mum number of r10 lots that I have been able to fit in there is 23 And I'm not quite sure I can get that many We have cruise cross this property with numerous streets. It's not just one street Well, yeah, because you've got one here one there and one there and they're not exactly in the perfect spot But I can make it work. Um, I think the current zoning allows 15 or 17 I get depending upon if you have to connect to those stubs. That's where I can't my guessing goes away I was coming up with 17, but that was that was on the high. Yeah, I think my sketch is about 15 I did take a sketch to the meeting at the library That showed the the 23 ish But uh stated that it's not a development plan. I'm not authorized to state that it is Let me ask you this. Uh, it's my understanding from having spoken with jacob That the wetland that shows on the map that that engineers have told you that that can be Eliminated correct. Um, I have a um documentation. Yeah, that's fine Yes, I just wanted to make sure that that we were working with that assumption Mr. Judge Can you tell me your traffic counts are based upon an algorithm on pure r10 or on an understanding that There's going to be 23 units The calculation was based on a assumption that 80 percent of the land could be built at the 10,000 square foot lots, so No, probably comes in around 23 Yeah, I don't remember the exact number, but that's generally how we do it when it's Yeah, and you reserve that other 20 percent for odd corners and roadways Exactly Thank you Those are my questions. Thank you, mr. Williams Yes, um I don't feel any differently about this proposed Zoning change and I did when it first came before us and Even more so having recently been Right at southern high school at one of their busiest times when they just recently had a football jamboree where People were parking parking in adjacent neighborhoods to find somewhere to go for the games because obvious reasons and the traffic out there Was horrible So you're not dealing with an elementary school where once the school closes and everybody leaves at about five o'clock in the afternoon You can pretty much take a break from traffic you have football practice and volleyball games and basketball games and Southern high school is now school of sustainability So their hours are a little bit different in the way that they function is a little bit different and I think that by adding more capacity than what is already zoned for only enhances that issue Is going to contribute greatly to The problem that is already existing in terms of traffic and travel Even though if there is an accident on clayton, you may be able to cut through this other neighborhood where other people are Already trying to leave and go different places Now you've got the traffic that would have been on clayton Diverting through this neighborhood. So it's not really easing the ability to go anywhere. You're just Creating another way for water to flow or for traffic to flow There's still going to be a huge impact on the people that live there Where if there's an accident on clayton now, if you know where you're going you go if you don't you don't but I don't I don't see where increasing the capacity to 23 homes or 23 ish if you will Is productive for this area. I I I just don't see that It's going to ease the concerns of the neighbors and I don't see where this is going to help the capacity of that particular area In any way it's not like Is there a grocery store? off clayton near there or What is it? It's on 98, right? Yeah, okay. So yeah, um And then I think the adverse of that is what stallings road The other access point of leaving to try to alleviate traffic but then you pick that up As 98 is becoming a popular route in order to travel to raleigh in order to pick up 50 and 540 so 98 hasn't been addressed yet But in time when that is widened and I think that that will ease the stresses Not to mention some of the issues that you have with stallings road and um a couple other areas Where flooding is a massive concern. So those roads shut down in heavy rains and then Coming in and backfilling or filling in a wetland area just for the sake of building. I'm against that as well So That's my standpoint Thank you commissioner commissioner van. Yes. Thank you very much. Um First of all, I would certainly thank both Um sides for having an opportunity to come back as we had requested and to uh have conversations around this I think it's important and um, I'm glad that happened. Um, but But it does lead to uh, you know, a few other questions. I guess I would have in my mind You know, I travel through this area at least, um, three to four times out the week Sometimes taking back roads when I'm leaving north valley central and on the way home Take the back roads, uh, which sometimes leads through clay road in all those areas And I I see the impact. I also see those who are fleeing from Durham going back to other places. Um, like raleigh I'm using how we nine eight in other areas Stylings and all those roads and I know the traffic. I Because I'm in and so, um So I always wonder about, you know, when we talk about these traffic statistics, whether or not they actually match with the actual realities of those who live there and who have to experience that and you have to take that into account At least I do. Um, and so while on one hand, um, I think what you have proposed here, um, you know Kind of punches all the buttons. No doubt. Um, but at the same time for me, I have to always think about Question of impact whether it was this neighborhood or any other neighborhood About the impact that it might have on those who are what I call the legacy residents those who have been there And been there when no one else was there. And so, um, for that matter, um, I always also think that Have sort of think about what's the good fit? Um, and whether or not, you know, um, the impact again getting back to That question of travel for those who are already overly burdened with the traffic patterns out there And so with that being said, I would and I will certainly um, um, I will oppose this Matter, um, I'm sure it might get approved, but I'll oppose it because I live out there and I know The impact that it might have Thank you. Thank you commissioner van commissioner kenshin Yes, thanks so much. Um I'm concerned because I think, um, you know, I see the students who are walking along those streets And they're not paying attention their horse playing. They're doing what kids doing me do And I have real concerns about the safety Not so much the traffic the cars but the the foot traffic the children the students who are walking up and down the street Now we've turned down. Uh, we've not approved things from the other side My daughter went to jordan high school and we turned down one at Garrett and 54 and they have way less traffic. Um, then what we see over here by southern So I would not be inclined to support this because um, I'm just real have real concerns about the safety of the students Who are up and down that street all the time? And I just worry about them because um, it's traffic like commissioner van said There's a lot more traffic, um, up and down those streets and there's no sidewalks Um, I just I just have a real concern about the safety of the students who are attending, um, southern high school So I'll be inclined to not vote in favor of this proposal Thank you commissioner dirkin I just had a question for staff the adjacent neighborhoods are zoned rs 10 But are they built to rs 10 or are they Reflective of a different density scale Jacob wiggins of the planning department, um That is correct. Yeah, if you look on attachments one in your packet, you'll see the zoning context map Kind of tan or tope color is the rs 10 zoning district Um, it's my understanding that most of those lots if not all those lots in that area are built to the rs 10 standards Any additional questions? Great. Thank you. Commissioner brine. Thank you. Uh Have a couple of comments for staff Uh, just on page three of the staff report Top of the page Southern high school was found just to the northeast We established two months ago that it should be southeast and on attachment five On the staff analysis of policy two point three point one a if approved their request would Permit up to blank residential units. I think you need to plug the number in and Uh, I have a couple questions for mr. Judge I heard what the applicant said about the distances, you know, they got 500 feet of fronage on Clayton road The other two roads that come out are 750 feet something like that So i'm taking it that you guys would not permit our ncd ncdot would not permit Link access to their property off of Clayton road. Is that correct? Uh Bill judge transportation We have not had direct contact with ncdot about that question with this site I would say in general if they can See that otherwise adequate access can be provided via those existing hubs They likely would prefer the connection not to be there If there were a connection there would likely be a turn lane required based on the volume on Clayton road as well and There's a street to the north. I'm drawing a blank on the name that it would like near the Uh western property line of the site that they would likely have to line up So it wouldn't necessarily be centered up in the center of the property Assuming that dot did permit it and Since we have these three streets or I think one of them's just sort of a stub Coming to this property. Are they absolutely compelled to connect to all three of them? Yes, the existing unified development ordinance would require connections at all three of them. Although there are Options at the site plan stage where if they can show environmental features steep slopes or other topography reasons why those connections are not feasible that they could request a waiver of that Okay, and final question Um if they connect to the stub off of metacrast and A lot of traffic goes out through metacrast. They're coming on the Clayton that what appears to be one of the bad curves Could Transportation infrastructure improvements be required of this development at the site plan stage to make that curve and that connection safer Uh Highly unlikely for the existing if they otherwise have the three points of access that would essentially be in Existing condition that um, that would have to be addressed Okay, thank you. Um just Some comments, uh I agree that Asking for the rs10 makes the zoning in this area consistent with the surrounding zoning And with all the streets That you're going to have to connect to Uh getting 23 lots on there Might be iffy as you said, uh, and for the benefit of the, uh Neighbors who spoke The number 23 and I may have been the one that threw it out at the last Consideration of this actually comes from the zoning map change application in which, uh 23 single family lots is what was written on the application Now since we don't have a development plan, we can't hold them to 23 lots uh What I don't like about this is is the fact that you are having to connect to Streets that would send your traffic through other neighborhoods And I agree with the comment that was made about You know makes it more difficult for the school buses to have to go in and out And that sort of thing Worry about the lack of infrastructure improvements on Clayton road and I think The traffic concerns really bother me And at this point unless somebody can come up with a good reason otherwise, I'm probably against this too Thank you. Thank you commissioner brian commissioner johnson Thank you. Um, so To uh, miss let me make sure I can say this almost correctly. Sadako The cod low. Oh, we got a D wrong Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Um Um, would I be Accurate in my assumption that the goal is while you say 23 single family lots the Ideally an ideal situation you put as many Uh units on this this uh parcel is as feasible I'm saying from an engineering standpoint It's not feasible to maximize the number of units that the zoning would allow And so I am a response if we walk up tomorrow and some amazing technology Was before us and it allowed 23 units to become 27 units with that move you to Consider viably putting 27 units on and this is just hypothetical me me speaking here I I admitted in the meeting at the library that I am known for putting as many units as I can on a piece of property With and meet meeting all the criteria, but I can't see that magic happening. Okay. Okay. That's that's fair And so to an uh earlier question, I think it was from I don't know who it was one of my colleagues asks What was the basis of the transportation? analysis, so my peer Over on this side Pointed out on exhibit three if I'm correct. It's based on 30 30 units being on on that site So I think we were thinking it was 2015 versus 23 or something, but it's 30. So if you so Maxing it out Doing my rough work comes to about 34 units 32 to 35 units Taking the 20 off to use his algorithm gets it down to about 27 26 Depending upon where it all lands And so um If we're assuming based off of what I've heard from from transportation that the three stubs will be basically Required to be the connection points um One could Assume but since it's not committed That the maximum number of units would not be able to be programmed on that site but we That's my hypothetical question which leads me to the quality of life issues So one thing that I and I apologize to the neighbors is that I tend to take trips during different times of the day To see what it looks like and I didn't do it for this For this application So I'm I'm thankful to my colleagues who pointed this out because that sways my thinking on the issue of of basically up zoned Ups on the inform for higher density because if there are People in general but kids walking in that I drove it today And if there are people walking on that of the roads that That's an issue like and I don't see anything coming over from a transportation improvement On uh, it's a clayton road or in that area anytime soon So with that being said I am inclined to not be to be an opposition of the request here For higher density on this and even though the map make looks from a visual standpoint it makes sense visually But when you incorporate the quality of life thing, I'm just not Comfortable Thank you commissioner johnson any other commissioners who'd like to speak commissioner miller So I have but when we talked about this in june I was gently urging people to look at a development plan and And if you're going to do your own land planning, uh, it seems to me that you would be in a position to do a development plan This unit count and its consequent traffic impact Question and Perhaps some other issues That could be resolved to give greater Certainty to the neighbors. It seems to me Especially since you're in a situation where you don't have to pay somebody else to do a development plan It seems to me that the short route to success here And You had a meeting with them where they talked about a development plan I had a meeting with them where we talked about what might be accomplished in a development plan Um, I agree that this rs10 idea is not a bad thing Um, I mean, it's a logical match But it is an unusual situation where where a new subdivision isn't connecting to the main road that serves it That is depending upon filtering its traffic out through other subdivisions. Now, it's it's that I mean that's to me That's less than perfectly satisfactory I understand the provision for connectivity and and the requirement for stubs and i'm not suggesting that it's a bad thing But when we do that instead of also connecting to the main road It it rubs me the wrong way now It would be a matter of considerably less concern if we had a development plan that said that that rs10 d the maximum number of units will be Uh 20 21 23 something like that Then I would my own anxiety about how you might maximize the development potential of the property would go away um And while at site while we do require stub connection We also have a provision in the code code as mr. Judge told us That with the right circumstances you can apply for and be relieved of Uh the obligation to connect to one or more stubs environmental Uh concerns are one of them and I know that this wetland uh that I know that you can make go away Is right there where the alpha drive stub comes in so um Because there's no development plan and because I have a tenant I would prefer to Want to see a development plan that's that gives everybody the certainty here And it doesn't seem to me that this would be the most a very complicated development plan. So Uh without it i'm voting no, uh, if you told me that you would Wanted to somehow work out a development plan and fix that number of units Then I might change my mind and may and urge the council to to Uh, I get make a conditional recommendation to the council to approve it with an appropriate development plan Not stopping it here not another delay But going forward knowing that that you would make a development plan and fix that number of units And uh settle this issue of how the traffic impacts are going to work Commissioner Gibbs Well, I feel somewhat the same way without a development plan It's it's a little up in the air, but Uh in looking at the other Development around here that they're all interconnected And this is a very small comparatively speaking small frontage small in in area Uh Even though there's not a development plan It's something that you know, I don't think it should be controlled by What little bit I think it would contribute to any traffic flow on on Clayton road This is another one that it's it's hard to come up with A definitive yes or no Right now without a development plan I'm I would have to Tend toward not approving it That's it. Great. Thank you. Are there any final comments before we have a motion for approval or have one more question mission Miller, uh for this is for staff based upon your experience, uh with a Residential development of this size Will a certain amount of this property have to be taken up with some sort of stormwater BMP Jacob Wiggins will the playing department Yeah, I mean they will have to provide Either a BMP or other means of mitigation for this property. All right that helps. Thank you Thank you So at this point we'll take a motion a reminder that motions are in the affirmative and then we will vote for Against and again, we are advisory body only this will move forward then to the city council Commissioner gauche Was not ready to make a motion, but if that's where we're at that's where Sorry, I thought I saw your hand raised But I will I will take a motion from whoever would like to make a motion at this point Mr. Chairman. I move that we send case z 17 00034 Forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation second Motion made by commissioner miller seconded by commissioner brine and we will have a roll call vote, please Commissioner el turk yes Commissioner johnson no commissioner gauche i'm gonna vote yes Commissioner brine no Commissioner satterfield no Commissioner jerican no Commissioner hyman no Commissioner miller no Commissioner kenshin no commissioner van Commissioner gibbs no Commissioner williams no And chair busby no Motion passes a motion fails two to ten Great. Thank you all very much for your time this evening We will move to our next item. This is case z one eight quadruple zero eight 69 19 herndon road We'll start with the staff report again if you are planning to testify. Please sign up carlo rosenberg planning department. Um, this i'm here to present zoning case z 18 000 Eight six nine one nine um herndon road the proposal Um, excuse me The proposal is put forth by the city of durham the site acreage is 2.20 one located within the city limits The rezoning request is to change plan development residential pdr to residential suburban 20 rs 20 The specific request is to construct a new fire station for the city accommodating an 11 000 square foot building with drive areas and parking Because no development plan is included in this application No commitments can be made and therefore any uses allowed in the rs 20's district could be built here in the future In addition to approval of this application the fire station use would also require a minor special use permit from the board of adjustment So this is an aerial map of the subject area, which is highlighted in red It's located along herndon road just south of its intersection with massie's chapel road less than one mile east of south point mall And it's in close proximity to several suburban housing developments These are some images of the vacant site and surrounding parcels which contain single family homes This is a zoning context map showing residential uses to be the predominant zoning in the area The map on the right shows the subject area proposed to be rezoned to residential suburban 20 Which matches nearby zoning districts This is a future land use map showing the use of low density residential across the site and surrounding parcels The proposed rs 20 district aligns with the low density residential feature land use category This table shows the dimensional standards for new non-residential structures to be developed on the site Who require a minimum street yard of 25 feet minimum open space of 10 percent of the gross area A minimum single side yard of 10 feet total side yardage 20 feet 24 feet Minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet maximum building coverage of 60 percent And a maximum building height of 45 feet So in terms of the proposed fire station use non-residential development in residential districts Requires commercial level buffering which equates to a 20 to 30 foot vegetative buffer So the slide staff reviewed this item against applicable Comprehensive plan policies as seen here in an attachment five of your packet The proposal was found to be consistent with all applicable policies And finally staff determined that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan And the applicable policies and ordinance. Do you have any questions? Happy to answer them. Great. Thank you We will open the public hearing And there's nobody signed up to speak So I would ask if there's anyone here who would like to speak during the public hearing Seeing none this doesn't happen often We we're gonna go with it. We're gonna we're gonna move to close the public hearing Any commissioners who have questions Comments commissioner johnson Just a simple question for staff. Is there a particular reason why um, let me show i'm asking the right question. Yeah, no development plan was Provided with the application. Just curious Carla Rosenberg planning department. Um, the option was discussed with the applicant. Um, however, they elected to not use an amount development plan. Um I think a specific reason Yeah, we're probably better a gray smith with planning It'll probably be better for the applicant to to elaborate on that But it was our understanding that the the project is not in the design phase yet where they could Nail down the specifics and doing this type of zoning would leave the property Still zoned for a compatible use in that area if they did not build a fire station However, I think the applicant needs to address that question and not us, but that was our understanding Okay quick follow-up Two-part question. So when we say applicant, I'm assuming we're saying city of Durham So who is uh the human being that you are office that you would There's a representative from the department of general services here that could answer any questions about that And who owns the land does the city currently owns the land? If you yeah, you can come to the microphone, please give us your name your address and We appreciate you taking time to answer our questions Hi, I'm john potchess wiles. I'm in general services. I live at 7 13 west club boulevard in Durham So your question was about the development plan. I think that it just didn't seem appropriate or it didn't seem necessary Project is not in design yet. We don't have any We don't have any uh civil engineers under contract to work on the project And i'm sorry one more and so is there a possibility if you can get me on a scale of one to ten that this Proposed site could turn out to not be the site even even after the request tonight. I can't imagine a scenario where that would happen This the site was specifically sought for fire station and it's perfect for the use So that's that is 100 the intended use Thank you commissioner brian Before the gentleman leaves the podium a couple questions This is a new fire station not a replacement for the parkwood fire station I've you can come down to the the main microphone. That'd be great. Thank you I'm andy synipoli with the city of Durham fire department. So yes, it is uh the current station when we consolidated We started temporarily using the fire station that's within the parkwood neighborhood We try not to use fire stations inside of a residential neighborhood because where they're located and having to get out of there That station was never designed for continuous human occupancy When it was first built back in the 70s by a volunteer fire department and it's been retrofitted and it's not really up to a city standard and so we Acquired that property with the intent of building a fire station there and in in addition It's not the station location for the old parkwood station isn't in a great location if you look at our entire response Guidelines so okay, so this is replacing the parkwood. That's yes We don't actually own that station where we lease it from the county. No, I understand that but I mean Yeah, it's a rip this this one will appear and the parkwood. Yes, sir disappear. Yes. Thank you The one other comment I would make I know a request was made for a five foot bicycle lane and without a development plan There's no way for you to respond to that Uh or commit to that But my feeling is if this bicycle lane has been documented then it states that it has And Durham is one of the groups is Durham Chapel Hill carburel MPO If you if it's documented that way I expect the city of Durham to live up to what is in that plan And I'd like to see a bicycle lane I would agree with that If it's certainly if it's a requirement of of the udo of the of the project through planning Pulled by by that. Thank you Mr. Miller So my own view on this is We need to replace the parkwood station because it's not performing it it increases response times This is a 2.2 acre piece of property You even if you built a 20,000 square foot fire station on it It would be a pretty damn low intensive use You could put four houses on it zoned in the zone the way they want it and you can put probably More than six on it the way it's currently zoned if they don't use it It's going to jump down to rs 20. It's unlikely that somebody's going to put four houses on it there They'll probably want to rezone it. So I don't see I think we've got fail safes and safeguards The area needs a new fire station The height limitations and all those things that that obtain for the rs 20 zone will obtain here I'm going to vote for it And I don't think it needs a development plan and you you actually heard that fall from my lips We're just going to pause for 10 seconds and let that sink in any other questions or comments from other commissioners If none, I'll entertain a motion Mr. Chairman, I move that we send case z 18 quadruple 0 8 forward to the city council With a favorable recommendation second Moved by commissioner miller seconded by commissioner williams. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, unanimously passes unanimously passes We'll move to our next case z 1 8 quadruple 0 7 weaving water It will start start with the staff report miss sannyak Oh, uh while jacob is setting up. I just wanted to clarify for the record that the carrington case was To 11 the vote was to 11. I didn't bring my notes up here. Sorry to 11 instead of 210. Great. Thank you We'll thank you jacob wiggins with the planning department This is a request for a case titled weaving water Which is located at 3912 and 3920 river mott road The applicant is miss daniel restill This is a request to resume approximately 12 acres from residential suburban 20 to plan development residential 1.9 64 Or pdr 1.9 64 I'm with a proposal of 24 single family units with a four bedroom rooming house The subject site is highlighted in red in front of you. You can see its location along river mott road And the property is just south of the, you know, river state park river motton is accessed from primarily from coal mill road and you can see this area is Just to the west of the orange county Durham county line Some area photos starting in the top left hand corner. You can see a photo into the site itself On the right hand side, you can see views of river mott road As well as access to a trail. This is located just a little north of the site and then on the On your left hand side at the bottom or i'm sorry on the bottom left corner there That's the entrance to a subdivision across the street from the subject site I'm looking at this property from zoning context standpoint rs 20 is the predominant zoning district in this area as you can see on the yellow in your map With rr located to the north There are a few pockets of pdr zoning Just to the southwest of this site along coal mill road On the future land you future land use map as you can see the site is designated as low density residential that is the predominant Land use category in this area. There's also some residential open space And we'll note that the other the ear is not complete It will there will be a couple of additional parcels that will show up as Residential open space if you can see them on your screens there This parcel will be designated as r. Us as well as these two parcels north of river mott road I'm in this bulky green area up here comprises a large part of the eno state park Proposed conditions. This is seen as the development plan in your packet As I noted the applicant is proposing 24 single family residential units With one ingress negris point off of river mott road located in the southwestern corner of the subject site Summary of some of the key committed elements as I noted the 24 residential units the four bedroom rooming house The one side access point and a maximum height of 35 raw units Comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request. There were two key policies as well as the future land use map And staff found that the request was consistent of all three of those policies And generally speaking the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan Plugable policies and ordinances and I'll be happy to answer any questions the commission may have at this time Thank you. Thank you. We will move to open the public hearing I will tell you in advance There are a lot of names crossed out and a few folks who put a question mark if they were for or against So just work with me. We'll figure this out I think some of these folks actually may have signed up for an earlier hearing on this sheet by accident But at the moment I believe we have two individuals who are signed up to speak for the proponents And we have two individuals signed up to speak against and three who gave a question mark So we will have those come after the individuals who are who are against So to start again, each side will have 10 minutes. We will start with Daniel Brestel and katie hamilton Good evening commissioners and thank you for having us. My name is katie hamilton. I'm here representing stewart Danielle is the applicant in this case And i'm going to let her speak first kind of speak about the intentions for this neighborhood and what she sees Leaving water really becoming Hi, good evening If you can start with your name and address, that'd be great My name is Danielle Brestel. I live at 2031 hillock place I am the applicant for this rezoning request I currently live in a single family dwelling about a mile northeast of the site Our property backs up to the eno river State park a state park that I love and where my family spends a great deal of time My interest in rezoning this property is to reduce the environmental impact of the current rs 20 designation This is my first development project I decided to develop to develop a co-housing community to provide a better quality of life for my family and others My parents moved to durham two years ago To be close to my family and especially my daughter They struggled to find a one story Modestly sized home in a natural setting that would fill fill their desire to age in place We also struggled to find accessible housing with a sense of community where neighbors looked out for one another like eno commons or solterra We're seeking to rezone in order to cluster our houses into multiplexes with a maximum of four units um, this is something that May be different than what the commitments currently state and katie will get to that um And also to provide clustered parking areas near the property entrance rather than driveways with parking at each residence We're interested in stacking units to provide some accessible homes for those with limited mobility For example, my family plans to live in a single floor unit above my parents single floor accessible unit on the ground floor um We planned to group two to three units of modest sized footprint prints ranging from 800 to 1800 square feet in a building Each building would look similar to a single family dwelling, which is consistent with the current neighborhood Our desire to develop intelligent two-story housing solutions and cluster parking is deeply connected to our desire To minimize impervious surfaces preserve water quality and forest coverage and encourage interaction between neighbors Compared with the current rs20 zoning our plan greatly reduces the negative impact on the watershed Maintains a forested environment to maintain the eno river state park experience several Several neighbors support this project including our neighbors to the east who are michael meredith and wendy jacob's We are providing original solutions for housing needs and expanding dorm housing choices in an environment like environmentally responsible way Thank you for your time Thank you so, um as danielle alluded to based on some recent um, thank you Some recent meetings we had um, we decided to modify the development plan text commitments just slightly Um, so I wanted to kind of highlight those changes from what we're in your staff report Um, what we've decided to commit to we realized we had made a slight error in our You know wording using the term single family units We'd wanted to differentiate between the rooms and the boarding rooming house not rooming house and the dwelling units But calling them single family would have required us to do lots and we really want this to be as danielle said more of a Community that doesn't have people having lots with their two parking spots on their lot in a very traditional subdivision So what we've changed that to is to say that we were going to have a condominium form of ownership for single family two family and multiplex units um This is exactly what we communicated to the neighborhood when we had a neighborhood meeting on march March sometime in march. Um, it was a saturday morning So they are aware that that's what was coming before them. We just had used improper Terms in our development plan We had a hard time hearing you do you mind just repeating the actual Of the commitment right before you talk about the neighborhood meeting Yeah So the commitment itself will say the property will be developed as a series of single family two family and or multiplex units In support buildings in a condominium form of ownership All land area not directly beneath an individually owned dwelling unit shall be held in common open space owned by the home owners association So that's the exact text commitment. Um And then the other text commitment we decided to add Based on some feedback from the neighbors who are concerned about the impacts of A different building typology and different residential typology on them was to commit to preserving the existing evergreen vegetation along river mott As shown Here in the development plan Sorry I'm gonna use this graphics. It's a little bit easier to see but this is the strand of Evergreen vegetation along river mott road that we have committed to not Tearing down to protect the neighbors to the west of us Um, we kind of wanted to go over why we think changing to the pdr is good as far as danielle was saying with environmental considerations This is our preferred scenario danielle has reached out to conservation agencies to see if we can As you see the existing conditions, there's two parcels and we're only Proposing to rezone 12 of the 22 ish acres The rest of it we really like to keep in conservation area and even if it cannot be conserved It's mainly non-developable due to steep slopes which you can see here in gray and the um Stream buffers that are on the site as well So we wanted to look at what would really happen with the existing zoning and what could be there versus what we're proposing Um, so the existing zoning for the entire project Done with a cluster subdivision and forgive us. We got a little overzealous at steward and put an extra lot on there Um This plan but would allow for up to 42 units and Recently the site could accommodate that in comparison if the pdr only has 24 lots within it's 12 units or 12 acres The rest of the pdr zoning would really only be able to support another 10 units So immediately you are getting a reduction of eight units Off the bat, which we think is appropriate for this area and this context right along the eno river state park um, I think So here's a little bit more on the and pdr impacts. These are again In your staff report another thing we really wanted to focus on is this impervious surface We're greatly reducing our impervious surface allowance 70 percent is what's allowed in rs 20 And we're only going to allow 20 on this. So we're we think we're really starting to respond to the environmental sensitivity of this area um and continuing to preserve the uh environmental features here that are so vital to dirhams success and with that I think we're gonna preserve the rest of our time to respond to any comments that opposition has Thank you very much. There are two minutes left that we can reserve And we had actually we had three individuals who signed up Against and I'll read off all of your names and I'd ask you to come up James king charles kozart and evan koresh And Then we also had Three that signed up just so we can make sure you're here michelle smith craig Hudson it looks like and jonathan benin, but again if you can come up and give us your name and your address And uh, you have 10 minutes combined If we could reset the clock, please Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'm i'm james king. I live at 12 graily drives And uh, there's uh, maybe one of the explanations for all the question marks is I think most of the neighbors realize that there's no stopping to the development It's just how it's done and um, maybe have some sensitivity to some of the not only the state park, which I think They have Going out of their way to do but I think some of the concerns that particularly I have is is some of the limited infrastructure That the uh, the neighborhood Particularly river mott road has to the development We uh, as I said, I live on graily, which is just west of the property, um, which we use river mott to access We have 26 neighbors right now along both river mott and graily Potentially we could double the amount of people that live along that corridor when we we go with Another possibly 24 units on the on the property um, we're concerned because there's That basically the even in the I notice in in the change report that They addressed coal mill road when they did the transportation calbs But nothing nothing really considered what effects it would have on river mott And those of us living on river mott river mott is is 18 feet wide or narrow however you look at it and 1800 feet long to the property Um, and it's not a lot of room and and it's taken quite a beating No, we've lived there for about three and a half years and and even in that short time period It's it's it's pretty rough. Um, you know, it's it it's it's basically a collection of of patch potholes and unpatched potholes Um, and it it needs quite a bit of repair So our concern is that you know with this growth this development down there that um That some attention be given to the street for safety reasons We have a lot of families that live there people like to walk their dogs. We don't have sidewalks on river mott So everybody walks down the middle of the street Which is usually okay, but doubling the amount of traffic on river mott Would cause me some pause and so I just I want to make sure that it's it's being done with some respect to the neighborhood and um Again, not not a not a Against progress because it's going to happen. Something's going to happen on that site. Uh, I just I just want to make sure it's done Right Great. Thank you Charles cozard Oh I'm sorry that that he did leave if if other individuals are still here that would like to speak. Please come up. Um, we have Evan koresh Good evening. Uh, Evan karish. I live at seven grayly drive um In contrast to the many people who have lived here for decades. I have lived here for Six weeks I came here in part attracted to the low density Of of the neighborhood. I was attracted to The open space the green space and the forest that I moved to seattle 35 years ago When it was a small sleepy town that nobody had ever heard of um It exploded The nature and character of the city because of unregulated Not growth but unregulated unplanned growth Really did destroy the nature and character of what many people moved to seattle for So it gives me great appreciation for the role and responsibility that you have in terms of Excuse me the future of Durham My concerns are three. First of all The information that was provided to you by the city does not represent In fact What is planned for the site? So all of the analysis and decisions that were predicated on the information provided Apparently are not correct My second consideration has to do with the nature and character of the plan development vis-a-vis The existing nature and character of the homes in that area And the third is an issue of safety Specifically for the people who live along river mott This is a a neighborhood of single family homes It is zoned rs 20 and the plan is to put multifamily multi-story housing With separated separate parking lots on that parcel That is vastly different than the nature of the single family homes which are currently in that neighborhood And that kind of the is is the kind of construction that you see in condo complexes Adjacent to shopping centers. That is not the kind of development that you see in single family homes My additional consideration and it was alluded to is is the safety issue river mott is is Approximately as we heard 18 feet wide You can get one car on it in some spots. You might be able to get two cars Passing not in all of the spots. There are no sidewalks alongside river mott And there are ditches on either side of the road at any point in during the day There are a great many people who are walking down river mott Who are pushing strollers down river mott? Who are walking their children down river mott and with traffic there is nowhere to go If there's more than one car on the road at a time There are no sidewalks. There's nowhere for people to move out of the way Of of traffic and I have concern for the safety of the people who live along river mott As well as those who are accessing enos state park So for those three reasons the nature and character of the plan development, which is inconsistent What which what was provided to the city considerations for the multifamily multi-story high density housing Which is inconsistent with the single family nature of the neighborhood And the third my concerns about the safety of individuals who live along river mott And the fact that that road is really not built to handle the kind of traffic And the nature and pattern of traffic that would result Those three reasons caused me to speak against the motion or against the plan rezoning Thank you. Thank you for your comments and welcome to Durham Michelle Smith Great, please come on up I'm michelle smith. I live at um 14 grayley road The first house that was built at the end of that cul-de-sac I've lived there five years We moved to Durham. We chose it After visiting numerous times over the years when our son went to duke Um, I love the community. I'm in I love the residential area. I'm in we are single family homes We are on We have we back up to the eno. We chose that lifestyle I took two years to find this home because of the lifestyle that we live there The eno that danielle likes State park is the same thing we do I appreciate that she is thinking green and all of that is just that And that property will not stay vacant forever. I mean, I miss the goats if I had my choice I would take the goats back, but you know As I've heard all night, there's I'm not the only one that's chosen to do. There's lots of people moving here Every neighborhood has to make room I just don't understand A multi urban very urban urban Sort of environment plunk right down in the middle of a very rural area and The traffic we get to the eno is a lot A lot. It's a very popular Place to hike to bring children and all that and the road just is not going to support that many families Living there. It's just I know you have some Mathematical things that you put together that you figure out how traffic works But for those of us that live there and maybe this is not important to you, but it is to me We have a variety of wildlife And that area they want to build in is a Traffic zone for all the deer that we have there and we have fox and we have Fox we have all sorts of birds we have rabbits, I mean there's We're trying to live with them as harmoniously as we can but that area is their their their space So thank you. Thank you Craig Hudson, I bet I got that wrong but please come on up and Let me know what I got wrong Yes, my name is Craig Hudson. I actually am The developer of greatly drive, you know fall subdivision. I have been living in Durham 55 years. I was born here I don't know that I am necessarily against the project. I understand something Can be put there. Um, no one would want to pay taxes on the rest of their life just to look at it. I understand that so I'm a little bit torn on the fence of it. Uh, I think as a developmental stand of it and the way it's looked at I'm not so sure that either any of you Or any of your parents Would want to go to the furthest House or dwelling And then let them off and then drive back and then walk in the rain or push a wheelchair back to the furthest one I understand we have a parking. Please continue parking area Um Am I done now you can please continue But you know I and again I And and if this is the most ecologically Friendly thing that we can put there. It's like I've kind of told A few people um have to pick our poison And I I do understand that something's got to be there. I just really would like you all to make sure that uh that you have Looked it over as best you can transportation wise impact wise ecological, um, you know water runoff develop developmental aspect of it just to make sure that this is the best thing that can be done and You know and and again to not be the dead horse rivermont is a complete travesty. I just called up Took me three times, but I got like 20 potholes fixed and I think that road deserves more and I think the people that live there deserve more than what is that um, so just There's a lot of ways and a lot of impact on a lot of different things. That's the reason the question mark you saw was on my name So thank you very much. Thank you. We have one final individual sign up to speak jonathan bennett Good evening commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is jonathan bennett. I live at 3804 rivermont road, which is uh three lots Down from one of the lots that we're talking about tonight I've lived there for 11 years now Uh with my family and my children Um Like craig who just spoke I don't have a very strong opinion either way about this particular development Other than the following, uh, and that is and it's been emphasized by a couple of speakers that rivermont is a narrow road and there's a lot of potholes and people litter there are no sidewalks except for a very short strip Uh And people walk with their families up and down that road and we are talking if we go with the numbers that that were quoted earlier About basically doubling the number of families that that use that stretch of road Um, that's not reflected in the report that was given to you all that that looked at the traffic on coal mill But rivermont is what you'd have to go down to get to the development that we're talking about So I do have a concern about the traffic and about the safety of Of people walking and it is a family neighborhood people use that road all the time every evening You'll see people walking up and down the street there So that that's my biggest concern about about this and I would ask that you consider that carefully Uh and make sure that that the safety issue and the transportation along rivermont is attended to. Thank you Thank you very much. I know the proponents you had an additional two minutes and we we let the Opponents and those with some concerns have a little additional time. So I invite you back for a few more minutes. Okay. Thank you um One thing I would like to highly point out is that we are not requesting additional density for what it is What the property is currently zoned? Uh as we pointed out earlier We could put Just as many homes on that property in its current zoning as we are proposing So as far as the traffic load goes is not significantly impacted um The other thing I would like to address uh is The unit type um, I know people are scared of what multifamily looks like in a neighborhood and Grayley road, which is um The newest development and where many of these people live have homes on them that are between 3000 and 4000 Square feet with attached garages Our homes will not be larger than that. They will just have two or three units within them So when you look at the property, it will look like Nine or ten buildings Which have additional units within them. So it will still maintain that feel of what a residential area looks like And I'd like I'd like to speak to the issue of rivermont road Um, and this is he or say so take it for what you will we did speak with a couple of residents along rivermont road That is not a true right-of-way. It is currently a right-of-way by maintenance the state park actually a Majority of rivermont's true roadway They do not want it paved. They have Bought against the dot and getting it paved in the past as the dot has tried to come through and make improvements on rivermont The state park did not want them This is my understanding through hearsay. So take it as you will But that's um based on a neighbor who lives on rivermont near valley springs Who's been there for a few decades and his recollection of what occurred. So I just wanted to address that Great. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in the public hearing? Yes, ma'am, please come on up again if you can give us your name and your address We would ask that you be brief in your comments Sorry, I wasn't planning on speaking My name is jennifer strobel and I live at 3704 rivermont road Which is snap dab in the middle If you're turning on to rivermont to head towards that property. I'm probably the middle house on the right hand side So I the area photos that I saw that you had put up don't really reflect Going into that area Like cutting through that neighborhood and just like The the neighbors that you mentioned on the valley spring side. That's On the other side of the development and that also is not paved. That's all gravel back in there So our end of the street is actually paved And safety is a huge issue Especially when you're looking at however many families are going to be pulling into that development They're pulling off of coal mill on rivermont Where the lane splits But it's not There's a light there, but it's past rivermont So you're looking at stopping traffic back there And then with schools and school buses both my children I've been there for 19 years too by the way on the street My kids have grown up on this road and we are the people who are walking My dog patrols the street If you're speeding he will he will run out at you if you're driving the speed limit. He will not but You really I Safety is a huge issue and that intersection is a big deal Especially if you're looking at a minimum of 25 cars If there's two cars per household or whatever you're looking at 50 vehicles Going in and out of there a minimum and you've got The narrowness of the road the potholes As well that are horrible that they fill but then the next day the gravel is all out of them again And it's just a different both ends are completely different Was there any consideration given to Baldwin being an entry point to that development Other than rivermont Thank you, ma'am actually if you don't mind if you could come and fill out This form for the record that'd be great. We are now going to move to close the public hearing Thank you And commissioners with any questions or comments. We'll start on my start on my left this time commissioner Our commissioner williams and then commissioner gibbs um, I have more of a Comment if you will um in terms of your design process and what it is that you're attempting to do here as aging in place is a huge thing um That not many people are addressing and I think that your consideration of rezoning to reduce the amount of actual properties and addressing the capacity of Having even though it will be multifamily but multi-story, but it has a single family appeal to it And the need of having if you're going to address the issue of aging in place Then long driveways and attachments aren't necessarily Beneficial to what it is that you're trying to do and I think that That possibly In developing in this area more attention will be driven towards the roads in an effort to make them better and more habitable And I definitely understand your concerns in terms of you walk on this road and your children play and It's more of a crossway my Other understanding is if they don't come through with the considerations that they have and because this land is still available Like it was stated before you're gonna have to pick your poison because other considerations may not be given So it may be a higher density and even more of a traffic headache if you will or A hazard if someone else comes through and they decided they want to develop an air seeking to Develop it as it's currently zoned In opposed to reducing the zoning requirements if i'm understanding this correctly. Um I think that from Your conversation about it. I think that what you're proposing Is a healthy benefit to this area and I think that it will increase traffic, but Given what the ideal? Target resident is I don't think that the traffic impact will be as vast It won't be as frequent and it will vary throughout the day. Um, especially Um Given the targeted areas some I think the maximum is like four persons per multi family or multi Complex well multiplex dwelling So that's not necessarily significant in opposed to having A facility or a building that is constructed where you have You know two parents two kids It's multiple. Uh, you got a minivan. You got a car. You got a truck. I don't think that that's where we're going with here I think that it's it's similar to what's Been proposed and I think that your your charrette process Was helpful because I can tell by the way that you're looking at constructing these buildings that you studied the area and you looked at it Um, I also have a concern that it sounds like most of the issues are about the potholes that I don't know that Whether we approve or deny this is going to change whether or not those potholes get filled by more than gravel. So I'm inclined to vote for it Thank you commissioner, uh commissioner gibbs Uh, I'm going to support this too. Uh, I like cluster Uh housing uh as a concept a building concept Uh, you get the very you can get variable density and and still Retain some openness And it's applicability for affordable housing and marketing marketable Development I also like the idea Because of my age, I guess Uh, but not necessarily Co-housing investment I think it's a coming thing. I we've already seen Uh about three in the Durham area and I I I think it this particular Uh proposal will work in this area and as far as traffic and Getting something done about potholes and paving and all of that The more people you've got there the more influence I hope With the city the county the state or whoever is responsible for that. So I'd I think it would be a plus So I I'm going to support this And thank you for this concept Great, thank you commissioner gibbs commissioner miller So I thought I understood this project, but now I'm not sure I do Um, so if if one of you could come and answer some questions, I'd be very grateful So it's your intention to make a co-housing project, but I don't see any commitment to co-housing In in the development plan. It doesn't have to be co-housing Correct. Yeah, I mean we did not commit to that with a text commitment, but it will be condos All right, and there's a 24-acre parcel that you own, but the rezoning is only half of that Yes, it's approximately 22 whole acres and then we are rezoning a little over 12 of them All right, and but we talked about the remaining property and putting that in conservation And the implication of that was is taking it out of development. Correct. That would be but there's no commitment to that Right So that may or may not happen Our goal is to I understand your goal. I'm just no by leaving the trying to understand the Legal limits of what we're talking about right by leaving the rs20 designation to encourage a Conservation agency to purchase the land. I appreciate that, but that's not there is not a commitment. We can't count on that Correct And somebody could turn around and build on the buildable parts of that. Yes, and and so help me to understand if I believe you said if if we were to develop the entire 22 acres As rs20, how many units would that yield? 40 42 pardon me 42 42 and The actual unit count for the 12 acres that's the subject of this rezoning All right, uh, how many would that be developed as rs20? 32 yes 32 pardon me 32 32, but you proposed to put 24 in there so that is a Reduction The remaining portion that's outside that how many you rs20 units could go on that if your rezoning passes But no conservation agency comes in and somebody maxes out the rs20 development potential of the property at 10 Yeah, 10 10 would be the absolute max and that's using a cluster subdivision. So we really did max it out, right? So so if This is rezoning is passed and you get to the 24 units that that will be Condoed and have some multifamily aspect to them On the subject property and then 10 there that's 34 as opposed to the 42 That if we didn't do anything at all So it is a net if the rezoning passes even if there's no conservation There's a net gain and if you do later get a conservation Agency to come and take that then the the gain is even better, but that's outside the scope of the rezoning. All right But I appreciate you tell us about it. I I just wanted to get these numbers in my mind One of the things that bothers the neighbors is It's not just density. It's form And you have tried to say well, we're going to build the houses across the street in the in that single-shot cul-de-sac.  I don't know But you don't have a commitment in your development plan Limiting the maximum size of any one of your buildings except for the rooming house can't be bigger than 4 000 square feet Correct. We are happy to add a commitment to that if you put a commitment in there that says that says no building on your property Will be bigger than a certain number of square feet That is a step towards your commitment to A single-family residential scale that would be at least similar to the top end Of the rivermont the paved rivermont community And it might make it. I know I would feel better about your assertion as to how these units will look If you added that in i'm not going to speak for your neighbors I also know that you say that there'll be no architectural style It might help if if you've got a concept for your architectural style or Arrange it might make them feel better and trust the that what is built there will be Residential looking rather than non residential looking if you contemplated A commitment to a one or more residential styles that you feel comfortable working with them. Those are just suggestions Other than that, even though there are not commitments for conservation and there are not commitments For co-housing I think that with commitments to maximum building size and architectural style Directed at this the overall Benefit for in terms of the impacts that the neighbors have expressed concerned about Is better Uh and I don't believe if you did not own this piece of property somebody soon would be developing it And they probably wouldn't be asking for our s20 They'd be in here asking for a pdr of something even more another kind of pdr that would allow them also to cope more more Fully with all the the environmental issues that this property is impacted by At a greater density And we would be considering it So I'm not sure that That if we rolled the dice again on this piece of property that it would come up with a better number for For the neighbors based upon the concerns. I heard them express I'm going to vote for this, but I do hope going forward you will consider those extra commitments Don't give away More than you can afford to but if you can give if you can give away something you're not going to use That makes them feel better then I encourage you to do that Mr. Wiggins, thank you. I just want to clarify one thing there commissioner miller The area that you're referring to for the conservation areas not subject to this rezoning So the applicant can't proper any commitments for that area, right? I wasn't asking them to just making that I was making that point too Mr. Durkin I just had a question on the traffic and access to the rivermont road your proposal will just have one Entry point to rivermont. So if they're if their rezoning wasn't approved Then you would have you could potentially have multiple driveways that would go right on to rivermont The way it is I can they see this There's an image I can see right here. Yeah, we've got it Okay, okay. Yeah, I guess I just wanted to make the and make sure that I was understanding the point Correctly that your plan would limit the access the direct access whether or not it would limit the number of cars I don't really that wasn't really my point, but just the impact of directly on to rivermont would be Beneficial I would think for the neighbors. Yes Yeah, and I mean we did not run The ability to put multiple driveways By transportation or anything. This is just a layout that was done schematically. Um, right. We are maintaining the existing driveway Entrance with our development plan. So it's really not any new driveway impacts on to rivermont Mr. Satterfield Thank you. Thank you chair. Um, I think that uh, commissioner miller's questions mostly Answered my concerns one of which was whether the development plan was sufficient without any additional tax commitments To keep this from going in the direction of just your typical condominium development as opposed to a co-housing type of a development But overall i'm mostly concerned with the Keeping the density down, but in particular The conservation of that northern piece even though that's not part of what's being Requested to rezone at this time As an additional buffer for the park and as an additional amenity for whoever ends up living on this property So even though again, that's not a commitment that you can make Um as part of this request, i'm hoping and urging you to pursue some strategy for doing that. Yes, we are Commissioner brane. Thank you. Um a couple of questions for staff on Attachment seven summary of development plan Uh on a required information It says on the on the summary it's three access points, but we've heard numerous times. We're only one access point And under tax commitments There's this statement about providing a contribution to the Durham public schools and I didn't see that anywhere Thank you commissioner brane for pointing that out and catching that that was on all that was in an early edition Of the development plan that is the applicant has since stricken that so that should not be there. So thank you. Okay. Thank you Uh, I also have a question for mr. Jed I'm probably gonna defer to miss thomas, but that's fine It will all be relieved if you do Uh, is this within the city limits? Is this area? No, it is not. It is not Uh Yeah, it is Sorry, do you rivermont wrote itself is in the city this particular parcel has a pending annexation petition So they are proposing annexation. Okay. So rivermont is in the city And that leads to the transportation question if it's in the city can't The city do to do something about improving rivermont Rivermont is a state-maintained road Well, can you see do t would be responsible for maintenance Can you guys uh Nudge the state do t in any way? I mean i'm sympathetic to their concerns But I think their concerns would not be as great If uh rivermont was in better shape That's where i'm coming from And I guess for the applicant thank you for the applicant Is there any way you can push getting rivermont improved? I mean if if it's going to remain a bad road You may not have very many people interested in your development I go ahead Valid concern um I The do t is notoriously fun to work with um, I think We can try our best, but that's all we can really promise. Um There's you know, we can ask I think but uh, again apparent As I said with the hearsay thing the do t has tried to improve this road and the state park worked against it so I'm not sure where how those two state departments aren't working together on that but um Let's start by pushing do t and see what you get Thank you Thank you chair So I have a lot of the same concerns that um, sorry commissioner miller About The lack of certain commitments despite the representations from the applicant About certain things so one of the things that um Commissioner miller did not mention, but what I heard today was That there there would only be like nine or ten buildings I do think that's something you could add a commitment to I don't know if that would alleviate any of the neighbor's concerns, but uh, I I just find it Odd that you would have a development plan that doesn't have some of those Like easier commitments that seem to be part of your Plan for development of this property in the first place um, the other thing is I don't think it was said here, but or said tonight, but I did get an email from uh, stewart the consultant group about The intent to preserve that Area that is that you own which is not part of this rezoning um And I guess at the time I didn't realize that it wasn't part of the rezoning and assumed that it was a commitment And not that I have I'm not making a comment on on whether that's good or bad I just confused as to why that is being um Why that is being offered from the consultant group but not being offered as a tax amendment in on the development plan It makes it hard to evaluate it because It was presented as that's what this project is but in fact it does not appear to be that way Yeah, I I'm sorry if the language was unclear in Any other communication, but because it's not part of this Piece of land It's not it's not in any way a commitment that we can make um, and just to speak One there's a financial aspect of zonings are based on the acreage So to double the zoning acreage would also have a fee that gets doubled and so when you're not getting any sort of When you don't need to rezone something you don't necessarily want to pay a fee that's twice as much to rezone it even if you do want to commit to preserving it in the future Then I know there was some benefit to leaving it as far as 20 as an incentive to actually um preserve it as an incentive to the preservation agencies to show that it could be developed as opposed to When you say it can't be developed because it's a commitment you then have no value in it It it will not earn you any money from An agency that would want to preserve it. Well, I I can appreciate that. Uh, I guess I would say Then maybe you should make your communications more uniform because that's not the case right now. Okay The Oh the other thing that I was gonna I think commissioner miller did mention this But we've heard several times that the buildings will be Residential in nature or whatever. I mean, there's an opportunity to add architectural conditions, which I think would You know make that part of this zoning case I Don't know if that's something you guys are interested in or are you know, what extra tax commitments you would be interested in adding um I for one would like to see them if that's something you guys are interested in and and not that I Don't support the idea of this case But I would be interested I mean if it's something that you're telling people you're gonna do and something that you were willing to Put into a zoning commitment I've been inclined to continue this matter so that you can add those commitments. Yeah, okay Yeah, I'm happy to make commitments to the the building size the number of buildings Calling it co-housing all of those things so if that helps Makes me more comfortable about what's committed. That's all Great, and do you do you mind Just repeating for the record and for the staff your commitments Or what what you just said what I just said was I'm happy to make commitments about the number of buildings The size of those buildings and the fact that it will be a co-housing community Jay Williams with the planning department. Can you repeat if there was a proffer? Will you repeat it, please? There's not a problem. There was no proper. I just I wanted to make sure that we were clear. I think it's a proffer for openness of proffering That's not a problem. Do you want to offer tax commitments today that are therefore put on our development plan for the next And then you'd say exactly what you're offering. I would encourage them to and you're gonna say between Okay, so can you say like Committing to buildings of Right, like exactly. So yes, if you would like me to make specific commitments right now, I can do that Thank you. Yep. Any other commissioners with questions or comments Missioner out turk Jacob are you ready And I will just remind the applicant that depending upon these proffers this may be subject to recommendation for an automatic two-month continuation Joe That's a very long time Um, so how do we evaluate whether or not that continuation would occur read your proffers, please Mr. Miller Well, I think the thing to do is just is to make your proffers conditional condition dot upon its response I mean, we'll let you unproffer them if if if you're not satisfied If it triggers a delay Commissioner Miller, I'm sorry to interrupt there. There's not proffering and unproffering We're either proffering commitments or we're not proffering commitments Well, um might I suggest that we give the applicant an opportunity to meet with The staff short like right now to talk about some of these and see if they change their answer to whether they're willing to commit to anything tonight I do have some other questions. So I think that would be a good time if you can Commissioner gosh if you have additional questions the floor is yours. Thank you. Um, I did want to address you guys I did want to ask mr. Koresh. I think it was Karrish, I'm sorry so, uh, your You had three points. I believe and number one was that Uh, what is in the city's or the city's assumptions are based off of maybe some incorrect information or something that is different than what is planned But I don't think you had an opportunity to Expand upon that and I didn't quite understand what these disconnects were and I was hoping you could explain that to me Certainly the the the development plan that I saw was the Multi-story multi-building condo complex design with remote parking lots a very industrial um suburban shopping center type of of architecture What I heard presented by the city at the beginning of the session Was a development plan that consisted of single family dwellings. I understood my point was that The information on which the city was operating and the information on which This body might be operating was vastly different than the development plan Which was in the minds of these individuals and there was a substantial disconnect Any predetermined considerations or decisions Based upon that original design plan wouldn't hold Based upon the design plan that was offered here. All right. Thank you that that that clears that up for me So staff, let me ask you all about that. My understanding is that I mean The assumptions that you all made Uh, we're about 24 single family lots and we have heard that In fact, it won't be single family 24 single family lots be 24 dwelling units. Um, I think most of these assumptions are related to transportation and utility impacts Do you have any comments on how The change in the product type would change those numbers? It'll have no impact Okay, so you think that in general it would be the same Yeah, generally speaking staff is going to go with the most intense option in terms of number generating Um, and usually that's going to be a single family structure. Understood Okay I see that the applicants and Uh, their representatives have taken a seat here. So I assume they may be ready to Make or not make some profit. So I would invite you up to the podium to do that or not Yes, um, so we are willing to commit that no structure be more than 4,000 square feet and, um, I'm not sure how to separate the Great the homes from the rooming house And a maximum of 12 structures Not including the existing barn correct Maximum of 12 structures not included the existing barn I should say say primary dwelling structures. How about that? Is that clarify it? I don't know it's staff to Mr. Wiggins I Don't I don't want to have a gazebo end up being or a play structure. I mean it would be considered a structure. So I would Yes, yes, okay. That is a structure a gazebo is a structure Okay, so I need to figure out how to use my terminology here then Inhabited dwelling structures dwelling structures Is that a term or I mean you can count that gazebo is one so you would have this have no more than So and then I Jacob Wiggins the playing apartment. This is the exact reason why staff has these rules in place. Yes, so If we need to wordsmith this then staff would recommend a continuation And I would I would recommend it's important to get this right Okay, and so if if you are able to do so, I believe it would be appropriate to have This continued for two cycles to ensure that what is brought back for us Works and and gets at what you're trying to achieve And to make sure that we don't have to then come back again in the future Commissioner Williams. Yeah, I I just I want to know like at this very moment whether or not these text commitments are proffered or committed to Does this affect anybody on the commission's ability to vote on whether or not they want to approve this tonight? Because if it doesn't then it seems like it's unnecessary pressure For them to commit to something if it's not going to affect your vote as it's already been presented So a delay in this is kind of delaying the inevitable in order to make us feel comfortable about something We either are going to already vote for or not vote for so interesting It's a fair question So I would ask this is the opportunity for discussion among the commissioners I would ask that you address the chair when you're Asking a question, but you may ask the chair to ask other members to share their thoughts So commissioner williams has asked the question and if people have Thoughts they would like to share. Please let me know Commissioner goshe. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I mean exactly that it would make a difference to me But primarily because of what we have been told here today and the opportunity I mean they have a development plan So I don't see why they would tell us any of these things that they're not willing to commit to that That's the only reason right Commissioner brian. I agree with commissioner goshe Other commissioners mr. Durkin. I'm ready to vote. I I don't think a delay is necessary Commissioner miller Quite frankly if they're willing to say no structure more than 4,000 square feet And we know how many units are going to build. I don't care how many buildings there are That's a simple empirical Uh proffer with that proffer alone. I'm ready to give this project my support I would love to see an architectural commitment going forward, but I'm not going to delay it for that Commissioner van. Yeah, I agree with um Miller and goshe and all um, I would just say that I just just think in the future You know, especially when we get to points like this, you know, you know, I'm a history kind of guy So I guess I see things kind of different for most of y'all But you know, um, I think when you have you're trying to work out some language And you know and what happens when you rush language? You make mistakes and these are mistakes that will have impacts not necessarily us It's going to impact you and and what we do here as well And so, um, I just think that somewhere along the line. We've got to get this process kind of cleaned up All around But I also agree that I think by now you you know enough about what you're going to do Whether you're going to vote or not And I know I'm ready to vote if That's my recommendation. Thank you commissioner Gibbs That's to get on with it. All right. I'm ready to vote So I just want to make sure before we vote I want to hear from the staff Uh, what are the what are the commitments that we have noted that will be part of what we are voting on? Thank you. Jacob Wiggins of the pine apartment. I have three proffers The first one being two that they showed earlier regarding the unit type As well as the preservation of the evergreen buffer And then the third most recent one was that no structure will be greater than 4 000 square feet And do the applicants agree with With this situation so we're all in agreement that these are the proffers that are in front of us Great. Thank you very much. This commissioner van is a perfect example of we took one extra minute And we all know what we're voting on so at this point. I would entertain a motion Or approval with these proffers. Mr. Chairman. I move that we send case Z 18 quadruple 0 7 forward to the city council With a favorable recommendation As long as it includes The three proffers which jake have just reviewed for us Yeah, second great. That is properly moved and seconded. This is correct. This is going to the city council given the annexation great We'll take a roll call vote, please Commissioner al-Turk Yes Commissioner johnson Yes Commissioner gosh Yes Commissioner brine Yes Commissioner satterfield Yes Commissioner durkin Yes Commissioner hyman Yes Commissioner miller Yes Commissioner ketchin Yes Commissioner hornbuckle I'm sorry commissioner van Yes Commissioner gibbs Yes And uh commissioner williams Yes And chair uh busby Yes Motion passes 13 to 0 Thank you. Thank you all for staying very late this evening for engaging in the process together So you might think we're done, but if you flip your agenda to the back page, we do have new business We have uh the sign ordinance provisions. This is an information item this evening This is item tc 17 quadruple zero two And here's the man with the information michael stock is what's between us and going home You thought you were going home, but lo and behold I love you got some Signed stuff to take care of or at least This is in form about Let me pull this up quickly I'm here with uh senior city attorney assistant Senior assistant city attorney uh donno tool who has been instrumental and with helping us uh draft these regulations and for um Some of the newer members on planning commission Sometimes we like to bring larger text amendments To the planning commission a month or so ahead of time to kind of just Refuse you before you're just jumping right into a public hearing setting, especially ones that are A little more complicated. Um, you might have questions or you might it gives you time to even formulate questions between now and the public hearing um If you catch a typo, let me know That kind of thing, but also if you do after this Uh presentation if you do have questions, you're more than welcome to forward them on to me and don and And we will either be able to respond to you then or bring them with us to the public hearing to address them with the body um This is uh revisions to sign regulations. I'm sorry. I keep thinking Uh, we're just this presentation is very similar to what was presented to the jcc pc in april and at a public meeting held in may Um, we're going to just give a project background how we quickly how we got here, um Don's going to go over a lot of the legal issues behind it and and so any of the the nitty-gritty law issues Don's here to answer or at least look into further if we can't answer it tonight um And same with the ordinance revision overview just kind of walk you through some of the changes I'm not going to go line by line with every change but kind of highlight the big changes And if there's something in there that you didn't see I that I mentioned But you notice within the within the changes again feel free to ask it wasn't meant to be all inclusive Um, and I don't actually I'm sorry. I don't know if I have the next steps and next steps is the public hearing itself um, so the background um back in 2015 the town of gilbert, arizona went Uh versus reed Went to the supreme court and it was a case uh focusing on non-commercial temporary signs And it resulted in a uh overturning of their regulations based upon Uh needing to uh focus more Strictly on time place and manner Uh provisions again, it was focusing on non-commercial temporary signs Uh, there were multiple and dine will get into it. There are multiple opinions on it Although they all came to one general conclusion on the case itself. There were Um multiple opinions issued Uh, so it made it a very tricky uh signs are tricky in and of themselves with uh first amendment free free speech issues Um, this ruling was even trickier because of the varying opinions Of how to handle signs So what we did was we did uh Contract with a consultant which did a they did an initial assessment and they did a presentation back Uh to the jccpc council and board of commissioners back in 2017. Unfortunately were released Uh due to issues we had uh with their uh work product and and uh Responsiveness uh, so I got to take it over Um in 2017 it it felt it primarily don and myself, uh, bryan mordell over at the county attorney's office also was involved um And other staff too, uh, we Drafted numerous uh versions and then we finally took it to the jccpc in april 2018. I was not at that meeting don was um, but um the draft you see here is 9.9 percent generally what jccpc reviewed. Um, and they had and and Chair busby, I don't know if you were at that meeting also But if my from what I was told and you uh chair busby and don can also correct me They saw no issues whatsoever and they kind of went through it in pretty detail Also, uh with it, uh, we did have a public review in may 2008 In may, uh, no substantial Comments were received the sign industry was notified Um about this and they actually did send in comments and most of their comments were kind of just preferential You should change some of the percentages of this and that there weren't any substantive like read like oh my gosh Your this isn't what read says kind of thing So now i'm going to toss toss it over to don to discover the legal background a bit more Good evening everyone and I know you've been here a long time. Try not to uh belabor things My name again is don oh tool. I'm an attorney with the city attorney's office And I have the good fortune of working with our planning department, which I really enjoy um, like mike said, um, repeat gilbert came out of the us supreme court in 2015 Just so you know the city actually was sort of uh thinking about thinking about our sign ordinance provisions As early as 2014 there were some signs that were put up Throughout the city that um were a little bit controversial. So uh attacking the county sheriff So there was some thought to uh, eventually looking at the sign ordinance provisions And actually a lot of what came out of the reed case We were sort of anticipating we might need to do with our sign ordinance the reed case this, uh, Town in arizona and I've never been to gilbert arizona But it's been described to me as a little bit like carry for what that's worth Um, I would argue that this is potentially a case of bad facts Or bad regulations or not knowing when to stop Um that sort of led I won't say bad law But basically a supreme court case that basically is upsetting Every municipal sign ordinance across the country And although this came out this case came out in 2015 Durham is actually on the cutting edge of sort of getting our sign ordinance up to speed with this, um With this supreme court decision. Let me just uh read a little bit of some of the facts of the case Just so you know what i'm talking about The um town of gilbert had a bunch of different categories of signs that they regulated in different ways One category and that's what was that issue in this case Was what the town referred to as temporary directional signs And they defined that kind of sign as a sign directing the public to a church or other qualifying event And then um the case goes on to say a qualifying event was defined as any assembly Gathering activity or meetings sponsored arranged or promoted by a religious charitable community service Educational or other similar nonprofit organization So if you were going to put up a temporary sign in the town and you fell into that category You then had to follow these onerous regulations and you can judge for yourself Whether you think these regulations are good or not you were permitted no more than four signs Limited to six square feet in size um And that size limit applied to any single property and this was the thing that really I think killed Uh or caused the supreme court to rule the way it did The sign could be up for no more than 12 hours before the qualifying event And one hour after the qualifying event here Read was the pastor of a very small church that did not actually have a fixed Sanctuary location so they traveled wherever they could find space and the church members Committed the onerous act or or the egregious act of putting up 15 to 20 signs around the town The members would go out early in the day on saturday to put up the signs So that people would know where church service was going to be on sunday And then they would take the signs down by midday on sunday And the town of gilbert decided to Bring down the hammer on them Needless to say I think if the planning department tried to do something similar in durham I think I think they would have the good sense not to do that But um, I would probably advise them to be cautious there So this um that sign ordinance that I just read to you is clearly content based In order to know what the rules are that apply to that sign You'd have to read the sign and then you'd know what the rules are the court said Whenever something is content based it receives what um in constitutional law terms is called strict scrutiny The thing you need to most Know most about strict scrutiny is whenever the court says that It's almost inevitably going to find that the act was illegal because it's a really hard test The test would require the government to show that it furthers a compelling governmental interest so we couldn't have churches put up signs for more than 12 hours And um take them down by one o'clock in the afternoon and that it's narrowly tailored to achieve that interest Like mike said one thing that the court pointed out is um Sign regulations that are content neutral that basically regulate the time that a sign is up The place that it can be put up and the manner in which it's put up Only receives rational basis review and basically all that means is the city council has to have Sort of a a good sounding reason for the rule Did i lose the power Okay Okay, so the the this opinion the primary opinion This current supreme court frequently has many different opinions, but justice thomas wrote the primary Opinion and he he sort of gave us three principles. He said there are some things. It's okay to regulate That that would pass um that aren't that are content neutral Size of the sign materials that the sign is made out of lighting moving parts portability um, he also pointed out that local governments are free to um impose Uh regulations on its own property as long as it does so in an even even handed method We can't say we like signs by democrats, but we don't like signs by republicans. Obviously that would be a problem um, and then the last thing that justice thomas highlighted is Signs um that are narrowly tailored to protect public safety would likely pass strict scrutiny So signs um and and you'll see this when mike reviews the ordinance But things like traffic signs in the right of way The government can pretty much say where those signs can be um the really useful opinion And most commentators have said this was written by justice alito because um, I think the justice is recognized how Sort of the effect this opinion would have and I think justice alito wanted to say Maybe the sky isn't falling. There are things that local governments can still regulate And so his opinion is sort of helpful because it lays out things that he believes Still would be legal Regulating the size of a sign the location of a sign where it's located Whether it's lit or not Fixed message versus electronic like digital billboarding kind of stuff Uh distinctions for signs on public versus private property similarly Um towns could likely distinguish between signs on commercial and residential property um one of the examples he could gave of um regulating signs in the right of way is a town could Theoretically have a limit on the number of signs in the right of way They could say no more than x signs per mile or something like that Off-premise versus on-premise distinctions Theoretically are still legal. So an off-premise sign is a billboard just so you know Time restrictions on signs. So if temporary Signs are allowed in the right of way saying they can be up for no longer than x period of time And generally to sum up what um justice alito said If regulations fall into the time place and manner category Then generally those kinds of regulations would pass constitutional muster All right, so let's get into uh the fun part. Um, let's we'll do an overview quick overview of what this these changes do and do not do One big thing that it that it does Before I get into the list Is that it does reorganize the section substantially So I apologize for a lot of the strike through and crossing out It was kind of the nature of the beast for this project. So I tried to Make it as clear as possible There's a lot of sections were maintained the wording was maintained or substantially maintained but just relocated So I didn't really highlight that in gray areas that are in gray. I tried to call your attention to as Areas that are either new or new wording altogether or substantially changed wording From from what's currently in the ordinance. So things that really haven't changed or had limited changes And I keep grabbing this which is not going to do anybody any good Are the lists of prohibited signs Um That list uh had some minor modifications to it, but overall has stayed as is again Most general sign standards. So height Sign area computation illumination everything you see on that list there has in change a substitution clause Is something that has come out that came out of a another supreme court case Um, I'm blanking on the name. Um, is it I think it's metropolitan Metropolitan where it says you can't show preference for Uh, commercial speech over non-commercial speech and you have to allow non-commercial speech wherever you allow commercial speech So it's it's not allowing that preference and almost every Uh Reasonable sign ordinance that you find out there is going to have some version of a substitution clause in there Where it says this ordinance is is not giving preference to commercial speech and and and such Um, and then most sign types that we come to just generally understand and see The freestanding signs those pylon and monument signs a wall signs signs a project from a wall We have a whole section on that And most of those standards really haven't changed we have tweaked some of those standards based upon comments We've got so we had a little bit of mission creep uh with the versus the read v. Gilbert Issues but overall those standards have stayed the same And they've just been kind of recategorized Uh, so what is changing? Uh, the purpose statements we've revised and updated them based upon the changes that we did to the regulations and to address Uh, uh, the read v. Gilbert issues Um, the definition of signs Um, we took a look at some other jurisdictions and saw their definition and actually we we we copied it from I believe Or at least mostly copied it from Greensboro to give them props We found a good general neutral definition of signs versus one that we have that kind of lended lent itself towards only considering signs in almost a commercial context Um, so we did create a new exempt sign category And so this is where we went into a little bit of content-based regulation And um, we've seen this in other Uh regulations or aren't a lot of other regulations to compare to as Don mentioned before we're kind of Doing new ground on this even some of the model ordinances out there are kind of like They they tried them out soon after read came out and then they kind of gave up because it's it's it's a real tough topic to deal with Um, we might be the first or second in the state to be really tackling this head on Um, but for exempt signs these are signs that are not going to be regulated by this ordinance They're either regulated By other ordinances or laws But they're primarily also just straight up government signs And if they're not straight up government signs, they are still signs that relate to safety or wayfinding They're not promoting a commercial or any kind of interest, but they're there's we feel At least in our best opinion That these represent a very limited but compelling governmental interest. So we've kind of the list is limited Um And we did that on purpose But we give that an exempt category There are a couple other content based regulations that we added in there for The electronic message boards real time changeable copy allowed for parking structures Based upon regulating traffic circulation Again, it's not promoting a certain parking structure. It's just They need to have that change to be able to say if it's vacant or full. It's very important that that you get that That real-time information The other new other new things are we set up instead of So we set up categories called temporary or permanent sign sections and replaces as it says up there This current section called signs without permits allowed without permits And those are the those signs that read specifically addressed. Those are all those kind of temporary Signs that were regulated based upon what the sign was doing So a real estate sign had a certain size and other parameters versus a banner sign had a certain size and parameters versus a real An incidental sign or an entryway sign So we categorize them as temporary and permanent sign sections There's also a section just for right-of-way, but we took that away and just built into right-of-way allowances into temporary or permanent sign sections Specifically for temporary signs We let we developed the sign budget for each parcel with a focus on time place and manner instead of type of sign And actually for single family and I believe even duplex Two family lots. We allowed just an unlimited number of signs, but regulated the size of those signs Understanding that People who live there might have Various things they want to say to their neighbors and people who drive by And put them on different signs and who are we to say how many signs they should say or what or what they should say Anyway, go back. What's that? Would you go over that again? Sure. So under the temporary sign section for Page 31 So under page 31 Under signs located on a parcel Single or two family residential signs each parcel shall be allowed an unlimited number of commercial Non-commercial temporary signs with a maximum height of three feet a maximum area four square feet Mr. Chairman. Yes So i'm a little concerned is that we were saying we weren't going to be making commercial non-commercial Distinctions, but we're making commercial nine. We never said you can't you can't that's actually one of the things that was left Uh, well, that's what I thought but I thought you said the metropolitan case actually eliminated. No, no What the metropolitan says that you can't preference commercial over non-commercial In terms of your regulations Right because we've always right and this is what it does it allows non-commercial speech Because we always had a distinction and that distinction survives. Yes. Yes. Uh, that's the substitution clause And then Never mind And then we do allow some additional signs When something is happening on that property. So if you're concerned about a real estate sign So when a property happens to be for sale or for lease you get a sign We're not telling you what the sign says. So if you want to put your sign up for proper up for Uh sale, but you don't want to put a real estate sign up, but you want to take advantage of that That's fine You're most likely going to put a real estate sign up But the avenue is not to focus on what the sign is saying But focus on the time place or manner of it It's a it's it's a plan words, but it seems to work And I've seen it and it's been mentioned in other references that we've we've gone over um Limited temporary signs allowances in the right of way Uh, one of the issues, um that was brought up and that the city currently has a policy on are the ghost bikes And other types of memorials Uh, so we've built that into allowances for the right of way Um, and then the Other signage allowed in right of way and don had mentioned, um The nefarious signs that were up a number of years ago So we've put in very specific time place and manner Uh provisions, uh four signs allowed in the right of way Based upon actually the time period allowed set by the state for election signs so And that provision, uh Uh would be so if you're not familiar with that you're allowed to believe 30 days or so before 45 days I'm sorry the current ordinance is for the first day of early voting So 45 days before the first day of early voting and up to and I have it in there somewhere But 10 days after you can do your election signs We're saying okay, we're not making a distinction between election signs and other non-commercial signs You can just have these kind of signs We have a parameter on the size of them But that would be it and those are your sometimes two windows a year I mean, it's generally two windows a year because you might have a primary in the general election Um when you can have your limited free for all for non-commercial signs And then we currently have provisions for sidewalk signs in very specific zoning districts And that was primarily maintained Like the a-frame signs or the temperature and which board signs. Yes. Yeah, we maintain that we relocated that Tweak some of the parameters of when they needed to be removed, but um otherwise remained the same There was another whole section in there too that related to some additional parameters that just actually didn't make sense So we just kind of took that permanent signs Uh We created a new minimum sign allowance for any property So any property doesn't have to worry about getting a commercial sign Permit at all up to three square feet of signage on their property once they go above that and that takes care of things like home occupation signs and other kind of small commercial type signs that Your ad t or cpi type signs or or that kind of thing that are Uh That require that kind of signage you don't have to worry about getting a sign permit for it But once you have signage that's above that three square feet then all your signage has to conform to the uh You have to get the sign permits and and meet those standards Um, again, we've maintained most of the current sign types and most of the standards are already time placed in manner So we didn't have to adjust a lot of those any of the changes that we did were suggestions or Addressing some issues with those signs and it was a bit of mission creep that we tried to keep down But we felt that while we're messing with the ordinance just take advantage of it That includes like clarifying the difference between a monument and pylon sign We removed the way finding standards and off-premise non-residential entry signs Thus that was the deletion of the way finding sign plan. We're handling way finding signs as an exempt type of sign And the off-premise non-residential entry signs That was something I was added in a couple years ago for a particular project and when we when we took a look at that in detail It just didn't seem like it could pass muster Mr. Chairman is to our opinion. Mr. Miller help me understand why a way finding sign is not Problem you have to look at it to determine to distinguish it from the Um, the sheriff is a is a dirty bomb Well, why is a way finding sign? Why can we make a distinction between a way finding sign and a sign that's not a way finding sign? Why is that not that's that's where we are taking and making an assumption? um And making a best educated Determination that there's a compelling governmental interest to get people moving in an efficient manner throughout the city and throughout the property And directing buses and calculated risk in other words. Yeah All right. Good traffic and yeah traffic and safety signs. Yeah Um, we relocated the landmark sign section into the actual landmark designation section in article 13 in article 3 Because it just seems to work better than that was another mission creed kind of Issue just to clean up that section. Um, and then we did as you'll note in there We made some modifications in additions to some definitions Um, so some of the things that Uh, these were notable considerations that we definitely brought up to jccpc and At the at the public meeting Real estate directional signs and maybe you have received emails and phone calls from Real estate folks and we have met with real estate folks. So this is not something that we are not unaware of They're currently allowed in right of way Um Right now as proposed they are would no longer be allowed in right except for during election period No, those are yeah, those are commercials. Those are commercial. Yeah, okay, so signage. So they would not be allowed at all Um Changeable copy. We deleted a larger allowance that was specific for theaters So we didn't see a compelling governmental interest to allow that Except for the allowance that we made for parking structures for full or or not full We removed a Conflicting a sign calculation area of aggregate sign area We have very specific sign allowances for the different sign types How much you can have for a wall sign and it was conflicting with the aggregate sign area Uh provision. So we felt that you know what it it seems And and the default has always kind of gone to the specific when there was conflict and looking at historically How it's been regulated It seems to be working. So we didn't seem to change need to change it. So we just got rid of this aggregate sign area calculation um And again the signs and we brought it back to their attention signs within the public right away Uh, it addresses those roadside memorials when there was a fatality. We that was one of the tweaks We kind of narrowed it down to uh, the type of incident in the um Right away and also, uh, tried to find that middle ground of not allowing Signs in an unlimited basis throughout the right away and also not going the other way of just restricting Signs within the right of way besides besides to say governmental or wayfinding signs in a way of trying to find that middle ground and using the election period As as at least a good middle ground Um Again, we have spoken to the real estate folks about it. We know their concerns Uh, we went over it with them Um We also said if they can come up with language that would help us that would work We are open for it. We weren't looking to be punitive just to folks um And um, and then also understanding that if city council and the board commissioners felt their their needs were compelling And they wanted to go in a direction that was Beyond the recommendation of staff. That's their wish to do so. Um, just understanding that it might not be what we're trying to do Is put something that's defensible Before them not guaranteeing that it's going to necessarily stand up to a court case But what we feel is at least reasonably defensible And in in july, I don't know about other commissioners that I believe we received a communication in mid july from the Durham realtors and the home builders that Said that they did have some concerns But then they would be back in touch with us in the next week or two And we haven't heard anything back has the has the staff heard any Thoughts they're working on it. Yes. They have not we we met with them Do we meet we met with them back in may and May and april that time period and we have heard nothing from them since that meeting And you and your memo says that this is likely coming to us in september Is that is that still likely or is that that's the plan right now if there's something that comes up We are going to be also meeting with some city council members. They asked to meet with with staff and we're going to meet next week with them They weren't specific as to why they wanted to meet with us But I have a feeling at least the real estate sign is one topic if not just to get a better handle on it And I know at least one of the council members we're meeting with next week was also on jccpc So he's already heard this. So I have a feeling they just kind of want to get a better grasp of the issues that they're hearing From there, you know through their emails and contacts and such and if there's If we get direction to go in a different direction Then we'll do that and we'll move it without way finding science Right. Yeah, and and you know again, this is our our our Best professional opinion as to a defensible Ordinance Understanding that there might be different ways to attack it and we're open to those options if it's an issue Are you commissioner miller? I have Some questions. I'd like to ask just to test my understanding Would it be a violation of gilbert if we required Everybody who posted a sign in the right of way in other words on public property city property To identify however small the print might be who the owner of the sign is to Enhance enforcement seems to me if we can have a permit requirement. We can have a An identification You can make that as part of the permit requirement. I don't see that as a violation of gilbert I think we are steering away from the permitting requirement because Well, I'm saying for an unpermitted sign for unpermitted signs in the right of way not in somebody's yard or something In the right of way, especially if you've got a time period And you also know who to cite if you get violations It seems to me that that is a reasonable governmental interest Or otherwise, you don't know. You don't know who's putting them up So that was that's something I'll throw out there so if I'm in the cherry lane subdivision Donald tool city attorney's office the one thing I could see is a potential objection to that I mean, I think we could have that requirement, but I could see someone objecting to um an argument Along the lines that the government is imposing speech on them That we're requiring them to put certain language on their sign I see that that's why I asked the question, but there are there is a compelling reason I'm not talking about all signs. I'm talking about the sign in the government's property Uh So then the another question so I it's a the cherry lane subdivision wants to put up Permanent signs either in the right of way or in their neighborhood or in On private property in their neighborhood that says that identifies it as the cherry lane subdivision What kind of sign is that and what are the regs under the new rules under new rules? It would still be a Actually, it would take the form of a monument freestanding sign and those are current regulations now that they're allowed to do that We reworded it a little bit to make it a little more read friendly One thing that we did remove was allowing them in the right of way So they would not be allowed in the right of way anymore And we've kind of in public works handles those kind of encroachment agreements and stuff And they were actually kind of thankful that that wouldn't be allowed in there because of kind of break away Hazard issues that they cause in the right way me so Talk about real estate signs Uh, the Shriners want to do a fish fry What happens moving forward with the fruit the the fish fry signs that get stuck up in the in the right of way For a week before the fish fry They're not allowed They're not allowed not allowed Yeah What about what I would call non-commercial message signs I want to Spread the gospel and so I put a sign in my yard That says the lord told me to tell the world that Jesus is soon to come Go for how big Let's take a look Go with yeah Is that the page 31 is that the three square feet thing? Yeah, let's do yeah some No hired in three square feet and maximum four square feet of each sign So you could list all sorts of proverbs from the bible that you like Okay, uh, what about the right of way? Only during the election time periods. All right, good to know that's where things it seems to have a lot of a lot of fish fries at election time And so yard sales Those kinds of yard sales. So under the single same section for under 31 A single and two family residential. So when there is a yard sale You can have a sign. We're not telling you it has to say yard sale, but it's when you have a yard sale and then okay What about in the right of way? What if I want to put it down the street?  I see that we're going to have to figure out some ways to work on this Because those that's just life people are going to do that. Well, I mean quite honestly a lot of the stuff is Illegal anyway when it's put up. I mean it's put up on utility polls, which is illegal right now. So it's it's um, a lot of the things we're just Making it more abundantly clear that it's currently illegal There's also I mean enforcement is going to be what enforcement is So you're taking a risk if you put up a yard sale sign up in your corner So that's a strong reason not to put your name on right Any additional questions That's That's why I ask those. I suspected your answers I foresee trouble. It's not an ideal situation that we're in. We're not Arguing that this is an awesome way to go. Um, but it's kind of where we landed Right now and again, if someone has a really good idea that's not overly burdensome in terms of Needing additional staff and resources to create a permitting system kind of thing but is kind of equitable To everything we will be glad to take those suggestions and see how they work out So the church in gilbert if it was in Durham would actually be in trouble going forward with this ordinance The moving church the moving church. Yeah, yes So they shouldn't have to rely on email Um, yeah, but just one point just uh, you know, I know we're all sympathetic to nonprofit organizations And they're need to have fish fries, but that would be a commercial activity So if if city council wants to allow signs like that in the right of way We need to keep in mind that that's opening the right of way for commercial speech And then it's also opening the right of way for any kind of non-commercial speech So if that we can regulate it about how long they can be up and how big they are and where they can go And and without regard to the content that as early as 2014 we discussed um If we wanted to regulate that That would involve a pretty extensive permitting and enforcement program And i'm pretty sure that planning doesn't have the staff to take care of that But those are all things that could be consistent. I can do it Commissioner brine Thank you Most of the little things that i've marked i'll try to get sent to you Thank you But there are a couple of things i wanted to just mention while we're here On page 12 we're going to talk about, you know, hazardous signs, especially The ones that interfere with the line of sight And if you want an example of signs that interfere with your sight triangles Come to nc 54 and barbie road saturday morning And there will be there. There will be about a dozen uh One of the things that i think Might be helpful if you can get together with transportation and Work up a definition Put a definition of what the sight triangles are maybe those are in the ordinance already There are because i didn't see them. Yeah, there's a there's a section in article 12 that goes over maybe you should Reference it then And then the other thing that i wanted to mention this is on page 39 Under c area paragraph 2 You have this distinction Lots of the frontage of less than 150 linear feet Sign should be 12 square feet And then if it's 150 linear feet or more the frontage you can go up to 32 square feet That's existing text Yeah, well my point i want to make about it even if it's existing i think it's a big jump If i have a lot if there's a lot that only has 140 linear feet next to one to say it has 160 You know one guy can only have 12 the other guy can only go up to 32 I think there needs to be more of a graduation I understand where you're coming from. Um, we tried i by admission There has been some mission creep in this where there was some really identifiable where we've already recorded issues with the current regulations And we had an opportunity to clean it up while we were in there. We haven't heard any issues with that at all Um, so we hesitate to get into the weeds of the specific Uh time place and manner regulations that are already existing and weren't causing any problems I understand that but I understand your concern Commissioner williams. Yes, I would just like to uh Make a motion in the interest of time if possible To kind of wrap this up. I believe this is informational You can go. Okay. Well, thank you. You can leave But normally I would thank you No, I'm really grateful because this is this is going to be a difficult hearing I don't want to learn about this in a staff report in 10 minutes on each side Right, and I assume that's why we're here vice chair hyman And I still want to because I had some real concerns about the nefarious signs for so long What specifically would address those signs in the new language that they can only be Someone can still do a nefarious sign. Well, they still can. Okay, but because that's just free non-commercial speech And they put it on it's property voicing an opinion But I mean can they put it on its property the way that they did it can only be done during the election time period Right, so it can't be done kept up throughout whenever Okay Any other questions or comments or from either the commissioners or from staff Thank you. Missioner Gibbs This is going to be a mundane question with all the other details It's a real mundane answer It's something that means something to me when it comes to signage Any signage directions street names, whatever Is there anything in the law that says You're going to try to comply with the ADA as far as contrast Letter sizes If it's a lighted sign Is it going to be lighted in such a way that it's going to cause glare? which For some people would just eliminate it and I but that's important to me And a lot of other people with disabilities like that We do have illumination and lighting provisions We asked one of the sections that we did kind of tweak a bit is make it a little bit more specific as to How they're being held to certain lighting standards and directing them a cross-reference issue Like for sight triangles were cross-referencing to the lighting standards in the in the udo and the foot candle measurements and such for lighting so We we did address that in terms of illumination well, I'll tell you direction toward A person's eyes Is a big big issue That needs to be researched and understood Anyway No, those are good points throw that in there And thank you commissioner Anything else from from the staff Nope, unless something happens you will see this as a public hearing item next month, but You know, if not, then it will be soon after that You know, there's something that we need to address before we get to the hearing Great Well, I want to thank you both because this is very confusing and challenging and you sat here all night So we appreciate the time to explain it. Yes, and again if you have Comments or questions that you just want to forward to us Please feel free to do that and we'll try to address them if it warrants a change and We'll we'll say we made that change or why we didn't make that change or what have you That's great. Thank you before we adjourn. We have two final items Ms Smith since we're an hour six It seems like the appropriate time to maybe introduce a new staff person and to give us an update on what to expect next month Right, so there will not be an update on what to expect next month because I sent an email that I don't know what you should expect next month because I'm still catching up from last week As soon as I know what you should expect next month. I will let you know Great, and that will be sometime this week and I would like to introduce our new staff member Emily stroller She's actually not a new staff member. You may recognize Emily from working in development review She has been with the department since It's been a little bit for years. Yeah 2015 ish 14 late 14 15 ish She's joining our team because as you know, mr Wiggins is Traversed up to the front of the house and it's helping all of our wonderful customers in Durham with all of their Exceptional questions and land use inquiries. So Emily will be taking over In some of his cases, but also doing the similar work that he did and working with our team and you'll see her in the coming months So how frequently are we going to see Carla or what? Carla Carla has expressed Carla used to do flum amendments I think if you recall back in her earlier in her career She did flum amendments back when they were separated from the zoning cases and now we do a consolidated report And then she was focused in her time on historic preservation But she expressed an interest in learning some other things and then we were short staffed and we got really busy And we were like, oh, I said, you want to learn new things here do this I was wondering if she was involved in the forest hills thing because of the historic preservation aspect Well, she was unnatural for that one because she had a flum background and historic preservation background But she has actually expressed interest in just doing helping us and and we are trying to cross train our team So that we don't have deficiencies when we're when we're some of us are out or not in place. So So welcome Emily. Yeah, Emily. Welcome aboard every every night is this fun And mr. Wiggins whole new meaning Last month was 36 minutes. I was told One final item a point of personal privilege commissioner gauche. Thank you for a moment So I believe this is my last meeting as a planning commissioner So I just wanted to say a few words First, let me start by saying that I have enjoyed it I honestly can say that I have learned something from each of you So I thank you for that and I hope you all can say the same about me I want you to know that I think the work that the planning commission does is very important Which is one reason why I withdrew my name for for a consideration for reappointment to the planning commission last monday My involvement with the planning commission has become quite a distraction So I apologize if any of that has spilled over to you whether for political gain or actual concern elected officials have called my ethics into question With regard to my public service as a planning commissioner and my private service as an attorney And while I trust that none of you had any concern about the manner in which I conduct myself I am happy to report that both the city and county attorneys Have determined that I did not violate any code of ethics that governs it all of us It has been a stressful time for me and I would never wish it upon any of you The intersection of my work with that of the planning commission is tricky to say the least But recently I've noticed that my role on planning commission Has caused my interactions with elected officials and my professional role as an attorney to become increasingly antagonistic At this time, I think it will be best not only for me But also for the planning commission and the city and county of Durham for me to move on to a different role I will continue to serve on the planning commission until they make a new appointment, but I suspect that will be later this month But if you're not as many times I have recused myself from this planning commission I'm sure you will see me again only next time. I'll be at that podium instead of this one Truly it has been a pleasure serving with you all and thank you very much Well, let me say on behalf of everyone We really appreciate your service and I think we have learned a lot from you as well You brought a unique perspective and you are always engaged and active and very thoughtful Um, if you are still here next month, we will be Honored to have you join us. Um, and if there is a new replacement We also hope you'll come back so we can thank you for your service on the commission Mr. Chairman if I may I feel fairly strongly about this Uh, there needs to be somebody at this table that has your professional experience Which means that for each of us that comes bringing expertise there and a point of view because we're an advisory body, right? Uh They're going to be tricky times I thought you handled the tricky part Exceptionally well, and I think we're going to be impoverished by your laws Well, I appreciate that and on that unhappy note this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all