Durham Planning Commission · Regular Meeting · August 8, 2023

good evening welcome to the Durham Planning Commission the members of the Durham Planning Commission are appointed by the city council and the County Board of Commissioners to make recommendations to the elected officials we emphasize that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight while this meeting is being conducted in person it is also accessible using the zoom virtual meeting platform in the virtual meeting platform public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on video by default in order to maintain meeting decorum and a discernible record of the meeting the chat function has been disabled for those attending in person if you plan to speak on an agenda item tonight please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak when speaking please state your name and your address clearly when you come to

the podium please speak directly into the microphone if you are attending the meeting virtually you will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time if you have pre-registered your name will be called so you can make your comments just like an in-person hearing public hearing you may also call in during the meeting tonight by dialing one three zero one 715-8592 if you call in during the meeting you will need to wait until the particular public hearing you are interested in starts after all of the pre-registered speakers have shared their comments Iowa asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak at that point you need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star 9 on your phone

and when recognized state your name and address before making your comments we're going to limit the time to two minutes tonight per speaker and all motions are stated in the affirmative so if emotion fails or ties the recommendation is for denial finally I ask everyone here commission members the staff and the public to conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner the chair will ask the offending person or persons to leave the meeting until such time they regain control if decorum fails to be restored the chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to act respectful and courteous is observed thank you may we have the roll call please chair Cameron here Vice chairs here commissioner Baker here commissioner cut right here commissioner Graves here

commissioner Durham here Mr McIver here Mr Morgan here commissioner sees here commissioner Trapp here commissioner Valentine here commissioner young here and commissioner Zuri Williams says request an excuse absence which we do not need to vote on thank you we have an established quorum item three on the agenda is the approval of the minutes and the consistency statements do we have a motion to approve motion to approve Madam chair is there a second it's been moved by commissioner Trapp and seconded by commissioner Morgan to approve the minutes in the consistency statement all in favor please say aye aye opposed the eyes have it motion carries first case on the agenda for zoning map changes is case z 22 triple zero 62 East

Club Gateway continued from July may we have the staff report thank you internet chair Madam Vice chair members of the commission Aaron Kane with the planning department before I begin tonight I would just like to state that all cases have been properly noticed according to local and state laws and affidavits to that effect are an odd file in the planning department the first case we have before you tonight as you mentioned is continued from the July 11 2023 meeting it is case z2200062 East Club Gateway is a proposed zoning map change staff will would also like to confirm that mailing notices were sent within 600 feet of the site to all the parcels that you can see highlighted on the map for you there are seven properties on this case they are located at 2400 2402 2404 2452

08 Acres the existing zoning is residential Rural and Commercial neighborhood the applicant proposes to change to the zoning to commercial General with a textual development plan to allow at least three uses permitted in the commercial General zoning District in addition to that there are several uses which would be prohibited according to the development plan including group living hospitals cemeteries mausoleums columbaria Memorial Gardens electronic gaming operations firing ranges nightclubs or bars paintball payday lenders veterinary clinics animal hospitals kennels vehicle sales Leasing and rentals and vehicle service the existing Place type is Transit opportunity area staff has determined that the proposed zoning district is consistent with the place type map

the site lies within the major transportation Corridor and Watershed protection overlays the existing zoning is residential Rural and Commercial neighborhood the site is surrounded by residential rural commercial neighborhood plan development residential commercial General and industrial Light thanks a lot there we go the aerial map shows the general location of the project which is situated on the Southeast quadrant of the I-85 interchange with East Club Boulevard to the West is a combination of Industrial and Commercial uses with some single-family units to the South is the land Farm's single-family subdivision to the East and North are a combination of commercial and single-family residential uses there are several notable commitments on the development plan which includes a minimum of three uses for a site a Prohibition of several uses

which were listed previously a fifteen thousand dollar contribution to the Durham dedicated housing fund and a six foot tall fence or wall installed along the property line with the adjacent parcel a neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with Udo requirements on November 4th 2022 three community members were in attendance there has been no Community input at this point on social pinpoint staff determines that the proposal is potentially in the public interest due to providing an array of commercial uses for Durham residents and being generally consistent with the place type map staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions at this time the dream do we have the applicant present for comments

is the microphone on it here we go how do I share the presentation okay all right all right sorry this case has been full of technical glitches um so thank you for hearing our case again my name is sorry my name is Katie Hamilton and I'm here with Gander development from 2310 South Miami Boulevard Suite 235 um I wanted to start off by apologizing for not being here last month we did have a technical glitch and we did not receive the notice that we were on the agenda I had thought we were on this month's agenda based on previous conversations with staff so I do apologize um we would have definitely been here if

we had known but we do realize that it was an inconvenience for all of you and for the community as a whole that we were not here so we wanted to again say that we were sorry to staff and the commission and the community for not being here and wasting everyone's time with that I'd like to introduce who we are as Gander development um this is the first time I've been before this Commission in this role Gander will be two years old this upcoming October we are a durham-based development company with two Landscape Architects a super sites expert and we just recently hired a civil engineer for our team we received funding from local developers and our local investors I'm sorry and have started working on projects across the triangle recently we're excited to bring forward our first text only development plan um for the city for the property shown in red and we believe that this Southeastern quadrant of the intersection of club and 85 is a perfect spot to go for

commercial let me just go there um as you can see the site is currently split between neighborhood commercial and Rural residential these zonings don't follow the property lines or the existing uh Duke Energy transmission easement that runs through the site so we'd like to have a consistent zoning throughout the site moreover the RR zoning that currently regulates almost seven acres of the site is inconsistent with both the existing future land use map and the proposed Place type Maps which designate the site as a Transit opportunity area so we believe rezoning and annexation will bring the site into greater Conformity with that place type we are seeking a commercial General zoning with text development plan for our case we have chosen to pursue this style of zoning as we believe the ornaments requirements related to site layout including buffers and building

Heights do not need to be modified and that all commitments above and beyond ornaments ordinance requirements can be clearly explained through text commitments momentarily I'll share our survey to kind of explain that a little further as such we provided text commitments to prohibit nuisance uses based on either noise hours of operation typical lighting or Associated other problematic issues with the uses at the same time we're limiting the allowable uses we are requiring that a minimum of three uses be developed on site her discussions with staff this will help ensure that the property meets the transit opportunity area designation we want to leave flexibility in our zoning so that while three uses are required on site what those three uses are is permitted to change over time as transportation and nearby land use patterns change while the zoning limits nuisance uses permanently we recognize that construction can be a nuisance in the interim to our neighbors so we've committed to protecting our neighbor's sanity during construction by installing installing a six foot privacy fence

prior to construction along their property line we also recognize that while residential uses may not be the highest and best use of the site based on our analysis there remains a need for affordable housing in Durham as such we are committing fifteen thousand dollars towards Durham's affordable housing fund this is based on the removal of seven acres of residential rural zoning which theoretically could have supported 10 housing units um I wanted to take a quick look at our survey as you can see there are required landscape buffers along our eastern and western boundaries ranging from 25 all the way up to 100 feet there's also a 100 foot stream buffer along our Southern property line which will protect the Landon Farms subdivision to our South and again in direct response to a comment from our neighbor tar East we will be installing a fence along their property line before construction begins um I also wanted to note with only one

point of entry being allowed by the dot the site's proximity to the interstate and the existing overhead transmission lines as well as a groundwater and contamination incident that was noted to our north um we excuse me we determined that commercial uses were the highest and best use for the site currently um as I mentioned the environmental constraints on the site have weighed heavily on our design decision making and they will continue to be a leading factor in our design approach moving forward which is why our request was crafted to allow for flexibility as we continue to explore what uses will best serve the transit opportunity area while minimizing our environmental impacts we have begun our project with sensitivity in mind for minimizing Wetland and stream impacts to taking a more constructive approach to Demolition and will continue a sensitive approach as we proceed in developing our plans while working with Duke Energy the dot and the City of note we have reached out to

preservation Durham to uh pull out materials from the buildings that may be salvageable and they will have that opportunity as soon as our asbestos mitigation is done on the building so and then we've also reached out to fire for training burn we will see it's not the best building's not in the best shape so but that's it I again did not have a clock on me I don't know all right thank you are there any other attendees tonight that would like to speak I don't see any on Zoom no one has raised their hand all right I'm going to close the public hearing and we are now open for a

commissioner discussion and questions yes commissioner Baker got a question for staff [Music] um the the requested zoning would allow um all sorts of retail arranged in many different ways you could have it set way back from the street and surrounded by parking correct that is correct under our current ordinance yes and the transit opportunity area in the comprehensive plan calls for an arrangement of buildings on sites to be such that people can take transit and walk to those places Transit oriented development how is that consistent sure well so while you can have a more Auto oriented design under commercial General that does not preclude from

having a more Transit oriented Design Within that zoning District in addition right now the the way our conference are playing in our Udo are set up is that the only real opportunities for an alignment between the um Place type or the place type of TOA would be either the downtown design districts or one of the compact neighborhood design districts which are specifically assigned for the compact neighborhood tier or the downtown tier we don't really have a mechanism at this time in our current Udo to have a more Transit oriented Design District outside of those tiers so as we work forward once the comprehensive plan is adopted and we look to redo our Udo that is certainly one of the things that we will be tackling is having a new zoning districts that have a better alignment to our place tied back okay two things

one it doesn't preclude it but I mean I would just guess right now that's not what they're going to build here um to we have been asking for an addition of two to three new zoning districts for several years on the Planning Commission so um is there a reason why we haven't seen that other than I mean I might direct that to Scott Whiteman but other than wanting to make sure we had the comprehensive plan completed made sure we had a vision and a community buy-in as to how we wanted to grow in the future and therefore a road map so to speak for how we want our ordinance to eventually be drafted we have amendments to to bring the Udo more into compliance with the comprehensive plan on the agenda today right yes okay that would be a good place that's a it's a it's a good starting point and this will be an incremental process

until we can get a new Udo drafted okay I I worry about the Integrity of the comprehensive plan if if we are calling for something on a site very clearly in the comprehensive plan and what is being proposed is very clearly not consistent with that and we are saying that is consistent um I I that makes me concerned so um I I The Proposal that we're seeing here is extremely flexible um I appreciate the limitation on some of these on some of these uses and I appreciate the desire to move forward on development on on the site but um I just don't see at all how it's actually consistent with the comprehensive plan that has been worked on for the past almost five years that's all commissioner cease that's just a quick comment following up on commissioner Baker's commented and

and the response from staff and which I understand but I think there is a mechanism to provide a little closer alignment between the transit opportunity areas as defined in the place types and the existing Udo if the applicant were to take advantage of of crafting a development plan more specifically oriented towards that future Place type map then nothing would preclude that and as it is now I think instead what we have is a is a an application or a proposal I should say that that seems to um thread a bit of a needle the needle being or the hole in the needle I don't know how you describe it um but that but that Gap it seems to be threading that gap between the comprehensive plan and the pending Udo Rewrite by proposing commercial general which clearly is identified in in the Udo as being intended for areas that that does

have access to vehicular major thoroughfares um but yet this place type map is for transitional opportunity area uh and and I think with more uh specificity and and and uh clear uh expression of exactly what is intended that Gap could be closed um independent of that I I do have some concerns I think this was touched on at the last meeting just very briefly maybe in the staff report maybe in the question um and answer discussions that we had just very briefly uh it it the pending reference guide request for variants in the record or I'm not sure what the terminology is but the aerial sewer issue the the proposal to connect vianarial sewer that's not allowed do you have any comments on that so I address that I think that we could add a Max build to on the

west side west of the um easement if that would help with the Comfort um if staff is amenable to it as well because we don't actually intend to have a parking lot out in front on that west side as for the aerial crossing the issue that we ran into is that Landon Farm sewer is too high for us to get under the stream at any point along our entire property line so no development on our project can occur with a non-aerial stream a sewer Crossing there's just no like we have studied the entire 500 feet of length with our civil engineering consultant and they looked at you know going under the sewer at or going under the stream at the highest point in the Stream and connecting to the Sewer on the lowest point on the opposite side and there was no way we could make it work so that is why that alternative reference guide for development request is in

commissioner Morgan you had a question for Scott for our staff about I think this is the first time we've starting to use the place type map as a way to kind of guide that can you talk a little bit more about the transportation opportunity area and what things could be put into this area based upon a place type map so yeah good evening I'm Scott Whiteman with the planning department so the transit opportunity area police type was in general was to take the place of the compact neighborhoods in the old comprehensive plan areas that were designed to be higher density mixed use and Transit oriented and more walkable um and so that would include a lot of different uses but it would also ideally include Warwick wall design but as Mr Kane was saying we're

we're in a kind of a gap a gap year between the comprehensive plan which is still not adopted and a new Udo and we have some of the place types where it's hard to with our current zoning districts to match them up with the new comprehensive plan so we're going to have to do some of these on a case-by-case basis until a new Udo is adopted kind of a follow-up I mean what did you what was sort of the I know that you were involved with a lot of the designation of different areas like that what was unique about this area that to make it a transportation opportunity so this area it may be hard from looking at the map but the Glenview station Walmart has one of the highest um ridership numbers the I can't remember what called exiting and entering the bus in all of Durham County and then also the transit plan also has a new route coming down Club Boulevard that would be

from North Durham from through bragtown so there's actually a lot of Transit lines that are converging this area and it provides an opportunity to build some transit-oriented development from scratch where in most areas we're redeveloping existing existing built up areas okay I mean thanks I mean I understand that I know we're starting to kind of walk before we move into it I guess my thought would be is that it would a development that would be sort of like a multi-residential kind of mixed-use type of thing be more applicable with Transit connections or something like that would fit within this this type of development or this particular area definitely a mixed use development would definitely fit but it's also in in mixed use areas not every development has to be mixed use you need some residential some non-residential and there's already been quite a few residential projects approved in this

area so um I think that it definitely does meet the intent of adding a mix of uses in this area okay thank you commissioner Baker yeah I would I'm certainly open to adding the necessary text commitments that would bring it into consistency with the comprehensive plan I just don't see those I'm not sure what the wording would be but I definitely think that we could get there I do think that that's the one mechanism that could that could get us there is is the appropriate text commitments again I'm not sure what those look like and I it would be great if those were in writing before this meeting because this is a tough place to come up with language on the spot however if if we receive the the right language that made it consistent with the comprehensive plan I think that I would be able to support the application

if I am a commissioner Baker so I believe Katie I heard you say that you would be amenable to a tax commitment for a bill to line on the western portion of the is that correct okay so I believe and staff can correct me if I'm wrong to set back in CG is 25 feet um so I think we would be fine with a bill to zone between 25 and 35 feet if that would work so that we're within 10 feet of the setback and that would be west of the Duke Energy transmission easement bisecting the site so so we we can staff can work with the applicant to finalize the language and get that prepared for prepare for the city council hearing okay thank you any other commissioner comments uh Vice chair scariest would that uh

this is for City staff I believe would that take care of the aerial sewer Crossing issue no that would not address the Aerials who are crushing issue that's that's just regarding um sites location of the buildings on the site itself it's along East Club Boulevard not i-85s a quarter is there any way to fix this aerial so we're crossing issue we would need to depend on the the engineers for that the installation the height at which the sewer was previous installed is the issue the issue so it really we can't there's nothing we can do literally to cross to go under that stream which is the standard because the sewer is above the elevation of the Stream So to tie in the only way

we could do that would be to install a force main under the stream which would be um I think worse in the city's view I would have to defer to the city on whether or not they'd prefer a force main going under a stream or a aerial Crossing but most towns I work in don't want pump stations more than necessary so that's my assumption you could yeah I think the the information about the aerial sewer Crossing is was provided just for your information to know that's what they're asking for so it would either be approved by the the city as part of this application or they would have to come back and get a revised extension agreement with a different solution so uh it's probably not unless the idea of an aerial sewer offends you so much you can't support this it's probably not important to the

you know deliberation of the land use thank you any other comments or questions may have a motion to move this case forward Madam chair I would make a motion that we take K to Z 22 triple zero 62 East Club Gateway to be forward to the city with a favorable recommendation with I guess is there appropriate uh proffers with the associated profits with the associated profits I make that Amendment thank you it's been moved by commissioner Morgan and seconded by commissioner Trapp to move case z2200-62 forward with the uh the additional property sorry for with the favorable recommendation may I have the roll call vote sure Cameron yes Vice chair cigars yes

commissioner Baker no commissioner cut right yes commissioner Graves yes commissioner gurham yes commissioner McIver yes Mr Morgan no cease no commissioner Trent yes Mr Valentine no commissioner Young no question passes seven five thank you next we have case z23e quadruple 0 5 oxide gray may we have the staff report thank you commissioner thank you chair

um before we begin I'd like to State for the record that this case has been noted noticed following all applicable state and local regulations and the notice area is shown on this map letters were mailed on July 21st and notice signs were posted on July 25th this site is located at 321 323 and 325 gear gray Avenue it is just under half an acre in size The Proposal is to construct eight townhouses on a site where there are currently two unoccupied single-family homes the existing Place type is established residential if approved staff recommends changing the place type to apartment and townhouse neighborhood the existing zoning is residential Urban multi-family and the proposal is to change the zoning to residential Urban multi-family with a development plan the site is surrounded on three sides with residential Urban multi-family zoning with residential Urban 5-2 to the east

the aerial map shows the general location of the project it is a predominantly single-family residential area there's only one stipulation on the proposed textual development plan and that is to limit the structures on the site no more than eight townhouses the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on February 1st 2023 14 community members attended that meeting there's one comment Shia shared via social pinpoint and it is shown in attachment e staff has determined that the proposal is inconsistent with these the current Place type map designation of established residential since the proposal is to constructs townhouses townhouses in a predominantly single-family residential area staff recommends that should the zoning map change be approved that the place type map B designation be changed to apartment and townhouse neighborhood staff has also reviewed the proposal

against relevant policies in the draft comprehensive plan staff has determined that the proposal meets 11 of the 22 relevant policies and an additional two policies are undetermined at this time staff does not expect every proposal to meet every policy in the draft comprehensive plan so please keep that in mind as you make your deliberations staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions at this time the chair is opening the public hearing I'm going to call the applicant to the podium you have 10 minutes okay

can you all see the presentation no now we can good evening chair Cameron members of the commission my name is Marie farmer with Parker Poe 301 Fayetteville Street Raleigh on behalf of the owners and developers of these small Parcels Sam and gazelle zamani and Farid Sani who are local residents and here tonight this request is to rezone three Parcels totaling less than half an acre located on the corner of gray Avenue and Gurley Street to allow for the development of eight townhouse units these Parcels are located on the same block as Union Baptist Church and Mount Gilead Baptist Church less than a mile from downtown as you can see two of the parcels contain single-family homes and the other parcel is vacant these homes themselves are vacant and uninhabitable due to multiple city code violations including large cracks in the foundation and rotting ceilings

there are also several trees located on these Parcels that would be located in the project buffer and right-of-way would be dedicated outside plan for a sidewalk on Gray Avenue we are requesting to add a development plan to the existing zoning designation of rum to allow for the development of no more than eight townhouse units the proposed density is consistent with the current Flume designation for the property and while we agree with staff's recommendation regarding the place type we would like to point out that this request would promote a variety of housing types and that the current ER designation specifically contemplates smaller infill sites that are difficult to develop and require design flexibility which perfectly describes this property this is a picture of the draft Place type map the green star is where this property is located and as you can see it is within one mile of the downtown designation and there is also apartment and townhouse neighborhood which is what

city staff is recommended this place type map be switched to directly down the street there's also Neighborhood Services and Community institution all within the same location adding a development plan to the existing zoning designation of rum will not change the housing types or height allowed on this property the only thing that changes is the permitted density with the existing zoning five townhouse units can be built on the property by right this request is simply to allow for three more units this request is substantially consistent with the draft comprehensive plan by providing a new housing type and meeting the Edo standards for setbacks sidewalks open space tree coverage Ada accessibility landscaping and storm water and finally this request is compatible with the present zoning by adding a development plan to the existing designation and proposing an already permitted use at a slightly higher density to meet demand in Durham thank you for your time we look forward to

answering any questions you may have on this case I don't see anyone in the zoom either with their hand raised so I am going to close the public hearing at this time sure I'm not going too fast here make sure there's nobody on Zoom all right let me close the public hearing and we are now open for commissioner discussion and questions commissioner Baker no um did you all quick question for the applicant did you all have a chance to speak with the neighbors and to speak with the church we did speak with the

neighbors no one from the church attended our neighborhood meeting but there were multiple neighbors who did attend our neighborhood meeting was the church notified the church was notified yes oh one more question um did you all consider including this is a density increase do you all consider including any affordable units uh so because of the small scale of this development income restricted units is not a possibility however the reason that the developer is seeking this slightly higher density is to create a smaller unit size that will be more attainable so that is the ultimate goal for this project what's the what's the unit size the unit that for between that's pretty big okay yeah this is a I think this is I think it's good um three three lots one empty lot two

homes that are in disrepair to consider adding additional units this is a rapidly gentrifying area and so I think that needs to play into our thinking on this um that's something that's on on the top of my mind right now uh what kind of impact will that have on the surrounding area so just something that I'm considering right now as we continue with our Planning Commission discussion commissioner sees thank you uh the two things that seem most striking to me are the observation that that you made in your application that the applicant made in the presentation regarding uh the fact that townhouses are allowed by the existing zoning that the text only development plan is simply a mechanism to allow some additional units to be constructed and I think that's really um an important note

secondly the discussion around the apartment townhouse Neighborhood Place type or the apartment townhouse Neighborhood Place type as as folks who've been on the commission for a while will remember and and staff would remember Scott I'm sure would remember that was one of the uh items that I I had concerns about because I think that to classify something as an apartment townhouse neighborhood is goes against the whole premise of a neighborhood a neighborhood is something that has apartments and townhouses and houses and all those things and in my block which is established residential where I live has all those things including townhouses so I don't have any consternation whatsoever with regards to the place type map issue that's just a technicality that in my mind has evolved through the comprehensive planning effort that attempted and necessarily so to achieve a lot of other objectives so I have no

issues I mean my only um uh it's not really a concern but to the point of the unit size if if you know the discussion of of 2000 that that is a you know a large unit and the location of this would be you know suitable for twice as many units as far as I'm concerned so um I I support the application yes what do you what are your expectations on the price point of the units how many more units could potentially be put on the site another consideration particularly something that was raised during the neighborhood meeting was parking a lot of the neighbors were very concerned about street parking and this adding to the street parking so that is something that the developer is really trying to keep in mind is how many parking spaces they can fit on the site to try and limit the amount of street parking in consideration of the

neighbors the price point will really depend on how many units they're able to fit in and whether they're able to do the two bedrooms or the three bedrooms but they're looking at a variety of price points but at this time nothing has been solidified yet well let's let's make an assumption let's assume you do a units and let's assume they're all 2 000 square feet how much will they retail for them will be the price of the house I think that they will go for the market rate that is consistent with the surrounding area uh this developer is also still considering whether they will be rental units or whether they will be for sale the goal is to sell but they are still considering uh a rental option so at this point it really is up in the air how can it be up in the air are they luxury units are they non-luxury no no so to be clear these these are not luxury units this is more Workforce Housing close to downtown a smaller I know 2 000 square feet is kind of the ultimate goal they will probably be

smaller depending on the parking constraints and other constraints with the buffer but they are looking to be more attainable than certainly a luxury apartment that or townhome that's not what they're looking for here I just I I want to clarify that word that you use two words Workforce housing these are probably going to be 700 800k that is not Workforce housing Workforce housing is just another word for affordable these will not be at an affordable rate go ahead commissioner thank you I appreciate that point which I completely agree with that's important and I wanted to clarify as well when I said I would support more units I would support more units under the premise that they would be substantially smaller and and more accessible to a broader Market I wanted to clarify that thank you anyone else any other comment

s or Valentine's look like you're in Mr Morgan nope ready for us to take a vote all right may I have a motion to move this case forward Madam chair I make a motion that we take case z23 quadruple zero Five Oak set gray to be forwarded to the city council with a favorable recommendation second Valentine it was it's been moved by commissioner Morgan and seconded by commissioner Valentine to move case z23 quadruple five cartridge zero five excuse me four with the favorable recommendation may I have the roll call vote sure Cameron yes Mr sugars yes commissioner Baker no commissioner cut right yes commissioner Graves no commissioner gurham yes

commissioner Macgyver yes Mr Morgan yes Mr cease yes commissioner trap yes commissioner Valentine no commissioner Young no motion carries eight four thank you next up we have case z22 triple zero five eight Hobson Road Apartments I believe we have a recusal request yes chairs need to be recused because of my association with part of the applicant team we vote on that we're not just thank you [Applause] all right I mean we have the staff report

thank you as you stated chair Cameron this is uh kz2200058 Hobson Road multi-family it is a requested zoning map change before I forget uh begin I will confirm that mailing notices within 600 feet of the site were mailed out on July 21st 2023 and the site was posted with a sign on July 25th 2023. 538 is consistent with the future

Place type app as stated previously the existing zoning is residential rural the site is surrounded by residential Rural and office and institutional to the north industrial Light surrounds the remaining property the aerial map shows the general location of the project the site is at the Southwest quadrant of the intersection of Hobson Road and Keystone Park Drive to the north is Davis Park with some existing single-family units to the west and south is industrial park to the east is an undeveloped ncdot parcel the development plan indicates three access points from Keystone Park Drive and one I'm sorry two from Keystone Park Drive and one from Hobson two distinct areas of tree preservation are denoted with one area to the north and one to the South the development plan commits to a maximum impervious surface of 70 percent there are several notable commitments

5 percent of the units would be income restricted at 60 percent of Ami for 10 years all residential buildings would be served by at least one elevator a 33 000 contribution to Durham Public Schools a commitment to a Green Building certification five percent of parking spaces would be for electric vehicle charging spaces and solar conduits shall be provided in all buildings a neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with Udo requirements on November 1st 2022 no community members attended that meeting and there have been no social pinpoint comments on this case staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the place type map designation staff has determined that the perils are consistent with 18 of 25 applicable policies in the draft comprehensive plan and cert and states that the proposal is in the public interest due to increasing

the supply of market rate and incomes restricted housing units for Durham residents staff in the applicant were available to answer any questions thank you at this time the chair is opening the public hearing do we have the applicant available good evening chair Cameron I'm Jamie schwedler with Parker Poe at 301 Fayetteville Street here on behalf of the applicant as we're pulling up the presentation I'd just like to note I do practice with Matthew Carpenter who couldn't be here tonight for conflict reasons but have extensive experience with High Street and I'm proud to be here representing them tonight with me tonight is Josh Stix with High Street as well as Ronald Stevenson our traffic engineer and they're going to be available to answer any questions this request is to add both market rate and affordable housing to this area that has

existing infrastructure and in a manner that's consistent with the place type map designation of mixed residential neighborhood designation I don't know if the presentation is is up yet might be I think that's the last one do you need me to pull it up which is right there all right um so the images you'll see on their screen are just some examples of other residential multi-family projects that High Street has completed throughout the country and the notable aspect of this slide is that none of these projects look alike that's because there is no single template that High Street follows they really look to react to the area in which they're developing and each site is designed and constructed to fit the context of the neighborhood that it's in

8 acre parcel at the corner of Hobson road to the north and Keystone Park Drive to the east the area is shown in Blue on your screen is Clegg drive an existing public road that would be abandoned in connection with the zoning and as you can see it's just a great location for the additional density that we'd be bringing to the area instead of 26 single-family homes we're able to provide new apartment homes for 400 units multiple opportunities for families and and working professionals to live directly adjacent to and close to proximity to RTP and just west of the airport the surrounding uses are a mix of residential but as you can see on the screen there's a great deal of existing r d facilities office parks and places where people are already commuting to work and adjacent to other warehouse and distribution buildings to the South there are some other apartment developments north of Hobson Road in a mix of housing types including apartment

Townhomes so this would be adding to that housing Supply in a way that's a meaningful and providing variety this shows a kind of a larger context area of the the area we're talking about and as you can see on the map we're squarely in the center of kind of the Crux of Durham's burgeoning area adjacent to RTP I'm exactly the type of area where you want to put more homes along existing infrastructure and services within walking distance the project is Illustrated here on the screen what you see on your right is just an illustrated version of the development plan so everything you see in yellow is either parking or building area everything you see in green is either open space or or preserved tree areas and the notable area the notable Arrangement there is that we've really tried to pull the buildings kind of up to that prominent corner and preserve areas where we can the the open space and tree preservation also focuses on that northwest corner

kind of the center of your screen there where we're trying to preserve existing trees at the northwest corner of the site in the green area the South will be a recreational area with a storm water Pond but that Arrangement allows us still to fit the third the 400 elevator served apartment units and provide for three and a half percent of the units which is about 14 units to be affordable housing units as defined with the city and in our proper um at 60 Ami for 10 years in addition we're offering five percent of the parking spaces would be EV charging spaces to bring this on par with what we've seen in other jurisdictions and the demand that we have for EV charging solar conduit for future solar connectivity the architectural standards that Mr Kane hit down earlier sidewalk connectivity and tree preservation open space all commitments in addition to the affordable housing that we're providing here um and that affordable housing commitment is significant because what Derm has been able to do is have units

brought forward consistent with policy 39 of the new comprehensive plan which calls for actual affordable units where possible the 60 Ami is of course a very meaningful for folks living and working within the park to be able to live where they work and and reduce their commute times the city staff has been great working with us on that uh that proffer and that text commitment there would be a restrictive covenant that would be recorded along with this commitment that would really provide for the developer to oversee and administer the affordable housing program really take that administrative burden off of the city and that's really significant for this developer because they've administered affordable housing units and other jurisdictions and can really understand what that what that oversight requires it also requires an annual compliance report submitted to the city in connection with the city's program in addition to that commitment the project is also designed to meet requirements for one of the following Green Building certifications lead

energy star and you can see them on the screen the reason we have the flexibility is that those standards are changing and ever improving and so we want to make sure that we have the flexibility to to choose the one that's right for this project while still having a minimum Baseline of quality control the solar conduit shall be provided in all buildings to allow for the future possible installation of solar panels there are some legal issues preventing direct installation of solar panels for apartment dwellers we're following that issue but this would allow us to put in the the trunk lines essentially to allow that for to be provided in the future if those legal burdens are cleared and then a minimum a set of the parking spaces to be electrical vehicle charging stations along with the 70 maximum impervious that that Aaron mentioned earlier this slide shows the transportation commitments which I won't go into detail but include a significant amount of recommendations from the Tia the right-of-way dedication there along Hobson Road extended turn Lanes where appropriate and approved and recommended by the city and then there's additional

site access points on on Hobson Road and with the taper Kyle Stevenson is here in the audience to provide any questions that you have on that but the significance there is not only making the recommended Transportation improvements but also the 10-foot shared pedestrian path along the Hobson Road Frontage and providing more pedestrian connectivity in this area and with that the request is squarely consistent with the place type map designation that you see there on your screen we appreciate staff's thorough review of all the consistency of this designation as well as the policies but it really supports the additional residential area additional residential units being placed in an area that adds diversity is close to existing infrastructure and services and there's a great deal of commercial retail institutional and office uses that are already surrounding the site so it really makes that perfect infill place for residential to go while also promoting that sidewalk and bike

connectivity I talked about for those reasons it's consistent with the comprehensive plan this is detailed and at length in your staff report we just wanted to call out several of these policies policy 31 which discourages development patterns that segregate and concentrate high wealth communities we're really putting a lot of units in where people already work and Shop policy 39 speaks to the affordable housing commitment and providing that directly with this as a text commitment here policy 47 talks about healthier housing and lowering utility costs that really speaks to our solar conduit and the green energy certification programs we've committed to as well as the policy 77 and 107 goals which are innovating building practices and preserving sensitive natural areas that I mentioned there on the northwest corner of the site we appreciate staff's conclusions and and thorough evaluation in the staff report and their work with us to make this a really high quality project with a lot of proffers that speak to the issues that you all have talked about at

length in many of your previous hearings so we appreciate the opportunity to be before you today and we look forward to answering any questions but would appreciate a positive recommendation going forward to council thank you thank you do we have any community members here that would like to speak we do have two additional people signed up but I know they're with the applicant is there anyone online on the zoom that would like to speak if you wish to speak please use the raised hand button foreign all right I'm going to close the public hearing at this time and we are now open for commissioner

discussion and questions commissioner copyright thank you chair for the applicant just a couple quick things regarding the affordable housing one I appreciate the efforts it's always nice to see something proposed and some of these applications three and a half percent feels a little like for this development I'd like to see at least five percent on these and it's only 10 years policy 39 I believe saves 30 years so I'd like to see that stretched out as well any chance we could make some amendments in that regard yeah I appreciate the sentiment and I think in in a perfect world we'd like to as well we're dealing with reacting to kind of a volatile market and what we have seen worked in High Street has seen work in other places and so that that's where we're comfortable being able to deliver this project and getting it financed but I understand your sentiment is that 60 and average Ami are they all

at 60 are you doing something 30 all of the three all of the 14 units would be at 60 all at 60. okay I'd like to support this project I think it it has uh some good things right we always want to see an increase in density um I think it's a good infield uh project uh I'm disappointed in the affordable housing aspect and so I'm struggling right now um about whether I um sort of hold you accountable on that in that regard um I feel like we need this an additional six units is is not a lot um I feel like there are probably some things that that can be done here to to stretch to that and to push this to 30 years um so I I'm a little torn I'm leaning towards approving it but I'm still undecided thanks thank you commissioner Trapp yes Madam chair just very briefly I know we do a good job on

the commission of pointing out when we have issues with the development that's in front of us but I think that it's also contingent upon us to point out when we like a development and so for me this is one that checks all the boxes the commitment to Market rating also to having income restricted while looking at Lee and Green Building certification tree preservation and open space it knocks it out of the park so I'm definitely in favor and thank you for your work on this thank you commissioner cease and then [Laughter] uh yeah I I share some of the same kind of sense that commissioner cut right is expressing with regards my concern is more with the time Horizon on the affordable housing commitment than the percentages the percentages I can understand are really impactful in terms of um in terms of dealing with the dynamic Marketplace but the the timeline of 10 years um seems seems a little shy when we talk about building community and building

place um but that as a as a as a single exception I really applaud the application and and the presentation in terms of the commitments the material commitments the Green Building commitments the specificity to actually a a um specific list of potential rating systems that you'll you'll achieve uh the installation of the infrastructure for the electric charging stations that may very well be the market and and what you're working towards but nevertheless I'm glad to see that as a commitment uh in in the application uh and and if there was was anything else I share commissioner trapp's enthusiasm for the proposal uh you know I I do think that as the city and the county worked towards implementing the changes or the new Udo and continue to refine what our public space standards need to be in the city of Durham as we move more towards accommodating

um uh pedestrian Mobility particularly with an affordable housing component component and a destination like this is I I would just like to put this out there for everyone to think about the importance of making sure that our street design standards are attuned to that as well and and that we don't continue to the same kind of um excessive may be too strong of a word but that's kind of the general sentiment in terms of Dimensions associated with Street designs that we really be intentional in designing places where it's not just a sidewalk in front of the building but there's easy ways to navigate to the places that are being shaped in the surroundings so thank you can the staff confirm if like what is the timeline for the development of the roadways in front of the property on Hobson Road by the other Developers

Berlin Thomas Transportation so I don't know the current construction schedule other than a no con the designs or underway in construction it's certainly underway in the area you can see from the area of Photography the clearing that's been done associated with the widening I traveled on that road for my work every day and I know personally that traffic has gotten really bad in the last couple of months uh I so I just wanted to have an understanding on the timeline and the additional impact this development will have I can certainly follow up with ncdot to get a schedule and and forward that along to you and can you confirm if if the new roadway will have a pedestrian pathway that connects because there's a at this stretch there's a gap in pedestrian path with this one on Page Road and there's one a little further back on Hobson road but at this

stage there is no pedestrian connection and the developer is proposing a to con to have a shared use path on along their property line but there's still gaps on the other side of these properties right the four lane one in Project does include sidewalks on both sides so this would be an addition or a water path um that they're they'll be providing along their Frontage thank you and I would like to applaud the developer on their commitments to the sustainable aspects of the development thank you thank you commissioner graze man thank you um I agree with the sentiments of a commissioner cut right when it comes down to the your decision for 10 years for affordable housing um you know the the data doesn't support that things will be even more affordable in 10 years it might actually be worse for people within our community so I

strongly would encourage you all to get to 30 years on that somebody's got to be able to work at the stores that are close by yeah thank you commissioner Baker I also share those sentiments about the affordable housing and and really it's about the time the timeline um I actually thought the city's definition for the affordable housing in the Udo had was tied to 30 years am I am I wrong about that that's correct it's it's a 30-year tenure for definition of affordable housing where they do match the definition is the 60 of Ami for rental okay but that doesn't mean this would be 30 years that this would be 10 years yeah that's why the term income restricted is used instead of affordable okay Jim you guys can't go to 30 years

I'd love to be able to explain how the the research and they've been able to do this in other markets said that that's you know viable here I think we will continue to look at that we'll continue to evaluate it it's not something that we can commit to tonight but we'll talk about it okay and I hope that you know I understand there's frustrations with with the terms and and wishing that it could be longer I think what we can do is is offer the best project that we know we can underwrite and finance and get these units on the ground which we think is really meaningful and impactful for people that'll be moving into these units in two years instead of trying to shoot for something that we don't think is feasible so I understand the sentiments it's not that we're not ignoring them it's that we're trying to use the market data that we've had and work as a successful model in other places to bring affordable units to the ground here and that's what we're trying to do all right I would really like to see 30 years um that said Green Building uh this is a

question that I have almost every single time one of these kinds of cases comes to us and I don't know that we've ever seen this commitment that I can remember I can remember one or two cases that we've seen in the past with the the solar connections but I don't think we've ever seen a commitment like this to Green Building so I do really appreciate that Jamie one more question um you you had you were talking a little bit about some sort of barrier to actually putting solar panels on the roof could you just re-explain that very very briefly sure there's when you have a single family home it's easy because you can meter it for the actual occupant when it's a multi-family dwelling it's difficult because they're the metering is different and for the common space um elements it's been challenged in in certain areas and so again what we want to do is make sure we're setting this up for Success not to be challenged by some you know obscure legal issue but that once that's resolved there that could be Revisited and those panels could be

installed in the future but because we're kind of tracking that in other jurisdictions we've this is not the only other jurisdiction that we've run into that there's been other challenges that we're trying to monitor okay that's all for me thanks ready to uh may have a motion to move this case forward sure Madam chair I make a motion that we take case z22 triple zero 58 the Hobson Road Apartments to be forwarded to the city council with a payroll recommendation all right it's been moved by commissioner Morgan and seconded by commissioner cease to move case z22 triple zero 58 with a applicable profers forward with a

favorable recommendation may I have the roll call vote please chair Cameron yes that's true cigars yes commissioner Baker yes commissioner cut right yes commissioner Graves Manns no commissioner Durham yes commissioner Morgan yes commissioner cease yes commissioner Trapp enthusiastically yes commissioner Valentine yes motion carries 9-2 thank you next up we have case z22 triple zero 43 wake Olive Apartments at the advice of the County Attorney in order to have a clean decision I am recusing myself from this case as I have an active variance case in another's jurisdiction with this uh legal counsel

therefore Vice chair shigerus will preside over this okay shigeras we have the staff report this case is uh z2200043 wake all of apartments and it is our last proposed Zony map change of the evening staff can confirm that melee notices were mailed out to all Parcels within 600 feet of the site on July 21st 2023

16 Acres located at 5247 and 5255 Wake Forest Highway the existing zoning is residential Rural and residential Suburban 20. 928 is inconsistent with the future Place type map if approved staff recommends to change the place type map to apartment and townhouse neighborhood the existing zoning as mentioned previously is residential Rural and residential Suburban 20. the site is surrounded by residential Rural and residential suburbing 20 zoning districts to the South though is

commercial General the aerial map shows the general location of the project the site is north of Wake Forest highway to the east is Neil Middle School to the north and west are primarily undeveloped land and large lot single-family dwelling units to the South is a bank and some undeveloped tracts the development plan indicates two access points from Wake Forest Highway there's a proposed stub out connection to the Western property line no vehicular stream Crossings are proposed through the 100 foot repair wide riparian stream buffers to the north minimum tree coverage and open space is provided impervious surface is limited to 70 percent a requirement of the Udo as this site is in the fjb Watershed protection overlay there are several several noted notable commitments on the development plan including a thirty three thousand dollar contribution to Durham Public Schools increased size of erosion control basins

a limit of mass grading to 50 percent of the site and additional storm water control measures a neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with Udo requirements on May 4th 2022. seven community members were in attendance one social pinpoint comment has been received by staff in relation to this case with one opponent concerned with the increased traffic congestion and loss of rural land that attachment is in your packet The Proposal is deemed inconsistent with the place type map designation due to one proposed use for the development if approved staff recommends a change to apartment and townhouse neighborhood Steph has determined that the proposal is consistent with 15 of 27 identified applicable policies in the draft comprehensive plan this proposal is potentially in the public interest due to the increase of housing opportunities to the residents of Durham The Proposal is potentially not in the public interest due to the inconsistent

proposal to the place type map and other comprehensive plan policies staff in the applicant are available to answer any questions you may have thank you thank you and the vice chair is opening the public hearing or they hear from the applicant I have to get to PowerPoint up excuse me good evening Vice chair shigerus members of the Planning Commission my name is Patrick biker I live at 2614 Stewart Drive I'm an attorney with Morning Star Law Group and I'm here tonight representing KDM properties which will be the developer of this 12-acre site that KDM has under contract from redeeming Development Group joining us

tonight on Zoom is kdm's Vice President Peter Crossett I am very pleased to report that KDM already has a fine track record here at Durham KDM is currently building phase one of Fox Crossing Apartments over on Pleasant Drive just west of South Miami Boulevard and east of Andrew Avenue as you can see on this in this picture of Fox Crossing that I took last night in addition to Fox Crossing I hope some members of the Planning Commission remember the Carver Street assemblage which I believe is the largest mixed income residential development in the history of Durham and it's over in the Bragg Town neighborhood Carver Street assemblage received unanimous approval from this Planning Commission in the city council back in the first quarter of 2022. KDM is the market rate developer working in partnership with Kelly development for the Carver Street assemblage this outstanding project has site plan approval and is now moving forward as well next I need to highlight that there's a misunderstanding when this project was going through staff review we need to remove the text commitment related to to

16 Acre Site will not exceed 65 feet moving on Beyond moving on Beyond those technical issues the greatest advantage to be derived from Wake Olive Apartments stem from its location next to Neil

Middle School besides being in a location that's essentially right next to a school this 12-acre property is also within a five minute drive of a Food Lion the East Regional Library and Oak Grove Elementary School and is not much further from Southern High School also this site is less than a 15-minute drive from Research Triangle Park our Region's largest employment center I think it is fair to say that many triangle residents do not live that close to work shopping and their children's School this proximity to these key locations makes wake Olive Apartments the type of residential residential development We should strive for if we want to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled and therefore the amount of carbon emitted by Durham residents Durham needs to build new dwellings for the close to 160 000 new residents expected by 2050. 928 makes sense of course it is imperative for new development in the Searles Basin to pay the mandatory Basin fees which in turn means that those of us who are already

Durham water customers will not have to pay higher monthly rates in order to pay for the Southeast Regional lift station for all these reasons we respectfully ask for recommendation of approval Peter and I will be happy to try answer any questions and we thank you for your time tonight thank you are there any community members in person that have signed up to speak thank you okay Pam Andrews it goes in a certain order can we go in the order of our PowerPoint sure so Tammy okay Tammy said they just need to find the PowerPoint

okay there's a horrible the desktop probably close it yes Patrick thank you look at this ready okay my name is Tammy sueya I live on Baptist Road in Durham North Carolina and what I want to talk about and focus on is the fire and EMS which is top of my concern right now and I want to start off by a personal story thank you that I had a close well assistant family liver member on Baptist road that called EMS in the last month a potential heart attack and there was no EMS available to come and get him so he had to draft himself or his wife had to drive himself to a hospital thank goodness everything worked out okay but that's a personal story and that touches my heart and that

scares me I have a husband who also has heart problems and it scares me to death so this area as you know it's been bombarded by growth and I want to make sure that you take the time to listen to the Durham County Commissioners that spoke Monday on the comprehensive plan I listened to that today and some of the things that I'm a reference is what they spoke about they have all come out except for one and taken a site visit of our area I please come out and look in the area they they are taken aback by all the issues they're concerned about Transportation they are concerned about the fire in EMS support and as Brenda Harrington said this area is in crisis it is not good and so also in that commissioner's meeting one thing that I heard is that the triangle J Council has projected by 2050 Durham will need 60 000 more housing and so Winnie Jacobs also said we've got forty thousand RTP area I know preserve role Durham we've been counting for the last year we're at

17 000 in just Southeast Durham not counting the rest of the growth in Durham County so in my area and my estimation I think we're there and a lot of the Commissioners ask are we over Building Durham County and Durham in general and so they also asked Scott Whiteman uh what's the average build out per year and Scott is just an estimate I know you were put under uh you know a question and you're about 2 000 per year Well preservable Durham has been tracking this in our area we're about 2500. we're we're to that limit we are over building right now and so um and also I want to point out that this development are these apartments will be coming right out on 98 Highway where triple count Farms vets on 98 Highway Falls Village which is the Baptist Road right at Neil Middle School 567 units it's not built out yet that's a thousand people coming on 98 Highway where just where these apartments are going to come out at those apartments

are also coming out across from Olive Branch Road which I haven't encountered the development on Olive Branch Road and Doc Nichols I applore you please do not approve this Southeast Durham has had enough we need to fix our infrastructure we need to have support people that live there need to feel safe I don't feel safe thank you thank you Alex I have a question before we start I know a number of us sent my social pinpoint comments in recently like a lot and it said we only had one tonight and I I want to question that because I know for a fact that at least three of us in this room put them in so I just want that for the record that we we do question that not not anything against you God but I don't know if it went in I don't know if it's not transmitted I don't know but we did send any number yeah we so Andy and

I were just checking on that it was about in the 20 to 25 range that actually came in and we'll make sure the planning Commissioners get those comments okay was our error on the on the presentation Alex I won't fire you today thank you okay my name is Pamela Andrews 6108 Wake Forest highway I know this property very well this was my family's my preacher that married me and my husband he built my home so I know this property very well my husband's home place is less than a mile from this half a mile maybe a fourth of a mile so I know it very well and I want to reiterate from the new comprehensive plan policy CP 77 protect Durham's most sensitive natural areas including flood Plains Wetlands wildlife habitats hillsides drinking water sources critical watersheds and natural heritage areas for the impacts of development and there are many more we talk about urban sprawl on the new one

7 percent increase in stream erosion causing a phosphorus increase these are serious ones but we have taught with the NC State Professor who says we're up to 45 percent higher chlorophyll a than we're supposed to be in Falls Lake here is a picture taken from an airplane you can see where this sediment is flowing into Falls Lake every time we masquerade and clear-cut these areas these are people's property lines where they're on the property line on the property line with a 20-foot cliff fall on side the

other side of the property line we took mayor O'Neil out we've invited you all out I implore you to come you need to see this in person pictures do not do it justice we are destroying the environment in southeast Durham Southern environmental law has this under documentation and will be proceeding this cannot continue please think twice about this um thank you oh there he is okay it's going you just have to advance it with the okay is that what you want right now no okay there's some SEC my name is Rebecca Freeman I live at 1818 Southview Road in this same community and I go by this area um often I try to stay away from that area because the traffic is so very very

bad but um there are some things I want to tell you about tonight with the secondary impacts of the blasting which I assume is going to be done in this area because it's always done in these locations here with the Triassic souls and the topography that's there the damages that are occurring to neighboring homes that you can see here is in picture one there's no and you can tell picture one this has been uh this this at these whales here were damaged there's no water they've had it had water trucked in because of the blasting this is a a picture of a filter a water filter after the the blasting and it was completely it was supposed to be white it's the sediment coming into the house is just completely horrible the children there are complaining of skin itching and rashes because they bathed in this before they realized what was going on this right here is the commode tank and you see all this sediment in the in the settled in the camo tank so there's this there's that blasting issue with that there's also the blasting issue or the um the um

stormwater flooding on neighboring properties this is an example on colder roads between Sharon Road and Mineral Springs and this has a lot of storm water coming here as another site over here um in it's actually in Raleigh but this one right here is uh there's lots of development going on there now but this is supposed to be storm water after the construction or is already done so he's going to be slammed so this is an area thing that we're having uh come in uh into our area here with this blasting home damage the walls of cracking the the ceilings are cracking the foundations are cracking and then the blasting permit is the final thing I want to mention is that that there is still a conflict in here whether what has to be done even if there are pre-assessments done to to uh show what the damn what the walls look like before the blasting there is this this information has not been given to homeowners thank you and uh Rebecca nothing to go with actually two minutes are up um may be dropped from their insurance

companies if they even try to claim so there have been no claims approved thank you okay so my name is Jacob Freeman I live at 6408 Olivia Terrace that's in Raleigh North Carolina so I want to expand a little bit on what Pam has talked about with the environmental destruction that's happening so you know the the environmental controls that are in place are obviously not adequate I know there's been some talk about adding a bigger size uh sedimentation Pond but the thing that really strikes me about what I understand that these developers are able to do is the way that they're able to pump these sedimentation ponds after a three to four day rain event so I'm really shocked that the requirement for pumping is not based on turbidity the discharge water being equal to or less than the turbidity requirements of the creek it's really amazing to me and I just want to make sure that you guys understand that by approving all these things that you're putting Durham taxpayers I know that you're the first line ultimately as the city council but the Durham taxpayers will be fully

liable for the cost associated with cleaning up wake County's drinking water supply which is false Lake primarily so as the pictures have been shown earlier next slide development growth currently there are 17 400 dwellings either approved or pending and additional approximately 41 600 people plus additional students for the proposed charter school there's already critical service issues before adding the additional dwellings you can see from that statement which was dated 22 May 2023 and so all these new people that will be coming to the area will also need these critical Services which we cannot according to what I can see currently cannot fully provide the next statement of the site I want to show and this is why I don't really want to sit on because you know if if pictures say a thousand words this one deserves a dissertation so you can see in yellow is where we're talking about and you can see all the aerial shots that show all the tan areas the land that's been completely Disturbed there is nothing living on this piece of these

pieces of property nothing and you can see they they line up exactly and fall right in these in these critical Watershed areas okay so I mean I don't know what else to say this this is just amazing how much lands under development currently um so regarding future growth thank you Jacob they're two minutes there's excess units that are planned here thank you for your time thank you is there a robin Barefoot present thank you so much chair Vice chair shigaris and members of the Planning Commission my name is Robin Barefoot I live in North Durham actually 6726 Johnson Mill Road and I'm here speaking on behalf of this project because I um often align myself with preserve rural Durham although I'm not a member of their organization but I actually can make comments that I think are relevant

to all the development that's going on whether it's proposed for North Durham or whether it's in other parts of the county the UN indisputable facts are that our watersheds that have long been protected by members of this count this commission and and other elected officials are now being violated The Creeks are ravaged Falls Lake is compromised adjoining jurisdictions are paying attention and a federal lawsuit is pending um Prime agricultural land is demolished natural heritage lands are deforested and the timber is sold to give to the developer or the owner EMS and safety services are Beyond capacity residents are suffering damages which remain unaddressed by the developer by the blasting company by the insurance companies and so far by the city and the County Housing inventory is adequate Based on data that we have for the projected growth and affordable housing remains

unsolved those are indisputable facts and the reason why all of this has as goes on is because affordable housing has become a smoke screen for over development and affordable housing requires a lot more imagination than just clear cutting hundreds of acres and building lots of units and charging a lot of money for them um it requires um Imagination to identify and rehabilitate existing housing inventory you have to start with what you have to build something that's affordable and so instead developers have you know paid lobbyists and and influence the rule-making process to make sure that public hearings are down and profits are up and that the rules and the comprehensive plan and the ordinances are diluted in such a fashion that they can build faster with less oversight they don't even have to draw pictures anymore I thought that was the whole

point of a side plan was to have a picture and I understand that's not even necessarily a requirement and so I would really want to encourage that this commission take a posture that there'd be no annexations and no zoning changes and the Durham's planning department the council and the and the board of County Commissioners um sees their Pro development stature and and status and posture I think is the right word um because it's going to our detriment at this point we are devastating the environment we are damaging existing residents and we need to address affordable housing in real ways for 30 percent Ami for 30 years not not for 60 Ami and so I really encourage some imagination and I'm ready to work with any of you to accomplish that I can give you some examples from Charlotte where they are doing amazing housing refurbishing and Rehabilitation for affordable housing they're even putting Health Care Systems inside those

rehabilitated properties so so let's get this work done let's do it in North Durham let's do it in Southeastern let's do it everywhere and I appreciate your time and all the work that this takes thank you thank you is there any community members on Zoom if there are please click the raise your hand button good afternoon this is Pam Williams do you hear me yes go ahead Pam okay this is Pam Williams 2130 Adventure trail Durham North Carolina um I travel in c98 this area I went to Neo and tokro went to Southern High School and so did my daughters um so uh let's see Aaron's already commented on the one comment about the traffic

concerns and everything uh in the afternoon uh just after uh the four-line section north of Oak Grove and uh the traffic backs uh uh there and it continues continuously to wait for us now uh at this site the traffic count is over fifteen thousand five hundred uh and annual average daily traffic no ta was completed on this project and thus no cumulative impact in this area Okay so this proposed uh project has uh approximately 1400 uh trips per day that's going to be added to the fifteen thousand which is uh right at seventeen thousand seventeen thousand is the maximum that they said for an arterial arterial uh using just 12 site developments under construction on 1998 Olive Branch Dr Nichols uh that have been approved since 2021 when increased to dwellings in this area by approximately 3 500 uh dwellings

and this increase is the truth per day to approximately twenty eight thousand twenty eight thousand if only a half goes to nc98 that would increase the existing fifteen thousand five hundred by another fourteen thousand where the maximum NC 98 is only seventeen thousand it is only a two-lane road um okay there are no plans endurance NPO to improve NC 98 and any roadway in this area in the 2050 plan please know that Southeast Durham has no four lane road thank you to distribute this oh okay thank you but you get the point we have a lot of next Mimi Kessler hello are you able to hear me yes

okay um as it happens I went uh out excuse me I live in Durham my address is on record um as it happens I went out to this area today and I have been listening to um primarily these these women who come and say the same thing every time one of these things comes up and I was absolutely stunned today by what I saw out there it is horrible and um I really think that you all should in in every city council person and every County Commissioner needs to go out there it's one thing to see the aerial photograph that the that the um fellow from Raleigh showed it's a whole other thing to stand at the precipice of where that that um drop-off is

um that's 26 yards from the driveway it is not a far space I really think that we need to Halt all development in this area I also want to know um whether there are people from the from the county or the city who inspect related to grading um and I also want to know at what point in the development process do they determine that there has to be blasting I think that needs to be much earlier in the process so that everybody knows what's going to go on because because Wells collapsing and there's one woman who um whose septic system was overrun and she didn't have time to have the money to fix it and that house has been sold and it was not disclosed to the person who bought it

and there should be some kind of recourse you're two minutes are up Judson Edinburgh had to burn are you there Judson okay the public hearing is now closed nobody else has their hands raised we are now open for commissioner discussions and questions can I be recognized yes thank you Alexander Cahill planning department there's a few things I just wanted to clarify on before y'all start your discussion because it may or may not be helpful um social pinpoint not a perfect tool

however there's a disclaimer that if you post a comment after a date it'll be forwarded to the next governing body so we did receive a bunch of comments however they were after the agenda item was created I forwarded them to y'all they will also be included with the city council packet it's imperfect system but that's kind of the way to delay in agenda items work um Patrick biker stated something about a text commitment around grading being removed and that is news to staff that's text commitment 10. so I just want to clarify and understand maybe a little bit more if that's okay why that's being removed yes yes Alexander that's KDM is a new is a new developer proposed for this site they have the site under con under contract from redeeming Development Group and since it's only a 12-acre site and

the proposal that at KDM was just put forward be something that would be great great at all at once and my understanding is I've been out of pocket for a little while my understanding is the text commitment on mass grading would apply to sites 35 acres and greater is that correct a phase could be up to 35 Acres since it's under that since it's well under that number uh the the limiting it to six acres would be just wouldn't make sense that's correct so we just want to clarify right now as it states is in excess of both the current requirements and requirements that would be voted on by Council on September 5th um yeah and it's being removed that's my understanding and again I apologize I was I was just brought in about a week ago to work on this case so I'm still getting up to speed but again having worked with KDM on Fox Crossing and on uh Carver Street assemblage it was as when they came in to develop the site they were not able to

agree with that commitment that the previous developer had put forward so I apologize for the inconvenience thank you yes sir any commissioner comments commissioner Morgan thank you Vice chair um this is kind of a tough situation here because this area has been kind of recklessly developed and I mean making my comments kind of pointed in that way and it's not a the fault of the applicants so to speak but I do kind of look at what's going on I live in this area I live in Carolina arbors and I do represent the Oak Grove Township area and so I've seen what has changed when you do drive along the different roads we're not doing any improvements

to it we're adding more people commercial is really close to going to Briar Creek or maybe to this some of the shopping area but what's happening is this area is being definitely overwhelmed people are selling out they're selling their land and then the land is being clear-cut my concern is I've seen the changes I live in the area for the last six years I'm not saying develop and start helpful but I do think there's other areas within our city that we should start to focus on and not necessarily use this area I know some of my neighbors have said oh let's do a moratorium and I know that's a negative word to City Council but I do think there needs to be something slowed down and something needs to be planned because there's some Bad actors not necessarily bad developers they're just been doing some Bad actors that have actually been building by right

and Blasting and causing a lot of the sediment that has been reported so I guess my concern is is just this is a this is a tough area I certainly support development and I certainly support Improvement but this area is changing and it's changing way too fast so that's just my comment thank you anybody else any other commissioner comments commissioner sees thank you this is a a case that introduces uh concerns that we've heard expressed and that we see expressed on a daily basis with regards to you know kind of the general growth in this whole area but it also raises some kind of specific questions I have one quick clarification question for staff I'm just noticing now that there is a reference in the staff report to mixed-use Neighborhood the graphic

refers to mixed residential neighborhood um there's there's a subtle difference there and it may not be important but I was gonna refer to that do you know which is correct in terms of the we'll double check that great thanks so so with that being said there have been references from public comments about uh and from commissioner Morgan about you know the word moratorium and about what the council should be doing our commissioner should be doing and how growth should be handled in this area and the very impactful graphic associated with the aerial showing all the clear-cut areas and I think the from my perspective the the issue is not that growth is occurring the issue is the type of growth that is occurring in those areas where there is clear cutting um and and mass grading and and that what we're getting as a community as a region out of that is a single use in most instances in in this area and that single use is very problematic it's very

problematic in terms of stratification of different economic classes is very problematic in terms of trip generation we hear all the the you know concerns and observations about traffic in this area uh but I think the bigger concern is is simply that the type of growth that is occurring is is problematic it's it's building more of the problem than um rather than less of the problem thank you staff so it's mixed use is is the designated Place type um nevertheless I'm going to refer to stepping down from that General observation to the specifics of the site from my perspective um the you know the proposed Place type I'm sorry the Place type map that applies to this through the adopted comprehensive plan is the mixed use neighborhood um the mixed residential neighborhood States clearly that residents living in a mixed residential neighborhood can easily bike I'm sorry easily and safely

walk bike roll within and around their neighborhoods to get to supporting places and Transit stops public amenities like Parks trails and recreational facilities are found throughout a question for the applicant has there been any discussion with Durham Public Schools regarding uh potential connections to Neil middle which forms a good 900 000 feet of your Eastern property boundary and then a second part of that question the private drive that's indicated on the Western Property boundary is there a commitment or an expectation that through traffic would be available would would be allowed from the light at Olive Branch Road which is the main access on Wake Forest Highway through to that connection to address the you know it's it's interesting commissioner cease um I've worked with Durham public schools

for many many years now um and I walked to school and and part of the reason that my wife and I bought the house that we bought 20 27 28 years ago was because we could walk to Rogers hurt um I have found that Durham Public Schools to answer your question directly no I have not spoken to Frederick Davis about this my experience is that they are very security conscious and are very hesitant to allow pedestrian connections that are not um going to be observed by say a school resource officer somebody you have to put yourself in their shoes and look at what the worst case scenarios can be when there are for example um um Family Law issues in in a family

so I don't want to beat around the bush the answer the direct answer to your question is no I'll be happy to talk to Frederick Davis about it but my experience with Durham public schools that they are and I can think of at least one project in particular where I thought we had we had a adjoining property lines with a different with a elementary school and they were not willing to allow for a pedestrian connection from the housing to the school it would still go go out to the public right away come across come in at our access point that we have um security and observation for and what about the Western connection and um oh sorry is access through the site all intended to be private oh yes yes that's that yes I'm sorry I misunderstood your question the answer to that question is yes okay great um that's that's my questions on those two points then and I recognize the site is only

I say only 12 acres but it's part of a much larger uh area designated as a mix um of mixed use yeah yeah those are all the questions I have for you I I appreciate that distinction commissioner cease um yeah we I thought it was the other one the mixed residential where you're looking at different types of of residential uses within a development so um I thought it said that on another page in the staff report well and I think that's uh something you could I guess wrap your head around and clarify for commission but at the point I want to make applies to both of them so I if if it's okay I'd like to continue with my comments please um and and I don't not necessarily looking for a response from you oh okay I'm sorry so the uh the issue is in my mind that the comprehensive plan calls very

specifically for this is a mixed residential neighborhood I'm sorry mixed use I'm still I'm referring to the graphic that is label this makes residential so I'm caught in this loop as well uh conceptually though the the premise behind both of those areas is that these are areas that are highly suitable and designed with intentionality around access that isn't dependent solely upon the vehicle we have a school to the Eastern side of the site we've got commercial shopping center across Wake Forest Highway with zero kind of pedestrian Provisions that anyone would consider safe nevertheless it's within a quarter mile just down the road the concerns about connectivity through this area are you know expressed every time a case comes up and we have Olive Branch Road I'll also note that this is a you know area that is in the county it's not presently in the city correct and so this would be you know an annexation proposal

the site is I would characterize it as a mid-sized site you know it's not large enough to have a lot of flexibility in terms of what can be done uh but it's large enough that there could be some flexibility to me the the kind of larger locational concern is that Olive Branch Road um terminates into Wake Forest Highway and if we're ever going to extract ourselves from this Loop of developing auto-dependent single-use areas in in this part of our County then we have to be able to have connectivity established and this is a really logical place in conjunction with that broad swath identified on the place types map not just this you know moderately sized 12

acre parse parcel to consider how that connectivity can extend and there's clearly in the Udo an intention to have minimum block size requirements but that doesn't come into play when it's it's all just a single ownership multi-family housing deal and I think that's you know somewhat problematic so I I think there are multiple negative impacts associated with the with the application as as it exists now now stop there thank you additional comments commissioner Baker I'll keep my comments simple my second commissioner sees his comments and concerns and I will be voting against it thank you any additional comments commissioner Young yeah I agree I think everyone's hitting the nail on the head with this and the

traffic at Rogers air the school you reference at Chapel Hill and Cornwallis I believe is a lot different than the traffic at 98 and Olive Branch the connectivity to the school I don't think we can rely on anymore just the time we're living in the schools are more private to keep people out because of security reasons so the connectivity isn't there the uh I see more policies that this goes against with a comprehensive plan I'm 101 through 105 70 77 they're all referenced so yeah I'll be voting against this as well thank you any additional comments commissioner Valentine yeah I just like to go on record and say that everyone in our community City and County of Durham should be alarmed by the environmental impact that development in this part of our city is causing um I shudder to think

um what the ramifications will be 25 years from now when my children are approaching uh middle age and so I just want all the my colleagues to to think long and hard about projects moving forward in this particular area and so we have um or we're in a position to do something about the way this particular area is being developed and I think we need to be very intentional in that regard thank you thank you any further comments I would just like to say that I've noticed on the staff report that this particular parcel lies within the East Durham open space plan and has on its proposal limited the minimum amount of Environmental

protections for trees and parks and riparian buffer spaces there's no affordable housing in this proposal therefore yeah just not good okay may I have a motion to move this case forward Madam Vice chair I make a motion that we take case z22 triple zero forty three the week Olive Apartments to be forwarded to the city council with favorable recommendation thank you you'll have a second it has been moved by commissioner Morgan and seconded by commissioner Baker to move case z220043 forward with a favorable recommendation may I have the roll call vote Mr cigars no commissioner Baker no

commissioner cut right no commissioner grazemand no commissioner gurram no commissioner McIver no commissioner Morgan no Mr cease no commissioner Trent no Mr Valentine no commissioner Young no it's unanimous motion fail zero eleven Thirty we take a recess to allow for closed captioning to catch up uh they are okay going another 20 30 minutes and if we want to finish out the last item we're okay to do that there is excellent presentation let's do it you're up Mr wagon good evening I'm uh Scott Weidman with the playing Department again oh should I wait for the chair to

get back all right so we are on uh number five of the agenda public hearing text amendments to the unified development ordinance we have case TC 23 quadruple two quadruple zero two the comprehensive plan related changes may we have the staff report yes again this is Scott Weidman with the Planning Department case tc232 is a relatively minor tax

amendment to align the ordinance with the procedures and nomenclature in the new draft comprehensive plan so that they the Udo and the comprehensive plan will align after the comprehensive plan is hopefully adopted later this year um the intent is that this text Amendment would be on the same agenda with the final votes of the conference plan so there'd be no Gap in between the adoption of the comprehensive plan and the changes to the Edo in general what this text Amendment does is change references to the name future land use map to place type map it uh ads or men's procedures for criteria to amending the play site map the future growth areas and the urban growth boundary it establishes a process for a bi-annual evaluation assessment report as recommended in the comprehensive plan and as a reminder this is again intended to be a more robust review of the comprehensive plan every other year to

to recommend changes to allow it to ensure that it does not get out of date with where we are as a community it would remove the requirement for which zoning District can be applied in which development tier to provide more flexibility for applicants to select zoning districts that can implement the new place type map and it specifies the applicability of the downtown Design District only in the downtown tier since that is the one place where we have zoning that aligns with both the previous and proposed comprehensive plan one note on the development tiers as you all may recall the new comprehensive plan does not carry forward the the system of development tiers that were in the 2005 comprehensive plan with the exception of the urban growth boundary which effectively replaces the old suburban to your world to your boundary which served the same purpose uh that being said so much of our Udo regulations are tied to the development tiers that the development tier map will need to stay in place as an interim measure even after the new comprehensive

plan is adopted until the new Udo is adopted so when we can align the Udo with the new comprehensive plan rather than the old one this text amendment has been uh been available on the social pin social pinpoint site for a comment and has been presented to the Joint City County planning committee well with that I'd be happy to answer any questions thank you this is a public hearing the public hearing is now open do we have any comments from the community all right we have one person signed up Rebecca Freeman yes Rebecca Freeman 1818 Southview Road thank you for listening to my comments um and when I read this I wasn't quite sure what to make of it because it seems like that it's circumventing a lot of

5 it looks like there are a lot of things are going to be changed maybe I don't know

um the site plan is going to be mailed and not posted or published the UDA or companies of text amendments they're not going to be mailed or posted just published I'm not sure exactly how that changes the the transparency of us in the community being able to find out about this I actually just stolen this today and so I'm not quite prepared to fully go into it I've just read some about it but even annexations going to be just published and not mailed or posted and so things are going to happen and change without people in the community knowing about it the other thing is that under the urban growth boundary and future growth area that seems to be a little bit sliding things through it makes it streamlined a lot for planners and and but what about the community are we being are we being informed about these changes and I think that that's what's happening in our area we're trying to inform people about what's going on and how to get involved it's just a huge learning curve to even get involved so I'd like for you to really take a look at some of these things in terms of the concept of

informing people in the community and keeping us informed about what's going on our lives don't revolve around social pinpoint I mean I don't go in there and look at Social pinpoint to see what's there and so it would be really great if we were had a mechanism we don't get water bills out there we don't get you know and and I know that during the southeast focused study area they had a difficult time this was documented and getting people out there involved because they didn't have a mechanism to do that because we there's no communication regular like water bills and that kind of thing so there were people from 27703 that was in 03 that was in the Southeast study focused study but I'm not sure there's always any in the city out thank you for your time is This concerns thank you very much for hearing my concerns is there anyone else you want to address yeah could I clarify so in the proposed tax amendment only things that are underlined or crossed through are changing so most of the notification none of the notification procedures are changing those are from

2 B where future land use map it's referenced it's changed Place type map since that's the change none of the notification procedures or distances or anything like that are changing yeah Alexander yeah thank you uh chair Cameron I think maybe there's a little bit of confusion too there's something called Omnibus that goes through every year that we clean up things in the ordinance sometimes it's things that need to align with State statutes sometimes it's based on you know technical things y'all catch um one of them is Omnibus 18 and I'm guessing maybe that's the text amendment that Miss Freeman was reading as well that's a different thing and we can definitely talk about that that's not on the agenda tonight but I will say we have heard feedback and in that Omnibus 18 we are changing the notification area to a thousand feet from 600 feet so we do hear feedback and we make changes when we can be happy to talk about that offline because that is a different text

Amendment not signed up is there anyone on the zoom uh yes we have Mimi Kessler hi can you hear me yes okay um so I am absolutely thrilled that the that the area has been expanded I was going to say 600 feet even in parts of the city does not adequately uh inform the people who live in an area that's being um uh affected and there's a there's a neighborhood in Durham that was affected uh by this because uh it has to do with the Northern High School development and they're going to have the buses go through uh their neighborhood to a um a road that's now connecting to the Northern High School campus and 500 feet

only got five houses and so and it was and it was related to a um you know a uh what do they call it the small the small exception I forget what the word is but in any case I'm I'm absolutely thrilled to hear that it's at least a thousand feet I think it should probably be twice that but I'm very happy to see that there's progress thank you thank you is there anyone else on the zoom all right don't have anyone else uh the public hearing is now closed we are now open for commissioner discussion and questions and then all right are we ready to move this forward may have a motion to move this

case forward if I can hit the right button oh here we go Adam chair I like to take case or text commitment 23 quadruple 0-2 the comprehensive plan related changes to be forwarded to the city council and County Commission with a favorable recommendation been moved by commissioner Morgan a seconded by commissioner Trapp to move forward TC [Music] 230002 forward with the favorable favorable recommendation may I have the roll call vote sure Cameron yes that's true cigars yes commissioner Baker yes commissioner cut right yes commissioner Graves mans yes commissioner yes commissioner McIver yes commissioner Morgan yes commissioner cease yes commissioner Trapp yes

commissioner Valentine uh yes commissioner young yes motion carries 12-0 thank you we don't have any old business to bring forward there's no new business to bring forward all right the meeting is adjourned at 7 43 pm hours