Just that week. Let's see how far we are. We're ready. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the Durham County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to 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 who wish to speak, please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium. Please speak clearly and into the microphone. Each side, those speaking in favor of an item and those speaking in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes to present for each side. The time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative, so if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Also, and for your information, this is being broadcast on Spectrum, AT&T, U-Verse, on Spectrum, okay, I sent Spectrum Frontier, Google Fiber, and it is also streamed on the city's YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and additional ones are being added. So, needless to say, we are live. Thank you. May we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Williams is excused. Commissioner Morgan. President. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Brine. President. Commissioner Durkin is also excused. Commissioner Alturk. Here. Vice Chair Busby. Here. Chair Hyman. Present. Commissioner Miller. Here. Commissioner Ketchin. Here. Commissioner Santiago. Here. Commissioner Baker. Here. Commissioner Lowe. Present. Commissioner Agave. Here. Thank you. Madam Chair. Yes. I would like to move an excused absence for commissioners Durkin and Williams. Second. It has been moved and properly seconded that commissioners Durkin and Williams receive an excused absence. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. All opposed. The clarification on who seconded the motion. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Any adjustments to the agenda? Staff has no adjustments to the agenda, Madam Chair. We do have, before we, I do have a question about the minutes or approval of minutes and consistency statements. Are there any issues with the minutes? The chair recognizes Commissioner Brine. Madam Chair, on the minutes or under adjustments to the agenda, staff wanted to adjust the meeting schedule and we took care of that right when it was presented. I believe it was Commissioner Miller who made the motion. I don't remember who seconded it, but it passed unanimously. We can make that correction. Thank you for catching. And then on page three of the minutes, about a third of the way down to page when the motion failed, the vote was actually zero to 13. And that's all I have. Thank you. Now, can I get a motion for the approval of the minutes and the consistency statements with corrections that have been identified? So moved. It has been moved by Commissioner Altur and seconded by Commissioner Brine or Commissioner Morgan. Thank you. Commissioner Morgan, that we approved the minutes and consistency statement with corrections. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. Thank you. Madam Chair, if it's appropriate, I have a comment concerning consistency statements. Yes. The chair recognizes Commissioner Miller. It's actually a question for staff, if I may. Yes. Are we satisfied that we are actually complying with the requirements of North Carolina law and consistency statements? I just reread the two cases that have come out since the 2017 law change. And it really does want us to say, even if it's minimal, why? And just referring back to the staff report, I mean, that was the issue in the second case. And that seems to be kind of what we do. I think we're running a little thin on consistency statements and that we're exposed because of that. At some point in the, I'd like to fix that, if we could, and get something that has a one-sentence why that doesn't refer back. And it may mean that we may wind up debating a little bit about the sentence. I have no trouble with the staff taking the sense of what has been said here and crafting it. I realize that we each have our different reasons perhaps for voting one way or another. But the sense of it from the majority, a sentence or two on each case, I think, would make our consistency statements sounder under the expectation of law. And I don't know, I don't know if you've had a chance to look at 160D. I'm signed up for the course on that in January. But whether or not they, the General Assembly has said even more about consistency statements than they did in 2017, it just worries me a little bit. So I throw that out there. Thank you for your comments. Staff will certainly revisit that and check with our attorney's office and be sure that we are operating according with state law. We do, if you've noticed, a lot of the times we will go back and reference the reasons why you vote against something, because that seems to get more attention than when you vote for something. So we can revisit. Nobody's going to sue us over a consistency statement if they got what they wanted. So we do add those in addition most of the time. By the time it gets to city council, the consistency statement is beefed up quite a bit for the actual action at city council. So we'll report back to you on that and let you know. And that may be all the difference in the world. Right. Like I said, I just was in a CLE and it made me go, ugh. No, it's fine. Thank you for your question. We'll let you know what we find out. Thank you. While I'm here, can I speak to the record that all the notices requirements were carried out in accordance with state and local law and those affidavits are on file in the planning department? Thank you so much. We have a full agenda tonight and we are ready for our first public. Madam Chair, could I? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Could I move to adopt the agenda as written? Yes. Okay. It has been moved by Commissioner Bryant, Commissioner Busby, and second by Commissioner Bryant that we adopt the agenda as presented. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. All opposed. Okay. Thank you. Now we're ready for the first public hearing and the staff report. Guest road. If someone would bring me the list of individuals who wish to speak. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Emily's brothers with the planning department. I will first be presenting case A to case B. The applicant is Tim Syvers with Horvath Associates. This 10.14 acre site is a portion of two parcels totaling 43.09 acres. The site is located at 3871 Guest Road. This site is located within the city limits. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from plan density residential 2.0, PDR 2.0, and residents and residential suburban multifamily with a development plan, RSMD, to industrial light with a development plan, ILD. The applicant also proposes to change the future land use map designation from low density residential and recreation open space to industrial and recreation open space. The applicant proposes increasing the area of recreation open space designation. The proposal commits to self enforcement. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from plan density residential storage and permitted access for uses and a maximum of 150,000 square feet of building area. The 10.14 acre site is shown in red on this aerial map. The site comprised of two parcels is located off of Guest Road and located in the suburban development here. The site is primarily undeveloped with a mixture of pine and hardwood forests. The site is primarily undeveloped with a mixture of pine and hardwood forests. The site contains stream and wetlands as well as a portion of floodway fringe. Area photos here. The site is located in the Eno River watershed protection overlay district B. The site fronts on Guest Road across from prison camp road. The area includes a wide mix of uses including single family residential, office, industrial, multi-family residential and undeveloped land. The zoning context map here shows the site is presently zoned PDR 2.0. This area was part of previously approved crowsdale farm development plan which spans 973 acres in total. The area of the request was previously identified as garden apartments and condominiums on the approved development plan. The site is located in the industrial light with a development plan to allow for self-service storage. The property is designated low density residential and recreation open space on the future land use map as shown by this map above the applicant proposes to change this designation to industrial and expand the area of recreation open space as shown along the stream buffer. This area includes the building renderings commit to the specific architectural design. In lieu of a minor special use permit the applicant is seeking approval of a fence greater than four feet in height in the street yard of guest road. Key commitments include self-service storage and permitted accessor uses, maximum of 150,000 square feet of building area, maximum height of two stories, a range of architectural design. The applicant has requested to change to the future land use map in this area to industrial and recreation open space which would be consistent with the proposed zoning. The proposal is consistent with comprehensive plan policies including those shown above. Further detail is provided in staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I have a number of people who have signed up to speak both for and against that exceed the 10 minutes that we normally allow so I'm going to ask for a motion to extend the time to three minutes each for each side so if I can get a motion for each speaker I mean for each speaker but the total number of time for each side so that would be seven individuals have signed up so that would be three minutes each and then seven individuals have signed up against so an additional three minutes each. So move. Has moved by commissioner Miller and second by low commissioner low that we extend the time by three minutes for each speaker both sides all in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand I'll pose okay we shall proceed the first individual I'm going to call the first three Amy Bartos Peggy Wright and Wesley McKenny okay I'm going to at least allow the developer to go first uh so this Jamie uh Jamie could you pronounce your last name it's Schwaedler but anything starting with an ass I'll take thank you if you'll just give me a minute to queue up our presentation good evening Madam Chair and members of the commission I'm Jamie Schwaedler with Parker what Poe 301 Fayetteville Street here on behalf of the applicant and developer this request for zoning and future land use amendment is for a 10 acre portion of a 40 acre parcel that's about a mile south of the Eno River in North Durham the site is shown in green with the project area the 10 acre portion shown in yellow on your screen Emily did a great job of summarizing the request and I would just note that the flume amendment is to industrial but with a portion for residential recreation open space so that the portion that's originally designated on the property can remain the site was zoned as pdr residential in 1987 as part of a large master plan for the area known as crowsdale farm at that time residential was thought to be appropriate but since that time the nctot storage area has been used for industrial use and you can see that this view across the site from guest road looking south shows the building that residential uses would be looking at this is another site showing the prison camp building another view of the prison camp building and the secu credit union building that would be directly across from our entrance on guest road we got asked through the process why self storage when there's some some very key issues there one it meets a demand of the needs of citizens of Durham we looked at a three mile radius which is typical in terms of demand and what people travel from their home in terms of looking for self storage and what we found was with this particular site there's only one self storage within that three mile radius it's an older version it's not climate controlled like the version that we would be proposing here and those other sites are just around the perimeter so there's no climate controlled self storage within the three mile radius to serve the residents within this area and what is self storage well ultimately it's a service use it's a use that people need within proximity of their homes so they can run and grab a family keepsake or a bicycle on the weekends and they're not going to drive 15 20 miles to do that they'd like service and demand in their area it's a low impact industrial use which means it's not crushing it's not vehicle operations it's a low impact restricted to self storage use and it also causes low traffic this type of use only generates about 32 trips per day which is significantly less than the 250 multi-family apartments that could be built on this site by right and the associated traffic that would come with that in the pdr designation i'd like to spend a couple minutes talking about our neighborhood engagement because it's significant in this in this site the concerns are listed on the left side of your screen and the adjustments we made after those meetings are listed on the right we had three neighborhood meetings for this project and one focus group we changed the plan after each meeting to directly meet a need that was expressed by the citizens and each of those meetings were well attended they were very well attended by the citizens that are directly adjacent to our property and most directly impacted the concern of the neighborhood second neighborhood meeting is listed on your left traffic concerns and loss of trees lack of neighborhood benefit and we went through the key text commitments i'll mention them here and then i'll leave the screen open for mr david by sure who will address the remaining comments okay thank you or or he can let you continue because it you know if the i'll let her all three minutes sure thank you thank you the key text commitments are listed there on your screen they mainly go to the appearance of the self-storage unit on guest road having the doors facing away from guest road limiting the lights of the property line committing to an architectural rendering of what the building would look like in direct response to concerns of orange and white and a 30 acre donation of a tree conservation this is in direct response of concerns we heard about what the future of the 40 acres would be the loss of trees in this area and the environmental impact on the eno river you can see that area there and essentially the area in green would be subject to the conservation easement that has been accepted by the triangle land conservancy and will be a committed element as well as these committed elevations and for these reasons the flume amendment satisfies a 3.4.7 criteria and that it extends the industrial designation adjacent to what is an institutional use but is essentially used as an industrial use across prison camp road in an area that's no longer ideal for residential use and would be compatible with the existing land uses with those development plan commitments i described earlier the staff report adequately shows the shape and size and the lack of adverse impacts and so the rezoning also meets the 3.5.10 requirements it's consistent with the comprehensive plan if the flume amendment is changed it's compatible with the zoning of the nearby property and its site is limited to limited industrial uses only for self-storage you can see the comparison of the existing proposed there and so with these commitments in place which are significant which respond to direct comments we got through the four neighborhood engagements that we went through i don't think you'll see another zoning with this level of participation for over a year with numerous meetings with interested groups and the response to that with a with a conservation easement is presidential i'd be happy to answer questions or to let dave finish up on the three minutes i didn't use thank you thank you my name is david by sure i live at 2904 trailwood drive i'm the master developer of crowsdale farm and also the manager of lakefield farm llc who's a landowner in this rezoning i just wanted to say that we've worked with trying a land conservancy before on a conservation easement which borders valley spring park and it worked very well so that was the impetus to work with them again on this possibility listening i went to all three neighborhood meetings listening to the neighbors that are most directly affected ordering the property and i kept hearing about the wanting to save trees and also the neighborhood receiving something for a rezoning of a of a storage area so that was the reason for this conservation easement it's the endowment portion of that has already been fully funded it's been approved and accepted by the triangle land conservancy board and also a letter of support is in the staff report from the eno river association so i available for any questions and just to ask for you to support this rezoning thank you thank you now i'll go to the next three individuals Amy Bartos Peggy Wright and Wesley McKinney good evening my name is Amy Bartos I live at 10 debonair circle Durham 27705 my neighborhood is Rosebriar we are across the street from riverside high school and about the acres being discussed tonight as it is now sorry I left the month floor everyone's opinion of beauty is different everyone's opinion of a good cup of coffee is different everyone's opinion of appropriating millions of tax dollars to multi unit affordable housing is different everyone's opinion of progress is different and so it goes everyone's idea of what a storage business across from an old prison facility should look like and act like increased traffic has been discussed at pass zoning meetings and on the next door lists serve some stated the numbers of cars on guest road was manipulated and staged I don't know about that but what I do know is traffic on guest road and Rosa Sharon will definitely increase if multi unit affordable housing is built next to my neighborhood I can see and hear the lodge at crowsdale the new apartments on hillondale from my kitchen window it is certain my neighborhood will be impacted by the decisions of the derm city council planning commission of that commission it appears only one member resides in 27705 thomas miller I don't particularly oppose storage units being built guest road is obviously already a hodge podge of buildings and dwellings and fried chicken what concerns me is the vague threat of construction of multi unit affordable housing on the acreage of the storage units aren't built I grew up within a reasonable walking distance of five multi unit affordable housing villages have any of you had the same experience I work for the county welfare department in Ohio for 25 years my clients lived in multi unit affordable housing villages we called those places the projects frankly I have if I have to choose between a multi unit affordable housing project or storage unit with 31 acres of protected in perpetuity by the likes of the triangle conservancy association I choose the latter thank you thank you Peggy Wright and then Wesley McKenna good evening my name is Peggy Wright I live on rose where I drive 30 36 my reasons for voting for or for speaking for the rezoning is because the storage unit itself the storage project is low impact I am impressed that the numbers of of cars would not increase significantly I am moved however most significantly significantly by the offer of the conservation of the 31 acres that would preserve the quality of life in a very quiet established neighborhood in which I have lived for since 1998 and it's very quiet the neighbors are very kind and concerned and helpful and that's why I am in favor of the reason of the rezoning to allow the storage project to go ahead because of the conservation offer that is on the table thank you thank you Wesley McKenney Western McKinney 3025 Rosewood circle I am in favor of the storage units I live right behind the apartments that have been built my first I didn't know what to think didn't know what to expect they're very nice it's not loud you don't have a lot of traffic coming over the trees to my house or nothing like that I mean it's it's not a bad situation a lot of people look at it as it is but it's not I am impressed with the details that they've put into this for the storage units I am impressed with how they've tried to save the 31 acres obviously I'm fine to that because I do go back there with my kids and we like to explore so that would keep it where we can continue doing that doing our family things and being able to enjoy life but I am for it and I appreciate it thank you I'm John Tushia and if I have mangled your name please pronounce that for me hello I'm John Tushic 3105 Rosebriar I'm in support of the rezoning I think the traffic and the road can support that type of a building the setting aside of the land for forest is a great addition and as I live on that street it would be nice to keep that the way it is so I support it thank you thank you Christian or Gara in an excellent job on my name so thank you oh voila I am also for the rezoning just to support all of the same statements that have come mainly because we our neighborhood has been greatly impacted by the housing that was built behind it on hillandale road and over the 11 years I've lived there I've seen that really change the the light pollution and noise pollution I would rather not have any more of that so I'd love to have the buffer and I think it would be a much better decision for our neighborhood so I support it thank you I think I have all of the vigil visuals who signed up for I'm going to start the next list Ken Ray good evening my name is Ken Ray and I live at 1416 Miramont Drive about a stone's throw away from where this development is being planned I looked up the definition of non-conforming use and there was a picture of this development and just kidding a little bit there as you can see the neighborhood around us around this place is not just a prison camp it is the landest road neighborhood there are a hundred about a hundred houses in there and I've been there and knocked on doors and not a single person who lives there supports this kind of rezoning as you look at that picture you'll see the black line that goes down the middle of that is approximately where an eight foot tall metal fence would be the plans that they put forth don't just call for greater than four feet they call for an eight foot tall metal fence that's just so far out of Weffield when the maps were up earlier you saw that there are other storage units available in our area there is a five-story public storage unit being built across from Trosa on Rocksboro Street that is 3.8 miles away from Rose of Sharon and Guest I've been to the meetings that the developers have had and at the closing of each one I've asked can you tell us please one positive benefit this project would bring to these neighbors and there's never an answer because there isn't an answer to that question there is no positive benefit to those neighbors the conservation land that's been brought up over and over again you'll notice as part of the riparian buffer it was never going to be developed for anything it's protected stream land so it doesn't matter who holds the title on that land it was never going to be built on so that's kind of a moot point I would also note that some of the people who have spoken for this development already did not state their addresses if you did look at their addresses as I did you'd find that many of them live much farther than 3.8 miles away from this proposed development if you are here to speak against this development would you raise your hand keep them up if you live within five miles of the development there you have it I ask you guys please just say no to this because every time we've met with these folks and I'm sadly we've heard it in a really kind of ugly way earlier when they say to us well you know if we don't get to build this storage building we'll put up all four double housing whoo like that's a bad thing the zone the land is zoned for residential the people of this city have put forth a mandate to the city council that what's important to us is housing keep the land zoned for what it is zoned for thank you very much for your time thank you William Ostag Ostag Mr. okay and then followed by Nikki Kagle thank you William Ostag I live at 1400 Meadston Drive I am against the rezoning at Goodwin Crossing for the following reasons first a little bit of background I'm a registered architect I spent 25 years on active duty as a Navy Civil Engineer Corps officer the CBs done construction and environmental projects and five continents I spent the last 20 years since I retired as a work as a construction project manager I say this only to let you know that I I know a little bit about dirt and site development and the resulting environmental issues that stem from that I also know the site pretty well since I run my dog through there what I can tell you is that that doing a site plan on a piece of paper flat piece of paper is very different than actually laying out that site plan on the on the site itself that site is very very hilly and it will require a tremendous amount of cutting and filling if the if the repairing areas and adjacent site adjacent properties are to be maintained on a secondary note the the county the cleaning department's report talks about traffic on Goodwin Road and Infinity Road but I can tell you that the shortest distance between two points will will be to get to those I'm sorry to get to Infinity Road the traffic will as practical matter go through Bartek Court and Venturia Street and then through Briardale, Meadstone Road, Shady Lane before they reach Infinity Road those are there's a residential streets they are not roads and that and that increase in traffic will pose a problem uh finally as a emotional thing that's a residential rural residential area if you're really going to build houses on the on the lots that they at least on a flat site plan are projected to be as small as they are it's going to be a relatively high density area if you look at the site plan and I've only had the opportunity to look at at the site plan the side yards the front yard setbacks by the time you take all of that into consideration you've got a tremendous amount of impervious area roof area and a lot of houses bunched closely together it is definitely not in keeping with the character of that area thank you thank you um Nikki Cagle thank you so much for the opportunity to speak tonight my name is Nikki Cagle I live at 4112 Trevor Circle which is the neighborhood directly across the street from this proposed development um and I'm speaking against this proposed rezoning one of the things I want to point out is that this development was already proposed as a commercial rezoning and was rejected because there is a commercial node already within 0.25 miles of this area and so this is just the same plan but under under a different a different name we also at that commercial node which is a little bit south have a number of empty buildings which would be perfect for a project like this but doesn't mean that we want to have a self storage center in an area that should have been residential the other thing that I want to point out is that I am an ecologist at Duke University I really appreciate the instinct to conserve this property but at the same time so much of this land can't be developed anyway because it is in that riparian habitat um in addition in my conversation so I'm on the board of the Triangle Land Conservancy I am also in close contact with the Eno River Association and when I talked with my colleagues there they said they didn't realize that there was going to be a land use change designation as a part of of this deal I also feel that this isn't in the public interest as local residents we know that there are already a lot of empty buildings just south of our neighborhood you know CVS's that have come and gone an old bank that just sit in there empty it doesn't make sense for a new development to to be in this spot when there could be houses in this area and instead we have the opportunity to follow through with the comprehensive plan and ensure that that this sort of commercial enterprise goes where it's supposed to go which is at the corner of Guest Road in Horton thank you so much thank you uh Marion Horn followed by William Richards good evening my name is Marion Horn I live at 54 for Hallmark Road I'm about 2.5 miles from where they want to put this storage unit I am a native Durham person I have lived here most of well most of the majority of my life I've seen a lot of changes in Durham and I think some of them are really really good but one thing we love about northern Durham County is the are the trees and the wonderful things that we have near the Eno and it's just been a really nice place to live for a long time I am I live in the Graymaw subdivision which is about two more 2.5 miles I'm speaking to voice my opposition to the proposed zoning change along Guest Road from residential to light commercial this proposal was submitted in order to build a storage facility on the corner of Rose and Sharon and Guest across from the church the city and county have a strong planning department to protect residents against unwanted development I oppose this kind of growth Rocksville Road has turned into a commercial light industrial roadway it is a good example of this kind of growth these two parallel corridors going north in Durham County will change north Durham Rocksville Road already has please protect us from this fate and help maintain the semi-rural living enjoyed in northern Durham County thank you for your consideration thank you William Richards good evening my name is William Richards I live at 5116 Green Oak Drive here today to speak on behalf of myself and the north Durham Quality Development Association against the rezoning and construction of the self-storage facility the argument short and simple we don't need another self-storage facility in our area there are already two within about three miles of the proposed site and at least seven within 10-minute drive including one that is currently under construction on the corner of Hillsborough Road and Christian Ave which hasn't appeared on their map and the five-story behemoth across from Trosa which didn't appear on their map either additionally the request for the land to be rezoned industrial is not due to the nature of the business but rather to what they think they can get approved because of the proximity of other commercial nodes as their previous commercial rezoning application will attest to our groups meeting with the developers they attempted to flatter us steamroll us deceive us and scare us but at no point have they given us good arguments for the rezoning and construction of a self-storage facility they've consistently told us that the site would not crowd the road but in the artist's renderings they go right up against the road and it has to be like that due to the nature of that lot they've refused to consider any other options and are insisting on a self-storage facility almost certainly because self-storage businesses have one of the highest profit margins of around 11% which means you only need about 60 occupancy to turn a profit this is mostly due to the small number of employees that are needed to run and maintain the building and grounds the average self-storage facility hires four people so there's no economic incentive for the area either as part of their attempted scare tactics they've trotted out the old malicious line of well if we don't get this we're going to be forced to put an affordable housing and you don't want that and I think that the city of Durham needs affordable housing we would much rather the land be used for its proposed zoning than another ugly unneeded self-storage facility thank you thank you um bill quarry respected members of the commission respected members of the audience respected staff members my name is bill quarry and I live at 314 ladder road now for about nine years and um my spouse has lived in north Durham uh and his family before him since the early 1800s um and we're very concerned about the um over development in the area do we want north Durham to be like south Durham who likes to go to south Durham in at traffic you know traffic isn't too bad here uh you know at rush hour um um I call it the the the ravishing of the shire if you know Tolkien you know how bad that was um I'm not very a good public speaker so I apologize for my inarticulateness but um the the one thing I want to say is the two things I want to say is when you add hard surface to a wetland that's bad news and we're right near the Reno the you know and I know it's downhill from the you know so but still um and the other thing I know I believe um that the conservation regulations uh uh in this state it doesn't mean that that land will be won't be developed in perpetuity it could be developed later they'll figure out a way to build on that stuff you know in a hundred years is it is it going to be forest in perpetuity that's the question I have for you Mr. Weischer I'm really concerned about what's what Crow Steele Farms has become in the last year that's what these that's what these storage units are for is for those people in those renting those people renting their units and and where to where where they can put their stuff um it would be very handy for them won't it um then the second thing I want to say is by the time me and my spouse die we're we've always rented we're going to have spent nearly a million dollars in rent now the quickest way for someone to get out of poverty or to enter the middle class to claw themselves out of the lower class is to own property why do we want to change this zoning it's it's a it's part of a grand plan it's a master plan we want there to be residences we want people to be riding their little having their kids ride their bikes around in the cul-de-sacs and and like what we have in our neighborhood we have small houses modest houses affordable houses and um okay set and then this is my big point and it was just made um a landlord makes a lot of a profit the second biggest a hotelier that means a hotel owner the third biggest per square foot storage unit owners thank you uh Gary Lipscomb my name is Gary Lipscomb I live at 314 Ladder Road that was my partner um part of the reason that we want to get um keep this affordable housing possibility is the amount of people that already live at North Durham um we live on three acres and right now we have more deer coming through our yard every time there's a new development I mean houses yes I mean the deer will come through your houses but if there is like concrete like a storage unit and more there's not going to be no place else for life for wildlife to go I mean and yes we do have West Point of the you know and you know park but that's a limited amount of space can we please try to keep the living of our planet alive and not paved over thank you thank you I do not have other people who have signed up to speak but I'm going to ask at this time if there's anybody who would like to speak uh for or against uh this particular yes I wanted to just take a opportunity there were several uh questions and statements raised about affordable housing on this tract that that has never been a opportunity we have certainly worked with other developers about housing but it always comes down to being across from the the old prison camp but there there are no affordable housing uh plans coming I've never worked on that on this tract and we certainly have not used that as a scare tactic I'd also like to just correct that while there are streamed delineation areas and riparian buffers on the track there's certainly a stream in the middle the entire 31 acres that would be under the conservation easement there are several pods that are developable and the entire tract is not in the riparian buffer thank you thank you once again are the other individuals who would like to speak if not I'm going to close the public hearing I do have one individual do um have you signed up to speak we'll get you if you can come forward we'll get your name and address on the sheet my name is Dale Strauss and I live at 10 debonair and it's in Rosebriar neighborhood and I just want to say that the three people that did speak first that were for the rezoning we all live within two blocks of that the rest of the people I saw that came up here that are against it they live a long way is away from this and I see the story to it as being a good thing instead of having housing in there for for one reason you put houses in there you're going to have a lot more traffic and the person was saying about the deer when you put all those houses in there the deer are going to move and that's all I have to say thank you thank you um at this time if there are no other individuals who signed up to speak or wish to speak I see one hand um if you will come forward please state your name and address please Adam Roberts 30 58 Rosewood circle I also live you speaking for or against I am for the rezoning okay I'd like to keep that area you know impacted the minimal as possible and I'd like to keep the neighborhood closed in we already have the apartment developments on the other side of the other side I would not like to be closed in in that neighborhood if it all possible so I'm for the rezoning thank you I excuse me could you state your last name we were we're trying to get it on our roster Adam Roberts roberts 30 58 Rosewood circle thank you so much okay at this time I see no other individuals who interest I see another hand um could you come forward please good evening my name is tamu graves Coleman and I reside at 1622 glass ghostry in Durham and that's about two miles from this development okay and I am in for I'm for the rezoning okay I travel through that area to take my children to school every day and traffic is horrific I can't imagine what it would be if we decide to put more housing so I'm in I'm for it could you could you say your name again for me please so that we can record it tamu it's TAM you graves Coleman Coleman okay thank you so much thank you okay I see no other individuals who are are being recognized to speak so I am going to close the public hearing at this time which is the comment period for the public and open the session for our commissioners to give them an opportunity to ask questions so I'm going to start to my right are there any commissioners who would like to speak or ask questions okay commissioner busby thank you madam chair this is a question for the staff and I'll probably have additional questions but just to help me understand because we've already heard it in the public comment period when we talk about this conservation easement and that's appears to be a benefit to this proposal but we've heard others talk about how a lot of that would be undevelopable in in a different kind of development can you walk us through how much of this in terms of the actual size of this property would be undevelopable undevelopable land if it remained in a residential program as currently zoned compared to what the proffer is just so we're dealing with an understanding of what what are we talking about here sure so I'm not sure that I'll be able to give you specific numbers but I can refer you to the development plan sheet that shows a large portion of that area under the conservation subdivision sorry I misspoke under the conservation easement and you'll see in that western portion of the site the riparian buffer and the tent foot no build zone has been hatched that area would be considered outside of the developable area I can't speak to any grading or those site constraints that they might have with regard to buildable area but specifically the riparian buffers and steep slopes or wetland areas as identified on the development plan or the existing condition sheet would be considered outside of their developable area great thank you and I don't know if the proponent has more specific numbers but if if you do have specific numbers available it'd be great to hear them if you don't if if your understanding is the same as the staff that's fine maybe with the applicant we don't have an exact number but we think it's about 12 to 15 acres would have been buffers and so that would be leave you a balance of 15 to 18 acres that would otherwise be developable some plans have been done in the past by a landscape architect here in town mr. joule who appears before you quite routinely that showed those development pods in the locations north and south of the buffer that Emily was was illustrating great thank you that's all for now uh commissioner brine thank you madam chair question for staff on attachment six under contiguous development the staff analysis you point out that urban services such as existing sidewalks and existing commercial node located less than a half a mile to the south which includes urban services such as grocery and pharmacy businesses would better serve a residential use and when i read that this is why i'm asking the question it sounded to me like you were waffling a little bit um uh whether you really like this as industrial it's not always black and white as far as um what which is best suited so i did want to call out both aspects of the adjacent industrial uses but also those services okay uh it might help people to know that i spent a little time out of the willedale shopping center nearest and vacant space out there available for lease just how much i don't know um another thing i've been trying to pin down are some numbers with respect to acreage uh on attachment for the plan amendment justification statement it talks about two parcels which had up to 42.693 acres and i actually went to the Durham county tax uh records and confirmed that that was correct and then if 10.14 acres is being used in the actual rezoning to me at least 32.553 acres left i assume is going to be what's in the conservation easement if this goes through is that correct they've only committed to a minimum of 30 total acres in the conservation easement only a minimum of 30 so there's some acreage unaccounted for correct okay um and with respect to conservation easements uh i'm assuming that the people who live away from guest road some of whom have spoken tonight uh will have access to this piece of property if it's placed in conservation but what about other people uh it seems to me that access to this property from guest road is blocked is that a fair assessment i can't speak to the proposed conservation easement um accessibility but i can note the the stream buffers and flood plain that would make access across that area from guest road uh not feasible especially as a crossing hasn't been identified on this development plan this development plan being a portion that runs uh largely along that uh frontage so somebody like me who wants to TLC who wanted to go out there and explore the property is going to have to intrude on somebody else's neighborhood to be able to go look at it i don't know what the uh details of the conservation easement would include as far as access okay thank you for that uh a question for the applicant uh mention has been made of this eight foot fence it's going to be a long guest road is it only going to be a long guest road or is it going to surround your develop property i'd like to have tim cybers answer that question um and he's he's our site plan engineer i would like to answer the question you raised earlier that while i'm up here that there is direct frontage on guest road for the conservation easement and the reason that there's a difference in balance is that um the easement will be recorded it'll be a publicly recorded document with a um legal description and that exact acreage has to be figured out and then recorded in connection with the easement so we're just leaving some wiggle room in terms of um TLC coming out there and and yeah it it just looked to me from the map that where there was it was touching guest road was also right in your flood plain etc and i didn't see that that was a good point there is a portion that does touch guest road there's like also an existing trail um through that area and so all of those details will have to be worked out um when we're at the site plans okay tim cybers wharf at the associates so the uh showing the fence uh for the uh eight foot maximum height is uh is included in this plan to um to one make sure we're showing the entire picture but also to provide that ordinance request to make that change uh the fence will be will be throughout the entire project um the but excuse me along the back on the stream buffers those details will be worked out at site plan but uh the maximum height is uh requested within 50 feet of the right away which is the ordinance requirement so that's why we're showing it along the right away only because okay change that's the request of the change okay so based on what you just told me is it a fair assumption that part of this storage area will be devoted to vehicle storage that is that's not in the plans for right now again that'll be worked out at the site plan stage but the uh the the the goal is to be able to have this as uh internal storage uh for climate control yeah i understand that but i also am aware of the facility off of hopson road that's correct uh which is another cube smart and this looks very much like a cube smart building uh which also has vehicle storage and it's got an eight foot fence around okay so that's okay we'll look into that sir thank you thank you uh i also want to just take a moment to thank everybody who came out tonight to speak and everybody who's sent me emails your input is greatly appreciated thank you thank you commissioner al turk thank you chair i'd also like to thank everyone for coming out and emailing and calling and i agree with commissioner brian it's very important i do have a couple of questions for staff so the number of my questions are about the text commitments so this is the first on page d 000 um so the minimum of this is number five so there's a minimum of 35 percent tree save area so is that um from what i can tell here the requirement under the edo is just 10 percent and the the applicant is committing to 35 percent is that correct yes their text commitment is above beyond the ordinance standards i would have to do a little digging to get the exact one i'm not sure if that tree save number has increased with the latest text changes i see okay but in general it is above and beyond ordinance standards okay great so that's 35 of the 10 acres which would be again so they're committing to tree save of 3.5 acres rather than the one acre that they were required to right um number eight about the illumination um i don't know anything about foot candles uh 0.25 foot candles is that good is that above the required yes uh any text commitments would be above and beyond ordinance requirements i can pull up the specific foot candles it's like it'll take me a minute okay but all right um yeah you don't have to give me the exact number but it is above and beyond the udo requirement right yes illumination okay and then there's 150 150 percent of the required street tree quantity um that's just yeah so 150 percent of what's required in the udo they're gonna that's they're gonna provide that right yes on guest road yes correct okay so okay i mean i guess the other question that has been batted around a lot is about the the conservation easement um for the and can you say more about that so i don't you know if accepted by the triangle land conserva conservancy it will be conserved for how long what what what will they do what's the process look like uh because i think there's some ambiguity about this so the language that we would have to hold them to that um is that it would be a permanent conservation easement that language is included in the text commitment um so that's what we as staff would have to work with as far as in it meeting the uh the development plan um so if they were to remove that conservation easement they would have to rezone okay so if they so it is permanent but if if they decided at some point no we want to we want to build on here they would have to come back to the planning commission and the city council that is my understanding okay that right okay okay great and it does look like to me that i mean just from the development plan it looks like that number that the applicant gave is about right about 15 18 acres it looks like about half of the 30 acres is already under the riparian buffer protected by riparian buffer but then there's the other part that would be part of this conservancy um i mean i you know this is a tough case i think because i i'm hearing a lot of different things from neighbors uh people want don't want traffic but it also some people want housing some people want uh you know more environmental protections and it so it is a difficult there are some tradeoffs here um i do think i mean it is true that something like this will generate less traffic than housing if it was up to me i i i would actually prefer multifamily affordable housing in this in this area on this piece of land but i that's not what's before us today uh and and i guess we could keep it at two units an acre or less if we don't rezone it but at least from what i can tell it seems like this is a a compromise development application so it's not whatever it's not everything that the neighbors want but i do think that the applicant has committed to some things that are above and beyond what we sometimes get with applications like this uh you know that this question of you know do we need another self-storage and i i don't have a good answer to that and i'm not sure that any of us up here know the market well enough to make that to you know vote based on that what i do think we need to consider is you know is this an appropriate piece of land for industrial light um it seems to me again because it it is a cross from some industrial zoning that it is you know it's congruent in that sense uh but then it does there's this other added piece of it which is conserving this 30 acres of land that would be a benefit to the community it's you know maybe it's not a benefit to everyone but i you know again i'd you know i think mr mckinney mentioned that the community benefits of that i think that's that's a nice added uh commitment um so again i'm i'm torn about this but you know someone else just another compromise or some commitment that i thought is helpful to think about is the the maximum building height of two stories you know someone mentioned a five-story self-storage unit you know this is not that so i don't think this will be completely just you know out of character from the with area uh so at least as of right now i'm kind of leaning to support it uh but i'm i'm interested to hear what other commissioners have to say thank you uh commissioner miller so thank you i have a couple points of clarification i'd like for you to address uh if the if the developer asked for this to be uh general commercial d it would violate the comprehensive plan would it not yes because it would run two nodes too close together yes that's uh the application initially came in as that and it's been revised to industrial light and and we want to have our commercial nodes especially on these arterials to have a certain amount of separation what is that separation currently in the comprehensive plan oh i don't have that one memorized quarter of a mile 600 feet no well whatever it is this would make it too close yes so that's why we're industrial but there is industrial across the street um that's okay because it seems like we're over zoning the property and then we're using the development plan to cut the use way back into something that's not industrial at all and we're doing that because our comprehensive plan which is incorporated into our udu by reference requires that there be separation with commercial nodes and to me this is the crux of what this is about is i believe that we should have separation of commercial nodes and i believe that our comprehensive plan doesn't have a big enough interval um so when we talked about public's and some of you were on the commission when we had the the the public's case what worries me about guest road we have a terrible example in land use planning on rocksboro road hillsboro road near where i live and even guest road south of this of where we have allowed usually don't blow the sirens when i speak i'll try not to set the house on fire the um but we don't need to do that anymore and there's no reason why guest road beyond this point could be one parcel of non-residential and another parcel of non-residential and another parcel of non-residential uh that gets all mixed up i called it slash and burn zoning because we already have a commercial thing that i don't think of willowdale is old uh but i guess in the commercial in the life of commercial buildings it is old because it's not running very well and we have the what's been built around there some of it's been torn like down and and new things built like the harris teeter where the theater used to be um i would like to see us reuse the uses the commercial uses that age out in our existing commercial nodes before we cut down trees and expand expand non-residential uses non-residential uses into green space um and that to me is the big issue in this case now that's not to say but i don't see the other side i do uh there is a prison in industrial zoning across the street from this uh and the folks on land is drive live next to the prison and that works out but i don't think necessarily if i were a developer of residential housing i wouldn't necessarily think that it's a great marketing thing to say and there's a prison across the street um so i get it what i want out of future development in this area is a clear line of demarcation that says what happens north of here is a different kind of development pattern in Durham because i hear you folks come and speak and although some of you were for because of this and some of you were against because of that but you're all saying the same thing is there is a quality of life that just derived from the the the pattern of existing pattern of development that you want to preserve and it was a choice that you made uh that when that when you decided to live out there you're driving a lot farther to go to a restaurant than i am you are driving a lot farther to go buy a pair of socks than probably i am uh even though i live in 2705 and my storage unit's in 2701 the um so i see that and so when we pull back a little bit i believe everybody who has come to speak on this is actually arguing the same thing they might be on this side or that side because of their particular location of their house but what you're after is is a conservation of the quality of life and the choice you made by deciding to live in this part of Durham County that to me is the most important consideration now what i would like to do and i've told the developer's land planner this um i get it and sometimes we uh are forced to compromise i think this is a case where compromise is possible uh i am looking at the whoever it is that lives in the house on Landis Drive closest to guest road it's on the south side it's two lots in it's going to see that house is going to see whatever happens is developed on this piece of property and so for and if it's going to be a a large storage unit saved it's only two stories tall it's 150,000 square feet of storage that's not a small storage facility it may not be four stories tall but it's this is big you know the Harris teeter is about 54,000 square feet it's three Harris teeters so that matters what i would like to do and if it were up to me what would turn my current no vote to a yes vote is if we could change this development plan a little bit add commitments i would like to see that no part of the actual developed part of this 10 acre parcel come up to and be opposite or across guest road from the the the in close proximity to the residential subdivision at Landis because i don't want what's built here to destabilize and make Landis Road a less attractive place for people to live uh they right now are on the boundary they are protecting everybody else and so i want to protect them so if we could shift what is built on this piece of property without regard to how many square feet it may ultimately be further south on the property than is currently committed that would tend to have me moved to a yes vote if we could make this building and i know they've gone back and forth and they've done the extraordinary thing if actually including an elevation saying this is what it'll look like full marks i love it when developers can and will do that but we have an example of self-storage self-storage doesn't have to be ugly uh and a self-storage facility has been built within walking distance of where we are right now that is remarkable in my opinion for its successful integration into what i call kind of a Durham style uh so and that's the one that's down here where the old carver cozart and current warehouse used to that was 40 years ago i'm where the mcdonalds is down here on the north side of town so if it looked more like that then i would be happier about it um i would love to see that this height limit would be more refined because it's on a slope i would i'm assuming that these buildings are probably going to be one commercial story which is taller than a residential story at the north end and they probably will be two stories with with the grade if they were two stories to three stories that's pretty tall uh so i would like to see this refined a little bit and i would like to to ask and and to understand a little bit about the way the street tree plantings would work uh right now we have a street tree requirement it would apply here and they will have to plant a row of of trees that in that with potential could be could be large uh most of us are going to see this development driving on guest road and we're going to see it at 35 miles an hour going north or south and so a row of trees looking at it obliquely that way as as drivers or passengers and vehicles uh we can do thoughtful planning there to organize the trees there meeting the minimum requirements of the code in terms of intervals and spacing that using extra trees that the sense of developer is willing to plant them in such a way that that the overall effect of the row of trees is denser and we can increase the size of the trees at the time of their planting um and so we could go to a larger caliper tree a diameter of the trunk at a certain height above the ground so and we can provide for these trees a larger area to grow in so that they don't stay the the wispy puny maples that I see in parking lots in suburban commercial development all over town some of these uh commercial developments are now 25 years old and the trees are still puny and tiny and that's because they have no room to grow we can fix that here uh with better uh commitments and so and I'm not speaking for you if you're still against this there are reasons to be against it and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise but I'm saying for me this could be with a little tweaking this could be a plan I could vote for but without that tweaking and without putting it in the in the commitments here I'm going to have to vote no tonight and I'm going to urge my friends on the commission to to vote no what I want is at the north end of this piece of property a clear signal a clear signal that the commercial area the non-residential area that exists where horton and and guests come together stops at the north end of this it's not an invitation to keep going and it's true there's a small commercial node there where rose of sharing comes in that's a one lot of neighborhood commercial and one lot of office institutional that's the kind of commercial node that should we should look at and allow and develop going north so that we can have uh the kinds of local services like the veterinary office and what have you when when the cat's throwing up on the rug you don't have to drive all the way across term to get to your vet that's the kind of thing that we need to have going north but we don't need great big developments we do not need uh accumulations of buildings of of more than a hundred thousand square feet so that's my view on this I'm going to vote no but with a little tweaking if the developer wanted to do it I could vote yes and that's what will appear in my uh comments thank you thank you commissioner miller and before I recognize the next commissioner to speak I have to offer a word of caution that we do not um will refrain from any applause or other responses to our commissioners while they're speaking and I thank you for that now I'd like to recognize the next commissioner would like to speak okay commissioner baker I'm not completely decided on this um I do think that uh as we consider any sorts of developments or development proposals that come before us here on the commission that uh an absolutely fundamental consideration every time should be the environmental and climate impacts of those developments or proposals in this case the developer is making a pretty extraordinary donation of land to remain permanently forested but I would ask is this um is this good site planning um when we when we think about this I think it's good to think about whether it's good site planning and whether it's good planning in general and I would ask is this good site planning I think in some ways in some ways it is the site by itself and isolated from the world around it will likely have a climate positive impact given the number of protected trees and the positive impact this would have on on stormwater in other ways it's not the design layout is certainly not walkable it doesn't define public space it doesn't provide the critical elements of walkability like transparency along the building frontage and and I think that commissioner miller made a very compelling case when he talked about the self storage unit that is located right around the corner from here on seminary avenue right across the mcdonalds that self storage can actually be uh can actually contribute to the feel of Durham and there are also no commitments for green building practices or renewable energy I think that if we had appropriate design standards with those transparency requirements as there are standards in in downtown and other parts of Durham this proposal would be illegal if we had appropriate connectivity and block length standards this proposal would be illegal if we had appropriate green building standards this proposal would be illegal but if those stands were in place this wouldn't be the proposal that is before us we would have a more sustainable proposal so on the other hand there's good site planning but there's also just good planning and those aren't always the same green space for example there is a proposed offer of green space in what's before us but I think in the grand scheme of things green space needs to be thoughtfully and proactively identified needs to be prominent and needs to be celebrated and it also needs to be highly accessible so what's this green space thoughtfully identified as critical for protection not really it's kind of an afterthought as part of this case again different different things site planning and higher level planning is there market demand for self-storage clearly there is and I would encourage us to think or try to think more if possible more about form character design and conservation of land in a in a sustainable context rather than about the uses that take place within those buildings so our decision making is it's not about rewarding or punishing the development team never is it's not about rewarding or punishing neighbors or residents never is our decision making should be based on the merits of the application that is before us every time it is before us and the contribution to that that application makes or could make to the public health safety and welfare so I think that we always need to ask the question will this make Durham a better city a better place right now I'm not convinced that this is and I find commissioner Miller's argument very compelling and I look forward to any additional arguments that are made by other members of the planning commission are the other commissioners who would like to speak okay commissioner johnson thank you chair woman one initial question and whichever part of the staff are the applicant can answer it the quickest would be helpful I'm not a historian of prison so what not but do we know when that prison structure was actually built I don't have the date I know that it's no longer a prison the facilities so I don't have a date on that the the old limited security prison was built in the 1920s I don't know when it was taken out of service to become a ncdot storage area but that's when it was built so my next question is for the applicant so you can say so that leads me to assume and correct me if I'm inaccurate is that when you when you're a client or whoever the owner of the larger land parcel acquired a gain control of this site and the larger site that it was aware that this prison at the time or storage facility where whichever it was at the time was a part of the adjacent landscaping which the property was acquired of yes that's correct and so when the existing zoning that we're in asked to change when that was zoned residential was it what was the owner or whoever it is at that time if you're aware what they convinced are are thinking that they would actually be able to develop that as residential and if so what happened over time knowing that that prison or storage facility was there at the time what is what happened to lead you to recognize acknowledge that that was not you know the reality of what can happen on that site certainly when the entire tract of crow's dough farm was rezoned uh it was actually 1100 acres was rezoned in 1987 and got the development plan uh there's no question the prison camp was there in fact it was still a prison at that time and we did it get the residential zoning and looking out you know 30 30 years things do change we have gone and tried to engage other developers to take a look at this and every time they start looking at the site they look to the GIS map and you see prison camp road which even if you explain to them you have to re-explain that this is a a DOT storage area as you can see from the from the photos that are shown it's it's really not very great aesthetically currently even though it's not a prison camp but we have truly tried to talk to some different folks about doing a development there in fact the developer that built the lodge apartments originally they were looking at trying to make the apartments work on that site and there just wasn't quite a a good spot they wanted to be a little bit closer to the interior of crow's dough farm so that's why they moved to the other side of hillandale road but those conditions did exist but again that was over 30 years ago thank you thank you and so since mr miller just a commissioner miller just left the ideas i was going to ask him a question but i'll just make a couple comments so first of all secondly thank you all who came out tonight speaking for and against providing your feedback and thoughts what i think in taking and hearing everything and reading the case and knowing the the area in the site i think that uh it comes down to does this actual proposed development make sense for this particular community area i think what i've wanted to make sure i didn't find myself doing was justifying or rationalizing what is essentially a good effort at something that was is not originally a part of what's supposed to go in this particular parcel i mean if whether you're for it against it i would argue that the effort that has been made to present something that has merit is it warrant some kind of you know you know acknowledgement that there has been some actually like not negative effort but positive effort to present something that has happened for us to have a conversation around however i think the question becomes is this something that should go into this community this neighborhood and the question that i wanted to ask to commissioner miller is you noted so again i'm trying to summarize what i heard you say but if i'm an accurate please correct me is that you're a you're seeing this as an attempt to essentially put something that can be deemed as commercial use in an area that is zoned for residential but it's being attempted under a light industrial designation that's correct because of the way the comprehensive plan the requirements the comprehensive plan on node separation right and so it's about node separate right and so and then so this is what i'm trying to reconcile but you are willing to make an exception given some certain things happening even though you're acknowledging that you don't believe that it's appropriate for commercial type activity even when there's a according to policy that you know we don't want close commercial nodes but you're willing to make an exception of certain things are done under what you presented to basically your comment says there's something that can be done that could sway you back to the other side to a yes even after acknowledging that this is essentially a commercial effort under the guise of light industrial yeah so what i'm looking for here is adjustments to the development because i acknowledge what they're i'm not suggesting that what they are proposing doesn't conform to the plan as a matter of fact if they came in and asked for commercial they couldn't do it and we'd have a node separation problem and i would be just as concerned what i'm looking for is using the device of the development plan to give us space here so that we can have some sort of node separation i wouldn't say an exception i'm looking for compromise i acknowledge that there are other considerations i didn't list if you'll notice when you look at the site plan i mean at the development plan map you'll see that a stream runs right along parallel to guest road and leaves a very narrow narrow strip that's this 10 acres we're talking about um it's going to be difficult to build for anything uh quite frankly there uh and i am not one of those people who believes that anybody it's reasonable for anybody to expect another landowner to hold their land empty for the benefit of the neighbor that's that's not reasonable so some sort of correct development on this piece of property is appropriate what i'm trying to do is balance interest and balance and achieve to the extent possible a policy goal which because of the way the policy is written doesn't actually have to be achieved i believe that the policy goal of node separation is node separation but we've written the policy to make an exception when we stick in industrial zone between nodes and so you wind up and because we allow allow commercial uses in industrial zones we wind up with node separation of nodes our policy defeats itself what i'm trying to do is overcome the defeat and wind up with some sort of separation recognizing that compromise i'm i'm a compromiser and so that's what i'm looking for okay so so thank you for that that kind of those comments and so my response in part taking that into account is goes back to my initial question to the sponsor so given what the existing platform is in regards to the residential zoning nothing has changed in regards to what was in place when the initial pdr zoning was so it's not a read it's not a reaction it's not a reaction it's a it's not a response it's a reaction to something that they that the the project sponsor realized that that can't happen for me i think a compromise would be it doesn't necessarily have to be a storage you know self storage or again we're acknowledging that we're you we're pursuing a commercial oriented development under the guise of fight industrial a compromise one could argue in my estimation that a compromise could be something that's not under the requested zoning or under the the residential zoning we don't know i i i met with the sponsor and i asked you know if this request does not go through then what's the plan and the response i that i received if my recollection i don't have my notes with me is that he he doesn't know yet so is is have we really thought through you know the conservation issue is we know right now from the conversation tonight that at the minimum between 12 and 15 acres will still be there because that's what's required with the repairing feature that's on the site so it's not like we we go to zero in regards to that conversation based on not getting this approved tonight so again it just leads me to ask the question you know rhetorically or feel free to provide responses is that are we creating a framework in which we're saying that if we don't look for something to happen under this what's being presented to us that we put ourselves in a position where there are no other alternatives have we really has the developer or have we in our thought process really explored what could be a compromise or somewhere in the middle it doesn't have to be directly in the middle in which these neighbors and community members can get something that they can live with negotiation is that if one side of the part of the negotiating tables leave feeling great about the situation then it wasn't a good negotiation you're supposed to you're supposed to feel a little uncomfortable but you get to a place where you say this can work and i don't think that necessarily this is something where i think it's a i'm sorry i think it's a win for the project sponsor because based off the information that i've given i don't think we've explored what all could potentially happen given what we've stated are some of the goals here in derm we know that affordable housing is something so with affordable housing comes the trade off of possibly more traffic but at the same time we understand there's a prison across the road so maybe you're not going to get the housing product or type that you necessarily want but that is that guided by what derm says that we're trying to achieve and so i i say that to get to the point of i'm not in support of this because i don't think that this particular development and the product should go in this community in this area but i don't think that that leaves us to saying this property this this site can't be developed but i think that more exploration is is something that should be the next step so i'll leave it at that thank you commissioner johnson i need to recognize commissioner morgan okay thank you thank you miss okay madam chair i had a question for the applicant it's really more of a technical question i did notice that on the actual site itself there's like a 50 foot elevation change from the north to the south do you anticipate any kind of grading or what is your as you have started to kind of kick around a site plan what's your do you have any thoughts on that just so i have a better understanding tim cybers with four best associates yeah so we've we've researched that and the the preliminary idea is to have multiple buildings that step down the slope because there is a large slope across it to have minimal impact on into that slope so as i believe it was commissioner miller mentioned earlier the the concept idea of limiting it to two stories right now is on the north facing wall of the of the buildings would potentially only be one story kind of like and the south facing wall those buildings would be a two-story building almost like a walkout basement and those multiple buildings would step down the slope as you had north to south do you see any kind of development plan where you're phasing this in over time i mean as as commissioner miller has talked about as size and square footage it's it's rather large but is there something where you could actually adjust your plan or tweak it to where it could be more in a phase type approach we haven't looked into the into the phasing yet but we'll research that okay thank you thank you thank you commissioner um Santiago thank you manager you know my concern with this property is that by voting for this tonight we might be limiting ourselves a little bit um as we all know there's been the ongoing discussion about housing or should be and this particular property is within city limits on the major transportation corridor that could mean future transit options that can mean just higher traffic in general just because of what it's a state road already so my concern is if we change it now that we can't you know we've had this discussion about if the server interior should and it will absorb most of our growing population so if we limit ourselves now what do we do five ten fifteen years from now we've done a poor job of deciding what the vote looks like on major transportation corridors then that brings with it the the cost environmentally and the cost materially of extending infrastructure further and further out into the suburbs to gain get more housing this is already in the future learning use path I'm just concerned that changing it now is the main ourselves thank you other commissioners who would like to speak yes I commissioner low thank you the question is for the applicant I believe yes um the question came up earlier if I heard correctly uh will you be storing vehicles at this particular storage unit and I thought the applicant said that they do not know and I was wondering wondering at this point why we would not know know what type of vehicles even what size on my mini scoop to a tractor trailer what have you I was just curious to hear that answer that you did not know so if you could address that for me I would appreciate that sure um part of the reason we don't know is that this case is unlike any other and that involves a significant amount of compromise to where we are today and every time that we add conditions or change the plan that impacts lots of things circulation access um details that will be figured out at the site plan stage and so until we know kind of the limits of what that is um and what our final approved project is uh that will determine the exact layout and where exactly the buildings will be which type of uses will have the the double story on the the lower side and the um and and the single story on the north side so there's a lot about the program that can't be decided until we get to a final vote um but each time you know Mr. Miller mentioned the shrinking of the building envelope we've already done that we've already brought it down we've already lost several buildings and so each time you do that you have to recombinate re re look at your um ultimate plan for the project what will go there and um we we've continued to tweak that uh for the last year and two months and we're at this point we're just not prepared to say exactly what will will be stored there in terms of vehicles because um the height condition for example impacts that thank you thank you are the other commissioners who would like to speak if not I think we're ready for a motion chair I'd like to move that we send case uh should we start with a amendment yes a 180 00012 it's forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation second motion by commissioner al turk the second by commissioner busby that we send um and we we have two we'll do them separately that we send item z one eight zero zero zero three six forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation um question you should always move the a case first we did okay I just was making sure all right didn't we oh the game we did in the motion thank you and that would be item a one eight zero zero zero one two forward with a favorable recommendation um may we have a roll call vote please mr morgan no mr johnson no mr brine no commissioner al turk yes vice chair busby no chair hyman no commissioner miller no mr ketchum no commissioner santiago no commissioner baker no commissioner low no and commissioner macgyver yes motion uh fails two to ten now the second part uh madam chair yes if i may have a move case z one eight triple zero three six forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation second i heard busby with the second commissioner brine thank you uh motion by commissioner busby and second by commissioner brine that we send item z one eight zero zero zero three six forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation um may we have a roll call vote for this item please mr morgan no mr johnson no mr brine no commissioner al turk yes vice chair busby no chair hyman no mr miller no commissioner ketchum no commissioner santiago no commissioner baker nope commissioner low no and commissioner macgyver yes motion fails two to ten thank you let's move to the next item uh staff report uh fox crossing okay one gotta wait just a few minutes as the audience um clears out you might want to be here one two hours yet yeah that was that was it yeah okay you mean in the back good evening i'm emily struthers with the playing department i will now be presenting case a zero zero zero eight and z 18 00029 fox crossing the applicant is tim cyrus with poor bath associates the area of the rezoning request is 12.02 acres and the area of the future land use map amendment request is 0.7 acres the site comprises six parcels and is located along us 70 between lin road and pleasant drive this site is seeking annexation to become located within the city limits the applicant proposes to change the zoning to commercial general with a development plan cgd from commercial center with a development plan ccd residential suburban dash 20 rs 20 and residential urban dash 5 r u 5 the applicant also proposes to change the future land use map designation to commercial from medium density residential and commercial the medium density residential portion is a small portion um in the northwest portion of the site the proposal commits to a maximum of 170 apartment residential units and permitted accessory units as shown on this aerial map the site is is shown in red uh and located in the urban development tier the site is adjacent to us 70 where ncdot plans conversion to a freeway the site is primarily undeveloped with a mixture of pine and hardwood forests the site contains streams and wetlands and electric towers and easement these area photos show that the site uh the site is located in the falls jordan watershed protection overlay district b and a large portion of the site is adjacent to us 70 otherwise the site is primarily located along a narrow unopened right of way to the rear of single family houses that front along pleasant drive and lin road there are also commercial development and places of worship located in the vicinity the site is presently zoned commercial center with a development plan ccd residential suburban suburban 20 and residential urban 5 a large portion of the site falls under a development plan which committed to a commercial shopping center with access onto us highway 70 the applicant seeks to change the zoning to commercial general with a development plan to allow for 170 apartment residential units the property is designated medium density residential and commercial on the future land use map as shown here on the map the applicant proposes to change this designation in the northwestern portion to commercial development plan provides side access points tree coverage area the location of building and parking envelopes stream crossings riparian buffers and project boundary buffers additional commitments include maximum building heights the commitments include apartment residential and accessory uses closure of an unopened right of way within the project limits transportation improvements and transit improvements the proposed cgd zoning designation does not comply with the current medium density residential destination on the future land use map the applicant has requested to change the future land use map in this area to commercial which would be consistent with a proposed zoning the proposal is consistent with comprehensive plan policies including the policies outlined on the powerpoint further detail is provided in the staff report staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances and staff is available for any questions thank you thank you um i do have three individuals who sign up to um to speak and we'll start with the applicant tim cybers thank you chair hyman uh tim cybers whoreveth associates thank you to emily where she sneak off to uh for her work on this project um you guys get uh get to hear me from me uh one more time tonight and then i uh i'm done for the night i promise until next month uh the uh the request in front of you tonight is for zoning excuse me changing the zoning land use as well as the annexation the zoning is rs 20 r u 5 and ccd with a request to change the cgd the land use is a change of just under three quarters an acre of the site to change to commercial and 17.62 acres of this land is being proposed in the annexation which includes right away adjacent to the site so you notice the project area is actually just 12 acres but it's a little over 17 acres in the annexation application the majority of the site is currently zoned commercial center based on the development plan from 1996 that development plan includes just over 96 500 square feet of commercial development which would entail potentially could entail grocery store drugstore shops and future out parcel development it also included access points to lynn road pleasant drive and miami boulevard also known as us 70 it did not accommodate for the current stream buffers which are shown on our plan today uh this project's located directly adjacent to us 70 miami boulevard the widening project well known as the east end connector the widening project that sorry the east end connector widening project has previously taken land from this project area and will also eliminate the access onto us 70 on the which is shown on the previous development plan in addition the stream buffers and utility easements has eliminated the potential for a commercial center on this property furthermore ncdo ncdot project number u 5720 is proposing to convert us 70 from lynn road to south i'm sorry to west of tw oxander and raleigh to a controlled access freeway even though ncdot currently has this project on hold there are two development options for that project the northern option has no impact on this project on our our project in front of you tonight well the southern apart option does provide us an impact to the development area we've reviewed both options with ncdot and they have reviewed the development plan that's in front of you tonight and have agreed to allow this project to move forward with further reviews at site plan it's our team's opinion that that northern project will be chosen however that decision has not been made by ncdot yet the proposed development plan includes rezoning this of this project area to cgd to allow up to 170 residential unit apartments apartments will vary in size to provide a mix of units within the apartment development they will average in size and the average size will exceed 1,000 square foot and include one two and three bedroom rental options rent forecast in this area will also will depend on the final market analysis likely averaging around $1.25 a square foot so therefore a thousand square foot apartment will cost approximately $1,250 in rent the slights location and proposed apartment development provide a great transition that's more compatible between the highly used freeway of us 70 directly to the east and the adjacent single-family residential homes to the west and southwest in addition the earlier mentioned stream buffers and power line easements make this site ideal for apartment development develop the development plan illustrates commitments to right-of-way dedication landscape buffers tree preservation area 70 maximum per face area maximum of 170 units as well as accents points on lin road and pleasant drive road improvements will be constructed on pleasant drive to provide a left turn lane into the development and construct a three lane section towards us 70 as well as providing bike lanes developer also construct a bus stop along lin road or pleasant drive adjacent to the site if required by go Durham at the time of site plan in addition to the development plan comments uh excuse me in addition to the development plan text commitments that are on the on the development plan I have a few additional comments a few additional text commitments that planning has already reviewed and and and reviewed previous prior to this meeting prior to the issuance number one prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the developer will provide a one time $18,000 contribution to Durham public schools number two prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy provide a one time $17,000 contribution to the city of Durham affordable housing fund there was one other additional text commitment that we worked through with the city and unfortunately uh were directed by transportation that we could not include we did attempt to include an internal bus stop as I know uh commissioner baker has requested on multiple projects however this being a private parking lot a public bus stop and public access into the private parking lot transportation told us we were not allowed to do that which I understand the reasons behind uh the future future land use map associated with this development plan is for 0.71 acre portion of the land that connects to lin road that portion of the development will not can't will not contain any apartment units will have a maximum building height of 20 feet as shown on the development plan as requested by the neighbors at the time of the neighborhood meeting neighborhood meeting was held prior to submittal on September 25th 2018 at Bethesda Baptist Church approximately 15 neighbors were in attendance there were two primary concerns at that meeting one neighbors did not want affordable housing at the back of their houses the neighbors felt strong against against this so we've made a commitment to a donation to help help fund affordable housing developments in Durham the second item was an increase in traffic to the area in comparison to what exists today this development will increase the traffic area and I've discussed the associated road improvements that will be constructed with this proposed development however when come when compared to the commercial center that could be constructed without input of the neighbors without input of this board without input of the city council the traffic will be greatly reduced to certify this josh rankee with ramey with ramey kemson associates completed a trip comparison letter that's been reviewed by the city including transportation department as well as ncdot they compared a reasonable 50 000 square foot retail center to the 170 unit complex they found that the proposed department complex anticipates to generate 29 fewer daily trips excuse me 2900 big difference 2900 fewer daily trips during a typical 24 hour weekday josh is here tonight if you have additional questions on that specific item I did did have the ability to meet with some of you and I appreciate you taking the time to come and meet with me in closing I ask that you vote in favor of this rezoning to allow proposed development of 170 apartment units on the site that is no longer achievable as the current zone commercial retail center it will provide a great transition between the surrounding neighborhoods to us 70 and allow an under allowed to use the underutilized portion of Durham to be developed as a gateway to our city I'm available for any questions and if there is any remaining time I don't know if that was working I'd like to reserve that for answers thank you for your time thank you um josh rankee uh staff would like to know one item if possible yes um the applicant referred to no building being proposed to the west of the the line right now the development plan just specifies a maximum building height of 20 feet west of that line so what um for clarification no apartment unit buildings will be north of that line and if we need to include that on the development plan I'm willing to do that but but it's it's clarifying is no apartment building units we can add that as a text commitment in order to to commit to that at this time that's not a commitment made we can I'm willing to make that commitment that's not a problem if that's okay with staff that we can review that uh but I'm willing to make that commitment that that was the intent okay thank you uh now josh rankee josh or rankee with ramy camp and associates 5808 faringdon place raleigh north carolina um tim kind of stole my thunder uh we did a trip generation letter for this one it has significantly less trips associated with it than the previously approved development plan and is well under the threshold typically requiring a traffic impact analysis um in 2900 less daily trips was the correct number I nearly had a heart attack when I heard 29 but um also far less peak hour trips I'd love to answer any questions but I won't take up any air time you don't have any questions thank you I do have another individual who has signed up uh Wanda waiters good evening and I thank all of you on the commission for allowing me this opportunity to speak my name is Wanda waiters and I own a property on 518 pleasant drive I did attend the meeting that was held at Bethesda Baptist church last year and some of those concerns have been included in tonight's presentation the first presentation um I do not want to say that I'm here against I'm here on a strong request for pause there's been a great amount of due diligence in the report in Emily Struthers I thank you for sending the report for review because the first zoning sign that was placed on pleasant drive was for North Carolina Central I look up all the zoning signs when I see them I was very concerned about that and they came and put the appropriate zoning sign there so it gave me an opportunity to review I think a 96 page document very quickly for tonight my first concern is there was one meeting at Bethesda Baptist church regarding this request however the whole area which is not inclusive in this um presentation as far as the overlay zoning is the Little League Creek now Paul I can't pronounce his name correctly Wibke here with the planning department and I spoke with the upper noose river association which said that they had not received any information on that and again to request some calls on this particular project this whole area is is within the Little League Creek watershed protection so I would like to have that more clearly it states that there are two streams but it does not state that that is part of the Little League Creek watershed plan and it is to my understanding so I think that there needs to be some more extensive review of that and what impact that would have I did ask that when I sent the email to you Emily it says the League Creek and and they speak on that but I want to know the overall impact on the Little League Creek watershed also they've talked about transportation and if that transportation um assessment Josh was done uh within the last two years then it would not be an accurate representation of Pleasant Drive because as you know East End was closed in order to work on the East End connector what does that mean it means that you still have some additional time because we we have divided the time up for at least I appreciate that and you were signed up against so you have all of the time well the the street the East End street has been closed off for traffic so any traffic Pleasant Drive has been extremely busy as a result of that street closing for the East End connector so an assessment of what the appropriate transportation would be in that area is not available now because that is the street that is used in lieu of the fact that the street for normal traffic has been closed for some time so I'm just asking for some further clarification of what impact it would have yes I do have extra time however this is a 96 page document the meeting at the Bethesda church at that time it was not clear that they would have to have the street coming through Pleasant Drive what was stated to me at that time is whatever you'd like to see happen or some type of protective fence in that area was casually acknowledged I do not see that on here okay it also states that there are three parcels on Pleasant Drive however on the parcel listing it only states two parcels so I'd like to know what the clarification is on that because that is 510 512 and 514 518 is the parcel that I own and that is prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy construct an exclusive eastbound left lane turn lane on Pleasant Drive at site access point number one with adequate storage and appropriate tapers I'm seeking further clarification on that thank you as far as the transport issue of a bus site there is currently one on Pleasant Drive and there's also one currently at Lynn Road at the corner so I want you to know that those already exist on the annexing the policy 23b the efficient provision of services through annexation um I'd like the planning commission to also take into consideration what is under counting jurisdiction and what is under city's jurisdiction at this time okay thank you thank you I do not have anyone else who has signed up to speak on this issue if there are other individuals who would like to speak please do so at this time because this is the public comment period and the public hearing seeing no other yes you can't even though I have a feeling you're going to be asked quite a few questions okay as the applicant for clarification thank you to thanks to Mrs. um Josh Ranky again Rami Kemp and associates so what we did is a trip generation and that is essentially saying here's what the expected site would generate in terms of trips we then provided a comparison to what was previously approved it was significantly lower and that's what Tim was referencing where it was 2900 daily trips lower over 100 peak hour a.m trips lower and um about 140 p.m peak hour trips lower these this is far below a typical threshold for what ncdot or the city's development ordinance would require a traffic impact analysis and that I think is more what was being referenced there where we'd go out and collect data of what's going on out there project the volumes into the future run analysis and provide a big overall report so our trip generation doesn't take into consideration in like what's going on on the roadway there this was more for comparing it to what was previously approved and also seeing is this below the threshold for essentially further research which would be a traffic impact analysis and since it was well below what was previously approved and well below the typical threshold we didn't go out and collect the data which would be impacted with road closures and such thank you any other questions I can clarify while I'm up here at this particular time this is the comment period from the audience are the other individuals who would like to comment okay during the comment period yes yes a few clarification items if I may okay okay um the uh the site is is in the little creek and uh further further exploration of that will be at site plan stage during the development plan we simply say that the site is in the falls Jordan basin and the impervious areas that are associated with that so there's more detail at the time of site plan with those items come and play the concern about traffic and what will be connected in the future the east end connector will have connections um at Lynn road and pleasant drive so those connections will will remain with the with the development of the eastern connector um and to clarify in the bus stop there are existing bus stops um at the time of site plan when we go and work with uh go triangle and go Durham if there's an existing bus stop that is for example maybe it's just a sign and I don't know what's out there today we may be required to put up a bus shelter or a bench um so we would improve that bus stop if there's a bus stop already there today thank you thank you for the clarification um at this time seeing no other individuals desiring to speak I'm going to close the public hearing and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions I'm going to start to my left are there any commissioners who would like to speak at this time yes you um Commissioner Baker and then Commissioner Miller yeah I have one question for the applicant mr cybers my question is uh is there a is there a buffer between um 70 and any of the development um on below between between what meant sir between where development can occur and 70 70 um there is a landscape buffer there are no landscape buffers required because of the width of the right away there is the required building setbacks I'll be through okay that's that was my only question I think what we're seeing is of course um the outcomes of an automobile oriented society where everything is broken and we just build for cars and we have to take people's land so that we can if you ask ncdot how many lanes do you need to build they'll always say one more and so we're seeing the consequences of that um I think uh if we want to go in a new direction we need to start thinking more about how do we create the type of living environment based on form and based on character and focus more on a mix of uses um and less on separating uses the caveat to that is that we should always separate incompatible uses whenever that may occur and I think the best example of two incompatible uses is residential uses and heavy industrial uses where you have a lot of toxins this site um is directly adjacent to an industrial use with a lot of toxins emitted it's that is us 70 and it also does not include a mix of uses clearly it's a challenging site for the developer based on the events around us 70 um I do have a major concern with putting uh with putting a large number of people living directly next to a high speed high traffic road like us 70 there is a lot of research about breathing in toxins for people who live close to that to those types of places um we can probably imagine the kinds of people uh who are the people that live uh along busy corridors high traffic corridors that are allowed um and um so I I just wanted to um I wanted to bring up a little bit of information according to the American Lung Association quote in January 2010 the health effects institute published a major review of the evidence put together by a panel of expert scientists the panel looked at over 700 studies from around the world examining the health effects of traffic pollution they concluded the traffic pollution causes asthma attacks in children and may cause a wide range of other effects including the onset of childhood asthma impaired lung function premature death and death from cardiovascular diseases uh the area most affected they concluded was roughly the band within 0.2 to 0.3 miles of highway children and teenagers are among the most vulnerable kings college revealed uh that living within 164 feet of a busy road may increase the risk of lung cancer by 10 stunt lung growth in children by 3 to 14 according to the national institute of child health and human development uh university of california uh printed environmental research journal in 2019 compared to children living more than a half mile from a major roadway children living from roughly uh 164 feet to 0.3 miles from a major roadway were twice as likely to score lower on tests of communication skills compared to those who live farther away from a major roadway you could go on and on there are a lot of studies about that and I think that that's something that we should be thinking about and something that we should be concerned about when we're considering whether to change this from commercial uh to residential um it's just one thing that I think is important and one thing that I'm certainly thinking about uh there are a variety of other policies in the comprehensive plan that I uh do not think uh this is consistent with but um my main concern is with health welfare and safety thank you commissioner baker commissioner miller so I have a question this is another instance where we're building residential in a non-residential zone it's certainly allowed but it's it's one of those things it's that you have to jump over a counterintuitive hurdle to get to where we're we're going but I do want to know when we build multifamily in uh GC what's the height limit one moment while I look that up take your time so for residential development uh in non-residential districts um and we are in the urban tier here let's see height is just inside yes um let's see for single family it's specified as 35 but for all other housing types it is consistent um with the rum district um which I can pull up as well to get an actual number for you uh that height would be 55 feet 55 feet so Tim I have some questions for you I wish if I had had my materials when we met I would have asked you then so overall our density here is about 14 units an acre right 170 against 12 acres but when I look at the site plan just guessing it looks to me like about four about a third of the acreage is is not going to be buildable for one reason or another uh so we're down to about eight acres which runs our practical density up to about 21 units an acre how are you going to fit 170 apartment units with a 55 foot height limit on such a small area how is the parking going to be organized and are these buildings going to be how tall are the buildings going to have to be in order to get 170 units in there okay uh Tim cybers Horvath associates so one clarity I would urge Emily and she's shaking her head that maximum building height um I'll let Emily actually answer the question because that's incorrect the number before oh I'm sorry yeah I need to dig a little bit deeper into the ordinance um so the development plan you always have to that is true uh the development plan specifies 70 and I'm sure that is taking into account some um adjacency that I can't find right now but Tim may know off the top of his head well it's nice to know that you and I look at the code the same way is it what is the height limit to 70 feet yes 70 feet okay with 70 feet what are these buildings going to look like so they'll most likely be in 70 feet and get five stories so some of them could potentially be a four or five story split but majority of maybe a five story building um there'll be buildings and and parking lots developed throughout um on both sides of the stream buffer we're showing the stream crossing as well as our access point up to Lynn of course the area um on those residential parcels are not going to have apartment buildings as I mentioned earlier right so they'll be what will go there um so we'll have assuming you're talking about some sort of amenity structure there could be an amenity structure right there could be most apartment complexes may have a shed just like these residential units have a shed in their backyard um they'll also be the access point so there could be the the access points required so we need our second point of access so there'll be a road the private driveway if you will potentially some additional parking spaces in that area closer to the apartment complexes because my next question was about parking is it uh structured or with a five-story building or is it going to be uh no it'll be it'll be surface parking so we've done some preliminary layouts and that's where that maximum number comes in so uh and and uh staff please correct me if I'm if I'm wrong here but through the since we are in the urban tier we're automatically automatically provided a 10 percent reduction in parking that is ordinance allowance so that helps with the the amount of parking um and you know studies have shown that the two units per acre aren't excuse me the two parking spaces per unit um is a little high for what apartments really need so that 10 percent reduction allows us to get down the surface parking but it is designed to be surface parking um the amount of uh buildings surface parking still allows for the tree coverage which obviously is within the stream buffers but also storm water controls etc that are required through the site plan stage so does that answer your question sir yes I hope very well thank you those are just the things that I wanted to know uh and this is for whoever can answer it well Tim you've looked at it you said you did so in the new plans for highway 70 that would be controlled access uh if I live in one of the apartments that's built on this piece of property after this rezoning is approved and I and I want to get out and go uh under the the two versions of the highway 70 plan will I be have access at Lynn or Pleasant sir we pulled up will I have to drive all around to find a way out or drive over to Andrew because this piece of property is a little difficult to find in a way so you can look into it it's it's behind everything so um now granted I will put a qualifier on this answer if I will I'm looking at a level in the map of the entire east end connector so my this is my best guess I will put that um it it it appears um that there is there going to be a bridge at Pleasant um once one of those decisions are made and again this could change DUT could change this in the future it appears that there's a bridge going to be a bridge crossing Pleasant and connect over to Lynn uh Lynn road will still have an access um and the current plan is that the current us 70 the current design where the pavement is now will be a service road so there's still service access to that um does that answer your question yes it does okay in other words you won't be complete even though it's right next to 70 you you won't be cut off that is correct and that's all it's the only benefit of 70 won't be it's the view of it that's correct so that also plays into the the role of why it's uh why it has been commercial since 19 uh 20 years and why it why it hasn't been developed on that previous development plan did have an access point on onto us 70 which is now not allowed not allowed right not having not having access to us 70 not having that direct access to a highway quote unquote eliminates the possibility for a commercial development all right thank you so uh my concern here one i appreciate mr baker's question which was my first question is is where's the buffering uh against the the highway um i had not checked uh to see what the health impacts were going to be i would just think that i wouldn't want to live right on top of uh controlled access freeway um but my concern is here well i drove out there and i looked and i saw essentially uh residential development that had uh slowly developed between gosh it looked like 19 uh late 1920s right up through 1980 uh all around it uh on kind of standard uh kind of country suburban uh lots and then all of a sudden in you know on a piece of property which although it's right on 70 it doesn't access 70 it's going to be behind everything you're going to have five-story buildings and to me that's a compatibility issue and i don't see that as being consistent uh with the policies in our comprehensive plan now i also acknowledge that it's currently zoned for a shopping center um and i know that what's being proposed recognizes that it can't be a shopping center and it shouldn't be a shopping center it shouldn't have been a shopping center a long time ago uh because highway 70 was becoming another one of those corridors where it was just an endless driveway connections with um uses kind of again slash and burn commercial development uh so this is a hard one for me i think 170 apartment units is too many for the site for so constricted the site uh and given what the neighborhood is like um but i acknowledge freely that it is better than what is currently planned and allowed for there and and since that's never going to be built uh um referencing back uh to what mr johnson will say in connection with the last case maybe we need to step back and say instead of looking at what's there on the ground and what's proposed what is actually best without regard to either of those two things so i think that's a it's nice to be reminded that that actually is the question always thank you um other commissioners who would like to speak commissioner busby and commissioner al turk and then i'm with you i don't have any questions i just wanted to share my thinking and i mean my highest level thinking is i don't think there's an easy item on tonight's agenda just reading through this packet it came pretty late and every single one of these has tough questions and challenges so uh i'm struggling with some of these i will say on this particular proposal what i like about this are a lot of the things commissioner miller just raised i voted against the previous proposal for a number of reasons but one big reason is the thing our community needs is additional residential housing so if we have zoned property for residential housing and we're looking to change it even with a number of good proffers that we had we really need to see the benefits and i would like to see more universal agreement from the residents of that area that this is this is a net positive this is the the opposite so we're going from commercial which i agree with commissioner bakers concerns on health but what's interesting here is i take a different outcome from your proposition which is we will have less traffic in this area by moving to residential and there already are neighbors right there so i see that as a potential positive i don't think this property otherwise it's definitely never going to be a commercial property given what's going to happen along that road but i think providing apartments while i have concerns about the height and the number of units and you actually make it all work i think that's that's a net positive that's a net positive for air quality that's going to be a net positive for our community to actually provide residential property apartments in particular i think is is a good use so i'm still listening and i appreciate the additional text commitments and and i hear the concerns of miss waders as well but i think this moves us in a better direction and recognizes that what we need in our community is more residential and to have commercial there would just create more traffic and really isn't feasible at this point so that that's where i stand thank you commissioner al turk thank you chair um i have a question for staff this relates to the first thing that commissioner miller mentioned in his comments which is that we are um the the proposal is to go from to basically to rezone the future land use map to commercial and this zoning designation to commercial general with the development plan uh but we're talking about apartments right and so yes in the commercial uh future land use designation we're allowed to build apartments um but why i mean why not suggest to the applicant or is that up to the applicant to to uh propose to move this to medium density residential like much of what is to the west of this property it's up to the applicant to make their decision on what they would like to request staff then reviews it for consistency with the comprehensive plan okay i don't like that i think i have a follow-up question the can you tell us what the public notice looks like so when someone gets a notice in the mail that lives nearby what what information is on there um do they have can you just say yeah what's what's the information that yet sure so um two parts to that the first one would be um any required by the applicant prior to submitting neighborhood meetings are required um if there's a change to the future land use map as there was in this case so prior to submitting the application the neighbor um neighbors would have been invited to a meeting held by the applicant um as far as staff's notification for public hearings such as planning commission and city council um it's in court in accordance with state uh law and statutes um as far as what our process actually looks like we mail a letter um to neighbor um to property owners within 600 feet that identifies the uh general information of the request as far as the zoning designation the date of the meeting um who to contact for more information um additionally planning has a notification tool an email option um to they can be sent to anyone who subscribes to it that includes a little bit more information um and the agenda so let me ask a more specific question is there anything in that zoning notice in this case that would say that there will be the proposal is for 170 apartments no it does not specify the uh details of the request if I live there I get this notice that it says it's the proposal from medium density residential and commercial to commercial correct yes uh for the film for the film and then it would include the rezoning request as well yeah I you know I've said this before I don't I think this is this is a lack of clarity that I I think kind of muddles the process and kind of um you know I I think residents should be it should be very clear to them what is being proposed here and of course they can look it up but if if I if I'm getting a notice and it says from commercial to commercial with and the designation is proposed general commercial with a development plan I'm thinking oh there's going to be a commercial development here and I'm okay with that I may not go to the meeting I think to me it's I understand that it is allowed for you to put apartment units in a commercial designation but I think we should be encouraging and pushing developers to be more clear in the process from you know the first step up until city council or county commissioners and I I think that to me is a is a big mistake um yeah I so that's that's one one comment um the other uh I mean I guess just to follow up on commissioner baker's point about the the buffer so there is this 150 foot right of way so could the developer have street trees in this area or any kind of other uh buffering that would that would help with some of this the noise and is that allowed would that be allowed are you referring to I guess I'm referring to right on highway 70 is that um I don't know there's a buffer there but there is area reserved for um it's loading right of way reservation is that what you're referring to yeah so within that they could they could commit to trees or something that would they would provide a buffer is that or could they not do that I would have to discuss that one further with uh someone I guess I haven't seen that come up before so I would have to do a little more digging to answer that all right okay um okay thank you chair all right thank you commissioner brine thank you madam chair um I agree with uh commissioner al turks uh comments about clarity I yeah do not really appreciate putting residential in a commercial general zone however um I have some questions about the uh us 70 improvements and I believe sir mr cv you mentioned that there were two alternatives being discussed the northern one and the southern one is that correct or the us 70 or the us 70 um not the east end connector but no I know the us 70 that's correct and that's what do t refers them to as the two options no I know I have their maps here and uh I also believe you indicated that you thought of what might be the northern one that's a choice that's that's my opinion that's not from do t that is strictly my opinion okay there's reasons behind that but it's but I'm that's fine that particular option based on my playing around with these maps for a few hours to where I could finally blow them up and see what was on them puts a service road right in front of this property that is correct and that doesn't impact the decision to put apartments there as opposed to commercial no the the plan for that is to take the existing asphalt of us 70 or the eastern connector minimize that down to a two-lane to a service road that's correct okay but no that has we are aware of that okay and I agree with what you say about pleasant drive will cross us 70 one way or another I couldn't tell whether it went under or over I believe over I agree with you on one of them I wouldn't sure about the other but on land road as best I could make out land road will no longer have any connection to 70 it will have a connection to the service road to the service road yes but not to 70 and I just wanted to be clear about that is that is correct that's for the ultimate design if that project takes place in the next x number years the east end connector development which is under construction right right will have the connection directly to us 70 right right um I believe that's all I have thank you very much I can I answer your other question that actually was brought up by a few ones so um while we were speaking we're actually able to pull up the email that the we sent out to the neighborhood um prep for our meeting back in september and we did clarify that it was actually for a residential development we didn't necessarily clarify apartments but it was for a residential so that was for our meeting back in september of 2018 prior to anything that was submitted that was so that yes those are not requirements we didn't have to say that but we did clarify that in the letter in the neighborhood meeting letter that we we provided to the neighbors does that answer that question I think clarifies that okay answers the question it helps yes um part part of the other item was that I believe um uh commissioner miller mentioned about the the height one thing I wanted to clarify about the adjacent residential development um single family developments to the a seat to the east those uh those homes those existing older homes that you mentioned are set up a lot higher in elevation than our site uh so it's um you know when you first when you first think of it of apartment buildings right next to a single family residential home you're thinking this well it's not necessarily this those apartments um will be set well below in elevation of those single family homes so I just wanted to clarify that item it was there's still some buffering and they'll still be visible because of the height but they're not looking straight up at those buildings yeah you're building down not uh that's correct good thank you thank you commissioner john sir is it possible for me to respond to the question that was raised um I believe I have an answer yes thank you um so with regard to the area reserve for right of way uh well staff's preference would be that nothing that's required be placed in there um anything but the building can be placed in that area um our reason for concern would be if there was a case taking that anything within that area could be removed um but we would allow it thank you thank you thanks okay commissioner john sir thank you again and thanks again to the project sponsor and the individual who spoke so I want to I just want to make one point based off of uh comments made by commissioner baker and maybe I'm supporting your argument or I don't know but when you you made the uh point about the environmental and health impacts of the people who live in these high-corder areas where there's residential I think it was interesting you made that point because when we look at what's being presented I think it's showing the impact of development and how we're doing it and that we've been informed that the price point for these apartments are going to be starting around 1250 a month right and when we look at that the median household income in in Durham it's just under around $50,000 so when we look at the middle household in Durham we're saying that this product is going to take 30 percent of your pre-tax income so we're creeping up the socio-economic ladder in regards to issues that we've always thought about was greatly impacting you know people at the bottom lower ends of the socio-economic ladder so I just want to make that point in the sense that the decisions we do we do may is having impacts that are going to test the size more than just stay concentrated. My question to the project sponsor is I'm curious just to know like what was what was the process that you took to get to the 170 units in regards to the density and what make the program other site works versus say 100 units or 125 units what how did you arrive at 170 and prior to answer in that I want to clarify the 1250 is an average across the board so that's the average price some of the single family um sorry some of the single one bedroom units would be a smaller would be a smaller rate or maybe the three bedroom unit is a is a higher cost for rent but that 1250 is an average across those three bedrooms so there will be a range of that and to answer your question so when a developer comes to us and looks at a project we do a research analysis and sketch plans so there there's some general design layouts based off of GIS information with Topo with property lines and what we did is actually this developer has worked on projects in the areas doing a project in Raleigh right now so they have their building footprint we took those numbers and actually laid them out on the site laid out the parking did it did a sketch plan design trash paper if you will quick layouts that come up with where the buildings are how much open space how much tree coverage how much area we need for stormwater controls and how much parking we need that is on this site of course going around the streams as well as going around that duke power easement that duke power easement you can park under it but you can't place buildings next to it so we worked through that design and came up and that's with the building footprint numbers with the building footprints that the developers currently constructing we're able to lay those on the site and that's the number that's where our number came up from which I'm assuming the