Good afternoon. I'd like to call the 2011 planning during planning commission meeting to order. Welcome to the during planning commission. The members of the during planning commission have been appointed by the city council and county board of commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, please go to the table on my left and sign up to speak. For those of you who wish to speak, please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium and please speak clearly into the microphone. Each side, those speaking in favor of an item and those speaking in opposition to an item have 10 minutes to present each side. The time will be divided amongst all persons wishing to speak. If you have an opposition to a rezoning tonight, you should be aware of what is called a protest petition. A protest petition can be very helpful to those residents who live in the rezoning area. Please consult the planning department staff for any details on the protest petition and they will be happy to help you. You should also keep in constant touch with the planning department as to when your case will go before the elected official for a final vote. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative, so if a motion fails, so tires the recommendation as for denial. Thank you and could we have the roll call. Present. Kenchen. Present. Mr. Miller. Present. Mr. Riley. Present. Mr. Van. Present. Mr. Whitley. Here. Ms. Winder's. The number? 12 members present. Okay, 12 members present, we have a quorum. The commissioners, if you look at your comment sheet, on your comment sheet, we reluctantly left the name spot off. So as you write comments about a issue before us tonight, if you would just put your name at the top of the comment sheet so if they have any questions, they know who to come back to. So you received the minutes from last month's meeting, what's your pleasure? Are there any corrections or additions? If not, the chair will entertain a motion to receive those minutes as printed. I move that we accept the minutes of our last meeting as written. Motion by Commissioner Whitley. Seconded. Seconded by Commissioner Goss. Goosh. All those in favor, let it be no. I'm going to share in the right hand. All those opposed? The motion passes to weigh up to zero. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Pat Young with the Planning Department. Do you have some requested adjustments? There are three items that have been petitioned by the Research Triangle Foundation. We'd like to consolidate those so that they're sequential. So I'm going to ask that we move item 8A, RTP Comp Plan Text Amendment to 7A. The current item 7A would become 7B, SRPC Text Amendment, and item 6D, the Park Center Zoning Z150018, which is currently 6D, would move to 7C. The current item 7B, home occupation, would become 7D, as in David. And I can certify for the record that all public hearing items before you tonight have been advertised in accordance with the requirements of law and their affidavits to that effect on file with the Planning Department. Thank you. Thank you. Can I get a motion to move the agenda as modified by Mr. Young? So moved. Second, Mr. Chairman. Moved by Commissioner Bugsby and seconded by Commissioner Miller that we move the agenda as modified by Mr. Young. All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. And all opposed. So is unanimous vote. And let the record also show that Commissioner Hyman and Commissioner Freeman is in attendance. Okay, so we are on item 5A and public hearing of Garrett Ridge multifamily phase 3, A150026 and Z1500013. The public hearing is now open. Pardon the delay. I'm Laura Woods with the Planning Department. This is Garrett Ridge Apartments, Plan Amendment Case A15006006. The site is located on Garrett Road just north of Old Chapel Hill Road and consists of four parcels. Totalling 12 and a half acres, the parcels include an existing apartment complex, vacant land, and a single family lot. An institutional use lies directly to the north. To the east is a multifamily residential, single family residential, and a place of worship. To the south and to the west lie floodplain. The applicant is Horvath Associates PA and they request a change in future land use map from medium density residential to medium high density residential. According to the applicant, the requested density will provide an orderly transition between low medium density residential, somewhat to the south of the site, and office commercial designations north of the site. According to the applicant, the site is of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the proposed designation. I believe the intent there is probably to add a few more apartments to the existing complex. Staff has evaluated their application and found that the proposed land use is consistent with adopted plans and policies. It is compatible with existing and future land use patterns in the area. It does not create substantial adverse impacts and it is of adequate size and shape. Therefore, staff recommends approval and that completes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wood. Good evening, Amy Wolfe with the Planning Department. The accompanying zoning map change request is KZ1500013. The request is from Horvath Associates. It is in the city's jurisdiction and the request is from the present designation of residential suburban 20 and residential suburban multifamily with a development plan. There's actually two, actually now there's only one development plan. I'll clarify that in just a minute, my hesitation with that. To the zoning designation of residential suburban multifamily with a development plan, the site is 13.04 acres and the proposed use is to add on to an existing project. As Ms. Wood's just mentioned, the site is along the west side of Garrett Road. It's from 4806 to 510 Garrett Road. It's in the suburban tier on the west side of Garrett Road, north of Old Chapel Hill Road. To the north is a place of worship. There's a place of worship to the east. There's some single family residential in the area. To the west is open space. It is the New Hope Creek corridor and the New Hope Creek bottomland forest natural area. The request of residential suburban multifamily does meet the minimum standards of our RSM district. And for a little site history, this board saw a request in the last couple of months for KZ1400022. That encompassed this portion of the site, which is considered phase one and the central portion of this site as phase two. So from here and north is to the right of the screen. So from here south was approved by council just this month on August 3rd with KZ1400022 to combine at the time two existing development plans. This first phase was PO136. The second parcel here was KZ0643 combined into the case, which was recently approved, Z1400022. This case adds on two parcels to the north here and here to be considered as one item combining all of those with the plan amendment. So that the density is accounted for through the whole project. Again, this first phase is existing, the middle phase I believe is under construction now. And the addition of these two parcels that are currently RS20 and these are currently RSM. The proposed conditions are shown here on the screen. It shows your proposed access points. There's three side access points, the six tree preservation areas and the building and parking envelope are correctly identified. Again, north is to the right of your screen. Some of the commitments of this request is a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre or 173 units. There's three side access points, maximum of 65% impervious surface and 20% tree coverage. The location of the tree preservation and site access points and building and parking envelope are graphic commitments of the plan. The text commitments are carried over and this is why I spent a little bit of time explaining the history of the zoning of this site. The text commitments are carried over from the original zoning Phase I or PO136 as well as the original ones from Z0643 as well as they were both carried over to the present zoning of Z1422. And then we have some additional commitments that I'll explain here. So these first category, we'll call A text commitments are actually for the second phase and these are again, carryovers. Minimum open space on this portion, 24%. The mulch are all weather, pedestrian trail, some usable open space amenities, gazebo and benches, restriction on parking within 25 feet of Garrett Road, stormwater detention pond, specification and dedication of right away along Garrett Road, as well as constructing turn lanes at the site access and a bus shelter within a quarter mile of the site. The B text commitments are the first phase and they are carried over through the life of this project or progression of this project. Uniform set of design guidelines for the master signage plan and additional bike parking. C applies only to the two additional parcels that are added to Phase I and Phase II. So we're going to call this Phase III, dedication of 15 foot of right away. D applies to the two new parcels, the 1501 bottom lands and floodway fringe to be retained as permanent undisturbed open space. And E for the whole site is maximum number of 173 dwelling units. There are design commitments that are also split between the progression of this project. This is for the northern parcels, which are for Phase II and Phase III. There's some design commitments for those newer buildings and then the Phase I, which is the southern parcel, has their own set of design commitments. And these are identified in your staff report as well. This request is not consistent with the current future land use map, but you just heard the plan amendment request. If the plan amendment request to medium high density residential were approved, this request would meet the policies of the comprehensive plan. The other items are identified here as well as in your staff report. And staff determines if this request should the plan amendment be approved, would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted policies and ordinances. And staff is available for any questions. Thank you. I have one person signed up to speak, Ron Havett. And he's speaking for the consultant. Are there other members in the audience that would like to speak to this item? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ron Horvath, Horvath Associates here in Durham, North Carolina. Last time I was before you was in May when we discussed this project. I'm going to try to keep it simple and as clear as I possibly can. My client, Tycon, developed the first site, the southernmost site, 2001. At that time, there was no density upgrade requirement for the future land use plan. The density that was approved was just approved. The second site, a little further north, was approved by another developer and another engineer and during the recession that was, that exchanged hands. And my client obtained it and started construction there. And we wanted to tie the two developments together with a driveway in between. That required that last zoning case that you heard. While we were going through that and adding the third parcel that you're hearing tonight, we discovered that the densities fell outside the future land use plan, even without the additional land that we're proposing. It, the calculation of density was much different in 2001 and 2003 when the first two projects were approved. We were counting flood plains and tree preservation. I mean, there was a lot that was included that we now take out of the net land area. So the plan amendment before you tonight is to correct that and give a true density for the plan that we're proposed. The 36 units, it's 2.75 acres, I think. And there are 36 apartments, very similar to what's built on the first project. We tried to keep the architecture the same. There are no new driveway connections to Garrett Road for this third parcel. It's an internal connection only. And we are staying out of the flood plain for the New Hope quarter. I ask for your recommendation to counsel, positive recommendation. If you have any questions, I'll be available to answer them. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. And one last time it's anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this. If not, I'm closing the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. Do I have commissioners or a lot to speak to this item? I have Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question of staff regarding the plan amendment report. So on page four of the report at the bottom, adequate shape and size. It says the area requested for the amendments approximately 0.4 acres in total, sufficient size for commercial development in the urban tier. There's no commercial component to this project. Oh, dear. I believe that your staff report is incorrect. You have not received the final draft. That was an inadvertent piece of text. That's okay. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Thank you. That is entirely my mistake. And Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Horvath. Right. That's all right. So what kind of units does your client intend to build here? These are the third parcel is going to have garden style apartments, one bedroom. It's similar to the garden style apartments. It's in the first phase. In the first phase. But you've got a townhouse component, too. Do you not? We do. That's in middle and in the first phase. The first phase has both garden style and town home. The middle has town home style. And then the third one will have some garden style apartments. So it's a mixture. Right. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Are the other comments? Commissioner Heim? Yes, Mr. Horvath. If I could just, this is for my own understanding and thank you for taking my question. But as I listened to you give an in-depth explanation about how the different parcels grew, my question was when you add on to an existing site and it really is an additional phase, the first question that comes to mind for me, of course, is why is it necessary then to come back and ask for a change in the zoning? Because that seems very inefficient to me. But your explanation was that you continued to purchase property all along and it changed as you were making these decisions. Could you help me a little bit with that? We had hoped originally that the driveway interconnection would be a very quick and simple process. Nothing is quick and simple. And we found that out. It became bogged down. It actually caught up to the third phase. The third phase wasn't really purchased until much later. And then we submitted that. So it was, we didn't want to pull it. We just decided to go in order that they were submitted. But even though this third phase is a higher density, you're saying that it is very similar to the first phase? Correct. The first two phases run 16, almost 17 and a half units per acre. They just weren't accounted for properly the way we do it now. Okay. So this was a counting process? It's an accounting process. Yes. Thank you. You're welcome. Other comments? If not, the chair will entertain a motion to the plan amendment. Mr. Chairman, if I may. You may. I move that the planning commission send forward to the Durham City Council a recommendation to approve the plan amendment. In case A-15-00006. Motion by Commissioner Miller. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Huff. All those in favor, let me know. Am I showing the right hand? All those in opposition, the motion carries unanimously. Now the zoning, the zoning case. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I move that the planning commission send forth to the Durham City Council a recommendation to approve the rezoning. In case Z-15-0013. Motion by Commissioner Miller. Second by Commissioner Huff. That we move forward affirmative Z-15-0013. All those in favor, let me know. Am I showing the right hand? Those in opposition. This motion passes unanimously. Now the chair will open. Public hearing on zoning map change. Southwest Durham Drive at 15-501 Z-14-0003. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. I'm going to turn the mic over to Amy Wolf of our staff to give you the staff report. But I did want to let you know that as we advised you of in your staff report, at the time the staff report was completed, there was a number of unresolved comments. Comments associated with this case. There was supplemental material provided by the applicant and supplemental review comments provided by staff. And those were sent via email yesterday. And there are copies of the material emailed to you at your dais. Additionally, because a number of those unresolved comments pertain to the interchange design at the corner of Southwest Durham Drive in 15-501. I have asked Bill Judge of Transportation to provide some supplemental information at the end of the staff report. Good evening, Amy Wolf of the Planning Department. This case is Southwest Durham at 15-501. Case Z-14-00030. The applicant is the Arden Group. It is within the city's jurisdiction. The request is from the present designation of residential suburban 20 to commercial general with the development plan. The site is 12.45 acres and the proposed use is for 125,000 square feet of commercial area. The site is in the suburban tier in the suburban transit area. It is a portion of three parcels. It is the, excuse me, the suburban transit area is the Patterson Place node at 3301 Southwest Durham Drive with frontage along US 15-501. To the north there is commercial and undeveloped property. To the east is multifamily and undeveloped. To the south we have retail, some single family and undeveloped property. And to the west is retail. The request does meet the zoning standards for the commercial general district as summarized on this slide. You'll see on the existing conditions page, basically there's three parcels that do both front on 15-501. As well as Southwest Durham Drive, the proposed zoning line goes through those parcels. There are, it's mostly a forested site and there are some remnant building foundations as well. The portion of the site, as drawn by the mouse pointer here, is within the major transportation corridor overlay with Interstate 40 being off of this slide graphic to the east. Excuse me, west. South. Just off the site. So the proposed conditions are shown on this graphic. It has the site access points, tree preservation areas, the building and parking envelope and the project boundary buffers. And I'll go into a little bit more detail on that. For some of the commitments, a maximum of 125,000 square feet of commercial area. There's four access points shown. The impervious surface of a maximum of 70% and tree coverage in the form of preservation at 10%. The impervious surface and tree coverage are an update from your staff report based on a revised plan that we received. And that was part of your packet that you received yesterday and at your seats tonight. There's graphic commitments for the location of access points, location of the tree preservation area and the building and parking envelope. There's a number of commitments. The project to be constructed in a single phase. Construct shared use eight foot wide trail along 15501. And these are a summary of the commitments for the full language. Please refer to the staff report. Number three, a bus shelter concrete pad and pull out a crosswalk at Witherspoon and Southwest Durham Drive and traffic signal at Southwest Durham Drive and Witherspoon as well. Dedicate right away along the frontage of the site on both Southwest Durham Drive and 15501 and traffic signal easements associated with the traffic signal. Commitments eight, nine and 10, which are new from the original staff report involved improvements for the site access. There are design commitments associated with this request. Sorry, catching up on the slide. That meet the requirements for design commitments. They are also summary describing roofline building material and any distinctive features and how it will fit into the context area. This site is designated as commercial in the future land use map. So it accommodates the request for commercial general. There are a number of comprehensive plan policies that we have looked at for the site. There are four of them that do not meet the policies and Mr. Judge from transportation will explain that. There's adopted plans where I'll let Mr. Judge explain that there are four policies related to adopted plans that are not met with the information we've received. And staff determines that this request is not consistent with the right away standards of UDO 1231A, nor the comprehensive policies 811B, 811C, 812C, and 816D. And with that I'll let Mr. Judge go into a little bit more detail. Yes, Bill Judge, City of Durham Department of Transportation. As Amy mentioned, staff did find that the plan is inconsistent with those four sections. Really those four conflicts are all related to one issue that's really just repeated four times in those four sections. All of those issues relate to the U.S. 15501 Master Corridor Study. This was a plan that was adopted in 1994, February 1994. So we realize that most of you probably are not aware or familiar with it. As part of that plan, it did, as you see on this first slide, this is a copy of the plan from 1994. It called for a grade-separated interchange at Southwest Durham Drive in 15501 with cloverleaf loop ramps on the east side of the road. That would have significant impacts on this parcel. The plan, when it was adopted in 1994, it was jointly prepared by the City of Durham, Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina DOT, and a number of private sector participants. This next slide is a plan from December 1997. It's basically a refined functional design of that same plan with a little bit of engineering drawing where, in conjunction with Patterson Place Development, the City engaged with the consultant to go back and do a little more detail. They made a couple of minor revisions, but essentially it's still the same. I tried to highlight with my high-tech highlighter just the approximate area of the development plan so that you could see the visual impact of the significant impacts that the proposed interchange would have on this development plan. To address or mitigate and reduce some of those impacts, the applicant and hired a traffic consultant who looked at preparing an alternative interchange design that would have significantly less impact on the property. As you can see, and roughly still trying to estimate the plan there in pink on this functional design. The applicant did prepare that. They have basically proffered or mitigated all the proffers and development plan or set up consistent with this alternative interchange. However, at this time, staff has not been able to determine that this is an acceptable alternative interchange due to outstanding comments from NCDOT, which were in your packet, dated June 25th. So until such time as NCDOT is able to provide us with additional information or guidance that this would be a viable alternative, we've said that it will remain basically inconsistent with those four sections that were highlighted in the staff report. I guess the primary reason I should add that while we're deferring to NCDOT is that this is a future unfunded TIP project. It would likely be constructed by them as part of the NCDOT project. The applicant also prepared a traffic impact analysis as part of this development plan request. The NCDOT reviewed it. All the mitigation that they can require and city staff reviewed it as well. All of those proffers and commitments have been made on the development plan, so there are no TIA related issues. It's more related to this future interchange. Okay, thank you, Mr. Judge. I have two people signed up to speak. Dan Jewel and Michael and if you pronounce your last name, Waldrich. They both speak in favor of us, so between the two of you, you have 10 minutes. Can I get my time key? Yes. Thank you, Chairman Harris. I'm trying to get my slides up here as well. Again, good evening, everyone, fellow commissioners. My name is Dan Jewel with Coulter Jewel TEM, some landscape architect in private practice. Our office is at 111 West Main Street, just about a block from here. We're here tonight proposing a new location for University Ford. That's what this proposal is for. We've been asked to help with the land planning, civil engineering on this project with me here tonight. Thank you. University Ford partner, Tony Fisher, a longtime Durham resident who's been keeping an eye on this facility for going on 30 years now. Paul Williams with the Arden Group who is the owner's representative, shepherding us through this project as well as Dion Brown and John Davenport with Davenport traffic engineering consultants who've been doing a lot of work on this project. This is a journey that's been almost 25 years in the making. Those of you who've been in Durham for a while recall that back in the early 90s, the original proposed location for the Durham ballpark was where? On the University Ford property. For reasons not within our clients control though, that did not work out and the ballpark ended where it is today on the old Lucky Strike parking lot, which is what used to be there. In my mind that was the start of the renaissance of downtown Durham, getting the balls back and getting them downtown. Fast forward 23 years and our downtown is vastly different from what it was back in those days. As I'm sure you're aware, University Ford is now the last car dealership left downtown. And while they could be content to remain there, there are many parties who are extremely interested in the transit supportive redevelopment potential of the 11 acres that University Ford currently sits on, which is less than a block from our two downtown transit stations and our proposed light rail station and right next to American Tobacco. The site that we are proposing this change on is here on this map. It's, as Amy said, already shown on the future land use map for commercial use. There are mixed use developments and commercial developments that have now been building out over the last 15 or 20 years or so from the New Hope Commons, which was first up to the northwest of the site, Patterson Place behind, Indigo Corners, some large apartment projects down to the south. But we consider the current RS-20 zoning on this site simply to be a placeholder because of that. We are well aware of New Hope Creek, which is to the east of this site shown on this map, and we've identified the area that was studied and called for protection in the New Hope Creek Corridor Study, which was done by our predecessor firm, Coulter Associates, back in the late 80s and early 90s, so you can see how far we are from that. And we're also very aware of where the two proposed light rail corridors might come through this area and how we can accommodate those. And speaking of our site, because we are in the area of the New Hope Creek study area, well not in it, we have had professional biologists go out to our site. They've looked for endangered species, wetlands, jurisdictional streams, things of that nature, did not find any. We're working closely with our neighbors, Mike and Mark Waldrop of Boulevard Properties, to come up with a property swap configuration that provides better connectivity through this quadrant of the intersection, accommodates the future light rail corridor, and anticipates a continued implementation of the distributed collector network that was called for in the 94 corridor study that Mr. Judge talked about. And even though we were not required to do a traffic impact analysis, because believe it or not, an automobile dealership does not actually generate a lot of traffic. There are a lot of cars, but there's not a lot of traffic. We did one, and as Mr. Judge said, we have incorporated all the recommendations from both DOT and the city in our committed elements.  This diagram actually shows you the impact of that 1994 half cloverleaf interchange design on this and the adjacent sites. The long goal is anticipated to turn 1501 into a freeway. The center lanes would just keep going. They would go over, under the side roads. The study suggested a half cloverleaf intersection would be needed at what was once called Laurel Hill Parkway and is now called Southwest Durham Drive, for those of you who've been around a while now. And it encumbered not only the two properties that University Ford has under contract, but also the Boulevard Properties property based on the property configuration. That interchange, we think, was a quickly conceived solution with a suburban design mentality of 20 years ago. And we do think, though, the transportation thing has advanced appreciably in the last 21 years. And the interchange, as originally proposed, encumbered 15 to 20 acres of land on this side, let alone the other side of 1501, which could instead be used for creating jobs and property tax base. We think we have a better solution. And that solution is what our traffic consultants spent over a year working with the City of Durham Transportation Department on to come up with an alternative design for that interchange. Our directive from the city was to make sure that we could accommodate 20-40 traffic volumes, not affect any other properties any more than they would have been affected in the 1994 design, and provide any right-of-way on our property necessary to accommodate the design, which Mr. Judge confirmed that we have done. Our clients have spent in excess of $100,000 in transportation fee, engineering fees, to work through this alternative design solution to free this side up. With a much greater level of design analysis that was done in 1994 or later in 1997 and using those larger traffic volumes, we are confident that we have come up with an alternative design that works, but works better for Durham and works better for this property. As you may note in the staff report, there is a finding of inconsistency with the adopted plans, which Mr. Judge touched on, but it all comes down to one simple issue. NCDOT has decided they don't have a dog in this fight. This is a city issue, and I have an email that just came in 30 minutes ago from our division engineer, Joey Hopkins, that says that we do not have the authority to comment on the design of the interchange. We did comment on your traffic impact analysis, and we made some comments, but we have no statutory authority to actually come in with a yes or no on your design. And that's what we're stuck with. We are in a catch 22. We are in limbo until NCDOT weighs in on that, and we have a letter saying they are not going to do that. The staff is compelled by their understanding of the UDO to recommend inconsistency on those four items which are all related to one issue. So, of course tonight, and here's the proposal, we are appealing to your collective wisdom and common sense, understanding that if and when 15501 is turned into a freeway, that our alternate design does in fact work, and that you would recommend approval our request. It's a rare occasion where allowing a long-standing business to relocate pays such huge benefits, not just in the construction jobs and expansion potential of University Ford and KIA at a new location that has already long been called on the future land use map for commercial use, but in freeing up the very desirable property in downtown during, allowing for a dense, walkable, transit-friendly form of development with potentially millions of square feet including hundreds of residential units, shops, and workplaces. Perhaps it's a good thing that University Ford didn't move 23 years ago. We certainly don't have, didn't have the downtown redevelopment potential and sensitivity that we do today. And also perhaps it's a bit ironic that relocation of an automobile-related business would open up such huge opportunities for a less auto-dependent type of development downtown. Thank you. Thank you. The chair will entertain a motion for an additional five minutes for Mr. Michael if so desired. Mr. Chair, I move that we allow extra time on the chair's discretion for additional speakers. Thank you. The motion is seconded. We allow five additional minutes for Mr. Michael to speak. All those in favor? Let me know in my right hand. All those in opposition? Motion passed unanimously. Thank you. I greatly appreciate the commission's action. My name is Michael Waldrop, 5-3-2-4 McFarland Road Durham. We purchased the property that is going to be part of the future University Ford 36 years ago in 1979. And I moved to Durham in 1990 and immediately became very much involved in transit and land use issues. One of the things that I found most exciting about this community coming out of the 1987 world-class regions conference was the impetus that quickly developed for looking at alternative modes of transportation, particularly between Durham and Chapel Hill. We happened to be right between the two of them. So I think some of you who I recognize, many I don't, know me as having been very quietly involved in the evolution of discussion about transit and land use. I fought to have Patterson Place identified as a future transit station. We have developed a master plan which is very forward-looking. What I see happening in our relationship with University Ford is really personal to them. I welcome the opportunity to help the city out in affecting this relocation. I think that we're going to be back within my lifetime, certainly. And University Ford will be moving on because the pressure to develop in support of a higher density, more urban form of development will be sufficiently great that they will again move on. And this block that is being created by essentially the swap between the two property owners is going to become a contributor to the Patterson Place station. We will be moving forward. And I will be probably talking to many of you about what our long-term plans are for the Patterson Place station. But I was part of the group that funded the study. Boulevard Properties is listed in there. They had a horrendous task and a limited budget. And I think that what they developed was very much a form of shorthand. It was intended to be very conceptual. It was to put some basic concepts on the table without getting very specific. And I think what you have inherited is a plan that had a very heavy suburban bias. We're looking to be more urban in this area. I think a different interchange design is appropriate. I'm not sure when it will be called for. There were projections made for 2010 that called for 78,000 trips per day in this area. And we are finding that the 2013 figures are in the 46,000 trip per day range. So it's a complicated story. And I, again, don't want to take up any more of your time. I would ask, as a neighbor and as somebody who views this with a longer term perspective, both historically and looking into the future, to support this, if not, certainly to pass it forward to the city council for them to work out. I mean, I think that this is all the discussions that we're having about comprehensive plans, excuse me, compact neighborhoods in this area are positive. We're party to them. I view this as one step in a history. They say that Rome was not built in a day. I view this as a stepping stone to a very positive future for Durham. And as the party that is participating in this and the most direct immediate neighbor, I urge your support, but I urge you also to pass this on to the city council. Thank you. Thank you. For the other members in the audience wishing to speak to this issue. Or the other members in the audience wishing to speak. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back before commissioners. I have commissioners that would like to speak. Okay. Did I see Melvin? Did I see your hand? Yeah. Okay. Miller, Freeman, Brian. Okay. Bush. I've got two questions. I think one probably be directed towards staff. I'm not sure who will be able to answer it. I believe you said that this interchange as planned in 94 is an unfunded project. And it's been unfunded since 94. I guess my question is, so when is it going to be funded? Bill Judge of Transportation again. The series of improvements have been funded and approved over the years. Mainly the six lane improvement on the boulevard. Just recently the Garrett road interchange with the latest round of scoring and funding has been funded as part of that project for planning and right away and eventually construction. So we do, while it's not currently funded, we do anticipate that it likely could receive funding at some future date. That's kind of my question. Like, what are we looking at? Tough to say. Yeah, I mean, it's the scoring processes and everything continue to change and a lot of its cost benefit based on the cost of the project and the benefits. Given that the Garrett road interchange project scored well enough to be funded, we would anticipate that this one likely might in the next round. But ultimately the last sections, probably the interchange here as well as the conjunction with what happens at Mount Mariah Road. And it's a little bit larger, a little bit more expensive project. So that may hurt it slightly in the funding. So I can't guarantee it'll be funded in the next round, but it will certainly be submitted and evaluated. Sure. And my next question, I guess I'm going to direct it, Mr. Jewel, the proposed, your proposed interchange design. I'm wondering how does it affect the Boulevard properties more so than the 94 design or 97 design? By the Boulevard properties, if you mean Mr. Waldrop's property or the properties along the Boulevard. Mr. Waldrop, the property right to the south? So the current property configurations, excuse me for going back, I went forward to the current property configurations are roughly one, two, three. The property lines are north-south. So we have worked with Boulevard properties folks to reconfigure that. But yes, currently with Boulevard properties owning some of this, this part of the interchange does affect their property as well. So if this proposal does not go forward, they will still be sitting as the other two properties will with a future interchange mapped on their property that they'll have to figure out how to deal with. Sure, because it looks like it'll bisect their property. How does the redesign affect the property? I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding. So what the redesign does, and here's an actual overlay again for reference, New Hope Commons, Indigo Corners. This is the Duke Health, Patterson Place, the apartments over here. So what we've been able to do now is Davenport has come up with a design that is a service road freeway configuration with full turning movements at the Southwest Durham Drive connection. So the freeway would go up over Southwest Durham Drive too. So a direct answer to your question is there will be no effect on Boulevard properties now other than maybe 20 feet of right away dedication along 15501, 19 or 20, which they would have done anyway. And again, that was our directive from staff. Don't affect anybody any more than they are affected with the current design. So in this case, we are taking probably three or four acres of their property that would otherwise be undevelopable. And with this configuration, it now becomes developable. Thank you. Commissioner Huff. First staff, if you have a plan that was made in the 1990s, don't people expect to revisit it and make changes in it? I mean, how does that work? Well, I guess that was part of the, yeah, the original plan was in 94. And then when the first phase of Patterson Place came in, there was the additional engineering work done to try to define and refine it a little bit. In 97, there's been, I mean, it's been made a part of the comprehensive plan, the corridor study and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. But to date, there's been no other, I guess, move or push to look at revisiting or revising that plan since it's just been slow to implement due to a number of factors. But it has been slowly being implemented. This doesn't count as a push. Well, no directive, I guess, at the MPO level as a sort of to create another set of joint partners similar to maybe what was done at 54 and I-40 for that project a number of years ago in this corridor. Okay, with the old plan with Cloverleaf, where would the multi-use trail be along 501? How would it pass through that Cloverleaf? Or would it be able to? Yeah, I mean, I believe the required, I guess, the open space plan that had that multi-use trail, I believe, came after this project or after the 94-97 plan. So I don't know that that's been specifically looked at. We would anticipate DOT typically does not allow those within the right of way of a freeway. So we would anticipate that that would likely have to be parallel outside the freeway right away. So where would it go? I'm not real sure. I may have to defer to planning as to exactly what the open space trail plan calls for. But my recollection is that it's essentially a parallel facility for pedestrians and bicyclists, essentially to the, since they are not typically allowed within a long or freeway segment. Pat Young with the Planning Department. Ms. Wolfe is telling me that the plan shows the multi-use trail running parallel to Southwest Derm Drive, excuse me, to 15501. So it didn't, the plan doesn't specify exactly, there's no engineering or functional design created. Mr. Judge is correct, certainly, that DOT doesn't normally allow these in their DOT right away. So the presumption is it would be immediately adjacent to the 15501 right away. But it would, it would have to go across or through that cloverleaf somehow. And wouldn't there have to be right away taken, more right away taken from people's property to put that trail in? I'm sorry.  As you said, they'd either have to somehow cross the cloverleaf if it were to remain parallel or alternatively it may have to follow the one design that has sort of the ramp coming up where it would come up more through the property and connect to Southwest Derm Drive near Witherspoon sort of outside the ramp influence. So if these people build this intersection the way they want to, what happens if you turn this into a freeway? Does their intersection go away? Do we, what happens? The intersection of Southwest and 15501? If they build this, this way, if, what happens if? Well, I mean, in short term it would continue to operate much as it is. I guess the longer term question becomes what happens if this is built as part of the future TIP project. The TIP will just have to evaluate all the potential solutions and whether or not it becomes taking of this property or whether they choose the applicants alternative interchange and go with something like that to minimize the impacts. That all have to be decided during the environmental and planning stage of the TIP project. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whoever can answer it from the staff. Is this site one of a site that's under consideration for a facility relating to the light rail? I mean, I have a attachment nine says that it is. This is Scott Wayman from the Planning Department. According to Go Triangle, this was one of their four sites, four and a half sites that they proposed for their rail operations and maintenance facility. You said it was. It's not anymore. So in their, what they proposed in their draft EIS does not include this. And what they've said is if the preferred alignment, which goes not through the middle of New Hope Creek, but more parallel to 15501 that this is impossible as a site for the rail operations of the maintenance facility. That's good to know. Thank you. And also for the staff, if I may. So I'm a little uncomfortable with being asked to make a decision on this tonight. I'm being told by the staff. It's not consistent with the comprehensive plan. And I can see that we've gotten materials yesterday, which I couldn't really look at on my computer because it involved large maps. Those maps have been given to me today. I haven't had an opportunity to look at them.  I'm also being told though that the plan amendment here would involve a significant transportation corridor change. And being told about an email which arrived 30 minutes ago that says the DOT isn't going to play. How can all of that be? And is it wise to move forward, Mr. Young? So Commissioner Miller, we, the applicant requested that we bring this forward to you at tonight's meeting with the information that was available at the time of the staff report. We provided you the supplemental information when we received it. It's my understanding and the applicant can speak to this, that they wish to pursue council consideration of this on an aggressive time schedule. And so we tried to ensure that we met their request. You all have the authority, as you're well aware, to defer delay or otherwise consider this matter within the UDL parameters. But we wanted to make sure we brought you the best information we had. So what is the staff's recommendation to the planning commission today, right now? We don't make recommendations on zoning cases. We make findings of consistency or not consistency with adoptive policy and ordinances. So what you're finding today, right now, since you haven't had a chance to update the written staff report in a way that I could read it? As you heard from Mr. Judge and Ms. Wolfe, we could not find consistency with for transportation related policies in the comprehensive plan. The applicant is correct when they assert that DOT has not provided a detailed response to the sufficiency of this design. And then what we just heard from the applicant is that DOT is not going to do so. So if I understand it correctly, they have designed an alternative to the planned intersection, which DOT has now says they're not going to evaluate. But if we go ahead and rezone this property in University Ford's bill to year, DOT will at some time when they move forward with existing plans, take the property and build according to the current plan or DOT will have to come up with an alternative plan of their own if they don't. At some point DOT is going to have to evaluate this other plan or proceed with the current plan, is that right? If we're going to have a change of grade at this intersection. I think that's a fair characterization, yes. But they've decided they don't want to intervene and comment on the local land use issue, which is what's before you tonight. Right. But ultimately, these developers are not proposing to build the intersection that they have designed. The state would have to, the people would do that. That's correct. Or some other alternative. At some point DOT is going to be confronted with this issue if we let this case move forward. That's correct. Commissioner Friedman. Staff question. I wanted to know the proximity of the Patterson Street light rail to this area. And if this would also be considered in a compact neighborhood tier. And additionally, if there was additional residential plans around this area. So this site is, as Ms. Wolfe stated, in the currently designated suburban transit area. And is based on our, the workshops we've held on the compact neighborhood, which you'll hear about later, would be within the Patterson Place compact neighborhood. The other unfairness to this applicant, this was in process well before that, that planning process started. The location of the station will depend on which alignment is chosen. It would either be basically behind the Kroger or next to the Witherspoon Rose Garden site. Both of which are probably about a quarter mile from the site. Commissioner Best. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of questions from Mr. Joule. Do you mind, I want to make sure I understood your characterization of the NCDOT June 25th letter. If you don't mind just repeating how you read that letter and what that meant to you. Absolutely. We, a little bit of a timeline. So we sat down with folks from NCDOT and the city back in March of this year. And went over a game plan by which DOT said, well, if you want us to evaluate this thing, we think this is what we're going to need. And our traffic consultants put that together, provided that information to DOT. DOT then generated that letter on the 25th. And we sat down with them again and went over all of it. And they came back and said, you know, we know we asked for this much back in March. But now we think we need this much to maybe get to the next point where we can actually have an evaluation that says that maybe this might work. They said, but really, and this was the upshot of the follow-up meeting. And this is also the upshot of the email that we got from the division engineer, which also the transportation staff were copied on. Really, this is the city's issue. And until a very detailed design has come in, we can't say one way or the other whether this design will work or will not work. What I will say is, if you talk to the traffic engineers, there's probably 20 different designs that would work for this highway configuration. But DOT has chosen to say, we're going to need a lot more information, which means a lot more detailed design. So at this point, we really think it's a city issue and we're going to stand back. That's where we are in this thing. So to Mr. Miller's question, which was a good question, you know, if we were to delay this thing, you know, two cycles or four cycles or six cycles, if we were to come back a year from now, I am quite confident and I suspect Mr. Judge would tell you the same thing, that the answer from DOT would still be no comment and the staff would still be compelled to say it is inconsistent because we do not have NCDOT's concurrence with this design. Thank you. Commissioner Gibbs? Well, I think we're learning more and more about what the Catch-22 is. And in my estimation, this is a good project. And with all of the conversations on other projects that I have heard, it seems like there is something that is becoming a roadblock or a consideration that cannot be resolved for another project to go along. And I think this is one of those projects that we just need to make our decision locally. And I know the people that are involved in this project are so very sensitive to and active in transportation, the transit stops and all of that and good development. And so I would be in favor of sending this forward to the next step. There are a lot more things to discuss. We cannot cover them tonight. And even if we did, as Dan just said, we could come back six months a year. And we'll still be in the same place. So let's move forward and let the decisions be made by those who have the authority. But this group up here will be advising as much as we can and will be active in whatever way the powers that be need our input. We can't settle it tonight, but it does need to go forward. So I will vote for sending this forward to the next step. Thank you. Commissioner Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs for echoing comments that I have been basically reflecting on. This was an excellent presentation by Daniel. It's an exciting project for the community. And what I'm hearing is that thank you for giving it a name catch 22. We could not approve this and somebody could bring it back and we could not approve it again. But I think that it would be better served moving forward so that other individuals have an opportunity or able to make a decision about this. So Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion. Not yet. Okay. Other comments. Thank you. Commissioner Wines. I'd like to ask Mr. Jewell to help me visualize what the proposed interchange is going to be and for number one. Number two, I heard some traffic counts and some inferences were made about how long it would be based on the traffic counts. I forget who said the traffic counts. And what that tells us about the time before DOT would be ready to move forward with the project. And I thought there was one more thing, but I can't remember what it was. Well, I'll start on those two. And if you remember the other one, I'm happy to answer that as well. So this map actually shows I think the latest configuration. Have any of you been to large city in Texas in the last 20 or 30 years, Houston or Dallas or something like that? Not to use that as the best analogy because we certainly don't want to get there. But this is a very common road configuration that's used in some of the metropolitan areas in Texas. Yes, exactly, exactly right. I had forgotten about that. So what you do is you have a series of service roads, collector roads on both sides, this side, this side. And those can go in early and those can carry the extra traffic until the freeway is needed. But once you need the freeway, what you do is you come in and you improve the center lanes. And I think in this case we have six lanes, is that correct, John? Six through lanes. And you would build the freeway portion bridge up and over Southwest Durham Drive. So there would be no disruption of Southwest Durham Drive traffic during construction. And the Chapel Hill Boulevard traffic could continue to flow on the side roads while that construction was going. So what you're in essence doing is allowing people to come up to this interchange and do a loop around or a loop around or go out and same thing down at 40, the same thing beyond. So that's how you configure the same functionality. And just to let you know that what our traffic engineers had to do, they had to show that this would not only carry the traffic volumes that the previous design would carry, but also those volumes based on 2040 traffic projections, whereas the previous one I believe was based on 2020 traffic projections. Now the other question that you asked was actually a comment that Mr. Waldrop made, and that is he is a, having been a student of this area for the last 25 years, has gone and researched what the actual traffic counts on 15501 are today. And Mike I believe you said there's something in a range of 30 or 40% less than what were actually projected during the 1994 study. So that 94 corridor study said by 2015 there will be this much traffic on 15501 and what we actually have right now is this much traffic on 15501. And that's why with all due respect to Mr. Judge, we think it's just speculation on if and when these freeway improvements will ever take place because there's other ways to handle that traffic now. Commissioner Whitley? Okay.  And one thing I know for sure in my experience in the last three years is they will do what you did not expect them to do. You know, right now we have a project. Wait a minute, I need some answers to some questions. One, when they have a co-leaf, it's not just a direct traffic onto one highway. It's to take ongoing traffic from other highways onto that highway. Isn't that the way it works? You have increased traffic and you want it to flow in one direction. And that's to take the... That's a good question. And because I'm not the traffic expert, I'm going to introduce our traffic engineer, John Davenport, who has that answer. Good evening. My name is John Davenport with John Davenport Engineering. I'll start with your question. You want to re-ask that out? I'll try to answer that the best way I can. It's been my experience with co-leafs. I learned a lot when we were trying to get the East End connector into East Durham about co-leafs. It's the direct traffic. It takes contributing streets and traffic to send it in in two different... It feeds into the highway. And if this is going to be a speedway, then you're talking about a lot of traffic. Am I not right? Okay, so try to answer your first question. First of all, interchanges are designed to separate the through movements of roadways. So if you have 15501 Southwest Durham Drive, right now there's a traffic signal. So anything that you would build that would be considered an interchange would be to separate those through movements. And then you have ramps to allow those people to turn left and right and so on and so forth. You can do that with a co-leaf or many other types of interchanges, which we study three of them for this particular project. Now, to answer your other question as far as speeds, the idea along with the idea of 15501 is that ultimately there wouldn't be a traffic signal there. So whatever interchange you build out there, the speed would be the same on 15501. The speed wasn't my problem. My problem is that my experience with 15501 is that by each year, unlike Mr. Jor, I've seen increased traffic. Absolutely. Yeah, I've seen these and DLT in the letter projects increased traffic. You know, that being the case, we're asked to, we serve as commissioners, we serve as advisory to the city council. And for me, I feel a little trapped because the information, we don't have all the information. And to make a decision when you don't have all the information, my judgment is a flawed decision. And for that reason alone, I love the analysis. I think it's something would be great for that area, but I would like to have more information to make a sound decision. And for that reason alone, I cannot, I can't move it forward. I can't vote to vote forward. So we understand that. Is it that I give you a little bit more information as to how we got there if I can continue to answer your question? You can. Okay, very good. How many minutes I have left? Well, you guys can ask me any questions you want to. Okay, so I understand and I've been listening to the discussion and very well aware of NCDOTI. I worked with them for 10 years before I started my firm. So I tell people I served a 10-year sentence and got up with good behavior. And I understand how NCDOT works. What we have here is an area that was not ever officially studied as a feasibility for interchange. It was a concept and that's the difference here. So when you're asking for answers, you're asking for answers that were never actually determined ever. So that was one of the challenges of our study was to come in and utilize a 1994 concept and take 2040 volumes and make it work. So to give you a word picture, that would be like using the communication we had in 1994. So beepers and flip phones to utilize a GPS system that didn't exist at that time. And so we have worked with the current transportation technologies that are out there. And this interchange is very similar to what you'd find out by Angus Barn. That's a local location, Westgate.  Very similar, tight type interchange. Urban, it was built that way because you didn't want to buy a lot of right away. So we took that because what happened in 1994, that plan, there was nothing out there. When we came in with 2040 volumes, there's a whole lot out there. So we had to consider all those things. And so when they talked about how much money and time was spent, we did spend a lot of time and money trying to give the city of Durham and NCDOT an answer that they don't have yet. So the problem is that they haven't even prioritized a study for this interchange. To date, we've done more study on this interchange than anyone else has done, period. So that's the catch-22 that we find ourselves in. We've already studied as much as we can. They haven't studied it at all since 1994. And we're utilizing the information that we're providing. So I understand where you're coming from. We just want to make sure you understand the analysis that was going into it. We're utilizing data that's 2040 volumes from the city of Durham. And we're working with a flip phone and a beeper. And what you have now is the best that we can do based on the data and the information that's available now to try to help these guys move forward. I appreciate that, Mr. Davenport. You know, here's my problem. One, going moving forward, we put a speed, I mean, our rail system in jeopardy because they have to make other decisions. You put an increased traffic where DOT would have to make new adjustments. In fact, it would probably increase the property value of your project if we moved it forward and DOT had to come and take it. You know, make it too expensive to put it there. Or maybe they had the right price. You know, you see, I don't have answers to enter those things. And it's not my job to determine whether something is financial beneficial to you or the developer. It's our job to make a decision that will not put the city council in a bind. You know, and to make a decision where you know you're going to have conflict and you don't have all the answers, the best way, I just have to vote with caution. And I only have one vote and there are others. I understand that this is unfair to you. I really understand that. And I think it's unfair to the citizens of Durham because this could be good for that area. But I'm not ready to vote for it. Reverend Wentley, if I can answer one of your questions, though, you had concerns over whether we were going to negatively affect the light rail. We are not. I can emphatically say we are not. The GO Triangle has identified two potential corridors, one being here and one being here. And I can assure you that those corridors will be well preserved and we will not be affecting those at all. Okay. All right. Thank you. I thought I heard that it would. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, the other commissioners that haven't spoke. Okay. Second round. I have Freeman. I have Miller. I have Huff. I have Winder's. I have Gibbs and Brian. Okay. Mr. Gibbs. Two minutes each. Sir. Pat. My comment is to what Mr. Wentley just brought up and excuse me. And this is, this is why I would support this going forward because we can talk about these things and we can only make recommendations. And I don't think there's any way that we're going to pressure the city council and any decisions. But at that next step is where more questions are asked. You get into deeper conversations. You learn more about what's going on. And I think we will find out more and more of what we need to move forward. We can't keep waiting for the light rail to be put in the rail to be the commuter rail to be put in. Does everything stop? No. But there has to be some coordination. And this, this is not going to be a complicated area. And I, and I have seen where the light rail or the commuter rail, the past is not even going to be involved here. We would not even support closing Southwest Durham Drive and going over to New Hope Commons, even if this highway becomes a thoroughfare. But anyway, that's, that's the kind of questions that I'm talking about that will keep coming up. This is not going to be the last time we'll see this kind of situation. The carter between Durham and Chapel Hill is going to, there are going to be people who want to develop areas. And there is going to be more and more conversation about how is this going to interact with plans for transit. And not beating that enough. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just one more question for Mr. Joule. This is speculative. I understand that. But if we move forward, if the city council move forward and approve this, what, what happens if DOT then does come in and says we need to build this interchange from your perspective? Well, certainly if they came back and said we need to build the interchange designed in 1994, whenever that might be, then they would have to condemn the property and purchase it and build the interchange. That's not going to happen. You know, there are other designs out there for this interchange where DOT will come in and say we can make this fit. Because the cost of acquiring the land will allow them to look at different interchange designs. The city has already decided that this design will work. Now the city is not in CDOT. But there are other designs that will work. And our charge was to find something that will work besides what's currently on the books. By the way, I need to clarify the email that we got from Division Engineer Hopkins. Not only said they would not comment, it said they are statutorily prohibited from taking a position on this design. That's the email you received 30 minutes ago. And I will go now. Does that give you pause then as you look at my scenario question and your response? No, no. We are even more certain that we have a design here that will accommodate whatever future volumes of improvements are needed to 15501 and won't need to impact this property or other properties around it. Thank you. Commissioner Friedman. I just want to make a comment and say that attending last night's county commission meeting, I made a reference to the concern about having a comprehensive plan in place and actually getting that updated. I want to say that it's not the light rail that's stopping this. It's the lack of a plan around transit and comprehensive or compact neighborhoods. All of that needs to be coordinated. Otherwise, we're going to see a kind of discombobulated development happening around all of the transit stops and that's where my concern lies. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very much persuaded by what Commissioner Member Whitley said. As the other commission members know, when I think the comprehensive plan is wrong, I'll say so and I will vote in order to accomplish a result I think is right. But I do not, that's not to suggest that I always think that the comprehensive plan is wrong. Actually, I'm a big supporter of the comprehensive plan and comprehensive planning. In this instance, the comprehensive plan envisions a vehicular corridor between Durham and Chapel Hill. It's a freeway and wants to separate these intersections. I think if we recommend to the city council that they go forward with this rezoning without adjusting the plan, that's wrong. So my recommendation to you, my fellow commission members is that we send this forward with a recommendation that they not do this. They can still do it if they want to, but I recommend that it shouldn't go with our seal of approval. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Huff. I think that it would have been a lot easier tonight for everybody if we had had a picture of that old plan with the cloverleaf. If we had had a picture of say the Angus Barn intersection where we could see, where we could compare and contrast. I'm inclined to believe that the plan that you all are proposing is a more pedestrian friendly plan in the long term than a cloverleaf ever would be. And I just wish that I'd had more information before I came in here tonight, you know, to think about this. And I suggest when you go before city council, make sure they know. Thank you. Thank you. This, by the way, does show the first slide I showed. This shows that intersection design superimposed on the properties. Commissioner Wyndes. I just like to say that it seems to me that the use that is proposed is a good temporary use for the thinking that it's going to, in another 20 or 30 years. It will become denser development as the light rail is going to change, should change traffic counts and what's going on during Chapel Hill Boulevard. And so it's seen the risk, I believe, that we face if this development goes forward is that DOT is not going to come and tell us, we want to make this intersection, you know, if it's, you know, the risk we face is that traffic will continue to get worse on 15501 and the cost of doing the interchange would have increased because now we have buildings there where it used to be just land. So it, and we know it's not going to be any, it's out there in the future somewhere. And they're not even going to, that's why they're, and unless, so I think that's the risk and I'm kind of willing to take that risk because I do believe that this, the design for the interchange fits the, you know, 2015 better than this cloverleaf here and it is kind of a little leap of faith that we have not had sufficient engineering done on it. You know, DOT is going to have to do it over again, I guess, and that'll cost them more money. So that'll make it less likely that the road gets approved but I think I would go with taking the risk. Okay, the chair will now entertain a motion on this item. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we move case number Z140030 forward for approval. Second. Motion by Commissioner Hyman, seconded by Commissioner Miller that we move forward zoning case Z1400030 and just so you understand, if you vote yes on this, you're voting to move it forward with approval of the plan with the zoning change. If you vote no, you move it forward but with the now of the zoning request. Okay, all those in favor of this motion, let it be no am I showing the right hand? All those in opposition raise your right hand. Okay, the chair has received a request that we take a five minute break. So if you would be back in about five minutes, we appreciate it. To order. Good to meet you, John. Thank you very much. I'd like to reconvene the Planning Commission meeting tonight and we will go to 6B, Handover Point Subdivision Area zoning case 1500011. Mr. Chair, before we begin, I need to recuse myself for this case. Do I need to step out? Sit down. Thank you. I now declare the public hearing open for Z1500011. Thank you. Amy Wolfe with Durham Planning Department. This case, Handover Point Subarea A, Z1500011. The applicant is Lanark, Carolinas. It is within the city's jurisdiction and the request is from Plan Development Residential 4.760 to Plan Development Residential 6.038. The site is 13.47 acres and the proposed use is for 64 residential units. The site is in the suburban tier. It fronts on East Horseshoe Road. It is south of Pleasant Drive. There is a small portion of Frontage along Pleasant Drive. It is mostly north of Beale Street. There are two parcels that are south of Beale Street. This is a portion of a previously approved case, case number 0604. Subarea A of that case was a little bit larger this. It is really a portion of the original subarea A. A detailed history is included in your staff report. You can tell on this context map there are property lines already consistent with the residential subdivision on this subject site. The request does meet the standards of the PDR district or Plan Development Residential District. The site is 13.47 acres. The proposed density is 6.038 dwelling units per acre and that would yield 64 units. The maximum height would be 35 feet. The existing conditions are shown here. Again, I mentioned that basically this is not a commitment. This is the existing conditions. The subject site has already been platted for development. I believe it is mostly constructed. I can speak to that. There is a portion of a stream buffer on the two parcels that are south of Beale Street. The proposed conditions are shown here. It includes the site access points, the required buffers, as well as additional committed buffers, which I will go over in a moment, and the proposed tree coverage area and the riparian buffer feature, which is on the south of the site. The proposed intensity is first 64 residential units. There are four external site access points. The impervious surface maximum is 52.18 percent and a 24.17 percent tree coverage. The graphic commitments include location of tree preservation and location of the access points. There is a number of text commitments. You will see in your packet, I forget the attachment number, but there are a history of the text commitments from the original development that are explained from the applicant in your packet. What it remains is as follows. A 50-foot, 80 percent opacity buffer, which is shown on the graphic, which is to the north and west of the site, will not be zero lot line houses permitted. The applicant will provide $500 per dwelling unit as a donation to the Durham Public Schools. The housing type will be limited to single family, and there will be intersection improvements at Pleasant Drive and Horseshoe Drive as shown, and also improve East Horseshoe Drive, South Horseshoe Drive, and a portion of Western Horseshoe Drive to Pleasant Drive per NCDOT standards. This request is consistent with the future land use map of our comprehensive plan, which designates this area as four to eight dwelling units per acre, or low-medium density residential. And for some reason, there we go. There was a stop in the presentation, excuse me, comprehensive plan policies that were looked at with this request. This request is consistent with those shown here that are applicable to the plan, and staff determines this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances, and staff will be available for your questions. Thank you. I have one person signed up to speak, Robert Schunk. Hi, good evening. My name is Robert Schunk. I work with Stork, located here at 101 West Main Street in downtown Durham. I will repeat everything that Amy said, but let me try to drive here a little bit better. What Amy did explain is that this is a rezoning to revise the plan that we got approved in 2006. This was the plan here where there were three different areas that we had previously approved. The purpose of the rezoning is to remove a commitment that related to East Horseshoe Road, which is located along the western side of this development here. In 2006, Public Works Department requested that we upgrade East Horseshoe Road, this section here, and then follow it. Here's the match line. It goes up to Pleasant Drive to City of Durham Standards. That standard was to provide a section with a 33-foot wide road with curving gutter section. At that time, we agreed to the commitment. Since then, we worked with Public Works in trying to evaluate that design. As part of your attachment, I think it's attachment number eight, I believe. Attachment number eight, you'll see in there in your staff report where City of Durham Public Works has agreed that Horseshoe Road cannot be designed to meet stormwater criteria, do the combination of ordinance criteria, existing structure, drainage patterns, topography, et cetera. We are here simply to request that you agree that we do not have to construct that. In its place, we have worked with the NCDOT. Here's the approved encroachment agreement drawing. If you look here, this is the connection to Horseshoe Road, or this is the connection to Hanover Point. This here is East Horseshoe Road, and it's connection to Pleasant Drive. Instead of building a 33-foot wide road with curving gutter, we'll be upgrading the road from an 18-foot wide ribbon paved road to a 20-foot wide section. One of the commitments is also to provide a wide outside turn lane here that we had agreed to back in 2006. Also, Amy alluded to, in attachment nine, it shows you a history of all of the 14 original commitments that were proffered and provides the status of those commitments. Some of those commitments have been completed. Some of them may remain in this current list, and some are deemed no longer applicable by city staff, as indicated in the staff report. I'll reserve any additional time for any other questions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other members in the audience wishing to speak to this item? Chairman Harris, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Patrick Byker with Morningstar Law Group here in Durham, representing Lenard, Carolinas, just here answering any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Speaking for or against? Okay. Once you state your name and address and once you leave the podium, please go over here and, well, come up here and sign this sheet. Okay. And you too, Patrick. Stephanie Risben, 129 Pleasant Drive. I just actually have some questions about the map that was just presented. I haven't seen this before. The section of roadway next to 129 Pleasant Drive, how wide and how much of the tree line will you take? This is on the east side. Yes, this is the long side. The improvements will remain inside the right of way. So... No trees will be removed outside of the long strip right away. Okay. So that's 100 feet right there. Okay. If you could speak into the mic because this is being televised and we want the people at home to hear you. Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. On the southeast intersection, which is right here, no trees outside of the public way will be removed. This property is also owned by Lenard, Carolinas. Right, that long strip. That's this long strip here, ma'am. And then across the street you can see there will be some topography there and Lenard, Carolinas has reached an agreement with that property on the southwest corner of Horseshoe and Pleasant for a grading easement. Okay. Mr. Chair, if I might, I'm sorry, point of information for the commission. The graphics that have been provided by the applicant pursuant to the UDO become commitments. So these have not previously been provided to staff, but they'll now become commitments going forward. End of problem with that. No, sir. These are approved encroachment agreement drawings that we have under construction. Okay. Page. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? Yes, sir. For our guests. Yes. My name is Adam Swank. I'm an 1123 Horseshoe Road. And my question is exactly... I'm speaking to the mic. Exactly what are the improvements that you plan to make in terms of southwest and east Horseshoe Road? Sir, excuse me, sir, if I could get your name and address, please. Thank you. The improvements to south and west Horseshoe Road will be... will consist of pavement patching of poor road sections which have been completed as of today. And then whether permitting tomorrow will be providing an overlay of that entire roadway section. Okay. Did you hear that, sir? Uh... My concern is that Horseshoe Road is basically just asphalt laid on dirt. And does that can... What you're going... The improvements you're going to make to this road is that consistent with NCDOT standards? It is. Over the last... It's probably even dating back a couple of years now. Different corings were taken. Different samples of the substructure of these roads were taken. By the... by geotechnical engineers, they were shared with the NCDOT. The NCDOT was out on site in the last couple of weeks marking areas of where the roadway needed to be repaired. So if you were out there this past week, you would see sections of pavement that were existing. And then you'd also see pavement repairs. And then over top of all of that will be a new surface of asphalt. And again here, these are the approved drawings that the NCDOT approved specifying those plans. Okay. Thank you. Anna, what else? Another question. Was there a traffic study done for the intersection of Horseshoe and Pleasant? Because that is right at the crest of a hill. And there are already accidents several times a year there. Okay. Either somebody being rear-ended or whatever. And I'm just worried that four lanes instead of two would be even worse. Mr. Judge? There was a traffic impact analysis completed with the original zoning request, but I don't believe... I don't recall the intersection of Pleasant and Mineral Springs as one of the... Did you say Pleasant and Mineral Springs? Pleasant and East Horseshoe. East Horseshoe, yeah. Pleasant and Mineral Springs was included, but Pleasant and East Horseshoe, I don't believe, was included due to the traffic... anticipated traffic volumes didn't meet the threshold, but there were a number of, I guess, intersection improvements required as part of the original zoning proffer that had been reviewed by NCDOT. And that's what the improvements that I believe Mr. Shove is what NCDOT finally determined would be required at that intersection. Okay. Yes, sir. My name is Thomas Beach. I live at 1109 Horseshoe Road. I had a question about the coring samples. When we were speaking with DOT this afternoon, Jason wasn't aware of the results of the coring samples. Can you forward those on to him? Thank you. That's all I had. Okay. All right. Thank you for the... one last time. I said no one else. All right. If not, I will close the public hearing and bring it back. Excuse me before the commissioners. Do I have commissioners wishing to speak? Commissioners wishing to speak. Commissioner Miller. I have a question concerning the sidewalk commitment. And I'm just looking at your letter to Amy Wolfe of May 20, 2015, and text commitment 14 that was in the original development plan required the construction of a length of sidewalk and that that's now not going to be... Can you explain to me about, make sure I understand about where this sidewalk was going to go? Sure. So the requirement... The requirement that committed element 14 refers to is the sidewalk section along south and west horseshoe. That was a... At that time, the way the text commitment was proffered was that we would provide a continuous sidewalk if all of the owners, if enough right away was available and if not enough right away was available that we would be able to obtain continuous easements to construct that. Early this year, we met with the planning department to draft a letter that they would support that for me to send out to the residents. I sent out 22 letters asking, explaining to them, reminding them of the commitment from back in 2006 and explaining to them that in order to construct a continuous sidewalk that we would need to request easements and if they were all agreeable, we'd meet and work out financial arrangements. Of those 22 letters that were sent out, I received 14 back and of the 14, I received nine no's and five yes's. So because we were not able to obtain a continuous sidewalk or the agreement to build a continuous sidewalk in that commitment could no longer be met. And there's not enough right of way currently along the roadways there? No, it's all a ditch line section. All right. Mr. Chairman, one follow-up. Mr. Young, in lieu of sidewalks, actually constructing them, is there something else a developer can do? In terms of commitments towards pedestrian connectivity? Commissioner Miller, could you elaborate on, do you mean like a payment in lieu or something? Yes, like a payment. The problem, typically the answer would be yes, if it was a property where the right of way was in the city limits, but since this is in the county's jurisdiction, the county does not operate a payment in lieu program or any program to operate or maintain sidewalks. So there's really no mechanism for us to... And the right of way here we're talking about is North Carolina Department of Transportation. Lots of difficulties. That's correct. And they have expressed an unwillingness in the past to operate or maintain such a program. All right. Well, thank you very much. Commissioner Linus, okay. Commissioner Hyman. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always get very concerned when I hear discussion about the need to repair roads or improve them or maintain them. And I'm just curious about why that's an issue and why the roads are being repaired by the developer since that was a question raised by one of the residents. Yes, the developer. And how are these roads maintained currently? All of the roads are maintained by the NCDOT or they attempt to maintain them. Does that answer your question? Well, apparently they're in need of repair. Yes, ma'am. And so my question was one of the things that I get very concerned about is when I hear from the residents that there's a need to repair them. But in this particular case, you're willing to do that. Yes, in 2006 the developer at that time agreed to pave south and west horseshoe road. And we're continuing to do that. Okay. That was my question. Thank you so much. Okay. Seeing no other hands. The chair will entertain a motion on this item. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I move that the planning commission send forward case seven. I mean Z-1500011 with a favorable recommendation. Motion by Commissioner Miller, second by Commissioner Bugsy that we move forward zoning case 1500011. All those in favor, let it be known. My show of your right hand. Okay. So all our opposition have the same. It passed unanimously. Now the chair will open the public hearing on zoning case Davis drive west revision Z-1500015. Mr. Chairman, before we do that, I would like for there to be some sort of notation in our record of this meeting that during the public hearing and the commission's discussion and debate of the motion, the commission member gosh was not present. I believe he had recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Is that correct? Mr. Goche. And let me ask Mr. Miller. I mean Mr. Young. In the future, do we need to accept that as a motion and carry it through? Yep. My understanding of the proper procedure on that is that there should be a vote to if a member asked to be excused, there should be a vote to excuse the member. It's been practice that a member can essentially self identify and be excused. So I don't think there's any need to go back in this instance. We will annotate the minutes to make sure that it's clear that he was not present and part of the conversation on the last case. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Miller for bringing it to my attention. Ms. Wolff. Thank you. Amy Wolff with the planning department. The next case is Davis Park West revisions 2150015. The applicant is Klein Design Associates. The site is within the city's jurisdiction and the request is for modification of design commitments. The site is 29.84 acres and the present designation is commercial general with a development plan. And the request again is to modify the design commitments associated with that designation. The site is in the compact neighborhood tier at 362 and 390 Davis Drive. It's at the intersection of Davis Drive and Hopson Road. The CGD or commercial general with the development plan zoning existing zoning was approved in 2008. And just for background information, it was approved for 270 to 330 residential units with a range of non residential square footage of 29,000, 82,000 square feet and a 180 room hotel. The request is a modification of the design commitments for the residential only. You can see here on the slide as well as in your staff report that the first request is to remove the committed number of stories and pitched roof commitment. I've provided the strikeout and underlined version here. Again, the essential meat, if you will, of this request is to remove three and four stories and we'll have predominantly pitched roof and just basically strike that and say residential buildings will be designed to complement the adjacent architectural styles at Finsbury and the non residential buildings in Davis Park West. The second request of the design commitment modification is to revise the exterior building materials to add a few other, two other items. And you can see the stricken and underlined version here that the exterior building materials will, the added language include at least one as opposed to a combination of masonry standard size brick block size, that should say brick, synthetic stucco and the addition of cementitious siding and cementitious panel and glass. This request, the CGD district is consistent with the future land use map of our comprehensive plan which designates the site as commercial and staff determines this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and staff is available for any questions. Thank you, Amy. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to this item? The chair will close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. Do I have commissioners wishing to speak to this item? Miller? Commissioner Gouche? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for staff recognizing. Speaking to you, Mike. I'm sorry? Speaking to you, Mike. Question for staff recognizing that you have recommended approval. I'm wondering, do you evaluate these conditions for their enforceability? And if so, I guess I have a follow-up question. Basically, the answer is yes. We do evaluate them for enforceability. The design commitments are, there are requirement of a development plan for non-residential projects. We do not, there's, I think, four criteria that the applicant has to provide information for. But we don't really have a say as to what that criteria is, but we do review what they give us for enforceability. Okay. I guess my question, when I'm looking at one of these, that says that the roofs will be complementary in style. My question is how do you define complementary for enforceability purposes? I believe that's in the context section. So at site plan, stage elevations are provided when necessary and are reviewed at the time of site plan for what that complementary criteria is. And I think that's one of the things that I'm not involved in that review process. So I don't know the specifics of that, but anything written as an answer to these design commitments is reviewed at site plan stage. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I address this comment to my fellow commission members. I'm going to vote against this. My concern is, is that if we approve this change to the development plan, to essentially what we will be allowing the developer to do is to build another very large multifamily project similar to the others that have been going up all over town and cover it with cementations panels when the original design commitments provide for a greater variety of architectural appearance, I think that we need to do that. My concern is, is the result of this site will be another building like the building at 605 on West Chapel Hill Street, which in my opinion is not a very attractive building. I think the original design commitments were good ones. I'm not particularly concerned about the number of stories. If you say three and four story buildings and you want to build a two-story building, I think you ought to be able to build a two-story building. I can go along with that. I hate to see that the, I'm not necessarily requiring the developer to be locked into pitched roofs, but I would hate to see them be all flat. My real concern is the materials. I think there should be a combination of materials as the original development plan requires, and I would hate to see these buildings clad with cementations board. It's just, the result is kind of throwaway architecture. Development plan is our tool to guide these things. This developer brought forward what I thought was a reasonable set of commitments, and I think that we ought to stick to them or change them only when there is a really strong reason to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair, would now entertain a motion on this item? Commissioner Gibbs, turn your mic on. I just have a comment if I could before I'm not making a motion. I'm not making a motion. I'm not making a motion. I'm not making a motion. I'm not making a motion. Yes. Okay. My position is sort of opposite from what you just heard, and I don't think we should be in trying to control design. Cementitious materials covers a broad range of things, and it has a place and to just arbitrarily eliminate a design element for fear of what it may end up being. I don't know where in the process, unless it's in the review process, that somebody can just say, I don't like this in red market, but we should not be at this point before the designer even puts pencil to paper. That was my error. To limit the use of all materials anyway, I would like to support this for that reason, and I'm not trying to be contrary. It's just that I have a difference of opinion on this. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Huff and Commissioner Whitland. Can they put more than four stories? Can these buildings go taller? They're relieving them of the number of story commitments. So as currently written, the applicants have committed to three or four stories. The underlying zoning district has a maximum of 50 feet. Okay. So by removing the requirement for specific stories, you're limiting yourself to the base zoning, which is 50 feet. Commissioner Whitland, I like the idea when developers come in and see what's there and try to conform to what the neighborhood is already doing. I will vote for this project. The chair is willing to entertain a motion. Commissioner Friedman. I just wanted to know specifically how the impact of the commercial general with this development, if we didn't approve it, what would this do? What would that mean? If this were not improved, the applicant could move forward with the existing zoning and existing design commitments that were voluntary at the time. No question. So is it, I'm noticing that it's more, like we're becoming more accustomed to just based on the requests approving rather than looking at what it is already. I believe the applicant has, or excuse me, the planning director has identified that we are limited in scope for design commitment change. The design commitment change has a different fee structure and it's just a different type of application. So we've processed it just looking at the scope of the requested change and I provided the underlying zoning summary just for context. Commissioner Miller. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning Commission send case Z 150015 forward with a favorable recommendation. Commissioner Miller, second by Commissioner. That we move a zoning case 150015 forward with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor of this motion let it be known by showing your right hand. All those in opposition, did you need to putt, oppositions? 12 to 2. So it passes 12 to 2. Now if you look through your packet for 7A, which is RTP COMP plan text amendment A150007, which was 8A, it became 7A. Mr. Chairman. Hold on just a second, let them find it. If I suggest, since these three cases are generally associated with each other as we do in other cases where you have a plan amendment zoning case, you call all three cases, you talk about it at once and then you have your separate motions. Okay, so we open the public hearing on text amendment to the UDO for 7A, which is RTP COMP plan text amendment A150007B, which is SRP TC14 quadruple 067C, which is Park Center Z15 triple 018. Okay, does home occupation go along with that too? No, that's a separate. Okay, so 7AB and C. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael Stock with the Planning Department. These three cases have been submitted by Research Triangle Foundation and are within the county jurisdiction. The text amendment itself is actually requested to be a county-only text amendment. A150007 is a request to amend the Durham Comprehensive Plan, text only for text related to RTP specifically. TC140006 is to add text to UDO for a new zoning district entitled Science Research Park Center, or SRP-C, and then Z1500018 is the request to rezone 100.4 acres of property within RTP. Detailed, we'll get that later in the presentation from CC NSRP to the SRP-C district. I'm just going to go through a brief summary of each case and then let the applicant speak. The plan amendment cases, as I mentioned before, a change to text only. There is no future land use map amendment required for this. The future land use for the entire Park Center site is commercial, and the zoning map change would be consistent with that. The current Comprehensive Plan text does not acknowledge Research Triangle Park to any significant extending. In fact, there's no policies or discussion anywhere except for one where it asks or kind of suggests the planning department work with our Research Triangle Foundation for their master plan. That's about it. Otherwise, the Comprehensive Plan is silent in regards to Research Triangle Park. And thus also the current and Research Triangle Park is located in a suburban tier. And the current suburban tier goals, objectives and policies reflect standard suburban development patterns. So there was a conundrum when they proposed this new district as to it was pretty much contrary to all the standard suburban tier policies that are within the current Comprehensive Plan in terms of lower intensity development. In fact, there's specific language that says there shall be a separation of uses in the county. It was just quite obviously contrary. So the proposed text acknowledges A, it acknowledges the importance of RTP and its uniqueness within the suburban tier and to Durham as a whole and also sets land use and economic development policies that are reflective of the future needs of RTP. The text amendment, and so those are the policy standards that the applicant is looking to set in support of the text amendment and the zoning map change. So the text amendment would establish a new district. It's called Science Research Park Center or SRPC. Again, the application is county only. I'm just going to run through some very summary of the text amendment. Obviously there's, it's a lot more detailed as outlined in your agenda packet. Basically, in order to establish the zoning of SRPC, the contiguous property would have to about at least 75% of property that's already zoned SRP. So it's mandating that properties seeking or to be zoned this district are located within or near Science Research Park zone properties and there's a minimum initial area for 25, initial zoning area for 25 acres. The use provides for a wide range and mix of uses very similar to the wide range of uses that would be allowed in the Dian districts plus including certain light industrial research development uses. It provides for development flexibility within the zoning area. Most of the limitations that it's put on are more impacting towards its impacts outside of its zoning, for properties outside of the zoning area. It does maintain open space and three coverage requirements minimums. It does propose 300 foot height maximums with podium and step back requirements with those proposed heights. Maintains TIA traffic impact analysis requirements but would be exempt from transportation special use permit requirements. And then they also propose additional limited use standards on a number of the uses that would be allowed. A lot of those are either consistent with those limited use standards already found in design districts or further limitations on uses that might not be found in design districts but are design limitations. For the zoning map change, the zoning map change focuses on the 100 acres at Park Center bound by Davis Drive to the east, MC54 to the south, 147 to the west and I40 to the north. Primarily, it is primarily zoned commercial center with a small sliver zoned SRP. The future land use of the entire site is commercial and thus the zoning would be consistent with that future land use designation. So for the zoning map change, the current zoning again is CC and SRP. Site acreage is 100.4. The minimum requirement for the new district would be 25 acres so it would meet that minimum requirement. The adjacency requirement is minimum requirement 75%. They are at 87%. There is a portion of their adjacent to an OI zoned site on Davis Drive. Again, the future land use designation is commercial and recreation open space. There is a stream running through the site that calls for that recreation open space designation. Adjacent zonings are primarily SRP and that bank site to the northeast. That's zoned OI and adjacent use is currently our office science research and light industrial. The staff determination is that assuming that the plan amendment is approved that the zoning request and the text amendment request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and ethical policies and ordinances. I'll be happy to answer any questions and the representatives from research triangle foundation are here too also. Thank you, Mr. Stout. So I have Bob Gillis from the foundation and he has his technical staff here to ask the questions that we may have. Corey can help me here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bob Gillis. I'm the president and CEO of the research triangle foundation. For over 50 years, the research triangle foundation has been the steward organization of the research triangle park. We operate as a not for profit with a mission to do three core things to support education, to create meaningful work and to help lift up all the people of the state of North Carolina. So while we get up every day and do that wonderful job, we also have this responsibility for 7,000 acres, the largest research park in all of North America, a significant global brand of the largest economic engine for the state of North Carolina. We have somewhere between 40 to 45,000 people who work in the park every day. We're over 200 companies in the park and we have an interesting figure which is about 60% of those companies have 20 employees or less. So that while most people think of the park as full of large corporate companies, it's actually a very dynamic mix of tenants and organizations within the research triangle park. Despite all that success, the world is changing very dramatically. The suburban research park that was so forward thinking 50 years ago is not the park that is or the type of environment that is as favorable as that once was. People want greater access to transit. They want the ability to walk, ride bikes. They want the ability to catch some kind of rail or some other system to connect to the region. They want the ability to live closer to where they work and they want a lot more amenities. And we know that as important as the research triangle brand is, that it in fact has branded our region as the triangle, we feel a special obligation to make sure that the research triangle park remains at the forefront of places around the world that people think of as amazing places for research, technology and innovation. We feel a historic obligation to our cities, our region, our state and in fact our country to make sure we're doing that. So a little over four or five years ago, a little over four years ago, it was five, we began a master planning process where the park center property was one of the pieces that was identified as a place where we could develop essentially a mixed use concept. If you look at the map here, you can certainly, if you're not already familiar, I'm sure you all are, where the research triangle park sits, essentially we're at the main and main of our region, between Durham and Raleigh and Chapel Hill at 147, Highway 54 and Raleigh is at the center of that central location and we think therefore makes an ideal location for this type of development. It's already been known as a place where people come for a different kind of activity that exists in the rest of the park. Many of you may be familiar with the old governors in that used to sit on that site. There's a couple of banks that sit there now. At one time there were a couple of other banks that sat on that site and looked at exactly what's wrong with research triangle park. It is essentially a very inactive space. It is an old suburban model and we have been setting out to look at it differently. This shows you the current buildings on the site, the governor's in has been taken down. But we have a variety of buildings. Some we've occupied, some we will keep the entire site as being a prime site for redevelopment of this new type of activity. And this of course is an aerial photograph. And you can see on there that essentially the site is bounded I-40 Davis Drive 147 Highway 54. We have worked very closely and diligently with all of the neighbors around the property with our park tenants, with city and county officials, making sure that we go about creating the kind of environment that will have the sort of brand significance for RTP but would also be a great amenity and resource to our region and our state. We set out four redevelopment principles when we got started with this process. We said whatever we build has to be highly collaborative. And what we mean by that is not just physically collaborative, not just spaces that are close together but a commitment to a lot of programmatic collaboration. And you will have seen over the last three years a commitment by our foundation to do a lot more engagement with our cities and our counties and our region in order to create that greater sense of programmatic collaboration. But we believe that collaborative nature, a place where people can gather, whether it's for recreation, whether it's for work, whether it's for food, whether it's for fun, we need to have a collaborative space and environment to do that. We use the word authentic. You could use the word genuine. Essentially what we're saying is that while we are a recognized brand, we therefore need to have a more recognized look. So what I like to say is we're not trying to be Boston, Austin, Silicon Valley or Abu Dhabi, right? So we've been working with planners and designers who can help us sort of capture a new forward thinking for design and look that will fit for this new research triangle park. We need to be able to go anywhere in the world and put a picture up on a board whether we're in Beijing or Bavaria or Birmingham, England and be able to say this is research triangle park in North Carolina and have a certain characteristic. It needs to be genuine. It also needs to be inspiring. And in this case it's really about the fact that people visit research triangle park today if they don't get lost they hardly know where they are. They hardly understand what's going on behind all those gates and trees. And while many of our companies desire that secrecy the sad part is that it means the people of North Carolina or the visitors who come from around the world have no idea of all the amazing things that have happened in research triangle park. Whether it's for something like Astroturf or the barcode to amazing drugs that are currently being developed by Biogen today around multiple sclerosis or research being done on the Ebola vaccine. They don't have any idea of all the great work that's being done with our universities from NC Central to Duke University to Appalachian State to UNC Wilmington. And we think that's a shame. So we want an environment where the public can engage in experience and get excited about the future of science, technology, engineering and math, but with a convergence of arts and humanities. One of the things we think that have desperately been missing from research triangle park today are places for entertainment, for great sculpture, music and artists. So inspiring. And then finally to make it as accessible and as affordable as possible. We have to be about a place for the creation of ideas and so we need to reduce barriers to make that happen. So accessibility is looking at things like transit. Today it's a shame but you can't really move very easily around the park. Now look we've got the largest pedestrian trail system and bike system I think of anybody but we don't have a great bike share programs and we should. We should have great transit network and we've been looking at the way that we've become the new regional transit center for our region because so many people come into the park every day. We should that accessibility should be something that second nature and it doesn't exist in the park today. And affordability is really looking at ways we create ultimately buildings and design and architecture that suit everything from accessible affordable office space but also having some dedicated percentage in the park of affordable housing workforce housing and also having a variety of environments where regardless of your income RTP becomes a place that you know you're welcome we want you to be a part of our community you bring value to that. So with all of that in mind we looked at that 100 acre site we worked and you'll see here this is kind of a general concept plan just shows you what is available in terms of physical development sites it's not meant to show you anything that's been vertically designed because we haven't designed anything vertical yet but it is to show you what is possible from structured parking to streets but what's really exciting here I think is the variety of green spaces and the variety of placemaking that we're focused on here and a lot of what we're looking at doing is stitching together the urban space or the urban amenity type project really into the context of a park that we are research triangle park it's about green space it's about trees so why not really have the most collaborative park like setting that we could come up with we think that's much more authentic than trying to be a downtown or a city which we're not and we already have great downtowns in cities so we want to create something along that context so we started looking at the potential green space opportunities which are really quite significant and saying okay how do we begin to define those what can those become as part of the story and the character that when people visit this place gets them excited and gives them things to do and you can see here it shows even more clearly the variety of green spaces how much more time you need to complete your presentation I think about five minutes and I'll be all done Mr. Chairman move that we allow the applicant an extra five or six minutes second motion is second all those that fail say aye I thank you my wife often says I talk way too long and this is a great example of that division for park center a regional asset a global destination a demonstration site for innovation and technology a connected and engaged community creating jobs and improving education we see an opportunity here as we build out park center to ultimately double the number of jobs in research triangle park it's not just about the recruitment of new jobs this is about retaining the jobs and companies we have there today that we're concerned we could ultimately lose if we don't create these kind of exciting new environments that the employees and the companies want to be a part of so we are really focused on the first phase phase one the east side and you can see a little more clearly there the specific ideas around the stream that runs through the park creating a great stream like garden about 300,000 square feet of retail new hotels residential and office product that would make up that east side we did a very conservative analysis on the retail you can see there that there's a great opportunity for a broad range of retail within the research triangle within the park center east side that we would look to bring into this to this development and then the rest of this here is just a variety of graphs to give you a sense of the type of character we're working for and we haven't designed anything but this is what we're aiming for creative office fitness center sports anchor hotels residential food and beverage a marketplace which would really be fun kind of at the center of our development is a place where there'd be a variety of and our focus here is really on local food and beverage we want at least 60 70 percent to be local we don't want to have to bring in chains and be like a shopping center that's not what we're aiming to be here but we want a celebration of North Carolina food and regional food and the marketplace is a big part of that convenience retail also a grocery store something like a small whole foods or Trader Joe's and entertainment a big part of it a great opportunity for us to connect across our region by producing great entertainment venues that people can enjoy while they're while they're here in the park with that Mr. Chairman I conclude my remarks be glad to answer any questions thank you Rebecca Boyd Hey there my name is Rebecca Boyd and I live at 3 Hopewell Drive and this will be fast I promise the first is that the development review subcommittee of the by the pedestrian advisory committee late last week to begin to discuss this and as you can see it is not a tiny little bit of text to read and they would like to request that you defer this so that they have time to present it to the full committee which meets next week and it's not yet had a chance to look at this for myself I just have on a personal level two questions for you I was wondering why the tree coverage minimum is only 3% and what do you see happening with the frontier building okay all questions are to the chair so what was those questions I would like you to ask him why why the tree coverage minimum is only 3% and what does he envision happening to the frontier building that is currently on that property okay thank you sure yes I'm sorry when we get back to the commissions we will entertain those questions is there other people in the audience wishing to speak to this item or the other people in the audience wishing to speak if not we will close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners and the first thing you can do is answer those two questions thank you well first to the frontier question the frontier is 140,000 square foot building that we've opened we're very excited about it we see that building being remain open for at least the next 10 years in fact we have a tenant who's moving in there with a 10 year lease commitment so we and that's on the west side of the site so that the frontier project will continue to will continue to invest in that bring opportunities there continue to make that an exciting project on the west side and then Liz maybe to the tree coverage question if you can help me with that one Liz if you could get your name and address please the tree coverage requirement we patterned after the urban tier because the kind of development we'll be doing here is a very urban pedestrian scale development so it will be much more intensive than what you would normally have in a suburban tier 3% will equate to 3 acres of tree coverage which we think is significant for that level of that type of development we also have within RTP itself a significant amount of existing trees that are protected by the lot coverage that we have in the SRP zoning so it's not like it's going to be an area desolute of trees okay do we have commission's wishing to speak to this item okay hold on just let me find my little thing okay I have winders, huff miller freeman Gibbs commission of Gibbs well I had some questions I had several questions and I was going to use the rest of you to focus a little more would you like me to come back to you thank you sir okay commission of freeman I just want to start by saying like this is wonderful this is fabulous the only thing that concerns me is that I would like all of this to be a part of DERM and I'm concerned about this amendment it's kind of like it signals a lack of confidence in the planning department and staff I don't understand if I'm missing something or not but it's kind of like there's a if you were to be given this amendment you would have free reign to do whatever you decided to do and I'm trying to understand where where we're going in this direction so if you could help me with that that would be helpful well it certainly doesn't reflect a lack of confidence in the planning staff we have worked very closely with the staff since December when we first submitted this application to try to craft a district that is a use district as opposed to a planned district or a design district the difficulty in a design district is this is a blank slate it's not like Ninth Street or downtown where you have a context that you are working in we need to be nimble in our NTP we need to be able to respond to companies as they come in and that's why we felt a use district with site plan was the best solution for our particular situation yes so in this instance it's almost as if you're building a city what prevents you from just incorporating and doing I'm at a loss on we have no intent to incorporate we are building and a center for RTP that provides these kind of amenities but we're not trying to be another downtown dorm but you would be another downtown RTP we will be a smaller version we've been working very closely with the Chamber of Commerce in Durham they're very supportive of what we're proposing we think it's good for not only RTP but for Durham and for the entire region I just want to add that I think it's the it's not the plan or what you're trying to do I would support that 100% it's the request for a lack of oversight that concerns me I think as Liz said our intent is not to have oversight our intent is to have flexibility and in the context of the Research Triangle Park and the companies that we serve and the mission of the foundation you know we feel this is the right approach in order for us to be able to respond to a lot of the market demands that are unique to Research Triangle Park to the brand elements of Research Triangle Park that don't necessarily are not necessarily the same for others as Liz says we work very closely with the Durham Chamber and City and County leaders and one of the things that's very exciting to them is that as downtown Durham becomes built out which are getting very close to being the thought of having not another downtown but a dynamic other development center begins to create a dynamic energy along 147 which is very important to Durham County they want to create a greater sense of strength along that 147 so we've talked about it like a barbell right we're going to create another sense of that it also very much begins to give us flexibility to work around transit we do know that RTP becomes that sort of regional center so helping to move people in and out being that connection point we think will be really exciting for the region so once again I just want to clarify I'm not questioning the plans sure yes ma'am what would the feedback loop look like for the neighbors that might not be satisfied with the plan or like what are the the catches that are in place for people to have input in this process well we have an owners and tenants association we also have what's known as the Durham Wake Service District which is a participatory which is a semi-government body which as development occurs within Park Center and revenues are collected that is done in conjunction with the Durham County commissioners and the Wake County commissioners so that there is no sense of let's say taxation without representation or anything like that we very much feel that you need that kind of government accountability we're simply seeking the kind of flexibility on the development side that would again be suitable for a project of the brand and stature and that's essentially isolated in the middle of the research triangle park Commissioner Miller Thank you Mr. Chairman I thought a lot about this since we met and talked about this and you know I expressed some reservations and I still have those reservations but I've tried to organize them in my own thinking and because I know our time tonight is limited I went ahead and wrote down my thoughts if you would pass those down and thought I would share them with you and I will outline them and I left some copies over there with Mr. Young so he can give you one I think that what you're proposing for the research triangle park makes a lot of sense and when we talked I said it's a trust me system well I trust you my problem is that we're creating a zoning district that can be applied elsewhere in Durham County and I'm not sure it's appropriate to have a zoning district that is this permissive that's available on the broad scheme of things however we have to make it available on the broad scheme of things under the statutes that allow cities to create zoning ordinances so I have some ideas about how to alleviate my fears of unintended consequences of creating so permissive a district that will not interfere in any way with what you folks want to do and the flexibility that you want I'd like to go through those a little bit this isn't going to be restricted to just RTP or even to Trayburn because if you can get 40 or 50 acres together you can ask for a rezoning for the SRP and the SRPC zone in combination so as you can create a district like this anywhere and I don't think that's what we've intended but since this zone practically has no significant limitations dimensional requirements or anything I mean you won't be able to build drive-in theaters and you won't be able to do heavy industrial uses but other than that it's pretty much wide open I'm afraid that this might wind up being kind of the go-to district for shopping centers because you could have one of these districts and build nothing but a shopping center without the limitations that we impose in the CC zone or the GC zone so what I would like to see is that we create a contextual requirement that says not only do you have to have the 75% border requirement that the the SRPC zone cannot be any bigger than one third of its allied SRP zone and the research triangle park I won't make any difference at all boy you could work out a town I would also like to see that no district under this on the ground be bigger than 100 acres it's my understanding that's what your proposed project would be no single district I'd also like there to be a separation between these so that we don't have a string of them down a highway the chair grants a commissioner miller to complete his thoughts it's also not a mixed use district we talk about mixes of uses but we don't require a mix of uses it seems to me that some sort of requirement for mixing the uses is necessary I think that you can build the project that you've described us if this new zoning ordinance this new text amendment requires a mix of uses it's not a it's not a science research district you don't have to do anything associated with science research I think it should have some science or research application that uses should be related to that similar to the way we limit the uses in the SRP district no development plan is required and to me this is a really big deal our current development plan requirements for minimum development plans in my opinion would not interfere with the business that you folks want to have in any particular way but if somebody proposed one of these districts outside the research triangle park there for there to be some device to build in conditions and requirements etc that would fit that district more appropriately to its context because we talked about that you just talked about that in the research triangle park context isn't so important because you make your own context there but elsewhere in Durham where this zone might go I think some sort of ability to fit through special commitments is appropriate and I hope that you will go along with that does it create an imposition on you yes you'd have to come up with a development plan but Lord knows you've got the people who can do it I see them sitting on the front row there I'm really worried about the height restrictions I'm worried that the tallest buildings in Durham County won't be in the downtown area we have set up a zoning and land use regulatory scheme that's a system of concentric circles and tiers the intensity goes from intense to less intense of each of these concentric circles by allowing a district like this outside that concentric system we're essentially blowing out of the land use regulatory scheme that we've talked about so I'd like to see a way of regulating height now there's a number of ways we can do this one is to have a base height and then get a used permit to go above that that may make you uncomfortable because you'd have to go to the Board of Adjustment and convince them to get it if you wanted to we could build some specific criteria for this rather than the standard criteria another way we can do it though is by committed elements in the development plan approve those under our new the we just approved in the last year if you did it that way then you wouldn't need to go through the use permit process later on you'd put it in your development plan this is what the height limits are going to be for these various pods inside our development and then we're done I'm concerned about the way one of these districts might join a residential district and when I say residential district I mean the standard RUM RS districts they're just really the notion that you could have a really super tall building right next to a single family subdivision and our RS 10 is troubling to me and I think we need better buffering requirements in the event that that happens it's not a concern of yours because you don't have any of those districts in your neighborhood but they certainly exist in Trayburn and elsewhere and then finally I'm very concerned that the table of permitted uses everywhere we put in all of these L's that we should be putting in P's because for the most part when you put in an L in the table of permitted uses you say well this uses allow that on a limited basis to the ordinary reader to the citizen that we work with and talk to all the time that means that the use is going to be harder to get less permissive than it would be under normal circumstances when in fact in most instances it's more permissive in this district I would like to come up with a different letter or some way to indicate that rather than to use that L in the table I don't know I'm not proposing that we change all of those things but just to indicate something different than L when we really don't need limited we need more permissive so those are the broad summary of my comments and I'd like to delay this thing for a little while so that you can absorb some of the things that I've said and see if we can fix this I can be flexible I'm sure there's plenty I haven't thought about a lot of considerations that were easy for me to think of but you have reasons why that won't work because and I'd be interested to know those but we can't do all of that tonight and I'm asking you as the proponent of these three items of business tonight to agree to a 60 day delay so that we might can consider some of these things creating this district is a great big step not just for the RTP but for the whole of Durham and I'd like to get it right the first time then to have to come back and patch it or fix it thank you very much for allowing me to run on Mr. Chairman. I'll commission the hub first I'm sorry. I also want to say that I think this is a very exciting plan very exciting idea but unfortunately I concur with Tom about pretty much everything he said I took the text amendment and went through it piece by piece and what I discovered was that this text amendment is more permissive than anything we have in the UDO and it troubles me it does and it troubles me because even if we can trust you we might not be able to trust someone else I feel that there are stakeholders in a plan that that purports to be a bicycle and pedestrian friendly that have not been included in this conversation I think Durham open space and trails who is very interested in the research triangle parks trail system would be interested in connectivity of this site to the outside area they haven't they don't know anything about this and the bicycle pedestrian advisory commission wasn't brought in on the conversation and that troubles me I think they should have and I think that it