council adopts consistency statements unfortunately the legislature adopted the way method the counties did it which was backwards so now they're both backwards um there's also some for several collective state laws about performance guarantees for infrastructure projects and as i mentioned some changes request technical changes for for sedimentation erosion control with that i'd be happy to answer any questions and the staff would recommend approval thank you very much we will open the public comment period we don't have anyone signed up if anyone would like to speak this is your time seeing none we will close the public comment period and move to commissioners with any comments i'll start to my right commissioner gosh i i must admit i'm not uh as thoroughly prepared for this one as maybe the previous but i think i had a question about um okay it's on page nine part two and i thought the change in north carolina law there was another kind of exempt subdivision that was created and i i'm not sure that it's codified here the only one we're aware of is the one that specifically talked about probated wills and the division of land for that every all the other exempt subdivision standards remain okay so you the official position is this is what's consistent with what recent changes in north carolina law yes all right you're not trying to hide from any of them that's that's that works for me let's go mr harris my on page three three dot eight six self-inspection that's like putting the fox in the hen house and that's what the state law does and that's what the state law did and i mean i don't have to be happy with it but i know that's what the state required us to do so but i that's like you know putting the fox in the hen house and tell him not to eat your chickens i would agree with commissioner harris and i did not use as colorful as an analogy as he did at the joint city county planning committee meeting when this came up but i'm i'm planning to vote to approve to ensure we conform with state law i don't like the state law any other commissioners commissioner gibbs i guess my question is general in nature by adopting these uh these new rules i'll say would it conflict or be less less strict in some of our planned let's say erosion control plans uh is a state less strict than what we would need here in Durham to because of our special uh situations i'll defer to mr eaves to to answer that work try his best to answer that question i didn't yeah i don't know the answer to that uh good evening ryan eaves i'm the uh storm water and erosion control division manager for county engineering um if i understand your question you're asking if if by making these changes it makes us less strict than the state or is the state going to be less strict i'm not sure i quite understand your question would adoption of would the state restrictions be less strict than some some issue that we're trying to deal with locally would it prohibit inhibit or any other way hold us back from doing what we feel we need to do to control a situation in Durham county i don't believe so um you know my division handles all erosion control both inside the city limits and out um we do at least monthly inspections of all of the permitted sites within the county um and i don't believe any of the uh while there are some things we don't necessarily agree with or like i don't believe that they will hinder us from acting appropriately to make sure that our sites uh maintain compliance okay well that that answers my general question uh i don't like the state rules either but that's neither here nor there of course they know for you anyway i'll i'll let it go for now i'm ready okay thank you and thank you for staying so late too i happy to to share input any other comments or questions from commissioners and if not oh mr chairman i move t that we send uh text uh change tc one seven zero zero zero zero zero six forward to the city and county with a favorable recommendation second properly moved and seconded moved by commissioner miller seconded by commissioner outtirk all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed the motion carries unanimously any final staff updates before we adjourn for the year no updates thank you thank you and before we do adjourn i did want to number one thank the staff for your great work this year we really appreciate all that you do and i know they're late nights but we appreciate that you stick with us answer our questions let us have the robust debate that i think we deserve to have on behalf of the citizens and i wish you all happy holidays i do also want to note that commissioner freeman as you know has resigned from her seat to now become councilwoman freeman that position is currently open and it is open until january eighth so if you know of any good candidates i would ask you to encourage them to apply or if you're still watching at home you probably do want to apply if you've sat here this entire evening uh with that i wish you all happy holidays this meeting is adjourned thank you thank you we'll start with