Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected official will have the final say on anything before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight, please go to the table on my left and sign up to speak. For those who wish to speak, please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium. Please speak clearly 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 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 the now. Could we have roll call please? Mr. Brun. Mr. Busby. Ms. Freeman. Present. Mr. Gosh. Present. Mr. Gibbs. Present. Mr. Harris. Present. Mr. Hornbuckle. Present. Ms. Hyman. Present. Mr. Johnson. Present. Mr. Kinchin. Present. Mr. Miller. Present. Mr. Vann. Present. Mr. Whitley. Present. Mr. Ford. Present. Mr. Excuseing Mr. All Tuck All Turk and Commissioner Bugsby, please raise your right hand. Unanimous 12 to zero. Okay. Do we have an adjustment to the agenda? Yes. Good evening. Grace Smith with the Planning Department. I would like to add under new business resolution and appreciation for Ms. Linda Huff for her service on the Planning Commission, please. And in addition, I would like to certify that all notices and advertisements requirements for these cases were met per EDO and state statute in their own file in the Planning Department. After David's research on file and also I would like to have announcements under new business. Okay. And before we approve the agenda, I'm sorry, before we approve the minutes that I gave you minutes from June 14th. There were some adjustments in it. Would you like to address that? Yes, Grace Smith with the Planning Department. We did modify and we made some revisions to the consistency statement for the standard retail case. We had to get back and revisit that consistency statement and due to vacations and whatnot, staff wasn't able to meet her recently and the packets had already gone out. So if you would just see that one case that consistency statement has been updated. And other than that, no changes to that set of minutes. And then the other set that was in your packet from February, I highlighted where two people were originally left off as being in attendance and they were actually here. So we need to re approve those minutes with those two members showing as present, if you don't mind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we approve the February minutes as amended. Okay, I have one question. I will second that motion because I have a correction to the June minutes. Okay. So you've heard the motion that we approve the February minutes. All those in favor of letting it know be shown by raising the right hand. All those in opposition. Okay, now what's your pleasure with the June minutes? Mr. Chairman, let me get the motion first and you can make the correction. Can I get it? Motion to approve the June minutes as presented. I hear a second. Okay, it's been motion and seconded that we approve the June minutes are the any corrections on page two of the minutes. Item number four approval of the minutes. The motion that I made that was approved was that we approve the minutes from the May 10, 2016 meeting and the attached consistency statement. And the reason I bring this up is because staff has emphasized the need for us to approve the consistency statements. And I believe our minutes should indicate that we did that. Staff is in agreement without corrections. And thank you for bringing that to our attention. Mr. Ron. So all those. Yes. So in that case, should we make a similar distinction for the February minutes that we just approved? More than happy to do that while we're here. While we're here. So hold on. We got one. So at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman. All right, the motion on the floor is to approve the June minutes with the consistency statement that's attached. All those in favor of that approval, please raise your right hand. All those in opposition. Okay, motion carries. And at this point, I will entertain Commissioner Miller. Mr. Chairman, if I may, there's a question for the staff first. Yes. So without having helped me remember, what is the how is the consistency statements for our February decisions incorporated into the minutes? Is it an attachment or is it they're part of the minutes just like these ones we're doing here tonight. They're actually in the made it in the minutes, but the same motion would work as included in the minutes would be fine. So Mr. Chairman, if I may, having already approved those February minutes as amended, I now move that we approve the consistency statements for the cases from the February cases. Very second. Second. The motion on the floor is to approve the consistency statements for the February meeting. All those in favor, raise the right hand. That was an opposition. Thank you. At this point, could we get a motion to approve the agenda as modified? So moved. You're here. Second. Second. So the motion on for us to adopt the agenda as modified. The commissioner of right. Who second? Oh, Commissioner van second. All those in favor of approving the agenda is modified. Please raise the right hand. That was an opposition. Thank you. At this point, we will now open the public hearing item number six public hearing on Ellis Road commercial a one five zero zero zero zero four. We seem to be having a bit of difficulty with our screens. She says shake the mouse. And it's correct. Let's see work. I'm Laura Woods and I will be presenting your first case this evening. This is Ellis Road commercial a 15 zero zero zero zero four. The applicant is or that associates PA and it is within the city jurisdiction. The request is from industrial to commercial. It is within the suburban development here. The acreage is 14.76 acres and there is an associated zoning case. And here is the area in question. It is located north of Ellis Road and a bit to the east of the intersection of Ellis with Durham Parkway and a bit to the west of the right away of Southern Railway. Here are the four criteria that staff used to evaluate plan amendments. First of all, whether the post change is consistent with adopted plans, whether the post change is compatible with existing land uses and adopted or future designated future land uses, whether the proposed change would create any adverse impacts and whether the subject side is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed use under the comprehensive plan. These are the policies we use to analyze this particular plan amendment. We can discuss those further if you feel the need. Now then, in terms of the area to the north is vacant west and east is vacant to the south are industrial uses. In terms of compatibility that was criteria B, this would represent a slight expansion of a proposed or intended commercial node at the intersection of Durham Freeway and Ellis Road. As you see, the land uses in the area, future designated uses are fairly diverse. We do consider this compatible. Under criteria C, there are no substantial adverse impacts and it is definitely of adequate shape and size to accommodate the intended land use. So in each case, all the four criteria, the proposal meets the criteria is successful in meeting the criteria. Therefore, staff recommends approval. That completes my report. Thank you very much. Okay, I have one person signed up to speak in favor. Tim seven severe. We're going to have a staff report on the zoning case. Okay. Okay, we open the public hearing for zoning case 15 quadruple zero seven. Thank you. Good evening. Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. This is Ellis Road commercial. Also submitted by Horvath associates. This is a rezoning request for a 64.56 acre site. And the applicant is requesting the zoning designation of commercial general development plan CGD with a proposed use of the maximum of 500,000 Jacobs. Could you speak into the mic? I'm sorry. With a maximum of 500,000 square feet of commercial floor area, and a maximum of 381 upper story residential units.  Located at northeast quadrant of Ellis Road at the Durham Freeway zoning standards for the CG district minimum side area is 20,000 square feet. The applicant is providing approximately 65 acres minimum lot width of 100 feet. The applicants a lot with the entirety of this site is over 1600 linear feet. There's no minimum project floor area that's required. The applicant is requesting a maximum of 500,000 square feet and a maximum height of 50 feet. Some existing conditions at the site. Since he does the request is comprised of another parcels located along the Durham Freeway and Ellis Road. The comprehensive plan amendment which Laura just spoke of is generally located on the eastern side of the subject site. The proposed conditions. You can see these in your packet. So the applicant has denoted on the plan. Site connections as well as some buffers and tree save areas and again committing to the commercial floor area maximum as well as the upper story residential unit with a maximum residential density of 5.995 dwelling units per acre. Also one of the summary of the commitments is that the there will be one potential stream crossing for site access points. Maximum previous service of 85%, which equates to approximately 55 acres and 14% of tree coverage will be maintained at the subject site, which is approximately nine acres. So summary of some of the text commitments. Again, the applicant is requesting upper story residential units only. They will construct a bus pullout and concrete pad and bus shelter. There will be additional asphalt four feet with along Ellis Road to allow for a bicycle lane. They have proposed to excuse me committed to close Southland Drive and they will dedicate right away along Ellis Road. You can see in the future land use map. So the areas designated as both commercial and industrial in the future land use map. The applicant is requesting to change that industrial portion to commercial. The comprehensive plan policies regarding this request. Staff finds that the request is in harmony with all policies saved for the future land use map. And staff determines that should the planning amendment be approved, that this request would be consistent with the future land use map and the comprehensive plan and any other adopted policies and ordinances. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tim. Tim, you have 10 minutes. Thank you, though. Tim Sivers, Horvath Associate, 16 Consultant Place. I'd like to thank staff for their hard work on this project. They've done a lot of the summary, but I'll go over a few brief points. For the plan amendment, as you noticed, it is only about 15 acres where the zoning is about 65 acres. The remaining portion that is being rezoned is already commercial. The site is located at the northeast corner of 147 Ellis Road. Currently, it's pretty much a forested site with mix of evergreen and deciduous. The plan amendment is a request from industrial to commercial, where the zoning is a request to CGD. We did hold a neighborhood meeting back in late January. We had about 25 neighbors come out, which I thought was a pretty good turnout for the neighborhood. That neighborhood meeting included this site and a parcel to the north, the residential parcel. We did a combined meeting at that time. The majority of the neighbors that came out had questions about the northern parcel, about the residential piece. During the meeting, we didn't have any negative feedback about this commercial site. We've contacted Planning this week. As far as they've concerned, they said they haven't heard any negative feedback from the neighbors as well. We believe we have a pretty good neighborhood position on this. The site for the zoning aspect of it is, again, 500,000 square foot maximum. It's a maximum of 381 upper story residential units. The development plan does show the internal and external road improvements. The external road improvements are all listed as text commitments on the cover sheet. The commercial back to the land use aspect of it. The proposed site is contiguous development from the neighboring commercial area, which is one of the policies that the staff reviews. Another policy that they review is looking at infrastructure and consistency. The infrastructure with existing and proposed infrastructure, utilities and road improvements meet the requirements, which is why Laura and her staff suggested approval of the Planned Amendment. And as she mentioned, it is consistent with the adjacent land use patterns in the area. I ask for your approval tonight and I'm available for any questions if you have any. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members in the audience that wish to speak to this item? Do we have any other members of the public that wish to speak to this item? If not, then we will close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. Do I have commissioners that would like to speak to this item? Pardon me. I know I see you. Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have one point of clarification. We did receive one email this afternoon. I believe the planning commissioners have received that email as well in regards to communication regarding this project. Okay. Thank you. That is correct. Yes, sir. Okay, Commissioner Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of quick questions for the applicant. I notice that there are a lot of external transportation improvements you have to make. Yes, sir. Do you control the right-of-way necessary to make those improvements? Yes, sir. Okay. And when I was out there, it looked like there was a big, I saw one of these big pieces of equipment, a big shovel out there. And I wondered what activity was going on on the site? There's no activity on this site. The adjacent site is the apartment complex. That is off and not part of this application. But the apartment complex is under construction now. Yeah, I know the same, but it looked like this was a little further over based on the curvature of the road. Yeah, they're using that spot. It's all owned by the same developer, and they're using that spot for some storage. Okay. Thank you. I have one question for staff. I understand that NC 47 will in the future be upgraded to interstate status once the East End connector is finished. So we'll have interstate connectivity between I-85 and I-40. My question is, will upgrading NC 147 at this point have any impact at all on what the improvements that are being requested of this developer? Mr. Judge? Bill Judge with City Durham Department of Transportation. No, 147, while it's not signed as an interstate, it's already been constructed previously to interstate standards. So the East End connector will just simply sign it or mark it as an interstate. So that will have no impact on the recommended roadway improvements. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a question for staff. So in our staff report, it says a maximum floor area of 500,000 square feet. But I didn't see that in the commitments in the staff report. Is that a practical limitation? Or is that actually a commitment in the in the committed elements? And I tried to read the plan itself, but the print was too little for me. Jacob Wiggins with the Planning Department. As you can see on the third page of the development plan, it is noted on there. So it's a similar thing. It's a graphic commitment on the development plan. Okay, great. I figured it probably was. I just couldn't find it. And then while you're standing at the mic. So is it 381 or 361 upper floor units? Different things on different pages? Certainly. I apologize for that. Well, I figured that I figured that the type was too small for you to read, too. The planes say 381. It is 81. Yes, it should be 81. All right, thank you. That's all that's all I had. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I just like to clarify it. It's a maximum of 381. I realize that and while you're standing there, if I may, Mr. Chairman, any minimums are you? Is there a possibility that this could get built out with no residential component at all? It is possible. All right. Commissioner Freeman. For I have a question for the African as well. And you mentioned that there was no negative feedback regarding the commercial side as far as far as we're aware. I know Jacob had mentioned there was an email that came out this afternoon. I have not seen that email. So if that was okay, Jacob, if you want to inform I as far as I know right now, there's not but Jacob, please. Jake Williams, the planning department. Yeah, you and I had spoken this morning. I mean, there was a gentleman that emailed staff and the planning commission this afternoon, noting some potential concerns, I guess, regarding environmental environmentally sensitive issues with the site. Well, I will definitely get with Jacob on that and get that email and address those concerns. I was just wondering the way you stated it, it seemed like maybe there was a something in conjunction with this that there was some negative feedback on just checking at our neighborhood meeting that was a neighborhood meeting for this site and a site to the north, which is residential. Most of the comments that during the meeting were about the residential. Actually, we started the presentation at the neighborhood meeting with the commercial. And instantly all the questions went to the residential portion, which is not not part of this application. So that's what I was referring to. And by any means, is it tied together? No, two separate, two total separate projects just happened to be next door to each other. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, are you finished?  And I'm not for certain. So going forward with a vote on this, if we don't know what the possible environmental hazards that were, I guess, brought up in that email, I missed the email. I'm sorry, did anyone else see it? And just if you could address the environmental hazard and put my mind to rest, that would be helpful. Sure, Jacob Wiggins of the Pine Department. At this time, the development plan is not that site specific. Any environmental issues could be addressed at the time of site plan. The project would be required to meet UDO standards regarding stream buffers, any other environmentally sensitive areas at the subject side. I mean, the applicant does show a, they do show the buffer on their development plan. They're committing to the required stream buffer at this time. But any more detailed items would be addressed at the site plan stage. Commissioner Gibbs. Well, I think I know the answer to this, but I, and I forgot the guy's name to send this email. Paula, yeah, this is the one we're talking about. Just as a point of verification. Yes, okay. That I just wanted to be sure that I didn't miss any other email. Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Miller. This is for the developer. I apologize. I didn't ask this one. I had the mic before going through my notes. So you are surrounded. If this goes through, you'll be completely surrounded with property, which is designated for low, medium density residential. Are you proposing any kind of additional buffers other than the minimum required by the code? At this time, no, we'll be meeting the code minimum. Speaking to the mic, please. We'll be in televised as a reason I keep asking you to speak into the mic so that people at home can hear what we're saying. Yes, thank you. Tim cybers were about associates were the applicant on the project. At this time, we're proposing to commit to the minimum landscape buffer. Once the site plan is submitted, we'll be following that as well. There may be some additionals at the time of site plan. Once the final site is laid out and designed where the parking or the building is laid out. But for at this point, we'll be just we'll commit to the minimum. If I may, Mr. Chairman, for the staff, what would that what would the buffer options be for this property between this and low, medium residential? Excuse me, Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. Is it 25 feet with an opacity of six or four? Reducible to you're gonna have to tell me I forgot. Yeah, Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. So it is somewhat dependent upon the adjacent is only district, not what the future land use maps says. But in general, with CG adjacent to residential districts, typically within this tier, you're looking at usually 30 feet of a whip. And yeah, there may be means to reduceable with a wall and hedge. Correct. Down to a minimum of if you reduce it to a wall, you get it would be 22.5 feet. All right, at that point. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Okay, the chair will now entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. I move that we recommend approval of plan amendment case a 15000004. Spending motion by Commissioner Bryant second by Commissioner Whitley that we send forward a 15 quadruple zero four with a favorable recommendation. All those where please have a roll call please because of the new members. Mr. Brian. Miss Freeman. Mr. Gosh. Mr. Gibbs. Yes, Mr. Harris. Yes, Mr. Hornbuckle. Miss Hyman. Yes, Mr. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Kenshin. Yes, Mr. Miller. Mr. Van. Yes, Mr. Whitley. Motion carries 12 to zero. All right. Thank you. Now we will open the public hearing on Ellis Road. Okay, the zoning case. Mr. Chairman. If I may move that we recommend approval of zoning case z one five zero zero zero zero seven. Motion by Commissioner Bryant second by Commissioner Freeman that we move forward with zoning case one five quadruple zero seven with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor please roll call. Mr. Brian. Yes, Miss Freeman. Yes, Mr. Gosh. Mr. Gibbs. Yes, Mr. Harris. Yes, Mr. Hornbuckle. Yes, Miss Hyman. Mr. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Kenshin. Yes, Mr. Miller. Mr. Van. Yes, Mr. Whitley. Motion carries 12 to zero. So thank you. We will now open the public hearing on Ellis Road townhouses a one six quadruple zero three and zoning case one six quadruple zero four. This wood. Laura Woods Planning Department and this is Ellis Road Town Homes. The applicant in this case is Ellis Road residential to LP. It is within the city jurisdiction and the proposal is from low density residential to low medium density residential. It is in the suburbant here and the size of the proposal is a bit over 25 acres. The site is located slightly to the east of the previous case that you heard this evening. It is located on the north side of Ellis Road and on the eastern side adjacent to the southern southern rail right away. And as you see from future land use designations here, it's a quite diverse area. Again, here are four criteria. We look to see if the proposed change is consistent with adopted plans, whether it is compatible with land use patterns, whether it would create create any substantial adverse impacts or and whether the proposed use means the whether the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the use. In this case, we utilize these comprehensive plan policies to evaluate the proposal. The site is bounded on the west by vacant land to the north by recreation open space. In the east residential single family residential and vacant uses to the south single family residential and vacant and to the west vacant land. In terms of compatibility, we find that the proposed use is compatible the land west is designated low medium density residential. And the proposal forms a pretty good buffer between low density residential to the north and east and more intense uses to the south. We find there are no substantial adverse impacts and the proposal is the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed use. Therefore, the proposal meets all four criteria. Therefore, staff recommends approval that completes my report. Thank you. Jacob Wiggins again with the planning department. So this case is for Ellis Road townhomes. The applicant is the city of Durham on behalf of Ellis Road residential to the city is the applicant on this case because there is an annexation petition associated with this request of this property is currently within the county's jurisdiction. But it is being reviewed as a city case. The applicant is requesting a zoning designation of PDR 7.550. There's 25.60 acres at the subject site and the applicant is proposing a maximum of 165 townhomes for this project.  As you can see this property is located directly east of the rail right of way along Ellis Road and slightly down the road from the Durham freeway as was the previous case, the Ellis Road commercial case. Those two are not related. Zoning standards. Excuse my typo at the top. This is for the PDR or for the residential district in this case. The maximum density assuming the plan amendment request is approved would be 8 drawing units per acre. The applicant is proposing 7.550 drawing units per acre. A minimum of 17% of open space is required. The applicant is providing 20%. The minimum site of four acres, which the applicant has 25.6 and a maximum height of 35 feet, which is also proposed by the applicant. Just in conditions at the subject site. Again, you see the typo on this. This is the previous request. Some proposed conditions. You can see the slide. The site is the plans are flipped Ellis Road is along the right hand side of this page. See that the applicant shows a stream buffer on this plan as well as some site connections. Summary of the commitments provided by the applicant. Again, the maximum of 165 residential units, one potential stream crossing for site access points. A maximum of previous service of 60% and true coverage of 20%. Graphic commitments also include preservation of tree areas, the aforementioned site access points, building and parking envelope, as well as stream buffers. Some text commitments, the applicant has committed to only doing townhomes, constructing a bus pullout and shelter along Ellis Road, as well as dedicating additional asphalt and right of way for a bicycle lane along Ellis Road, widening Ellis Road for a three lane cross section along this properties frontage, as well as constructing an eastbound left turn lane into the site. The future land use map, as you recently saw, this property is not in harm or the request is not in harmony with the future land use map. However, assuming that the the plan in a request is approved, this case would be compliant with the comprehensive plan and other applicable policies. Again, staff determines that should the commission recommend approval of that, the initial request would be compliant with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you. I have four, well, three people that's in favor wishing to speak. Ben and Rene. And the question mark, you don't know whether you far or against. I would ask that you would consider the traffic and okay, but are you you want to speak against it? Okay, fine. Alright, thank you. Okay, so I have three people speaking in favor of this. So I give you three point three three minutes each. Mr. Chairman, why don't we give them four minutes? Okay, so if you make a motion out of it, I'll change it. A move that we give the speakers a minimum of four minutes. It's been motioned in second by motion by Commissioner Miller, second by Commissioner Friedman that each of the residents speaking for be given four minutes for a total of 12. And then opposition will also have 12 minutes. All those in favor of that motion, please let it be known by showing a hand right hand. All those in opposition. Okay, so the first speaker is Laura Holman. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Laura Holman. And just for clarification, I'm the authorized agent for this project. On behalf of the developer, address 972 Trinity Road, Raleigh, North Carolina, Spalding and Norris Engineering. Staff did a wonderful job of outlining our request for both the Conference of Plain Amendment as well as the zoning. Speaking to the Conference of Plain Amendment first, you know, the Conference of Plain is a very technical and comprehensive document. And it's done that on purpose. It shouldn't be easy to amend it. And it goes through very specific for criteria. Is the proposed change is it consistent with the intent and goals and policies of the overall Conference of Plain? Staff did concur that it is and it is we've we've got an existing infrastructure, both utilities as well as roads that we're committing to providing the future basketball lane room as well as an additional 25 feet of right of way to be able to meet those goals and objectives. The suburban tier speaks to diversifying residential housing types. And this project certainly would allow for that to happen with the load of medium density designation. Is it compatible with the existing land use pattern and future land uses? No staff has mentioned that on the other side of Southern Railroad here to the to the west as a vacant parcel that as anyone has driven Ellis Road recently, we know that as a very active construction site with with apartments. So you start to have those apartments here, of course, to the south of Ellis Road, you've got design and industrial type uses as well as existing high density apartment uses. So what this does is this creates an apt transition area between the existing single family along the eastern side of Ellis as you transition into the higher densities both under construction as well as planned for Ellis Road. You know, Ellis Road was designed as a kind of a transition road between providing some supporting residential for the nearby RTP and this certainly will allow that to happen. In regards to the zoning, we've provided commitments that we believe meet the intent and allow staff to recommend approval, which they have certainly done so. We're committing to providing limiting the housing type to townhomes to providing the bus shelter if they determine that that's necessary. Widening Ellis Road for additional left hand turn lanes will provide for a safe access points into the site along Ellis Road, as well as providing certain design commitments, which we believe will closely mirror and be a nice compliment to the existing residences in the area. You're committing to providing what we call craft and style architecture, you know, using your traditional gabled or hipped roof, not we're committing to prohibiting vinyl siding. So we think we really think that that's going to guarantee a certain level of quality development in this area. We've tried to be in tune with a very cognizant of the existing single family and multifilming that's in the adjacent area. Be glad to answer any questions of staff of any missioners. Thank you. Thank you. Tom Spaulding members of the board. My name is Tom Spaulding. I'm with Spaulding and Norris work alongside of Laura Hallman. We're representing applicants. Just briefly, I'd like to say that we have had two neighborhood meetings. We did have quite a bit of the neighborhood folks come out. A lot of the concerns that we heard, most of them were were positive and didn't didn't feel that a townhouse project was not good for their site, but a lot of the concern had to do with the park area. And just some of the concerns of you know what you would see at night over in the park area, which really didn't have anything to do with our townhouse site, but that was seemed to be a big portion of the focus of the neighborhood meeting. Would also like to say that with this project, we are working in conjunction with the city of Durham to extend a gravity sewer line, working together, them helping us and us helping them, them helping us to get help with permission to get underneath the CXX Railroad, which is a long and difficult process. And us helping them by getting, you know, actually building the line for them and getting it over and stubbed over to the park, which is much needed because they have a pump station over there that I guess is a regular maintenance problem. So we're all working together on that. I'm really here just to answer any questions you have. But from an engineering side, that's me. Thank you. Pam Porter. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of commission. My name is Pam Porter, 5011 South Park Drive. I work for Tony Tate Landscape Architecture, and I'm the landscape architect on this project. And we prepare the actual development plans of the plans that you have before you. So I'm here to answer any questions that you might have pertaining to the physical plan set. Okay, thank you. Uh, and Ben Areems, you have 12 minutes. I live at 2424 Ellis Road at 2418, which is directly to my left hand side is Research Triangle Charter School at 2415 directly across the street from my house is several hundred apartments that are being built by Harvard Associates, the gentleman Tim, who was here and spoke earlier. His company is doing the apartments across the street. To my right hand side of my house is the Southern Railroad tracks. And 20 the 2500 block in which they're trying to get the zoning requests changed for the town homes is like right miss a caddy corner from my house. I mean, I'm here, the tracks are here, the schools here, and they're trying to build the town getting the zoning requests for the town homes. They're speaking of expanding Ellis Road, a lane four foot for bikes or an a turning lane. Um, my concern is right now the traffic with the apartments are under construction. They have not been opened yet for the traffic from the school beside my house, the apartments across the street and the town homes that are going to be built. I do not think that just adding a center lane and a turning lane and a four foot wide for bikes is gonna in no way help the traffic that is out there as of right now. You cannot get out of my driveway from seven to nine in the morning and from four and six in the evening. And also with this road expansion that they're talking about, I'm concerned is are they going to widen the road over the railroad tracks as well or and the septic line, the sewage line, which is not out there as of right now, which they have been having troubles with. I mean, they spoke on having a hard time with the railroad, but it's it's been more than a railroad company. It's been years and years that they've been trying to get an acceptable sewer line in on Ellis Road and it has failed through time and time again. The apartments that are across the street are having to pump it to a pumping station back toward the Glover Road area. I just wish you would take into consideration before you change this zone request the heavy, heavy amount of traffic of grade school with children directly beside the house that frequently walk up and down the road and if they were trying to put a bike lane, a bike bicyclist would get ran over on Ellis Road. The traffic is just that bad. Also, Glaxo Smith Klein's headquarters is on Ellis Road. If you could just imagine the traffic that is going to be created with the addition of the townhomes, with the opening of the several hundred apartments, it's Ellis Road as of right now is a two lane road and in no way shaped form of fashion. Can it handle any additional traffic? Thank you for your time you all. Alright, thank you. Are there other members from the audience wishing to speak to this item? Are there other members from the audience wishing to speak to this item? If not, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. Do I have commissioners wishing to speak? Okay, I got Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Freeman, Whitley, Johnson. Okay, Commissioner Freeman. Thank you. The first question I guess is for the applicant's representatives. So, based on the gentleman, I'm sorry I didn't catch your name, Reems, Mr. Reems question about widening the road over the railroad tracks. Is that part of this plan? Sure, no it is not currently. Our road improvements would go as far as on your plan. You see the site access point number three and that and these recommendations were based on working with Bill Judge in his comments throughout the the review process. Then my second question was was it set or ready for the plan or I guess an agreement set for the plans to move forward with CSX or is this just something you're working on right now? That is something that we're working on. That agreement is in the utility agreement is in draft form right now. So, we are working through with public works on that in conjunction with our annexation request but we do have a level of understanding with the staff that our sewer alignment would require crossing of the railroad, obviously. So, if it doesn't go through then you could this project wouldn't move forward? Right, we need utilities. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While you're at the microphone, Ms. Hallman, I appreciate very much the design commitment that you put in the development plan concerning a mix of architectural styles. It's obvious that you read the Comprehensive Plan. I appreciate that. Our Comprehensive Plan in that same chapter in Chapter Four has a policy against repetitious placement of garages. Do you have any solution for that? Not at this time. We do not have a set elevation in mind. What we were trying to do was mirror the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and certainly establish a general level of quality. So, I cannot, I can't tell you today what that exact design will look like in terms of repetitious garages. Can you tell me how many units you plan to put in a building, what the max would be, and what the mix of units would be, one and two bedrooms, three bedrooms, do you know any of that? No, at this point, no. You don't have any committed element that you'd like to to proffer concerning avoiding repetitious placement of garages or avoiding garage prominence, garage door prominence. I'm looking at my client as you're talking. Why don't you go talk to your client? I'll confer with her. And I'll pass this off to somebody else, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner. Let's see. I think I'd like to address this to the applicant, any member of the applicant, because I heard some comments about the, I'm always concerned when there are questions about infrastructure and in this particular case is the sewage, the sewage system itself and working with the city and getting some corrections if or adding to what's already there. So my question is, if you aren't able to get, you know, this level of infrastructure to a place where it supports all of this, because it sounds like there's a lot already out there and the sewage system is already overloaded. And so there have to be some corrections in order to do that. So when you say you're working with the city to do that, can you tell me a little bit more about how that's being done? That's a very good question. We have several different ways we can get sewer to our property. When the project was first reviewed, it was recommended that we get up with the public works because they knew that they had a pump station over in the park that they'd like to get offline. So we had some joint meetings and came to a mutual agreement that it would be beneficial to both of us. We thought that we could put the line where the city of Durham wanted it, and then that way it would be able to take the pump station offline in the park and be able to get to our property. So we had several different options, but we chose to work with the city. The benefit back to us is if the city is involved, the application goes through a little bit faster with the CXX railroad. For somebody on the outside, it's usually a six to nine month process. If the city of Durham is involved, it's a little bit quicker. And that's basically it. We chose to work together, and it's so far, everything's going well. Thank you. Commissioner Whitley? I'm a little curious. You're in the county. You're asking for city services. There's a bargain being compromised, I mean being negotiated. That's what I'm hearing. Is that correct? I guess we're just, we're entering into an agreement where we would put, we would build the sewer line where the city wants it and make an extension up to where their pump pump station is. In return, they are going to assist us with getting the CSX bore underneath the railroad. Well, I think I might like that as long as the residents in your property is, is meanable to the idea of coming into the city. I'm sorry, I didn't hear very well. You are in the county. Will your property be, become property of the city as well? Yes, we would be annexed in. It is our goal. I'm liking it better and better. Now I've heard that you're willing to make it proper to put a bus shelter. Hi. Yes, that's correct. Are you committing to that now? Yes, that is part of our text commitments that's shown on the cover sheet of the development plan. And it's written, I know that there's already a bus shelter planted immediately adjacent in the apartments, but we are committing that if, that to working with the public transit authority and if, and if they deem that a requirement, we have no problem putting that shelter in. A question for staff. They don't know how they're going to address the problem of garages. They have not completed a negotiation for sewage. They're not sure what elevation this property going to be developed on with. Why is this before us tonight? Sure. Jacob Williams of the department. Mr. Williams, to address your first issue regarding the garages. It's up to the applicant whether or not they want to provide that information at this time. It's not anything that's required by the ordinance for them to depict an elevation of what the ultimate product is going to look like. That's typically something that's handled at the site plan level stage. Regarding the sewage issue, so there is a pending annexation with this, as I'm sure you all know now. That is something that is within the purview of the city council and it's kind of separate of this process even though they are somewhat linked. So the extension agreement, any time there is an annexation petition, there's almost always an extension agreement. That's something that is developed between the staff and the applicant, and then the council approves that. So in order for this project to succeed, that will have to be approved. And usually these are heard in tandem at the city council. So any previous annexations that this board, or zoning cases this board has heard with annexations, that's been the case. So there may not be sewer there today, but the plan is that in the future there will be adequate sewer service to serve the project. And that is what the applicant is currently working with public works. On ensuring that the agreement is sufficient for review by council. In this case it's ready to be heard. So how many months delay do you think this out this board needs in order to vote on something that would happen? You know, it's ironic that staff would bring us a proposal knowing full well that the development part of it is incomplete. And why do we vote on incomplete proposals? Sure. And so I can't advise the board in terms of a deferral. I think that would be something for the commission to discuss amongst themselves in regards to the completeness of the case. Again, the extension agreement annexation is not in the purview of the planning commission. That's something that the discretion of the Durham city council. So in that regards staff will take that item to council when it's ready. Obviously it is needed for this project to go forward. The applicant understands that the past history has been to let the case go continue to move through the process while they work that item out. It's a separate item from this request. So you're telling me the sewage is not part of your It is not a part of the zoning case for the planning amendment in front of the planning commission. It is a separate case which goes directly to the Durham city council. Thank you. Commissioner Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions for the applicant. I happened to be out there at the site at the time fairly long freight train went down the railroad track and I noticed some noise and that leads me to the question is there going to be any additional buffering along the side that's adjacent to the railroad track? Sure. At this point we have allocated for that. Certainly in this case the railroad just like with any other in this adjacent area where residences have been built as an existing condition. And we're acknowledging to move forward with residential development knowing that there is an adjacent railroad there. We'll certainly there's a number of tree save areas that'll be in that around that area but in terms of the set buffer at this point though. Okay. Mr. Wiggins started at his presentation by noting that the city of Durham was the applicant. I believe I got that right and so that leads to the next question. Will there be any affordable housing in this development? Sure. Now again we are not we are not the builder but at this point we have no we have no no plans to to commit to a set affordable housing component. I'm a little surprised that the city of Durham will be the applicant and I want to see some affordable housing. Let's just comment on my part. I do have a question for transportation staff. It was noted in the report NCDOT had prepared this city of Durham traffic separation study that recommends that Ellis Road be bridged over the railroad track. Although there's no funding to do that at this point in time. But if that ever came to pass with building this bridge have any impact on the site access points off of Ellis Road? Yes. Bill Judge with transportation again. We advise the applicant based on that traffic separation study that showed the future bridge basically in a slight adjustment in the alignment of Ellis Road in order to basically maximize the distance from the railroad corridor. They adjusted the access point the access point closest to the railroad to shift it further away so that the widening and all those improvements could be made without encroaching into the railroad. Okay thank you very much. That's all I have Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I just would like to know if one representative of the applicant could speak to the issue of the traffic that the citizen Mr. Reem Mr. Reems brought up in regards to given I know this we're looking at this as a project within itself but when we put together the bigger picture of what's happening around this project do you have any concerns about the quality of life or the feasibility of what you're trying to do with this development given what you presented as mitigation issues regarding the transportation do you feel that that's going to be enough to address the larger community in which you're proposing this development side. Thank you for your question. You know basically whenever rezoning is set forth we go through dialogue with with transportation with bill judge about moving forward with is a TA required do we trip the necessary amount of daily trips and in peak hour trips to acquire a traffic impact analysis to be done. We did not. We were grossly underneath that impact to require a TIA. So with that said we move forth then through the through months and months of staff comments we we move forth with with transportation's recommendations based on what they feel our impacts will be and how we can what they feel like will be a sufficient level of service for Ellis Road with regards to adding our cars as a result of the project and we've done that. We've committed fully to the requirements that they brought forth during our review process. So yes I would say that we do feel that our proposed impacts will result in an overall harmonious design and evolution of Ellis Road at this point without to Commissioner Brian's point the schedule for the approval of the overall funding and approval of Ellis Road's improvements that are currently unfunded and we have as Mr. Judge stated we have allowed those improvements to happen very easily and will be done very fluidly because we have planned our access points to allow for that to happen without any impacts to future development. I would oh I'd just like to add that you know Durham Expressway is a is a major traffic mover and you have to get the traffic to that to keep it moving and Ellis Road is certainly one of those collector roads and the city of Durham has had their eye on this area for a very long time and so they're going to tell us what we need to build what they think is adequate for the future so that they can move traffic safely and so we really don't have too much of a say they're going to tell us what they feel is adequate and we will build it for their specifications and that's kind of where this project falls in it's not a large large project but we are going to do our fair share of road improvements. Commissioner Freyman. I'm just trying to make sure I understand for clarity I was trying to ask Tom but this is a 25 I guess it's a question for staff this is a 25 acre property right and you're trying to set up a residential townhouse development on it there's no builder lined up we don't have affordable housing in place and you're working on a CSX agreement but we don't know if there will be one and you want to annex a part of Durham County all of this right now. Yes so a couple of points of clarification regarding the affordable housing so the council recommendation regarding that is that they're they're aiming for 15% within a certain distance of transit proposed transit stops this property is not within proximity to one of those transit stops additionally the city is the applicant for the initial zoning piece which is associated with the rezoning that is the initial zoning is required as per state law it's really just a separate application the Ellis Road the representatives here in front of you tonight are the actual applicants for the rezoning piece in regards to the sewage issue again that is something that's at the council discretion and is separate of this request there is available capacity within the system for this it's just a matter of working out an agreement that works best for the city and the applicant in order to provide services for this site and future development within the area it's historical practice and I don't think it is anything that's uncommon that there have been cases that you all have seen which probably did not have a completed extension agreement in front of them and you've still recommended or made recommendations on those cases I mean I've just done based on your comment going forward do you think that that it's going to become like quick pro quo that you know rather than having a developer in a builder involved you'll just have developers involved so they don't have to make any commitments to housing or I mean I can't advise on that in terms of commitments that's at the applicant's discretion if they want proper certain commitments and you know it is not a requirement at this time for them to have a builder on hand to receive a recommendation for a project that they propose thank you good Mr. Brie thank you Mr. Chairman with respect to affordable housing I fully understand what the city wants to see in relationship to transit stations which may or may not happen depending on the how the general assembly base but I believe we need affordable housing all over Durham and I think we're attempting Durham is attempting to get it established in more places than just around transit stations additional comments commissioner Miller commission harm broken Mr. Chair I I think I know I'm the new known the block but uh right now I think it's it's a good concept and a good plan but I do have a problem with not having the CSX agreement in there for the utility easement and I know that that may dealing with a railroad I can see we're six months down the road there may still be a problem trying to get that worked out and uh I just think we need to make a motion or I will make a motion at this time that we table this a vote on this for at least 60 days okay at the appropriate time is not now it's not the time okay I'll see it so commissioner Miller you had a comment Mr. Chairman I just wanted to give the developers representatives an opportunity to address the question I asked earlier about repetitious garage placement thank you I was winning patiently to to answer that question to answer your question I did briefly concur with with the developer and I think everyone knows up there now the point has been driven home that we do not have a specific builder at this time however what staff Durham staff requires of us of any case you know it's it's relatively common they actually do not want to see exact building elevations as a committed element you know that's when you start to have you know no wiggle room if there wants to be you know shutters or shake accents you know you start to do all that and then you can't because you have that set elevation in mind so that is why we offered the design commitments that I talked about with regards to the garages you know it's it's hard to say you know of course townhomes being you know a set set size amount you know what's the average time townhome 26 foot and foot and what you know you're you're gonna have garages you know if if the builder builds them and they're gonna be they're gonna have that that feature we are willing to to offer up that they will be in variation of design and then and be decorative in nature so you would have possibility of what I mean by decorative you'd have windows in the garages as well as what I would call carriage accents where you have the hardware where it looks where it looks like a where you're opening them and it's not just the bland aluminum garage door Commissioner Gibbs oh I'm okay how long is Commissioner Gibbs I did have no no sorry Commissioner Gibbs I guess I was first question for staff actually I have two questions based off this last response it sounds like there was a new proffer on the floor here my understanding is that the general practice is when that is the case the staff recommends that we set the site for 60 days yeah Jacob Wiggins with Pining Department um because typically that is the recommendation I would ask the applicant if they want to I'm confirm whether or not they are voluntarily proffering something at this hearing and if so to to stay so on the record I guess I will ask that question to the applicant then is that a specific proffer that you are adding that's something that we're willing to voluntarily commit to yes um can we get some clarification on exactly what the proffer is sure I think the proffer is that garage doors if if applicable and if if present on units will be decorative in nature including but not limited to windows and decorative garage door features and I mean I'm just going to say that I hope that in the 60 days I don't know what that language means necessarily I hope that in the 60 days you can work with the applicant to refine that to something that might be enforceable I'm not sure maybe that is enforceable but um is that the general plan yeah certainly just have to work with the applicant to ensure that that is something that is enforceable we definitely appreciate the consideration the other question that I had for staff I was regarding the CSX agreement I'm not really what is do you understand what the process is for that and how that goes gets approved I'm not sure sure I mean it sounds like to me that if this zoning sounds like we regardless of what happens here city council would not approve this zoning unless the CSX CSX agreement is in place and the annexation was approved is that the case great yes so I I can't say for sure what council will do but I think it's highly unlikely that they would approve a rezoning in annexation petition if there's not an associated extension agreement so the extension agreement is something that is attached to the annexation petition its process completely separate of this we typically you know so by state law annexations are effective quarterly so there's only four times a year which they can become effective so what we allow applicants to do is kind of to move the process forward work on the rezoning and the annexation at the same time with the idea that they can come together at council when council is ready to hear the annexation piece that all the items required for that will be satisfied so the council can make a decision on the complete item so at this case we're letting them come for the planning commission to get a recommendation on the zoning piece solely so just to be clear if if this case were tabled today for 60 days it's unlikely that city council would take any action on the case without yeah I I think it's unlikely that the council is going to consider the annexation piece it's certainly possible they still may right without the associated rezoning okay but I would also move their effective day the nearest effective day to September 30th and then that likely pushes this case back to becoming effective December 30th 2016 the general practice of city council is to hear all of this at once the annexation the extension agreement and the rezoning yeah typically that is the case okay thank you Jacob I'm sorry I'm sorry can I add something to that Mr. I apologize but I want to just reiterate what Jacob just said but add to that Grace Smith with the planning department you you will see these types of items as I could they call them consolidated items at the council level because everything comes together and it's consolidated at the very end for approval at one place in time so I can agree with Jacob we cannot speak on the council's behalf as to how they would handle it if for some reason these were to get fragmented or splintered but I have not seen that happen in the time I've been here they're always consolidated and going at the same time so I just wanted to add that for the record if that helps thank you Commissioner Gibbs well it seems that there are so many things so many aspects of this that one thing is dependent on another and on another and this and nothing is going to move forward until everything is settled as far as the developer the design team and all of that I would think in order for the design team to move forward with their design work and pursuing the CSX easement and they're also going to have to work with the city almost at the same time I think they should be free to go ahead with that because what we do tonight is not going to affect it I don't think as far as design and garage location I have I have a real problem with with that and I said this before and some of the designers down here know my feelings on it too I don't think we nor the city nor the county or anybody else should be dictating designed to this to this detail we can have we can have some overall desires but to dictate design on whether and where a garage is going to go it makes sense it's going to face the street that's and what kind of door you put up there and it doesn't matter they're going to design something to sell but I'm getting off on I got so many things going through my head but I really think we should approve this project going forward and they can pursue whatever they need to pursue unencumbered by some other aspect that hasn't been settled yet it's like a juggling act but I have one question about traffic and I guess it would be to Mr. Judge does will there be that much traffic impact along Ellis Road with this development and I know you when you include the apartments or whatever that's on the other side of the road and all up and down are we nearing the maximum capacity is what I'm saying and it's probably in our report but I apologize I did not read that detailed yes the estimated the current I guess capacity is about 12,700 and the current volume is about 11,000 the impact from this project is let's see an additional 994 but not all of those will be necessarily assigned to one section of Ellis probably more than 50% of them would likely be you're going across the railroad tracks back towards the freeway and with the apartment project well not the apartments but the commercial project you heard earlier today and the current zoning on that parcel they are required to basically provide an additional through lane for that portion of the frontage so they'll be adequate capacity well it looks to me like they're playing to provide that but I I would vote for sending this forward additional comments commission Whitley I appreciate everything that my comrades have stated here today but here's where I'm at we don't know what's going to go on that property so it doesn't really matter what design we talk about you know they're asking for commercial and they and and industrial anything can go on that property we don't know who the billers are we don't know what the bill is gonna gonna ask in the end and we're asked to be able to vote on something that we don't have a clue what the outcome is gonna be you know there are too many things that are not answered and I think for me I don't know about my fellow commissioners but too many questions and to vote to approve something without knowing what we're approving doesn't seem right I will vote against this because I think it's too early and we need to know more than we presently know okay just one comment the motion that the chair will accept would be an extension of six to days not a motion for approval or denial commissioner bryne in lieu of the fact that we had another commitment per offered which seems to need massaging in terms of language and of everything some of my fellow commissioners have said about unknowns I move that in the case of a one six oh oh oh three that we reopen the public hearing and continue the matter for two cycles or 60 days so I would like to companion companion cases both the zoning and the text okay uh for cases a one six zero zero zero zero three and z one six zero zero zero zero four I move that we reopen the public hearing and continue both matters for two cycles or roughly 60 days second I'll second the motion okay uh is there any one that doesn't understand the motion that's on the floor okay if not the motion is for a continuance of for two cycles a one six quadruple zero three and z one six quasi quad well zero zero zero zero four motion by bryne second by one so could I hear roll call vote on the motion mr bryne yes miss freeman yes mr gosh yes mr gibbs mr harris yes mr hoaringbuckle yes miss hyman yes mr johnson yes mr kinshin no mr miller yes mr van yes mr witley motion carries nine to three okay we will now uh open the public hearing on southpoint trails two a one six quadruple zero two and z one six quadruple zero three laura woods planning department and this is southpoint trails two the applicant in this case is robert shunk representing steward engineering this is a city jurisdiction and the request is from low density residential to low medium density residential this is within the suburban tier it is also within the falls lake jordan lake b watershed protection overlay and the site is approximately 27 acres this is an unusual case in that the proposal for the plan amendment would match the existing zoning the existing zoning is actually more intense than the future adopted future land use the site is located at north carolina highway 751 just south of its intersection with massy chapel road it's on the western side and as you see it's currently low density residential which matches some of the property to the north it is almost it well it is surrounded on two sides by recreation open space i believe that's mostly or perhaps all core of engineers land most of the land of the east is also recreation open space controlled by the core of engineers again here for criteria we look to see whether the proposed change is consistent with adopted plans whether it is compatible with existing uses or the designated future uses whether it would create substantial adverse impacts and whether the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed change in this case the plan amendment is necessitated because they have requested a change to the development plan of the existing zone we evaluated this proposal based on these comprehensive plan policies and there is an error in your staff report i must admit to as it occasionally happens the corresponding table to this slide in your report states to the north miss wood could you speak into the mic we can't beg your pardon getting used to the new mic yes there is an error in your staff report the corresponding table to this slide says to the north is vacant if you know the area or if you bother to look at our aerial photo it most assuredly is not vacant there is a substantial place of worship to the north and just to the west of that are a couple of single family homes now to the east is mostly vacant and to the south is vacant and the west is vacant all right as i say this is an unusual case in that the existing future land use is less intense than the approved zoning on the case it's approved zoning allows for approximately 45 townhomes and as i understand the development plan that you'll consider later the applicant wishes to modify it slightly to allow for the owner of the property to build a single family home the proposed change is does not create substantial adverse impacts the proposed change is reasonably compatible with surrounding land uses and the subject site certainly will accommodate the proposed land use category so staff surmises or concludes that they have met the four criteria therefore staff recommends approval that concludes my staff report thank you good evening Kyle Taylor with the planning department i'm presenting zoning case z16 0003 southpoint trails 2 the applicant for this project is Jeff Gilman with 751 LLC this project is within the city's jurisdiction this is a modification of an existing development plan the request is to go from an existing pdr 5.500 to another pdr 5.500 the acreage of this property is 27.10 acres and the proposed use for this project is to reduce the number of town home unit count from 149 to 148 and add one single family home residential lot and that is what that means there are two updates to this project by the way there is a typo on the actual development plan itself there's a text commitment for impervious surface and also impervious surface shown on the proposed conditions the proposed conditions page has the correct percentage for the impervious surface which says that as 55 percent the text commitment shows that at 48 percent I have contacted the applicant and the applicant will be updating that information additionally there is a new commitment for affordable housing that's updated from the version that you guys have and that is also a change from the previous version approved when the case was last heard and I'll get into more detail on that when we get to the text commitment slides so the site is located is comprised of 34 parcels located at 8512 N.C. 751 highway west on the west side of 751 highway north of stagecraft roads in south of Macy Chapel Road the site is located in the suburban tier and the FJB watershed overlay protection district this project does meet the requirements for the PDR zoning district with an acreage of 27.10 acres and a maximum 12 dwelling units per acre of 5.500 this site is currently vacant however a town home house development has been approved for this site and a lots have already been platted there is a trail easement on this property there's also a small natural inventory nature natural inventory site location on the site that is not being affected by this rezoning and that's at the bottom right hand corner if you guys were curious the proposed conditions for this page does meet the requirements of the development plan for a PDR zoning district the proposed conditions commit to access points location of an easement for the Eagle Spruce Trail buffer in excess of ordnance standards a building and parking envelope in the newly created area committed for a single family home which is to the left of the Eagle Spruce chair that you see there on purple on the screen currently so they do meet the minimum commitments for the PDR zoning district with 149 residential units maximum to external site access points to greenway access points impervious surface maximum of 55 percent what I talked about earlier tree coverage of 20 percent which translates to approximately 5.42 acres graphically they commit to the location tree preservation areas location of access points project boundary buffers building and parking envelope in the location of the greenway these are the text commitments associated with this plan there's a number of them most of which are not being changed from previously approved the first commitment is actually being updated on this project because the contribution to the public schools has actually been completed the second commitment you see there in the bold is actually the commitment I was referring to earlier that they are proposing now and we have received this and has been vetted by the planning departments this is the commitment to replace commitment to as far as affordable housing it's on the screen I'll leave that up there for a second for you guys they also do have a number of roadway improvements that they're committing to as well they're outlined on this slide as well as in the plan on your staff report and the development plan again they're committing to a four-foot asphalt for bike lane and construction of a six-foot tall masonry wall with stucco finish along the tree coverage boundary in the north corner of the site indicated on a DP2-0 in construction the first certification of occupation the rest of these commitments have remained as approved however that last one is the improver surface commitment that I mentioned earlier that they will be updating that should be 55? correct yes it currently states 48 it should be 55 they have committed to a few design commitments that include roof design building materials designated architectural features those can be found on this slide and also on the development plan and the staff report this request is not consistent with the future land use map which indicates this area as low density residential however a plan amendment case has been submitted for that and Laura just presented that case staff has determined that this proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and policies on this shown on this slide in the staff report however it is not consistent with the future land use map as stated previously and as such staff determines that should the plan amendment be approved this request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and staff is available for any questions thank you I have three people signed up to speak Finesse Finesse are you speaking in favor or against okay so I have two people signed up to speak both in favor George Stanzia Stanzia yeah George Stanzia five minutes okay Ken Spaulding you have 10 minutes between the two of you both speaking in favor of the project yes thank you very much Mr. Chairman my name is Ken Spaulding I represent members of the planning commission I represent the applicant in this matter and as planning staff has pointed out this is sort of one in which now we're making sure that the comprehensive plan is consistent with the rezoning that we had already had this was done back in around July I think of 2012 we got it approved at that time I think staff pointed out that there was a lot of vacant now it's not vacant we already have town how homes going up under construction and I want to point out that the comp plan will now become upon your approval low medium density residential the 149 town homes we're seeking for them to be 148 with the single family home that is my understanding the developer is doing something a little different most of the time people want to leave Durham and live in Florida he lives in Florida and I think he wants to build a home here in Durham so that's Durham pride and I want to say that not only the under construction but this is a project that unfortunately is you know I drive by there quite a bit one of the things that bothers me is that we don't link up our sidewalks until you have new developments and then they link it up and the city is not necessarily doing it on its own so what you're going to do you're going to have a situation out there where people cannot do the walking to get to South Point however it's about a mile but I do two miles every day just to try to stay healthy but take a mile to get all the way up to from this development to the first bus stop and so I think that's important when George explains the text amendment that's been changed on what we want to do and I just want to point out to you that I think not only is this going to be make the entire project both zoning and plan the planning amendment consistent but I think that it will be a very continued good project for Durham had it been five minutes that was two minutes two minutes two minutes it's eight minutes they get five each I'm sorry so if you want to if you want to continue it's all for the best okay George good evening Mr. Chair members of the commission just a couple of things as it relates to the impervious coverage we are it is 55 percent and then I'm not sure I need to say anything about the text amendment I think you have the the text amendment in front of you right which has been approved by the planning director yes so that's we're here for any questions the new committed element yeah can staff clarify are you speaking of the affordable housing elements yes we have it if anyone needs us to read it back for the record we'll be glad to do that just to clarify if you need more clarification so Cal can do that okay so we're here for any questions thank you are there any one in the audience that wish to speak to this item wait a minute okay wait a minute are there anyone in the audience that wish to speak to this item if not then I'm going to bring it back before the commissioners and then I will allow you to update us on that text element yep so the new text commitment reads the developer shall provide a payment to the city of Durham of $15,000 per affordable units for a total of five units previously committed to and approved in the original reason and request stated July 10th to 2012 for the purpose of affordable housing payment shall be made prior to the final site plan approval and I'm going to flip back to the slide of my presentation so it'd be behind you guys as well if you want to look at it again so do we have people wishing to speak to this item all right commissioner Miller anyone else on this side commissioner Freeman commissioner Brian commissioner Gouche commissioner Gouche I think both the planning staff and the applicant mentioned this is kind of a different case and I I think I like it I want to make sure first I will say I absolutely love that someone wants the property owner wants to move to Durham and live in Durham I want to live in Durham too it's a great place aside from that so the previous the previous plan I guess you basically what's happened is the building envelope building parking envelope was changed on the development plan to allow for I assume where the single family home will go which I think is going to be to the left of the trail or to left is not a direction west to the yeah west of the trail I was looking for the compass and that's not where you're standing yeah exactly previously that area was a tree coverage area and now it is being changed to allow for building and parking envelope how much tree coverage is being lost as a result there's none the tree coverage on both development plans are the same you're just moving the tree cover it's being it's it's just moved yes yeah I decided I like it Commissioner Bratt thank you Mr. Chairman just a minor point on your proposed conditions we've been told that you're going from 149 units to 148 but your plan still says 149 well that's it's 149 town homes plus one single okay it would help to clarify that for people like me that don't always take this stuff in got you and the other thing I just want to make sure I understand your latest text commitment is this payment per affordable housing unit in lieu of actually providing affordable housing units that's correct thank you Commissioner Miller thank you I just I also want a point of clarification for I'm going to test my understanding with the staff Article 3 of the UDO says that we're not supposed to change zoning if it's inconsistent with the comprehensive plan as the planning director has determined in this case though in 2012 it appears like we did that we turned down the comprehensive plan amendment but we passed the rezoning so actually technically we have a a violation of our own code so this plan amendment will put us right to that Grace Smith with the planning department that is correct Mr. Miller that the this will fix the article 3 problem yes it would bring the property in compliance with the future land use and the comprehensive plan and then with regard to the zoning change and the the change in the text of the text commitment in the development plan for this originally what was proposed was that five units out of the townhouse units would be affordable at 80 percent AMI that is correct on the original 2012 right so that means that we would set the developer proposed to sell those to a class of persons who were whose income at the time of purchase was 80 percent of the average media or the the median income and then but after the point of sale the units entered the the general marketplace and they would not necessarily continue to be affordable was that right great that the way that proper read it did just basically stated that it would do you have that I've actually got it have we brought it with us just in case that question came up so let me just make sure number two yes so it actually read exactly like this the developer shall provide a minimum of five units that are affordable to 80 percent of the median income the the affordable housing units shall be incorporated throughout the project and shall not be distinguishable from market rate units throughout the location grouping design or other physical characteristics but there was no time commitment there was no device included that would say that for a period of time these units somehow had to stay affordable are available only to a certain class of buyers there's nothing stated in that commitment about and so now what's proposed in lieu of that is a essentially a seventy five thousand dollar payment instead of those five eighty percent point of sale affordable units is that that is correct did I get it you got it all right thanks right and then in the interim when the deplan that they actually submitted that ended up in your packets had another yeah had a had a different unit and that equaled seventy four five but what they're doing now actually equals seventy five so but you got it from the very beginning that's what the profits are I have my moments actually I think george tried to explain it to me I just want to make sure I understood and I wanted to say to my fellow commission members I think this is a better deal for the city five units that are eighty percent AMI point of sale only is not not much of an affordable housing commitment seventy five thousand dollars that might be applied elsewhere in a place where we need the affordable housing more than we needed on highway seven fifty one where there's not even a bus route in my opinion is a better program to fix the article three problem I'm going to vote for the plan amendment and I think to in my opinion to get a better deal for the city on affordable housing I'm going to vote for the rezoning thank you Mr. Chair Mr. Frayman thank you Tom thank you Mr. Harris but uh Chair uh thank you Tom for clarifying all of that those those most of my question the other question I had was about the trailway I guess is that already existing and then if it's not what would it be made of is it like going to be a asphalt well it's a city trail okay it will be a city trail it will be a city trail and I'm sorry I guess that would be a question for staff do you know what that trailway would be made of by any chance it's not specified on the development plan it would be up to the city for that the only thing they've done at this point and they've actually already done it is uh actually dedicate an easement for that and they have already done that yeah I'll get with the city on that I'm sorry I'll get with the city on that then yeah okay thank you any other questions if not the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman I move that we send case a 16 0000 to forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation second motion by Miller second by Whitley commissioner Whitley that we send case a 16 quadruple 0 2 to city council with a favorable recommendation please call the roll Mr. Brian yes Ms. Freeman yes Mr. Gosh Mr. Gibbs Mr. Harris yes Mr. Hornbuckle Ms. Hyman Mr. Johnson yes Mr. Kynchon yes Mr. Miller yes Mr. Vann yes Mr. Whitley yes motion carries unanimously 12 to 0 thank you we will now open the public here next case I'm sorry I'm sorry Mr. Chairman I move that the planning commission send case a 16 0000 3 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation motion by commissioner Miller second by vice chair Hyman that we send zoning case a 1 6 quadruple 0 3 to the city council with a favorable recommendation please call the roll Mr. Brian Ms. Freeman yes Mr. Gosh yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Harris yes Mr. Hornbuckle yes Ms. Hyman yes Mr. Johnson yes Mr. Kynchon yes Mr. Miller yes Mr. Vann yes Mr. Willey yes motion carries unanimous 12 to 0 now we will go to item 5d beth path village 4 a 1 6 quadruple 0 4 in zoning case 1 6 quadruple 0 8 Ms. Lara Wood this is our last plan amendment for the this evening and this is beth page 4 the applicant in this case is Bob Zumwalt representing McAdams & Company it is within the city's jurisdiction the request is from industrial to low-medium density residential it is within the suburban tier and the acreage is just under 8 acres this is actually two separate parcels at some distance from one another they're currently industrial and the location is just off of page road a bit to the west and a bit north of Chinn page road again here are four policy criteria I don't think I need to reiterate them but if you if you wish I shall and these are the policies upon which we evaluated this request the western parcel to the north is vacant the area to the east is vacant to the south vacant and the west vacant the eastern parcel and to the north of the parcel is vacant the east is single family residential to the south and to the west are also vacant as you see the area is a kind of transition zone between low-medium density residential and industrial and we regard the change as compatible there are no substantial adverse impacts and the shape is of adequate size to accommodate the uses therefore it meets all four criteria therefore staff recommends approval and that concludes my report thank you good evening Kyle Taylor the planning department again and I will be presenting zoning zoning case Z16 0008 Bethpage Village revisions 4 the applicant for this project is Bob Summall with McAdams this project is within the city's jurisdiction their request is to go from ILD to PDR 4.733 this is another modification to an existing development plan this is just very small sections of that existing development plan that they're changing to the existing PDR that's already on the site the acreage of this change is 7.87 acres and the change in commitments so the purpose of this case is for the change in commitments from the existing plan there is one update on this project as well the developer has based on recent enforcement from the NCDOT they would not allow a full access drive for the site access drive listed on this project because of that they've had to revive some text commitments I do have those in the slide and we can go into those in some more detail and I will be happy to discuss and leave them up here on this presentation similar to the last case so again this is a project within the existing Bethpage Village project is located at the intersection of Page and Chin Page Road this project is located within the suburban tier this project does meet the requirements of the PDR Zoning District with a 7.87 acres of lands in a dwelling units per acre of 4.733 and a maximum height of 60 feet this site this section of the Bethpage Village project is vacant and wooded there are several streams and required stream buffers located within the existing Bethpage Village and a portion of this has already been platted so this is an ongoing project this is just a modification of the existing portion this project meets the requirements for a development pen for the PDR Zoning District the only graphic commitments changing with this project is the redesignation of the LID sections of this project or portions of the LID of this project going to the PDR Zoning District and they're associated with areas A and B and there's also a few areas that have been designated as a multi-family in order to facilitate their change and design commitments for this project all text commitments have stayed the same with this project with the exception of the following oh sorry all commitments with the stay the same as previously approved plans Z0647 Z1132 Z1300030 except as shown the conversion of two portions of projects from ILD to PDR 4.7333 no increase in total number of units adding cement is siding under the multi-family building design design section of the building design guidelines add multi-family designation to pods F, L, O and Q those can be seen on the proposed conditions page and modifying the text commitments associated with site drive 2 text commitments with project are remaining as previously approved except for those designated for the site access drive 2 that I mentioned earlier they can be found on this slide and also the other the reason that these are having to be done is because of like I stated earlier NCDOT will not allow a full access drive for site access 2 there are two pages of these and I will leave them up for a couple minutes for you guys or a couple seconds for you guys to read through it and then I'll flip to the second page and there's some additional and again these as additional commitments for the same thing and I believe there's one more page of these design commitments for this project are remaining as previously approved with the exception of so adding cement is siding under the multi-family building design section for a full listing of those design commitments they can be found on the development plan this project is not consistent with the future land use map which designates this area as industrial however a plan amendment has been submitted for this case and should that and that being the case this project is consistent with the adopted plans and policies of order shown in this slide with the exception of the future land use map which it designates this area going to pdr as industrial and this being the case staff term is that should the plan amendment be approved this request would be consistent with comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and staff is available for any questions thank you thank you have three people signed up to speak all in favor so I give you three minutes each Kevin Wall Kevin Walls and I'm a 1027 Bramwell Drive we're a resident of the residential area that's under construction just north of this site we're in favor of the site and the combining but we're misfied as to some of the parcel designations that exist on maps and drawings that are inconsistent with what we hear such as here so an example would be is that this is part of a parcel 209 648 and it says it's part of Creekside at Bethpage phase one it's not in the phase one drawings and it's not part of Creekside at Bethpage it's Bethpage Village so we really came tonight to get some clarity on some of those questions so I'm going to pass to the developers let them answer that and we'd like to also understand this change of the road site access because currently the site has no construction entrances they use in the two main residential roads for all construction vehicles and if this continues to grow that traffic will become excessive thank you so the applicant Scott lay Scott and Bob if you guys want to address his concerns now you can do it after you make your presentation sure so you know thank you for coming this is one of our first residents we bought this property you know almost a decade ago and I'm thrilled to see them here tonight that's for sure we had a neighborhood meeting all amiable like you said they were in support of it understood as the staff report said this is just a minor cleanup there the parcel designation I'm not sure exactly where that comes from really the parcel designation is set by Durham County the tax appraiser so really none of the I don't know if there's inconsistencies we should call Durham County because they're the ones that control that through the tax assessments and different things so if there's inconsistencies none that I'm aware of and not sure how it affects us tonight the thing about side access drive number two where we have we're the ones that have the road a mess at airport and Page Road for you guys that drive that we're having a mess right now we're trying our best to get it finished with our wonderful friends at Time Warner Cable and the frontiers of the world and I can go on and on and on about those guys but side access drive number two is not it's really far from where phase one is it certainly would not be conducive of any sort of construction access or something because it's just not there we are in the works as we're the later phases where we have development in the back we're in the process right now of designing a temporary construction access that the theory is once the clubhouse is open we will shortly thereafter start redirecting traffic off of the main roads into phase one so we recognize that too we have six or seven hundred units we certainly can't deliver six or seven hundred units worth of trusses you know through the main thoroughfare through the road so thanks for coming out we really appreciate you coming out tonight in support of us so as I said seven years ago or almost a decade ago we're thrilled to be underway we proffered not myself personally but was proffered for the project a lot of offsite road improvements it hampered us from starting the project for almost a decade because it's a huge nut to crack in the beginning you know proud to say that we finished adding some turn lanes at TW Alexander nearly three miles from our project site but we did it anyway because they were proffered we're also working on the globe road intersection currently will be a much safer intersection when it's completed we're going to take it from an obtuse to a right angle at that location which will certainly help Wake County's got a new school going down the street it's going to help all of those things go forward so we're excited to be started and to find a way to fund some of the initial offsite road improvements you know as I think was alluded that the couple of pieces that actually changed the land use one of them is just because of where Crown Parkway was designed where thought it was 10 years ago and the way the design is now that we would have a commercial or an industrial use of you know less than an acre you know immediately adjacent to a residential use that's kind of the the small piece up further to the top of the page the other smaller area converting it to residential because you can see it's surrounded by streams it's just it's not an it's not an industrial site everybody we've talked to everybody everything lens that there's no way anybody industrial related would go over there so the other two things I think we're adding hardy siding or shouldn't say hardy cementitious siding Mr. Hardy probably loves that we all call it hardy siding and then you know the side access drive that we worked with staff here at NCDOT and the reason that the movement there's changed is the proximity to from site drive number two to Pleasant Grove Church Road that you know we just thought it would DOT viewed it as the intersection spacing was too close unsafe movement so the only thing we're doing is precluding a left out everything else remains the same but we're restricting the access to a left out so I'll be glad to answer any questions anybody has thank you Bob Zula okay all right is the anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item so anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item if not I would bring it back before the commissioners do I have commissioners wishing to speak I have Commissioner Gouche Commissioner Bryant Commissioner Miller okay Commissioner Gouche thank you so I just start by saying I mean this I'm in favor of what's been proposed here it seems like cleanup item I also appreciate that it's taking some of these industrial sites and that are close to residential and changing them to a more appropriate in my opinion designation for residential I could not imagine why someone who lives there would not be in favor of that but aside from that I do also want to say that you know I'm from Durham I was born here this is one of my favorite projects in Durham I think it's great it it you know offering an age or straight to community something that well we're seeing more of them in Durham but you know this one is done very well and so I just want to commend the developers on that I'll be voting in favor of this thank you Commissioner Bryant thank you Mr. Chairman I had actually forgotten how big best page village was I was sitting on this board when it was originally approved um and I view these changes as minor I think any time you're dealing with something this big you're not going to foresee everything or anticipate everything like what NCDOT might say so I'm also going to be voting in favor of the amendment plan amendment and the rezoning Commissioner Mellon thank you Mr. Chairman I'll echo with my colleagues have already said I plan to support this too but I did want to ask a couple of questions if I may so how many additional units will you be able to include in the overall project as a result of the addition of this zero you're not going to add any well that made it fairly straightforward thank you any other comments Commissioner Freyman I also echo Commissioner Gouche's appreciation for the work that you've done and I also will be voting in favor I just had to ask is there anywhere else in the city you would like to develop I would be in full support the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman Commissioner Bryant I move that we recommend approval of plan amendment case a one six zero zero zero zero four second motion by Commissioner Bryant second by Commissioner Freyman that we send plan amendment a one six quadruple zero four to the city forward with the favor of recommendation please call the roll Mr. Bryant yes Mr. Freeman yes Mr. Gouche Mr. Gibbs Mr. Harris yes Mr. Hornbuckle yes Ms. Hyman yes Mr. Johnson yes Mr. Kenshin yes Mr. Miller yes Mr. Van yes Mr. Whitley yes zoning case Mr. Chairman I move that we recommend approval of zoning case Z one six quadruple zero zero zero zero eight okay it's been motioned by Commissioner Bryant second by Commissioner Whitley that we send zoning case Z one six quadruple zero eight forward with the favorable recommendation please call the roll Mr. Bryant yes Ms. Freeman yes Mr. Gouche yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Harris yes Mr. Hornbuckle yes Ms. Hyman Mr. Johnson yes Mr. Kenshin yes Mr. Miller yes Mr. Van yes Mr. Whitley yes motion carries unanimous 12 to 0 okay we will now go to item number seven public hearing zoning map change request four eight three zero Hope Valley Row Z one five triple zero one six good evening again Kyle Taylor with the planning departments these cases this case was continued from your May meeting the only change being done to this project from that time has been the change in the square footage for this project and also the actually included in your packet is the committed elevation that they presented at the last meeting so I will be running through this slide fairly quickly since it's all information that you guys heard previously again the application for this project is Ben Burkhart with BKB properties it is in the city the request is from CN to CGD the acreage is 1.34 the proposed use is for climate control personal storage that is now the only commitment they dropped off the commitment for that or gas station this is the existing in the this is the context area the site is located at four eight three zero Hope Valley road the intersection of highway 751 and Garrett road this project is located within the FJP Watershed Protection Overlay and is currently within the suburb and tier and we'll stay in the suburb and tier this project is consistent with the standards for the CG zoning district which can be outlined on this slide and in the staff reports existing conditions of the site is it is existing as a gas station at this time and they wish to redevelop it as self storage the proposed conditions are outlined on this slide they include they do meet the standards of the CG zoning district the proposed conditions commit to a site access points location of tree preservation and replacement areas building and parking envelope and project boundary buffers so the intensity for this site is now 100,000 square feet at that was previously shown as differently and it's updated now to actually reflect what they're planning on doing does show the two side access points the impervious surface maximum is still 59 percent the tree coverage is still 14 percent graphically they commit to the site access site access location of pre-turbation building and parking envelope size and location of project building project boundary buffers the only text commitment for this project is the commitment for self-service storage and I apologize it should just say self-service storage there this project is consistent with the future land use map which designates this area as commercial the comprehensive plan this project is consistent with the following comprehensive plans with the exception of eight years ago of eight one two H which I'll talk about a little bit more in the next slide staff term is that this request is consistent with each land use map and ordinance but is not consistent with comprehensive plan ordinance comprehensive plan policy eight one two H that requires the planning department to recommend denial of any zoning map change which results in average daily trips exceeding 110 percent however based on the committed use this project will result in a reduction of trip generation for the site staffs available for any questions okay thank you I have one two three four five people speaking in opposition two people speaking in favor what is the commissioner's recommendation on at the time Mr. Chairman I recommend that we give every speaker a minimum of three minutes and the develop I'll strike that Mr. Chairman I recommend we give every speaker four minutes second it's been motion in second that the speakers in against have four minutes of time and the that would be against and those that are for it would also have 20 minutes to speak all those in favor let it be no am I sure on the right hand he has his hand okay so the first speaker is Timothy carrot yes okay Ben Burkhardt you have 20 minutes sir I'm Ben Burkhardt you have 20 minutes I have 20 minutes yes okay I don't need 20 minutes our intent here tonight is to defer to for 30 days okay so you are requesting a continuous I'm requesting a continuous yes sir okay commissioners the applicant had to request a a continuous of 30 days 30 day continuous yes sir okay staff yes Mr. Kramansky and Mr. Burkhardt did check with us earlier today to be sure that they would be within the timeline to keep the case moving for a recommendation and being that the commission has to take make a recommendation within 90 days of the initial public hearing this would be the last continuance before it would have to move forward without a recommendation so I just wanted to remind everyone of that it's aware of that so you you have no problem with the 30 days but that's just I mean after that it would be in excess of outside of this commission's recommendation period okay so Commissioner Gouche yeah before we make that motion I want there are people here who have showed up to speak about this I think we should continue the public hearing and take a motion at the end so that these people can be heard because they've taken their time to come out today and that way they may choose to come in 30 days or not at least they've been heard on the night that they've showed up for is there any opposition to hearing the people that came to speaking against and then we can have the motion after the public hearing okay so this Madison Manson Katie Katie Manson Kaya KAYA my name is Kaya Manson I live at 4133 Livingstone Place in Durham and that's in a neighborhood called Trotter Ridge and so we're affected by this because we're just one traffic light away from the proposed site and I thank you very much for giving us this time I appreciate it because I know it's late and I'm sorry I'm losing my voice because that's what happens when I get sleepy my source of information on this because I didn't hear about the public meetings is this zoning change report that I got off of your website and I saw that there was a recommendation to to deny the change which was required because the traffic percentage increase would be above the threshold that's set but I did notice that there was this statement that there would be a reduction in trips and I showed up to ask you not to be overly swayed by that because I'd like to tell you what the reality is behind the numbers Garrett Road is heavily, heavily congested and that particular intersection is is really one of the worst I've ever seen because it's not just Garrett Road Hope Valley but then there's also 54 751 and then down the road there's Highway 40 that little piece of Garrett Road which started out I don't know in the old days as a little country road is now a heavily used corridor that connects you know 15501 to all those and people are commuting and they're shopping and we're going to Jordan High School and my concern is primarily safety and what is happening because of this heavy congestion to me a little 4% decrease in the numbers of cars is really insufficient in my opinion the traffic is so heavy at Jordan High School we have police presence there that intersection always gets congested the traffic backs way up people get crazy when there's traffic they follow too closely one little accident and we have a huge pile up I don't know what can be done about Garrett Road but I think that this is a very poor plan there must be some other usage that would alleviate rather than continue that the traffic congestion that we have and I think what you'll hear from all the residents will be something very similar to what I'm saying we're concerned about our safety the safety of the students we're concerned about quality of life I love my neighborhood I love my neighborhood but I moved to Trotter Relidge because it had a traffic like formerly for 10 years I lived on Garrett Road and I couldn't wait to get away because I couldn't get out of my driveway and cars kept landing in my driveway and knocking down my mailbox so you know so this is what I ask I ask that you follow this recommendation and please don't be overly influenced by the fact that there's going to be a very slight decrease in what the current usage is because the current usage right now is almost intolerable so thank you very much thank you Ken Berger good evening on Ken Berger I live at 4031 Trotter Ridge Road and I'm also obviously resident in Trotter Ridge I could point out that a few months ago there was another proposal for another development on Trotter on Garrett Road not too far from the entrance of Trotter Ridge bordering closer to Jordan High School that didn't make it this far because the public meeting that they had 80 residents showed up from Trotter Ridge to object to it and the primary reason they showed up was because of traffic that was the big issue and it ties everyone sees the traffic light that my neighbor talked about now that traffic light didn't exist a few years ago and I remember when there was a meeting at Jordan High School where we were told that the traffic light would be put in within that year my wife was quoted in an article in that took seven years for that traffic light to appear so we're well aware of that and one of the things that we need to mention in terms of traffic is foot traffic because there are a lot of students walking around that school at lunchtime there are a lot of students who walk off campus to go and get something to eat and they're going to go around that area and people don't stop very much for students going by so traffic is a very big issue and the last thing I want to mention is one of the statements in the proposal that was on your website so that this would blend in well with other buildings in the area I have a picture of it here it's not in color it's much more dramatic than color on your website it doesn't blend in at all it would really be an eyesore and I don't think it would do anything for the community and in fact the development that was proposed a few months ago townhouse development I don't think they would like it either because they wouldn't add to their their development either thank you for the time to speak thank you Debra Brazile Brazile Hi I'm a resident of Woodcroft and we found out about this proposal yesterday and I've heard from a lot of neighbors and we're very concerned about it I echo the traffic that's an intersection that I go through several times usually in a day and if you're there in the afternoon the traffic is blocking the intersection because people are trying to get through so you actually have like a complete log jam and you may be talking about a slight reduction in traffic but what's going to be going into a moving center are moving trucks and I cannot imagine adding that dimension to that corner also everything in that area is one story the Harris teeter is the highest building in the area and you're proposing to put a four-story building there it is beyond an eyesore and then I agree that the foot traffic from Jordan is already very dangerous with students crossing trying to get across that busy intersection so it's ugly it's we think it's going to exacerbate the traffic and not going to serve the area and the city at all we can do better thanks thank you Raleigh Olin Raleigh Olin I'm a local state farm insurance agent I've lived in Durham 23 years I've been a local state farm insurance agent for 23 years my office that I own is at 4810 Hope Valley Road and so I was in Canada with the land of no humidity visiting my wife's family and I get emails and calls from my office saying I have policy holders calling me very concerned about this zoning change I'm like what zoning change I didn't get anything and I own 4810 Hope Valley Road so I came back early and because this is important enough for me and a lot of my policy holders felt as well that I don't think our the the centerpiece of our area needs to be a four-story self-storage unit the lady in front of me is correct the highest building we have is two stories and I don't I don't foresee a four I went and I talked to Fond Bill Morrissey Amy Aldridge their manager today as I had gotten back and asked if she was aware of this Fond Bill Morrissey is as you know was pretty much right next to this property is the first she had ever heard of it so at the very least I don't think that this needs to be pushed through and I want to thank Mr. Ghosh for letting us speak and hear us out because I would hate to think I came back from Canada for nothing but so I guess I just like to say in summation thank you all for your service I love Durham and I would say vote against this thank you George Stanziel hi I'm George Stanziel 115 co-field circle and I feel very weird being here speaking against a project because for 34 years I've come before this board arguing for projects so I don't make a habit of it frankly I never have made a habit of it but I've lived in I lived in Hope Valley Hope Valley I've lived in Woodcroft for over 22 years I now live on Hope just off Hope Valley Road in Weldon Downs I go through this intersection every morning I've watched that whole area keep going I've watched that whole area develop I think I can't really argue the traffic numbers but I can tell you that the traffic there is horrible and even if there was a reduction there would be still horrible I mean Jordan High School has tripled in size since my kids went there in the 90s and there's a lot of kids moving about through those areas I do I guess I'm just here to be on record as against it at this point architectural features of it height things like that would probably be very important at some point they're right there's nothing out there that's more than two stories and even the shopping center the newer a Harris Theater shopping center is fake two stories you know so you know I just think that it's it's an inappropriate scale for a site that's this small at this corner adjacent to a church actually a church is right directly behind Hope Valley Baptist Church is directly behind it a school and I just you know this is just one and I don't know a lot about it I actually actually Mr. Miller and I were talking one day and he asked did you know about this Hope Valley thing and I was like no I actually didn't and I didn't realize it was on tonight so I just I feel kind of strange talking against the project I really do and I don't want to apologize for that but it is it is right in my backyard in a sense and it's it seems inappropriate in scale for for that corner it's a it's a very small corner it's a very small site with a lot of traffic I think the I think the the point about the kinds of truck traffic that might go in there would would would add a lot of confusion to that intersection so anyway thank you very much all right thank you the public hearing is open is there anyone else who wish to speak I'm Ben Burkhard I'm the owner representative and developer for the site just as a matter of record we did advertise I think we advertised before we came last time and then we advertised the neighborhood meeting that we that that was well attended we had 44 people that attended most of the people that attended were from Hope Valley Baptist Church our purpose for requesting a continuance to next month is that we have continued to be in discussion with Hope Valley Baptist Church about some of the concerns that were raised in the neighborhood meeting that we are in the process of addressing as we walked in here tonight Grace pulled me to the side and said also she thought maybe we should be looking at a text amendment request because as we as I mentioned last time the recommendation or the staff determination is based on the fact that as everybody has pointed out this is a congested intersection there's almost nothing that we could do on that property other than self storage that would reduce the impact of our parcel on that intersection so well I mean I cannot disagree with anything that everybody has said everybody knows this is a congested intersection it's a problem we can't fix the problem by ourselves because we're just one landowner right there what we can do is offer a partial solution we can't I mean that intersection is at 135% right now as it sits today maybe our development only decreases traffic by a thousand trips a day I think that's how we've quantified it but that's a thousand trips and we can't we can't be the solution for that intersection but we can be part of a solution I mean if we could fix the traffic situation in that area you know we you know we'd be looking at that but I mean it's almost an impossible traffic situation so you know we heard the same all of these same objections to the project at our neighborhood meeting and you know we we just can't do any better on traffic right now we have a high intensity gas station there that is always going to generate a lot of traffic and what we're proposing is a low intensity storage project you know I guess beauty is in the eye of the holder we've tried to make this as attractive as as possible from a curb appeal perspective we think we have a really nice design that is attractive that that's the best that I can say for for what we're trying for what we're trying to do our purpose for kicking this down the road another 30 days was to try and come to some agreements with the congregation at Hope Valley Baptist Church and the reason there hadn't been any negotiation it has just been they have a particular form of government and I've been to this point sort of dealing back and forth with the pastor of the church and the chairman of the deacons for that church has contacted me and you know we need another 30 days one of their concerns last time I was here before you I don't know if it was unanimous but it was said we'd really like to hear what Hope Valley Baptist Church said what what they said in our neighborhood meeting is we have a visibility problem and we have all of these big trees on your property that are blocking our visibility and so part of our plan to sort of deal with that is looking at can we take down some of the old trees that are on the property right now that are blocking the visibility to the church and help solve that problem for them we don't have that exact answer today we think that we can do that we also heard concerns about the height of the building which was also stated today and one of our what what we're navigating on that is reducing it reducing the height of the building about one story so we're doing our very best to be a good neighbor our intention is not to hurt anybody our intention is to build a really nice project something that you know is attractive and doesn't hurt the community certainly we don't want to hurt the community I mean we're part of the community too we've we've earned that property for a long time so with with that I'd still ask you to give us another 30 days to come back to you with with something final okay Commissioner Bryant before we get into considering the request for another 30 days I feel that it might be appropriate to update my fellow commissioners on two cases that we heard back in February on this board that was case a one five zero zero ten and z fifteen zero zero zero two three for the hope Valley Commons business park city council approved both of these count both of these cases at its June sixth meeting there was a significant two significant changes on the development plan for the rezoning case that now shows those building square footages two hundred and fifty thousand square feet there is also a text commitment which commits the use as self-storage and the site for the Hope Valley Commons business park is by my odometer less than half a mile from this site that we're considering so less than half a mile away from this site you have an approved case that is committed to 250,000 square feet of self-storage so I just thought commissioners should be aware of that Commissioner Mellon I intend to vote in favor of the delay that you've asked for but I will point out since it's the last chance in my view and I'll say this to the staff too the text of the design commitment in the development plan the way it's been described to us today with the inclusion of the elevation as a commitment doesn't seem to be entirely consistent and I think this could be improved in other words you could bring us a better marriage of picture and text in order to describe what you hope to do there if I couldn't vote for this project if this is the only issue I couldn't vote for this project with what I believe is an inconsistent illustration and text commitment I think it could easily be better and get right where you want to go just a little word smithing but since we've only got one 30 day period to to address those kinds of problems I encourage you to use that 30 days with regard to whatever else you may do with your neighbors and I hope that does come to a happy agreement that you'll fix that text issue thank you motion for continuous Mr. Chairman moves that we reopen the public hearing and continue this matter for one cycle or approximately 30 days second motion by Commissioner Bryant second by Commissioner Miller that we continue zone in case one five quadruple triple zero one six for one cycle please call the roll Mr. Brian yes Mr. Freeman yes Mr. Gosh Mr. Gibbs Mr. Harris yes Mr. Hornbuckle yes Ms. Hyman Mr. Johnson yes Mr. Kenshin Mr. Miller yes Mr. Van Mr. Whitley motion carries unanimous 12 to 0 thank you item seven B 32 33 North Carolina 55 highway Z one five triple zero one seven and thank you residents for coming out good evening again Kyle Taylor with the planning department this is for this case was also heard back in May so I'm going to run through this one fairly quickly as well this is project sorry about that this is Zoning Cases E15 00017 3233 NC Highway 55 applicant for this project is Ben Burkhart with BKB properties jurisdiction is the city the request is from CND to CGD the site acreage is 2.35 acres and the proposed use is for climate control personal storage this site is currently developed as a gas station and this project does meet the requirements for the CGZoning District as outlined in the slide in the staff report as a state of this project is designed as is currently developed as a gas station in the suburban tier this is the proposed conditions this request is consistent with the requirements for the CGZoning District the proposed conditions commit to two side access points building an parking envelope building and a project boundary buffer the maximum intensity for this has changed to 105 000 square feet there is still two side access points the impervious surface is still 69 percent at 70 000 square feet entry coverage is still 10 percent at 10 237 square feet the graphic commitments for this site are location of side access points location of tree preservation areas building and parking envelopes size and location of project boundary buffers elevations and aerial and the elevation and aerial rendering that was submitted at the last meeting that is a commitment required now and that rendering can be found within the staff report the developer did commit to some text commitments with this both of which were road improvements and can be outlined in this slide and this slide and they also committed to the use of self-service storage for this project as well this project is located within the commercial tier and is therefore consistent with the future land use map staff has determined that this project is consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies and the future land use map and as such staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan policy and requirements thank you and staff is available for any questions thank you I have two people signed up to speak in favor and one against being barricot and tam church miski okay five minutes each okay okay again good evening I'm Ben Burkhard at the last the last time I was before you on this project it was recommended that we had a have a neighborhood meeting which we did it I think maybe there were 10 people or so at that meeting maybe we had eight signed up that came to the meeting there there were no apparent opposition there were some questions and sort of some lamenting about what's happening in the area in terms of growth but no specific opposition to our project I guess that's that's probably all that I have to say on this one I mean it looks like staff is you know giving a rather favorable report to us and trying to think what else I need to say here we had one we did have one person at the neighborhood meeting that requested a call back which we did and we were never able to connect we haven't received any notices of opposition from staff or or anything so again I think we have a nice project we're really trying to do the same thing as what we discussed on the last project we have sort of an old tired convenience store gas station that we're trying to build self storage on we think we have a nice design that's attractive good curb appeal and it's a pretty good location for it so I'd ask for your favorable vote for it thank you very much thank you Tim okay Willis Farrington Willis Farrington is there anyone in the audience that will like to speak to this item is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this item if not I will bring it back before the commissioners commissioners wishing to speak to this item Commissioner Miller a question for you Mr. Burkhard yes sir your illustration shows a three-story building yes sir and that's a commitment because you have this with this project like the other one you intend to include the elevation yes sir the only comment I have is I have the same problem with inconsistency with the text and the inclusion of the illustration in other words I would like to see your text specifically contemplate the illustration so that they can't be read in opposition to each other and if you do that and if you can tell us that you can massage that before it gets to council then I'm ready to vote for this one okay well certainly absolutely we would do that Commissioner Gouche I just wanted to thank you for taking our advice last time and actually having the neighborhood meeting which was not required in either case and I mean obviously the fact that you agreed to do that and followed up with that shows that you do care about the community I know a lot of the opposition for the last case they may not believe that but you know it's important that I think we all understand that you that you are a member of the community and likewise we're very willing to work with them I'm glad to hear that you're talking you're still talking with the church on the other site and I just wanted to extend my gratitude well thank you I would just I just want to piggyback on to that the neighborhood meetings more so on the other case than on this one very helpful I mean we we really want to build something nice anything that we do we want to build it the right way we want it to be an addition to the community so it you know we probably should have done that from the very beginning just voluntarily and and maybe for future applications even if we don't have to do it we're probably going to do it anyway and and maybe other developers it would be advisable for them to do the same thing in that comments that you will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman if I may Commissioner Miller Mr. Chairman I move that we send this case being Z1500017 forward to the city council on condition that the text commitments for design be rewritten to specifically contemplate the inclusion of the elevation Mr. Chairman I'll second that motion it's been motioned motion by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner Tarnbuckle Ornbuckle that uh we're seeing Z1500017 forward to favor the recommendation with the stipulation that the text commitment be rewritten so that it's specifically contemplate I can't hear you I'm sorry Terry Macon sorry Mr. Chairman that the text commitment in the development plan be specifically rewritten to contemplate the inclusion of the elevation so that there's no no possibility for Sure would you put that in right and for Sure all right thank you so uh you heard the motion please call the roll Mr. Brian yes Ms. Freeman yes Mr. Ghosh yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Harris yes Mr. Hornbuckle yes Ms. Hyman yes Mr. Johnson yes Mr. Kynchon yes Mr. Miller yes Mr. Van yes Mr. Whitley yes motion carries unanimous 12 to 0 thank you and now we go to where is my Jen we now go to Copeland's farm Z16 0013 thank you Jacob Wiggins with the planning department this is a request for Copeland farm it's another case which has a pending annexation as well therefore as you see on the slide in front of you the city is the applicant for the initial zoning on behalf of Stuart Incorporated this is a request to zone a portion of rs-20 zoning down to our our our residential time it's 8.337 acres the proposed use there is no site plan submitted there's no development plan the applicant has indicated that if this request is ultimately approved the help for a conservation subdivision on this property the area in question is highlighted in red in front of you one note a clarification I should say on this map there is a small portion in red which is actually not included within this request maybe able to see on the screen in front of you as you can see these there's five parcels along Freeman road this little area right here is another parcel which is actually not included in this request so it's this portion of this large tract here and then these three parcels over here aerial view of the site it is located directly to the east of the high school here along Freeman road and staff determines that this quest is consistent with the comprehensive plan ordinances and other applicable policies thank you I need the listing of individuals have anybody signed up to speak for or against this particular issue okay both of them for case number Z one six zero zero zero one three I have one individual signed up to speak four and that is Mr George Stanzear thank you thank you George Stanzeal 115 Cofield Circle just here to say that with the planning staff is correct the intention of this down zoning is to get the property into the RR zone which then allows for a site plan to be submitted by right for conservation subdivision thank you very much is anyone else in the audience wishing to speak to this item is anyone else in the audience wishing to speak to this item if not I'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners do I have commissioners wishing to speak if George I mean I didn't see anybody wishing to speak so I'm going to move that we send case Z one six zero zero zero zero one three four with a favorable recommendation second it's been motioned by commissioner Bryant second by vice several Bryant a vice chair Hyman that we send zoning case Z one six triple zero one three fault with a favorable recommendation please call the roll Mr. Brian yes Ms. Freeman yes Mr. Gosh Mr. Gibbs Mr. Harris yes Mr. Hornbuckle yes Ms. Hyman yes Mr. Johnson Mr. Kenshin yes Mr. Miller yes Mr. Van yes Mr. Whitley m