Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those of you wish to speak, please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium. Please speak into the microphone. Each side of those wishing to speak in favor of an item. Those wishing to speak in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes to present each side. The time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak. If you're here opposed and rezoning tonight, you should be aware of what's called the protest petition. A protest petition can be very helpful to those residents who live in a rezoning area. Please consult the planning department staff for any details on the protest petition and they will be happy to help you. You should keep in constant touch with the planning department as to when your case will go before the elected officials for a final vote. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. Can we have roll call commissioner board? Commissioner Beachwood Commissioner Bealon Commissioner Davis Commissioner Gibbs Commissioner, I apologize. Vice Chair Harris Chair Jones Commissioner Lam Commissioner Huff Commissioner Padgett Commissioner Smusky has an excuse absence Commissioner Whitley Commissioner Wonders Commissioner Wonders Thank you. Before we go further, I want to welcome the two new commissioners. Return of Commissioner Huff and Walters. They're at the end. I want to welcome them to the planning commission and we'll move on down to agenda item three adjustment to the agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission, Pat Young with the planning department. As your vice chair and parliamentarian very kindly reminded me tonight, according to your bylaws is a required time for elections for your chair and vice chair for the coming year. So I would ask that we add item seven B, which would be elections. You all can either vote tonight or you can choose to defer a talk to over, but we do need to consider it since that the bylaws require that the September meeting be when that's considered. Also, I would like to quickly certify for the record that all public hearing items before you tonight have been advertised in accordance with the requirements of law and their affidavits to that effect on file with the planning department. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Can we have approval of the minutes? That's been moved in properly second. All those in favor, let it be known by raising your right hand. All those opposed, let it be known by raising your right hand. Motion is move pass with 11 to zero. Thank you. We hope we'll open the public hearing for hope crossing to plan amendment case a one three zero zero zero zero four and zoning case Z one three zero zero zero zero one one. Good evening. I'm more with with the planning department. This is hope crossing to plan amendment case a thirteen zero zero zero zero four. The applicant Stuart engineering proposes to change the future land use days designation for certain properties in East Durham from industrial and low density residential to low medium density residential. The properties are located just east of junction road north of Independence Avenue and west of Twin Lakes Park. This is approximately 30 acres in size according to the applicant. The proposed use will be more compatible with surrounding land patterns than the current land use designations. The proposed use is a reasonable transition between industrial land to the north and existing low density residential uses to the west and south. According to the applicant, the proposed land use will also provide an increased opportunity to serve future residential demand of future residential demand in East Durham. Here are the four criteria used by planning staff to evaluate plan amendment proposals. Let's look at the first is the proposed use consistent with adopted plans and policies. Staff concurs with the applicant and that the proposal supports orderly development patterns. It takes advantage of existing urban services and avoids leapfrog non contiguous scattered development within the urban growth area. The second criteria is the proposed land use compatible with existing and or future land use patterns. As we see in the picture, the land to the north is designated industrial. Most of that land is vacant. The land to the northeast is designated medium density residential to the east as I stated previously is an existing park. And to the west and south are low density residential uses. The third criteria does the proposed land use create substantial adverse impacts. The industrial land, the proposal provides an effective transition from the industrial lands north of the site and the medium resident density residential designation to the east and low density residential to the south. Also according to the recently completed Durham industrial land study, the Durham Planning Department can did not conclude that any of the properties in question were prime industrial lands. Therefore there would be no substantial adverse impacts. The fourth the fifth criteria is the site adequate in shape and size to accommodate the proposed land use. Yes, it's approximately 30 acres and it is a sufficient size and shape to accommodate low medium density residential uses in the suburban tier. Therefore the proposal meets all criteria and staff recommends approval. Ms. Wolfe, that completes my presentation. Ms. Wolfe will present the associated zoning case. Amy Wolfe with the Planning Department. This is zoning case Z130011. Can get much closer. I believe it's, can you hear me now? This case, Hope Crossing 2, the applicant is a steward engineering. This is mostly in the city's jurisdiction at this time. There is a 0.29 acre sliver that is currently in the county's jurisdiction. There is a pending annexation and initial zoning associated with this request and they'll all catch up at the next governing, at the governing body hearing. They should catch up and be heard at the same time. The request is from a number of existing zoning districts, industrial light, residential suburban multifamily with a development plan, residential suburban 8 with a development plan, residential suburban 8, no development plan, residential suburban 10 with a development plan, residential suburban 20. To the requested district of plan development residential 6.000, the site is 29.914 acres and the proposed use is for a residential subdivision. The site is comprised of four parcels at 299 Chorley Road. It's south of Junction Road shown to the north and north of Independence Avenue, which is just south of this red graphic here. It isn't in the suburban tier. It is in the FJB Watershed Protection Overlay. It is in the Eastern Derm Open Space Plan. It is adjacent to Twin Lakes Park as you saw in Ms. Wood's presentation and there, it is also surrounded by residential development to the west. The request satisfies the standards for the PDR district, the requested district. They are specifying a maximum of 6 units per acre on the development plan, which equals 128 residential units. The existing conditions of this site are shown here. There is a stream identified running east-west through the site. There's also a sanitary sewer easement following the stream. It is identified with a buffer. There are some wetlands on the western portion of the site and the site is mostly wooded. This graphic shows the proposed conditions of the plan. It has several access points, one on Chorley Road, which leads up to Junction Road and one, two, I can't quite read it. Dodson Street is an existing road that is going to be required to be closed at the site plan stage and Mansfield is the other connection. There's also a proposed road through the site, Midland Terrace Extension, which will also provide access. It does show a potential stream crossing associated with Midland Terrace Extension and there are a number of driveways shown on the perimeter of the site onto the existing right away. Along with that, there's a number of commitments. I may have mentioned some of them. Maximum of 128 residential units, one potential stream crossing, four external and two internal site access points. The internal site access points are shown onto Midland Terrace Extension. The maximum impervious surface is 70% for the site and tree preservation is shown at 20%. There's graphic commitments associated with this, which include the internal and external access points and the location of tree preservation areas. There's a number of text commitments as well, dedication of right away from Midland Terrace Extension, dedication of right away along Chorley Road and I'm summarizing here construction of Chorley Road with sidewalk from Junction Road to the site, turn lanes on Junction Road at Chorley Road, Mansfield Avenue construction with sidewalk from Belmont to the site, as well as I mentioned the street closing application for Dodson Street. There are some design commitments associated with the request. What this does is allow the range of housing types to be decided later. Single family residential does not require design commitments to be made at the zoning stage. However, because they're here, the applicant has the option to do single family but also does have the opportunity to do other housing types, other multifamily housing types if that is the end product. This request again is not consistent with the future land use map. You heard the presentation by Ms. Woods. It is consistent with our other comprehensive plan policies that apply to this site. And if the plan amendment is approved, this request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. And I'll leave the map up if you need to look at it. Okay, thank you. We have one person signed up to speak. Mr. George Stanzial. We have ten minutes. Good evening Chairman Jones and commissioners. My name is George Stanzial with Stewart. I live at 115 Cofield Circle in Durham. I wanted to just give you a, I won't bore you with all the facts because the staff did a great job in giving you really all the background that you need. I did want to talk to you just a little bit about Habitat and what its mission is. It began its work here in Durham in 1985. Each year Habitat has built over 20 homes in the Durham community. By Habitat staff we have, there are staff members that build these homes as well as community and corporate partners, corporate volunteers. The goal is to increase that number of homes to 30 to 35 affordable housing units per year. The homes average 1200 square feet and are sold at an average of $110,000. And these are done through no interest loans. Future homeowners select interior features and are many times volunteers during the building process investing their own sweat equity in the construction of these houses. The homeowner is expected to pay approximately $525 a month on their loans. And to date Habitat has helped over 600 families both in Durham and abroad. So we've made a significant impact in the affordable housing community. You see here some of the homes that are built. Most of the homes look like this. They're very nicely done. And they're done with awesome volunteers that work very long and hard to build these homes in the community. They're green homes. So there's a lot of energy conservation and Habitat works with many, many different groups, civic and corporate groups and individuals throughout the community to transform community really. And our focus has been in East Durham. Here you see some of the sponsors that are part of the Habitat mission. You've seen where the site is. The subdivision, the subdivision to the northeast there is actually hope crossing one. So this is essentially a continuation of an existing neighborhood. Again, land use request is for medium-density residential four to eight units per acre. We're committing to six units per acre. And as you can see on the right-hand image, there's similar land use just adjacent. From a zoning perspective, again, the request is for PDR-6 for up to 128 single-family residential units. And as you can see, there is a significant amount of residential surrounding the site. Again, you see hope crossing one there. That's a generally built-out community now with its own homeowners association, functioning homeowners association. And hope crossing two would be an extension of that existing community. And the last thing is that our elected officials have a great interest in the development of affordable housing. As many of you may have heard and a number of our past cases for residential development, there have been requests for private developers to include affordable housing within residential projects. So Habitat is one of the key participants in the effort of bringing affordable housing to the community. And we just ask for your consideration. And I have with me here Blake Strayhorn, president, CEO of Habitat. Raise your hand. Thank you very much. And we have had two neighborhood meetings, neither of which were required. And we feel like we've worked with the neighbors. We've let them know in detail the process, what our intentions were, and so forth. So I'll leave it at that and answer any questions. All right. Thank you. We don't have anyone else signed up to speak. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners and we have anyone. All right. Mr. Harris. To the north, south, and west, or single-family residents, you indicated you had two meetings. How well were they intended by the residents? And second question to staff were the residents notified of the meeting tonight? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were speaking with them. The first meeting we had probably 15 residents or so. There were a few members of the Hope One community. There were some other residents from around the site and also members of the church that is adjacent to the site that owns a piece of land actually just south of Junction Road and west of Chorley Road. We had another, and that was done probably three or four months ago prior to us submitting for the application. And then a couple of weeks last week we had another meeting. We told them that we would come back and update them on the process where we were, if for any changes were made. And we did that. And I would say that there were probably four or five residents that were there, members of the church, and a couple of residents. Commissioner Harris, Vice Chair Harris, to address your question about was the residents notified? We do have affidavits on record that we have satisfied the notification requirement, which for the plan amendment is a thousand feet for property owners and for the zoning is 600 feet for property owners and a thousand feet for neighborhood organizations that are registered with us. So we do have that on file. Those letters have been sent. And we also post a zoning placard on site and do the newspaper ad. Okay. Any other commissioners want to speak? Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Beachwood. Just one question. Has Parks and Rec been notified or spoken to since this abuts their property? And I have no idea how they control access to parks. Well, they've certainly been notified because they're an adjacent property owner. They did not come to any of the meetings. Frankly, in all my years, I've never seen them come to neighborhood meetings, you know, when they were in the immediate area. Mike, access to that park is from where? From... So, yeah, you know, it's actually from the... It's from Chandler. You can see from the southeast. Yeah. Coming up from the southeast. Yeah. Right. I was just curious. And at first I thought there... Well, there is plenty of vegetation separating these. So that's... And I see that from the aerial view. So that looks fine. There is. And also on the site, you know, there... As Amy said, there's a very significant stream that runs through the middle with very significant buffers. So it's likely... Even though we've talked about a potential stream crossing, it's unlikely that we'll do that. And this project will be built sort of in two pieces, one to the north, one to the south, with access from both sides. And that reminds me of something. Where is Midland Terrace Drive Road or whatever? I know the name of this road is going to be an extension, but it just sounds familiar. Oh, I know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Let me find... So if you look at the right-hand side of the green site there, the entire right-hand side, there's a right-of-way that we're providing that will run essentially along the entire right-hand side all the way up to the main road. And we're dedicating various widths to accommodate, you know, transportation. I don't know what the status of building that road is, but we're dedicating the right-of-way. Well, I know where the proposed dedicated roadway is, but it's being called Midland Terrace Extension. Where is Midland Terrace Road itself? That crosses over Camden. Maybe transportation can answer that. It crosses over Camden and crosses over toward Gear Street to Cheek. Right. Back going that way. Yeah, I knew I'd heard of it before. I didn't know if it would be a duplication. That's all. Thank you. Ms. Beachwood. Yes. I had a question for George. You mentioned during your talk that private developers were looking to try to coordinate and work with you on the habitat projects. Is that what you were trying to say? No, I was just saying that the volunteers that help build habitat homes come from corporations and individuals, churches, so they're a great deal of the labor that's put into these homes are from people volunteering their time, corporations. Absolutely. Yes. And I wanted to remind, if the rest of the commissioners weren't aware of it, that the habitat has changed dramatically in recent years and really right along they have and the quality of housing, especially the quality of the green features of the housing are a trendsetter and a benchmark for other low-income housing projects. The quality is shockingly good. So these will, I don't doubt any, for a minute, these are going to be quality homes and will be very much appreciated and very much needed. I'm very proud to say that I'm a board member of that habitat. So thank you for that. Maybe Commissioner Whitley. Yeah, I have a question. First of all, I want to tell you how proud I am of Habitat and the work that it's done in Eastern. Thank you. When I was in the neighborhood looking at this, one of the neighbors told me that that land floods a lot. So, and I'm thinking, did you going to be, not putting in trees, you'll be cutting down trees. So there's a small, there's a very small piece of flood plain up in the very northeast corner of the site. Obviously we can't build there. There's also, as I said, a very significant stream that runs through essentially northwest to southeast through the site with very, very large buffers. My sense is that there might be some flooding down through that creek, which is why there's a creek there and why there are buffers. But as far as the land that's developable, that's not a problem. And of course we'll have to deal with stormwater runoff and BMPs and so forth. All right. I would like to make a motion that we don't make the motion on the map change first and then come back to, okay. I would like to make a motion that we approve Z13000 11. The plan amendment first, okay. All right. I would like to amend my motion. I thought I just had that question. Hope Croson, I move that we approve Hope Croson 2 as A130004. It's a move and probably second all those in favor. That'll be known by raising your right hand. Motion has been passed 11 to 0. All right. Thank you. In motion on the zoning case. I would like to move that we approve case number Z1300011. Second. It's a move and probably second all those in favor. That'll be known by raising your right hand. Any opposed? Can you repeat that with the mic? The motion has been passed 11 to 0. All right. Thank you. We'll move down to item 6A, Mineral Springs residential case Z130001. I guess Amy Wolf again with the planning department presenting the next zoning case for you, Mineral Springs Road residential case Z130001. The applicant in this case is the city of Durham through Eden's Land Corp. This is one of, this case is presently in the county's jurisdiction and also has an annexation and a utility extension agreement associated with this request. This zoning will become the initial zoning of the property and the council will consider it all at the same meeting. The request is from plan development residential 4.000 and residential suburban 20 and residential rural to plan development residential 4.180. The total acreage is 9.09 and the proposed use is for a single family residential. The request is two parcels at 1525 and 1607 South Mineral Springs Road. It's south of Del Mar Drive, which is where my pointer is now. It also has frontage on Calendale Lane. There are, again, there's two lots. This is in the suburban tier. There is a bike plan identifies a bike lane along South Mineral Springs Road. It's in the Eastern Durham open space plan and the Little Lick Creek open space study. There's no specific recommendations of those latter plans, but there is a recommendation from the bike plan for a proposed lane on South Mineral Springs Road. I do want to point out on page one of the staff report, I indicate that the existing residential would allow for 13 lots. That was just for the PDR portion in total. The site would accommodate 25 total lots existing. The request does meet the minimum requirements for the plan development residential standards. The requested zoning is 4.180, which could, if developed under 24% impervious surface, which could yield 33 lots. The existing conditions of the site are shown here. The portion of the site with these two frontages on South Mineral Springs Road is clear. There is a structure on the southern portion. The rear of the properties, which front on Callendale Lane, are tree covered. There is a stream and an existing pond as well on the eastern portion of the site. This graphic shows the proposed conditions. It shows your site access points. There's three of them, one on Callendale, one to the RR portion of this property, and as well as the pedestrian only access on the South Mineral Springs Road. It does show a potential stream crossing and an number of commitments, which include a maximum of 33 single family units, the stream crossing, the access points I mentioned, a maximum of 70% impervious surface. If the stream buffer was increased to 100 feet, also tree preservation at 20% minimum. Everything shown on the plan is a committed element. There's a graphic commitment. There are a number of text commitments, including the housing type for single family, a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and dedication of right away onto South Mineral Springs Road to accommodate a 40 foot width from the center line, as well as the pedestrian connection that was shown on the graphic. This request is consistent with the future land use designation as low to medium density residential, which is arranged from four to eight dwelling units per acre. And also, excuse me, the other conditions, applicable policies of the comprehensive plan are satisfied, or this plan is consistent with that as well. So staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. I'll answer any questions. All right, thank you. We have one person signed up to speak tonight, Jared Edens. We have 10 minutes. Good evening. Jared Edens with the Edens Land Corp. My office is at 2144 Page Road in Durham. I'm here representing my clients, Keeney Bedford and Jerry Owen, who are the property owners of the two tracks in question. I appreciate Amy's summary of the project. I'm just going to touch on reiterate a couple of points, not take up too much of your time. We are calling for 4.18 units per acre, which is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, a maximum number of lots of 33 single-family homes. I do want to touch on, I think it's on Page 3 of the staff report at the top, where the discussion about the stream buffer width, 50 feet versus 100 feet. 50 feet is shown on the plan, which is what the required buffer width is for impervious up to 24%.  If we go over 24% impervious, and the buffer would be 100 feet on the project, but the required minimum is a 50-foot news for a buffer. Amy mentioned our pedestrian connection out to Mineral Springs Road. I do want to point out that of the 20% of the site that's going to be tree coverage, we're committing to all of that being tree preservation. It's not a case of where we're tearing down trees only to regrade and plant trees in its place. We're going to save 20% of the tree coverage on the property. Streams of wetlands were delineated by our consultant. They've been verified by the City of Durham and the Army Corps of Engineers. We had a neighborhood meeting in March. Very few attendees. There were two couples who attended the meeting. I've received no opposition, I haven't seen anyone since that time. And I live in this part of Durham. I live in Brightleaf. I think the project fits very well with what's going on on Mineral Springs Road. It's surrounded on three sides by Ashton Hall, which is a very similar product and lot size to what you want to see on this property. So it's, to me, it's just filling in the missing piece of the puzzle there. If you've got any questions, I would be glad to answer them. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back so we have anyone who wants to speak. Can we get a motion? Oh, sorry. Commissioner Huff. I'm curious about this access to the property that you all don't own. Is that a, just a right away that you're putting in there? Is it a stub out? What is it? It's a code requirement to provide access to, I think the code says all four cardinal directions because staff and I discuss this often. And so what we were allowed to do by staff was to just show a right away connection. I didn't want to just commit to building a road that stops at a single family residence as property line because I wouldn't like that. I'm sure they wouldn't like that. So staff agreed to allow us to dedicate just a right away if the owner of that property ever wanted to redevelop or get a driveway onto our internal road, they'll have access to it. Thank you. Commissioner Gibbs. My question, and you partially answered it about the stream buffer and density, would that be a commitment? And I'm not asking for one, I'm asking the question. Depending on the density of the development whether or not the the 33 units with the 24% impervious surface those two ratios is that something that is a commitment along the way? The commitment is to a maximum of 33 units and I guess I slightly disagree and the staff report says to basically says to develop 33 units you'll end up with 100 foot, or if you have a 100 foot buffer you can't develop 33 units and I'm not sure I haven't done the calculations until the final design is performed we don't know how many lots actually fit in there but what I'm committing to is it will comply with the ordnance standards when the site plan is submitted so we are maxed at 33 you're not required to do 33 we're just maxed at 33 and if we do the calculations at site plan and we're over 24% impervious which is again dependent on the end user the builder what kind of homes do they want to build I don't know that right now how much square foot has it been pervious so they need per lot I don't know that right now but if you add all that up and we're over 24% then the stream buffer would become 100 feet wide to the staff does this square with I did a back of the envelope calculation and it just based on very rough figures it seems like if you doubled the existing buffer you might lose a lot or two and that's considering the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet so I don't know for sure but back of the envelope calculation says a unit or two might be lost if it were over 24% I don't know if we might get into some kind of issue with the 50 foot versus 100 foot buffer which would impact your project but anyway I think you've answered my questions pretty good and thank you Commissioner Harris and Amy were a lot of notifications sent out for this particular piece of profit also yes sir they were all right thank you if we don't have any more questions we can get a motion I'll make a motion to approve zoning case Z130001 second all right so we're moving to property second all those in favor let it be known by raising our right hand motion has passed 11 to 0 we'll move down to Hudson property case Z130001 0 final zoning that change request for the evening is Hudson property case Z130001 0 the applicant is Davis more capital this isn't within the city's jurisdiction and the request is from residential suburban 20 to office institutional with the development plan the site is 7.99 acres and it's for proposed use of up to 150,000 square feet of office space the site is one parcel at 117 east NC 54 highway it does have frontage on Crooked Creek Parkway to the north so it is a double frontage lot it's in the suburban volunteer and the suburban transit area it's also within the FJB watershed protection overlay district and the major transportation corridor overlay associated with interstate 40 there is a condition on the bike plan shown that impacts the site along NC 54 and the applicant as I'll get to has made some proffers on that in that regard this plan does meet the standards of the office institutional district as shown here a summary anyways the existing conditions do show there's flood plain on the eastern portion of the site associated with an off site stream and the site has previously been cleared but there are there is some vegetation on the fringe the proposed conditions show the building envelope the site access areas one from 54 one from Crooked Creek Parkway it does show your tree preservation area which is in the flood plain the building envelope does stay outside of the flood plain and there's a number of commitments the range of floor area will be from 50,000 to 150,000 square feet the two access points 60% impervious surface and a 10% tree preservation there are a number of transportation commitments as shown on this slide they do satisfy the bike plan proposal for the bike lane along the frontage of 54 and they do make transit improvement proffer for the existing bus stop there's a number of design commitments for this non-residential project the summary is on this slide as well as in your staff report and the request is consistent with the future land use map of our comprehensive plan which designates this site as office and recreation and open space which matches the flood plain line this request does satisfy or is consistent with the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan and staff determines that for that reason consistency with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinance this site is consistent I can answer any questions alright thank you I don't have anyone signed up to speak is that correct yes sorry come up, state your name good evening everyone my name is Bob Zummall with McAdams and I am director of our planning design group and I'm here on behalf of Davis Moore Capital representing the project Austin Coons here with me as well as Earl Llewellyn from Kimley Horn as Amy stated this is about an eight acre site at the intersection of 54 and Fayetteville the site once contained a mobile home part it's part of the reason it was it was cleared now it's now vacant there is a 100 year floodplain on a stream along the eastern edge as Amy mentioned we're not proposing any impacts we'll have to connect to sewer at some point down at the bottom of the site our building envelopes and parking envelopes are all out of all the environmental areas this is one of the last remaining infill parcels at this key intersection at Fayetteville in 54 and for that reason my client believes this would be an excellent opportunity for a class A office space at this office development at this location as Amy mentioned the plan is for office that's what we're doing while the plans for the site haven't been finalized we will be somewhere probably in that 100 plus thousand square feet not quite sure yet but all the access will be as shown in the development panel we'll have a write-in write-out access off of 54 and a full movement access off of Crooked Creek Parkway Kimley Horn's completed a traffic study it's been reviewed by DOT and the city and any recommendations from the study we've committed to making those improvements which would include restricting our access on 54 to a write-in write-out and building the bike lane through the frontage of our site and we'd also be dedicating some additional right-of-way to accommodate those improvements in an effort to keep our neighbors in the loop we did have a neighborhood meeting with joining property owners back in March at one of the nearby churches we had two couples from the neighborhood behind who came and then a representative from the apartment complex behind the Kroger I'm not sure what it's called now it kind of changes names a lot most people were really just kind of glad we weren't proposing retail there weren't a whole lot of issues that came out just some questions about timing and we have really not had any additional concerns come to our attention from the neighbors since that meeting in closing I just would hire or would point out a few of the commitments that we're making that Amy mentioned at the bus stop on 54 a connection from the transit shelter indoor site the bike lane and the widening on 54 maximum of 150,000 square feet of office and then 30 foot wide buffer along Crooked Creek Parkway we're here to answer any questions we'd love to have your support Austin is here he signed up to speak but he doesn't really need to speak unless you have questions I just had him sign up so that thank you very much okay thank you we won't force him to speak either so that's pretty good so if we don't have any other speakers I'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the commission I have Commissioner Davis wants to speak I did have a question but I think I answered it by just reading staff correct me if I'm wrong the maximum height is 50 feet correct there's a building already well okay so I guess I know the height maximum thank you sorry about that okay okay uh Commissioner Winters did I see on is there gonna be a did you have a median strip on 54? yeah in order to build the to restrict to write it right out we will be putting a median in 54 and that'll just be a little concrete probably yeah it'll be a concrete medium in the middle that's right alright can we get a motion if we have no one else wishing to speak? Mr. Chair I move we approve zoning case Z1300010 the Hudson property second it's been moving properly second all those in favor let me know if I raise your right hand any opposition the motion has been approved 11 to 0 alright thank you we move down to item 7A any announcements what do we have next month staff good evening again commissioners I want to quickly I'll let Scott summarize next month's cases but I did want to point out at your seats in front of you as a citizen's guide to planning fourth edition this is kind of a classic text in the field explains principles of planning in plain English kind of want to provide this to you as a follow up to our retreat from last year probably not a lot you don't know at this point but it's certainly handy resource guide and we hope you use it as you see fit Scott do you want to give an overview of next month's agenda we have three zoning cases scheduled for next month okay we'll thank the planning department for this piece of literature I'm sure to come in handy so there's not any announcements move down to item 7B which is the election of officers thank you Mr. Chair I'll ask for any nominations if you call nominations don't need a second any nominations for vice chair again this would be for one year term from next month's meeting through next September's meeting okay I guess my question is since we have some new commissioners on so we have an option correct me if I'm wrong to suspend the current rule and do it next month to give them time to kind of think it through since we don't really have any nominations per se unless everyone is absolutely happy with what we have now that's exactly right you can vote to suspend the rules and postpone this to any date you see fit but you can also take action tonight it's your your choice any open comments I have a question would you explain again about the city and county you know sure the bylaws and I believe the interlocal Scott he walked out of the room I believe the interlocal and the bylaws call for the chairmanship and the vice chairmanship to alternate every two years by jurisdiction not necessarily by individual member Commissioner Jones is serving the end of Commissioner Mons is on expired term he's a city appointee Mr. Jones is a county appointee so any of the 12 any of the members are eligible to run for either office at this point any other questions so I guess before us as well we want to hold off a month and come back and do it next month or we can do it tonight I personally would like to see us wait a month because we have so many new people we have so many new people it wasn't on the agenda it's not like we don't it's not like we're not happy with what's going on but I just I feel like we have people that are brand new and are just walking in tonight and it wasn't on our agenda so frankly it wasn't even on my radar screen that we're going to do this tonight waiting I don't think waiting 30 days is going to be a big deal for people only thing I have to say is right now 6 30 next week it may be 8 o'clock and then we want to do elections I'm sure people are going to be like let's put out another month I mean are we going to study each other for another month to figure out a different or I mean my personal opinion is we have the time let's do it now it's early you know but if you want to wait 30 days for some inclination or I don't know I just don't see why the 30 days is going to matter if you know but that's just my opinion yes ma'am I'm really neither here nor there about it but we do have two new people and two people absent and it seems to me like if you're going to elect officers everybody ought to be here that's just my opinion alright so I'm cool with waiting the month I'm going to make sure everybody has the appropriate amount of time to study and do what they need to do and meeting greed and politics and do whatever needs to be done that's cool too so say it one more time what tonight no yes so the motion so if we can get a motion then we can kind of close this meeting out if that's okay with everyone make a motion that we wait until next month to do the elections okay so before can we suspend the first rule then do the motion yeah I interpreted Mr. B. Wood's motion to suspend the rolls and move the elections to October okay second for that alright it's been moved and property second all those in favor let it be known by raising your right hand all those in the opposition raise your right hand the motion passed with seven forward and seven forward and four against alright so next month be prepared we'll have this all and we'll get it moved any other announcements we'll have any announcements we'll go ahead and adjourn alright thank you annually in September at the meeting in September we're doing the election by the chair