Durham Planning Commission · Regular Meeting · May 14, 2024

good evening welcome to the Durham Planning Commission the members of the Durham Planning Commission are appointed by the city council the County Board of Commissioners 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 through the zoom virtual meeting platform in the virtual meeting platform public par participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on video by default in order to maintain meeting decorum and a discernable 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 public hearing you may also call in during the meeting tonight by dialing 1301 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 I will ask if there is anyone else wishing to speak at that point you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star9 on your phone and when recognized please state your name and your address before making your comments the applicant has a total of 10 minutes for a presentation and each speaker after the applicant has two

minutes to speak Commissioners as a reminder after the public hearing is is closed you obtain the floor by being recognized by the chair commissioner commission members please remember that you share your time with your fellow Commissioners keep your comments and questions piy please don't repeat topics that have already been discussed or questioned the time to make all public statements before MO is before motions are made the T um once a motion is on the floor and further discussion regarding that motion uhu must become must come after a second all motions are stated in the affirmative so if a motion fails or ties the recommendation is for denial finally I I ask that um everyone here the commission members the staff and the public to conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner if someone fails to act in that manner the

chair will ask the offending person or persons to leave the meeting until such time they regain personal control if deorum fails to be restored the chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to act respectful and courteous is Reserve thank you staff may we have the roll call please chair Cameron here Vice chair Saras here uh commissioner cutright here uh commissioner grav mans has requested an excused absence commissioner Gham yes commissioner Johnson here commissioner copc here commissioner mver here commissioner CE

here commissioner Valentine here commissioner Williams here commissioner wal here and commissioner young has requested an excused absence thank you we have an established quum sorry I say that again we have a quum we do yes thank you there are no adjustments to the agenda um next we have um approval of the minutes and consistency statements do we have a motion to approve from the April 19th April 9th 2004 meeting so move second it's been moved by commissioner cutright and seconded by commissioner CE to approve the minutes and the consistency statements from the April 9th 2024 meeting all in favor please say I I I any

opposed motion passes uh we will move into the public hearings for the initial zoning map changes um the first case is um z23 004a Woodlands preserve cobac Drive may we have the staff report please chair Cameron uh before we begin staff would like to State for the record that all planning department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law and affidavits of all notices are on file in the planning department good evening chair Cameron Vice chair sharis and honorable planning Commissioners Brook rooper with the planning department uh the following information summarizes the application Bill Marlo of Marlo development Partners requests

3 acres and located along feral road to connect to City Water and Sewer the current zoning is residential Suburban 20 and would not change if Annex the properties are currently designated established residential on the place type map and the residential Suburban 20 zoning is consistent with that place type moving on to the next slide a direct this is a direct translation uh in which the existing Durham County zoning is translated to The Identical Durham City Zoning District upon the annexation of their property into the city limits a translational zoning does not and cannot include development plan and any future development May proceed according to what the zoning would allow there is an Associated annexation petition associated with this case which is case bdg 230026 the existing zoning is

residential suburban and the site is surrounded by residential Suburban 20 the aerial map shows the general location of the project within Northern Durham as I mentioned earlier the place type designation for the site is established residential the area to be annexed is not contiguous to the primary corporate limits but is contiguous to a city satellite area again this is a direct translation meaning that there is no mechanism to commit to anything in excess or of the ordinance what is allowed by the Udo is what will be allowed on the property in the future a neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with udia requirements on September 25th 2023 where 13 community members were in attendance finally while the applicant has noted their intent to only develop six single family units the pro proposal

would allow the development up of up to eight single family units on a vacant property in order to connect a city water and sewer the site for the proposed single family units is located in Northern Durham just south of treyburn The Proposal is consistent with all of the policies of the new comprehensive plan which apply to direct translational zonings as found in attachment F uh the proposal is consistent with the place type map designation of established residential uh thank you staff and the applicant are available to answer questions thank [Applause] you at this time the chair will open the public hearing do we have the applicant present see there was I see uh yes Bill Marlo and Timothy Ginger

um you're um please unmute yourself hey this is Bill Marlo go ahead sir um I don't have anything else to add uh unless Tim does please unmute yourself Tim uh yes hey good evening um I don't have anything else to add either unless um the Commissioners have any any questions so can both of you please officially State your names and your uh addresses yeah my name is Bill Marlo my address is 3700 Computer Drive and Raleigh Timothy gringer 112 piperwood Drive carry North Carolina thank you there's nothing to add all right do we have any um community

members in person that would like to speak there's no one that's pre-registered is there anyone on the [Music] zoom uh Alexander Fields yes uh good afternoon thank you um I'm Alexander Fields a resident of the community that's uh subject to this planning decision can it be stated for the record what the intent of the development is and how it would affect the surrounding property that's still zoned as County what benefits did the community residents receed from this uh ended purpose or change of the land of used sir um did you state your address I'm sorry 1710 towards Road okay so um we have I think the applicant has your question note it we'll take all questions at the end I thought I saw another Community member's hand raised

on the zoom and it went down is there anyone else on the zoom that would like to speak would the applicant like to address that question can can you'all hear me I'm trying to unmute yeah so I think the question um was maybe about the change in use the staff report did note that it's a direct translation so there's no actual zoning map change um the land as it's zoned now is intended for single family development and that is the plan with um you know this annexation request these will be single family lots that will be

developing on this property thank you are there any other because we're not going to have a Q&A going back and forth are there any other um community members that would like to have any questions one last um time to ask are there any other community members that would like to ask or speak on this case that is on the zoom if not I am going to close the public hearing the public hearing is now closed and we will open um now for commissioner discussion and

questions commissioner Johnson thank you chair one question for the applicant um well two-part question one does this tie into the original Woodland Preserve approval and with that question yes or no if that was included what does this change from then to now I'm looking at both the cobac and we're about to talk after that with the torage road so I'm just trying to put it into context other than it was zoned for single housing you're going to do single housing has anything changed other than the annex thank you chair um no the yeah the plan is just to to Annex these to uh I think it's four Lots on Tor Road and maybe these five on cobak we're just tying this into Woodlands preserve phase two as you noted so so yes this is you know the

second phase of Woodland's preserve and um you know this will allow us to make a street tie in um it'll allow us to add a couple of extra Lots you know on the north and south side of that road um where this is stubbing in to cobac from the The Woodlands preserve subdivision and just one follow-up question uh a word I learned when I moved to North Carolina or pervious space is this based on the collection of impervious space from pre uh houses that previously year built that have been collected to support this application or were those always built into the original plan I may have to defer to Tim on that I think all the impervious surface will be designed per the Udo once we go into the CD process um so the annexation of these Lots is no not specifically intended to

get give us more impervious surface area if that's the question if I could just clarify it was more of did you have to collect imperious space from uh buildings that you already built and do those residents know about it to support this development yeah so so it'll all be designed per code this was uh this annexation is strictly just to to add a little bit more density and get you know those six extra units that was mentioned in the staff report okay any commissioner C just a u process question for staff in the past um annexation requests have not been appearing before Planning Commission um have just direct transational zoning request associated with the annexation has that come before Planning Commission in the past um this is a new process that we're doing yeah so you you'll be starting to see these coming to Planning Commission whether it's a direct translation or a request for uh a change in zoning so

this is kind of new for us yes great thank you any other questions yes yes I have a question for the applicant can you speak more about the road tie-in are you going to connect to Whispering Meadow Lane to Palamino Lane what what exactly road tie in are you talking about yeah so we will extend the the Palamino Lane into the you know Phase 2 section of Woodlands preserve what exactly is it going to connect to um future streets that are being designed right now all right

any additional questions from the Commissioners are you ready to move this case forward may I have a motion to move this case forward please chair as it relates to Case z2300 004a and annexation bdg 23026 Woodland Woodlands preserve cack Drive U make a motion that we send this case forward uh to city council with a favorable recommendation second it's been moved by commissioner cutright and seconded by commissioner Valentine to move case z23 4A annexation bdg 2326 will ens preserve cobac Drive uh forward with a favorable recommendation to city council may I have the roll call vote please chair c excuse me chair Cameron yes Vice chair sheras

yes commissioner cutright yes commissioner Gham yes commissioner Johnson yes commissioner copc yes commissioner mcgyver yes commissioner CE yes commissioner Valentine yes commissioner Williams yes commissioner wel yes that's it motion passes 120 thank you or 11 I'm sorry 110 at this time we have case z23 52a annexation bdg 2334 Woodland's Preserve torid Road may we have the staff report please Brook Roper City County Planning uh thanks Chris uh the

7 acres and located along feral road to connect to City Water and Sewer the current zoning is residential Suburban 20 and would not change if annexed the properties are currently designated established residential on the Place type map and the residential Suburban 20 zoning is consistent with this designated Place type a direct translation also known as an initial zoning map change is one in which the County zoning becomes City Zoning in conjunction with an annexation the existing zoning is residential Suburban 20 and the site is surrounded by residential Suburban 20 the aerial map shows the general location of the project within Northern Durham the place type designated for the site again is established residential the area to be annexed is

not contiguous to the primary corporate limits but is contiguous to a city satellite area again this is a direct translation which means that there is no mechanism to commit to anything in excess of the ordinance uh what is allowed by the Udo is what will be allowed on this property in the future a neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with udia requirements on September 25th where 13 members were in attendance The Proposal would allow the development of up to seven single family units on a vacant property to connect to City Water and Sewer the site for the proposed apartment units is located in Northern Durham just south of treyburn this proposal is consistent with all policies of the new comprehensive plan which appli to direct translational zonings the proposal is consistent with the place type map designation of established residential thank you staff and the applicant are available to answer questions thank

you at this time the chair is opening the public hearing um does the applicant uh have any uh a report a presentation I'm sorry Mr Barlo and think I see you you're still [Music] on yes I don't have anything else to add at the at this time thank you do we have any community members in person or in Zoom that would like to uh present if you are on Zoom please use the raise your hand function if you would uh have any any comments going

once going twice all right we're going to I'm going to close the public hearing and now going to open up for commissioner discussion and questions commissioner John just one question for the applicant when I look at the map zoning contact map um five it shows five plats or five uh areas marked off and yet this is up to seven is it going to be five is going to be seven is that Z context map going to change in terms of layout um yeah we're planning on um six single family units on this you know five Parcels as well so again this is just to take a road um through that new Phase 2

subdivision connected to torage and add a little bit more density on either side of that road any other questions for the applicant are we ready to move this case forward may I have a motion to move this case forward please chair as it relates to case z23 052a annexation bdg 2334 Woodland's preserve towards Road I make a motion that we move this case forward to city council with a favorable recommendation second it's been moved by commissioner cutright and seconded by commissioner ceased to move case z23 52a annexation case bdg 2334 Woodland's Preserve torich Road forward with a favorable recommendation to city council may I have the roll call

vote please J Cameron yes Vice chair sheras yes commissioner cutright yes commissioner Gham yes commissioner Johnson yes commissioner copac yes commissioner mver yes commissioner CE yes commissioner Valentine yes commissioner Williams yes commissioner wal yes the motion passes 11 to zero thank you we're now moving into um agenda item public hearings zoning map changes the case now before coming before us is z230 20 Fairington road multifamily may we have the staff report

22 n to allow up to 415 multif Family Apartments and townhouse units the existing zoning is mix mixed residential and the planning staff does not recommend changing the place type map as I stated before the existing zoning is residential subur Suburban 20 the site is surrounded by residential Suburban 20 and PDR zoning with lower

densities as indicated in the shades of blue the planning staff does not um intend to recommend or does not recommend a change to the playsight map as mixed residential neighborhood and the aerial map shows the general location of the project to the west of Fairington road and I40 the applicant has included textual commitments including a minim minimum of eight units to be income restricted a commitment to offset the center line of the Southern access point to the east or west of the center line of the north northern access point the provision of parallel parking along both sides of Niagara Drive from its existing Southern Terminus to the first stop condition and the addition of one traffic calming measure internal to the site the neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with the Udo requirements on June 12th 2023 and 82 community members attended this meeting an

additional meeting was held on November 13th 2023 with 80 community members in attendance this proposal again would allow the development of 450 15 multif Family Apartments and town housing units on four PES of land with eight of the 415 units being designated as income restricted The Proposal is consistent with the playsite map desition of mixed residential neighborhood staff and applicant are available to answer any questions thank you thank you at this time the chair is opening the public hearing may we have the applicant uh presentation please

there it was good yeah it's on there uh good evening ch CER Vice chair sharis and members of the Planning Commission I am Neil go at the Morning Star Law Group uh at 700 West Main Street here in Durham and I want to say thank you to miss long for uh presenting the case um we have a few folks with us this evening on the Land Design side we have uh Dan juel from Thomas Hutton um we also have Earl Wellen from kimley horn and he's here on traffic and in a minute you will hear from Kyle Whitaker who was with Northwood Raven the developer of this project uh before I turn it over to him I wanted to say that I have been impressed with this client's determination to meet with and involve the community in these discussions uh there's no doubt that they've gone above and beyond as far as Community engagement uh and it's more than that we did not simply just have a few more meetings uh the client has made several commitments on the development plan directly related to the feedback we have

received uh from Neighbors throughout the many meetings we've had uh I think the best way to start is with Mr Whitaker um who's going to tell you a little bit more about the level of community engagement here here good evening um sorry my name is Kyle Whitaker um 3015 Carrington Mill Road in Morrisville um thanks Neil um my name is Kyle Whitaker development partner with Northwood Raven um wanted to talk um a little bit about the community engagement efforts that we've undertaken here and specifically how those conversations with the neighbors and the community have really shaped the rezoning application that that we're discussing here tonight um you know so shortly after our initial community meeting back in June of last year um Denny reached out to me with um C Barbor um expressed some of their concerns with the proposed um development of the the property that we were looking at just to the south of their neighborhood so over the following months we met with a group of four or five members of the community

um you know we brought in our design team um we reviewed some of our preliminary concept plans for the project we brought in Earl talked extensively about the traffic uh the Tia um and most importantly you know we tried to listen um and tried to understand the concerns of the neighbors and really see how we could work together and kind of find some compromises and create the best project so um skip this scroll down there we go um so I skipped my slide um so what did we hear um you know over the course of those meetings we discussed a lot of concerns from the neighbors um everything everything from density and height to traffic and safety we talked about buffers we talked about waist screening unit mix building materials um you know and i' got a list of kind of some of those key items here but you know really as we looked at each one of those we tried to look and see if there was an opportunity for us to address the concern um or if not is

there a way that we can try to mitigate that concern or any impacts that that might be of concern to the neighbors you know we also looked at the ordinance um some of the concerns were already addressed there so we didn't feel a need that we needed to to duplicate that things like storm water management or placement of recreational facilities like our pool and other other parts of the project um and at the end of the day you know we were able to we think accommodate or or make some commitments to address some of those concerns or at least help alleviate the vast majority of them um so I did want to dive into a few of these um in a little more depth just to kind of see how they translated from our discussions with the neighborhood into the zoning applications I want to touch on density and height and then traffic and safety um so one of the initial concerns that we obviously heard was about the density um and the height of the buildings especially in relation to cul Arbor because it is um lower density single family just to our north um so what what did we do in response to that um you know first we reduced our density down to the 415 units Max um we didn't

reduce the overall allowable height we still plan to do you know four-story apartment buildings but what we did do was kind of look at the Zone skip down a slide sorry um we did try to make that transition of density more gradual from the existing neighborhoods into our development so we had a a Zone kind of at the North portion of the site we increased that from 100 feet from the property line to 150 ft we also expanded at East West um to ensure that we kind of aligned that zone of where the existing homes are in col Barber um we also introduced a third product type which was a detached style dwelling unit um in addition to the town homes and apartment um units as well and then we actually put restrictions in that area where we um have the 35t height cap that that is only exclusively for Town Home Style or detached style dwelling units so no

apartment units can go in that that zone directly adjacent to C Barber so what we really to do is look at how can we ease that transition um make it a little more gradual as it goes from you know lower density lower scale single family to a more dense um apartment development similar to what we see on on other parts of Fairington um the other major concern we discussed at length was traffic and safety um specifically safety concerns associated with potential for cut through traffic um at the connection of Niagara Drive which you can see on the bottom here is kind of that blue line um well I guess Niagara exists on the kind of off the page there um you know so ultimately we're putting in measures that were recommending our Tia for our ENT entrance exit onto Fairington that we think will accommodate the traffic from our site but we also tried to look at hey how can we put in place some design measures and conditions that that really try to discourage any cut through traffic and really try to slow traffic

down um from an overall safety standpoint for our residents pedestrians for everyone that's something that we want in our community as well um so what did those commitments look like um over the the course of our conversations and how do they translate to the development plan what we agreed like was mentioned in the staff report to offset the connection of Niagara drive we have to connect to the north to the existing road but we also have to stub to the South so we are offsetting that to to force a movement of traffic and slow traffic down um we committed to installing the parallel parking that was mentioned once again trying to reduce the field the width of the street to slow traffic down um we also P committed to pursuing those additional traffic Cal me measures stop signs median Islands things like that we haven't designed the roads fully yet so that's when we've got to work with um city transportation staff to make sure we're in compliance with the road ordinances and then the other piece that we also looked at is we committed to some offsite improvements to specifically address the concern concerns in cul Barber um and that was

you know striping Edge lines to once again reduce down whoa went the wrong way um so the top is an existing image of Niagara and C Barbor we to put EDG lines in to kind of narrow that drive lane and slow traffic once again and um improve safety so ultimately you know over the course of our nine meetings I think they were very productive and collaborative um I do want to say thank you to the community members that we met with um you know thanks for beinging willing to have an open conversation that's not always the case um in scenarios like that and I think the the results are in the result and what you see in the development plan thank you and U thank you Kyle uh see I don't have that much time left so I'll just go through a couple things here um you know challenges are posed anytime new development is proposed next to established residential areas I think this project fits very nicely within the framework of the new comprehensive plan the place side map designates um this property and the surrounding area for mixed residential and within that mixed residential designation you've got a a single family PDR across the street and

you've got some single family on the other side of us so the addition of Apartments I think is warranted here um and also helps achieve ultimately the vision for mixed uh residential area of the place I M um I would say the comp the comp plan also recognizes the need to respect existing neighborhoods but tries to balance that with the need to provide housing in a growing city and in that same vein we have limited height in our Northern section and provided for a gradual transition from existing residential uh we also are pursuing traffic calming measures that are you know above and beyond anything a TIA would recommend internal to the street um and I think overall this is a thoughtful project that helps achieve some of the big picture items outlined in the comp plan while at the same time responding to uh the important details raised by area residents sometimes those things can be at odds but I think this developer has found some great ways to do both simultaneously and I applaud them uh for that and I hope you will too and uh we thank you for your time and our team is available to answer any questions you may have thank you very much

thank you at this time going to call um community members that have signed up in person to present I know that there is a um group that that has a presentation correct um if you could um get your presentation together and I think you're going to present concurrently and um if you can line up so you can do that that would be great you don't um waste any of your minutes or your seconds we're trying to get rid of we're trying to get rid of the they need some assistance over here we know how to get ours up but we didn't know how to I completely

understand I know I'm trying to get the clicker up there thank you that way wasn't [Applause] it bar you're great thank you thank you very much okay yeah okay good evening I'm Barbara with a I am a six-year resident of villa of C Barber and I reside at 5217 Niagara drive tonight you will hear our VCA negotiation team present our opposition of Northwood Ravens resoning application including an overview of our negotiations focusing on traffic density and traffic calming we recognize that zoning is a privilege not a right given our proposition we request a continuance for a minimum of 60 days to allow a more thoughtful and intentional plan reflecting consensus among the

stakeholders alternatively we request that the developers resoning application be disproved as submitted villis at cul Barbor was approved in 2009 requiring that an a that a resident over the age of 55 live in 90% of the homes in return seniors have an age and place option if they can not or do not want to live with a relative in a Continuing Care Facility or in a nursing home we have over 40% of our residents over the age of 80 VCA has 128 homes our residents have to walk in the streets to get to their mailboxes half of our all of our our sidewalks are only on one side of the street many residents have resided in their homes since the beginning during the negotiations with um during the negoti A team's discussions with Northwood Raven verbal assurances were made significant portions of which are absent from their resoning proposal tonight's presentation

flows from the letter the VCA negotiation team sent to the planning Commissioners given our opposition to Northwest Raven zoning application we request a continuance for a minimum of 60 days to allow a more thoughtful and intentional plan reflecting consensus among the stakeholders alternatively we request that the developers Reon application be disproved as submitted thank you our next speaker is Judy tesy a member of our negotiation team good evening I'm Judy tusky 5209 naagar di so you've already seen the general outline but you can see our VCA on the North the proposed Northwood Raven development on the south Fairington running along the right hand side there just to reorient you you we learned about this resoning request last summer it was on social pinpoint and within weeks there were dozens of comments about the traffic the safety of

our neighborhood Etc So within BCA we formed a group to look at how this was going to affect us what does it mean to our Aging in place community and the most important concerns were a scal down neighborhood with a thoughtful transition and and traffic safety so um we met with Northwood Raven we got a hold of them had a couple meetings quite a few actually um and by September they were showing us this draft it includes the apartments toward the back in Orange the blue cottage style units that they mentioned on our border as well as the southern border surrounded by town homes so this led us to believe that they're listening to us there's also you can see a little bit of the traffic calming that Kyle discussed there was a second mandatory meeting on the 13th of November um there were actually over a hundred people residents and neighbors there um

strong strong interest you can see what they showed us in that meeting looks pretty similar to the September diagram little bit more bubble diagram but similar then what was submitted here only shows uh the 35 foot in the um top adjacent to us the rest of the area is zoned for whatever 65 ft it could be anything so we had a lot of verbal assurances and we just would like to see them reflected in the actual plan next speaker is John I'm John Gunter 103 Pino Court I'm going to speak to the uh traffic issues that we're concerned about Judy's there we go okay this slide shows the two developments that Judy had on her first slide uh you see I40 is the yellow stripe and then to the left of

that is Fairington road and then the developments what's uh I want to show is what's going on south of us uh below us there is a uh some already completed and some uncompleted in in outline that is going to contribute heavily to the density on Fairington road and that's what we're concerned about we need for you to look at the bigger picture than what's just going on in this development here's a list of the developments there I'm not going to go through this I just put it up for emphasis on the magnitude and so you can see the numbers of units that are going in uh all the way down in in within about a half a mile you've got all this development going on and that's going to add a lot of traffic uh to Fairington road this is straight from the traffic impact analysis that was done for us uh for for the developer that he submitted uh you see uh the axes are labeled in

cars per minute you see southbound traffic in blue and Northbound traffic in Orange in the mornings uh person today is looking at perhaps uh 10 cars coming from the southbound Direction when he's trying to make a right turn on the Fairington uh in the future he will be looking at 15 cars if you're trying to make a left turn a lot of us are 60 and older left turns are intimidating uh you have uh even more cars to look at they're coming at you at about 45 miles an hour and uh that can be very difficult I I need to move on so I just will point you to the plans that you have in place on your shelf from several traffic studies paid for by the taxpayers not by the developers and I'd encourage you to look at those and see what they offer uh this is Durham's Chapel Hill caror comprehensive traffic plan published in 2018 it was specifically this uh

amendment is specifically for Fairington road uh and it shows uh in this if you if you see a dotted a a red black dotted line going approximately up the middle that's an extension of Falcon Bridge which currently ends at Highway 54 this extends it northward uh get in with Fairington and that will make a big difference to uh this traffic let's do the plan for traffic before you put in all these developments the plans were there first for traffic appreciate the extra time I'm Denny Nogle I reside at 5151 Niagra Drive uh I congrat congratulate Durham for adopting the zero vision zero approach uh they've also recently about four months ago hired a new coordinator

uh Lauren Grove is her name I was quite impressed with her interview given only a week or two ago if you haven't seen it I'd invite all Commissioners to look at the bottom of uh the bottom of this slide and uh I think it's 20 minutes well taken um this is a way of balancing and helping protect citizens including senior citizens as in our community from traffic accidents and even death um traffic calming has been an issue uh we have worked and made some progress in that direction with Northwood Raven we're thankful for that but we believe our work is not done why are we so concerned about our um our aging Community the answers to that are in the two-page document that you should find and hopefully have read read in your read ahead uh This was done by four Physicians uh in our

community um this is the lifestyle we now have it shows a great many of our population can walk for their health their welfare socializing is so important to us I've counted nine people as indicated in the center photo nine people walk adjacent that's so important to them as in uh people in having assistance devices on both the left and the right side that's also critically important um my final slide and I'll skip ahead in time is that we respect ask uh for a pause of 60 days minimum perhaps let's let Laura Grove do her job let's please have her give us the best advice on how to keep our senior citizens safe the decision of these Commissioners will determine if our

community is safe and our lifestyle is protected thank you and here's the chairman here's the president of our HOA good evening my name is Marian strand I reside at 108 Pino Court in the village at cul Barbor I'm president of the HOA board of directors BCA has seven extended private driveways that could be mistaken for City roads two ponds with private asphalt walking paths that could be mistaken as inviting public paths it's vca's responsibility to maintain these driveways and paths safely therefore they cannot be open to the public there is currently no path between Creekside Elementary and the Northwood Raven development except through these private paths which are not public and are not safe for unsupervised children children biking or walking to Creek Side on our private path unwittingly put Senior VCA residents at risk for Falls there's no

plan for safe access to Creekside from the proposed development prior to approval NWR should be required to include a written commitment to extend a sidewalk that ends on the North Boundary of VCA property on Fairington road all the way to the intersection of Ephesus Church Road and from that corner to the school in summary Tia should be Rewritten to accurately reflect all growth on Fairington road and to consider timeline of known Road and Transit improvements the following written commitments are needed to show distribution of detached homes and town homes through the Eastern section of property to show maximum stories of buildings not just maximum height to provide adequate traffic calming measures with NWR property and VCA to provide adequate access to the public sidewalk to Creekside School our meeting with Northwood Raven were colleg our meetings were with Northwood Raven were collegial and productive but they were terminated by the developer too soon for the reason

stated in the letter and expanded on tonight we respectfully request that the commission continue its consideration on this proposal for a maximum of 60 days so that concerns discussed tonight can be readdressed and resolved between the parties thank you thank you uh next we have Carol balinsky my name is excuse me my name is Carol bolinsky and I live at 214 Culp Hill Drive and thank you for this opportunity to speak first of all much of the research in the slide presentation could not be presented tonight due to the time constraint of 2 minutes I urge the members of the commission to refer to the written comments and your handouts which were emailed to you we thought we were allowed 3 minutes but unfortunately

that's not the case even if it is written on the website a three-minute time let let alone 2 minutes does not even compare to the time granted to the developer three points I would like to address first a word about our community in Kul Barber it's a walking Community many residents walk along the roads as it's safer the road pavement is smooth whereas seams in the concrete sidewalks may be raised presenting a tripping Hazard or an obstacle have you ever noticed that runners run on the streets that's the reason whether our senior population uses devices as Walkers adult tricycles or bicycles or merely walking solo with a group or with a group the roadway is the preferred and safest way to navigate our neighborhood another point is the amount of cars possibly using Niagara versus Fairington road one can rightly assume that a good percentage of homes and

apartments will have two cars please do the maths say safety versus capacity finally the city of Duram encourages the senior community to be built please do not abandon the city's assurances yes new leadership comes in I understand that but there has to be an obligation to pass commitments therefore I join my fellow speakers and Neighbors in requesting a continuance for the minimum of 60 days or the developers resoning application to be disproved as submitted thank you thank thank you is there anyone on anyone else in a galley that would like to speak that has not previously signed up is there anyone on the zoom that would like to speak we have Elizabeth

Foster please go ahead Elizabeth Foster please state your name and your address we are unable to hear you is there anyone else in the zoom that would like to speak we're unable to hear Elizabeth um Foster please use the raise your hand button

Elizabeth Foster if you're on your phone I believe you can hit star 67 and it will unmute yourself is there anyone else on the zoom that would like to speak all right in the um time remaining with the applicant like to address any of the um issues brought forward by the community someone left this up here no problem um not necessarily I did just want to say uh I think there had been several uh requests here for um a 60-day continuance and I just say you know as

the applicant we've met with this neighborhood several times um we've had I think more than I me we had like nine meetings several emails um I I I mean I think it's pretty clear that we have not necessarily satisfied 100% of the things that they have brought up but we have heard them and we have addressed them and and you know we have uh I think offered what we can in in that regard and I think we've come up uh with a better project as a result uh so I just wanted to go on record and say you know I don't I don't know that a 60-day continuous is going to get us a whole lot closer to anything we we have had several discussions and um you know so I would say we would rather uh there be a vote tonight thank you all thank you all right uh one more time for anyone on the zoom if Elizabeth Foster can be heard now

she do you want to try to unmute yourself one more time go ahead you're unmuted we still can't hear her all right at this time um I'm going to close the public hearing and we are now open for commissioner discussion and question questions commissioner C no yes questions for staff erene these are Transportation related if you don't mind that would be great um and a couple of comments as she's walking up uh there was a reference and the um comments from the public regarding this commission making decisions and I just want to clarify as

often times community members like yourselves which is great to have your input in this body uh we don't make any decisions we make recommendations it's your elected officials that make the decisions regarding resoning U but we make recommendations and your input here and at that venue um is a important part of the overall process so thanks um a question regarding some of the concerns that we've heard with uh the connection to the existing Street um the existing Street in the neighborhood is public is that correct and um if it was built today it would have been required to have sidewalks on both sides is that correct um it was built under kind of a prior approach to um the design standards uh also I on the same topic the um text commitment 8 that speaks to a traffic calming measure it just references it as generally um somewhere in internal to the site but subject to City approval what are the um

considerations that would go into and or the likelihood that such a traffic calming device would not be approved by the city right earling Thomas Transportation so we did have the opportunity to meet with the developer and community members um and have that conversation surrounding the traffic calming measures I think the ones that are listed in the text text commitment are ones that you know we would be able to approve within the development okay great um and then this is a topic that has come up with some prior cases that are either multif family well that are multif family um the the connectivity requirements in the ordinance aren't um applied in the same way as they are with if if if it was single family is that correct because they can access uh multif family via private streets and parking lots and driveways so planning department is clarify that

the connectivity standards apply to streets and not necessarily driveways that connect to Great okay thanks that's it so then a couple of questions on these points for the applicant and then and then uh I think I'll be done uh the commitment for a traffic calming measure um somewhere within the site text commitment number eight I'm looking at that relative to the bike ped committee recommendations um which specifically recommended a traffic calming feature located near the connection of Niagara on the Northern end of the site could the commitment be more specific to help address some of the concerns about so traffic asene had stated we had we had met with uh Transportation about the about what kind of traffic calming uh we we could accomplish here now I think some of the difficulty of that is stating specifically where it can be without actually having anything designed or proposed on a site plan um and the I

mean my understanding is that the comment you're referring to from the bike pad committee is really a reflection of what the neighbors told the bike pad committee which they also told us so it's not like we weren't aware of it uh when when we were having discussions so I think there is a question as to how the connection to the existing Southern terminus of uh Niagara Drive will go I don't know if there's going to be a stop sign there if there's not a stop sign there what they're asking for is a mid a midblock Crossing there and I'm not sure that we're going to commit to that that will be approved yeah I I agree that a midblock Crossing would probably be um excessive but some of the other features that are represented or devices that are represented could be seemingly appropriate in that segment that you're connecting from your East West Connection going on just something that I think would be good to consider um and I might be missing the point I think we did commit to putting parking on on uh on parallel parking on the Niagara extension parking is um I I read that as

appearing South but so as I don't run out of time and allow some others here to speak let me just um ask one other question uh I noticed the access access drives are labeled appropriately North and South as public but the one to Fairington is labeled as private so that would be a connection east west through the site but private and I can understand a lot of reasons why you would want that but can there be a um a a commitment to ensure that that's at least open for access to the public oh yeah that the access out the Fairington road would absolutely be open to the public okay so can we work with staff to incorporate that going forward as a commitment sure and for what it's worth my understanding is like gated access isn't is no longer allowed so I'm not sure how we would prevent it from being a public access but yeah absolutely we could work with staff on appropriate language for that I'll stop there thank you thank

you commissioner Valentine uh thank you madam chair during the public comments uh there was a a particular comment that was made about assurances that were provided during what sounds like has been very fruitful and engagement um but they're not being reduced uh to writing can you can you speak to that well I think maybe some of what that was is where where the height was limited I think you know we've we've put uh graphically on on our plan which maybe I can pull up okay so um uh this is what the uh development plan looks like this bottom one this top one was May what it looked like

previously was changed as a result of some of the conversations we had so this area here uh so like in here in this rectangle that area is limited on the development plan to uh 35 ft of Building height which I I think that was before scad so it might be more like 40 ft with the way they've changed the um the how height is measured but regardless this area was expanded you can see from where we were this is based off conversations um that we had with the community now some of the conceptual drawings that we have um shared with the community show you know um maybe shorter product than the uh full-blown Apartments but they are conceptual so the idea here is that the shortest and most um you know I guess compatible with the existing neighborhood unit types are going to be closest to that neighborhood to allow for that transition throughout the rest

of the community so I don't know if that's what they're referring to specifically um but I you know I could understand how some of the concepts that we're shown aren't 100% reflected on the development plan but they are conceptual the idea is to provide that transition I think that is reflected here on the development plan but you know some of the other things we've talked about I mean it is kind of difficult for me to to I think they have been reduced to writing or graphic commitments on the development plan I mean one that just pops out to me on this page is the the commitment to offset these two points so we're not creating a you know kind of a straight away where people might speed through this is itself design a more securest route so it is kind of itself a a traffic coming measure in addition to the other traffic caling measures that we've committed to on the development plan as well I actually have a an additional I guess a comment just generally was brought up during the public comments uh the amount of development that's going

on in the Fairington uh area um as you're thinking through this project how does this impact on the larger development going on in that area how does this fit yeah that's a great question so I think the comprehensive um the comprehensive plan newly adopted comp comprehensive plan kind of helps answer that question um to the north where we have existing neighborhood that area is shown on the playside map as established residential uh generally speaking that you know that means it is developed appropriately and is set to kind of stay that way now in the Fairington road area where there's a lot of development you've got you've actually got two different designations so this property and kind of east and west of this property in the same let's say latitude um that area is z is not zone is designated on the place type map for mixed residential and in that context this project fits very nicely the property across Fairington road is

in that mixed residential Place side map category that has already been zoned and is in sight planed I think maybe in development for single family detached homes basically right so that's one of the mixes of residential unit types that you would want to see throughout that designation then to the uh west of our property there are that goes out to George King Road not not not that this property touches George King Road but it's that direction those properties are developed on large lot single family as it is right now um and so you know they are again kind of appropriate type of uh housing type so what we're establishing here in the mixed residential um Place type designation is Apartments now the use technically is I think it's just one use multif family but the unit types are going to be if you drove by it you will see units that look like detached homes you will see units that look like townhouse homes and you will see traditional apartments right now I think

technically uh it's all a multif family use because because of the way the Udo works these all be uh multiple residential units on one tax parcel which would qual ify it as a multif family use but I think from a unit type standpoint it really is going to look like both uh detached um single family Town Homes and Apartments so it helps achieve the ultimate vision for uh the mixed residential Place type designation and then south of this area I think that's where you have the um we your testim me transit opportunity area I believe um and so those I mean you're you're correct that those a lot of those properties have been already approved or in resoning and you know we're familiar with what they're proposing there um and some of them one of them in particular has got you know quite an extensive mix of uses so I think over you know you'll see this area over time develop I think it's looking like it's

it's people are taking the comprehensive plan seriously and and this site is or this area is developing consistent with the comprehensive plan commissioner cutri thank you chair quick question um you've committed to I believe it was eight affordable first question is what are the parameters of those affordable um is it 30-y year uh right it's 60% 30 year is it 80% I believe yeah 80% for 30 years okay um have you given any consideration to another eight uh or so units a lot of units you're you're putting up uh to only give eight seems a little short right so we're we're looking at it um so part of the I think it's safe to say that the affordable units would be would end up in the apartment so we're looking at this as

where where how many and we don't really have the exact mix um the concept as you've seen has changed a couple times so it is something that we're looking at uh I don't think I could really make a different commitment tonight but uh you know I'm aware that eight out of the overall 45 units is you know maybe other projects have committed to more um but this I think is related to the split in the unit type which isn't quite settled yet uh appreciate it just to be clear so my comments will reflect sort of a strong um need to to see more affordable um and so you know that I think that's the direction to go naturally we need some housing um but we need all types of Housing and I feel like at 400 units uh we should be able to get 20 or so appreciate it understood thank you commissioner

copc thank you chair Cameron uh first I had a couple questions for uh for staff um and the first was just getting at this question of an aggregate analysis when there are multiple projects in the pipeline but haven't yet been completed uh to what extent are those factored into the the the tias I suppose that's earlene thank you erene Thomas Transportation so all approved developments are accounted for and factored into the traffic analysis now any that came after this submitt won't be reflected in there but those TI would include all the previous ones okay so if they've been improved they'd be in included yes or underway or underway yes okay thank you um the next question was about the tree coverage uh on page two the zoning map Change Report it stated that the minimum requirement was 20% and this project would deliver 20% but it looked

like in the development plan it was 7% and 7% so I'm just curious about which one is the correct number uh unless I misread the document question um I guess I was thinking it was for staff uh but it could be for either but I'm sure you would likely know the answer to that question as well um because it's different in two parts of the documents I'm curious which is the correct number yeah so it's my understanding is we're in the compact neighborhood here the requirement there will be 7% that is what I believe we've committed to I don't know where the 20% came from I can't speak to that okay so that would that need to be corrected in that

document I think while we're looking for that I'll also just reiterate the statements of commissioner cutright you know for a development of the size you know to see less than you know 2% of units reserved for uh as affordable um despite the 80% in 30 years I think that's something that we'd like to see higher um um you know to reflect the the desires of the of the community and the comprehensive plan around you know units of of all types and at all prices uh so I just want to second that that comment um and also just want to acknowledge the comments uh first of all appreciate uh all the engagement uh from the community on this issue uh the thoroughness um you know the Deep work you've done in this um you know and I hear that concern around the change around age restriction uh and that's something that was um you know commitment was made at that time even though now the comprehensive plan does push for more of a a mixed age um uh

being the new approach I'm also curious um at the time that that commitment was made how would we have thought about this development on an adjacent um property uh would that have been considered uh or would that not have been included under an age restriction I first want to answer your question about the um 7% tree coverage since it is in a compact tier it's 7% required so we need to make a change to the report okay than thank you appreciate it yeah MH just think about like what the responsibilities are even if the priorities have changed which I think all of us here have had to adapt to changes in the comprehensive plan I was just curious being on an adjacent lot

how should we think about those age restriction limits that were kind of phased out so yeah that's that's a that's a good question um we yeah B I mean basically the comprehensive plan does not want to see age restricted communities um we have policies that say we should not have age restricted communities because we're looking to have more of a heterogenous uh neighborhoods areas where people of a variety of different ages different different backgrounds and so forth can all live um within one Community uh when we're adjacent to an age restricted community I think the best thing we want to do is try to make sure that we have designs in the new communities that can incorporate and address and acknowledge the senior citizens who are going to be living next door to that and make sure we can accommodate them as best as possible through proper design okay thank you and one last question I

think this would be for the developer uh and also a a comment and this is something I haven't heard yet so I don't feel it's repetitive um but it's about this question of access to Creeks at Elementary uh and the fact that there are private um access points that uh it sounds like it's been shared would be the primary roots that folks would use uh and so it seems like you know we doing any sort of planning you kind of look where people move and you try and try to design for that um you know is this a concern that can be accommodated to provide that sort of connectivity uh one question and two do you agree with the fact that otherwise if you don't provide for that that these private access drives will be the way that people will flow to get to the elementary or is there another way uh for residents to access so I'll start with your last question first um for what's worth I grew up here in Durham I grew up in Parkwood and throughout Elementary School I walked to to school

MH and back home um I wasn't a bus rider and I didn't uh my parents didn't drive me as Elementary School student um and that was7 Miles thereabouts a lot of that was not uh accommodated by any sidewalk um some of it was uh and um well I I could say I'm here today so I think it can be done uh safely now um as far as whether um uh new residents would use private walkways within uh the village Culp Arbor neighborhood I mean they they have suggested that they would not allow the public the general public to use those so I mean I guess the answer is no uh but I would agree with the notion that yeah generally people try to find a safe route to wherever they're going um and maybe the safest shortest route um it I can't really speak to whether

there is a connection from Village cul Barbor to the elementary school that would strike me as odd because they have said that you know they they they've expressed their views on school AG children I'll put it that way and the notion um you know the idea that that this developer would solely be responsible for providing public sidewalk up uh Fairington down FIS Church to the school I mean it's not something we can accommodate we don't even know if the RightWay is there to do it um and so we're not going to commit to that uh but I will say you know developers in general pay into a fund for the city for sidewalks so it's not that they're not contributing to the ultimate or future installment of sidewalk but I don't know that we would make a commitment specific to having sidewalk uh along that route and I know thank you for that I know part of the issue is at this point in time sometime it's hard to know the details and so it's hard for you to make commitments is this the end of the engagement process

or will there be continued work with the community when it comes to more specific plans around traffic calming around safe routes to schools you know uh Vision zero do you uh do you envision uh future work together as the specifics come together uh I mean I I I don't see why not right but we've we've had several conversations with the community and and I don't I mean and we'll continue to have conversations with them at some point you know the the the rezoning is a is a public uh hearing process right but the site plan is not that doesn't mean we can't work with them on that but how you know I I can't promise any kind of level of input or you know Authority that that would be granted to the neighborhood for that um I and you know for what it's worth I think uh Northwood has already been pretty transparent about what they're hoping to accomplish here I don't know why they wouldn't continue continue to be transparent with the community okay you know and and you have done more than a lot of cases we

see in terms of Engagement uh it's not always about quantity right absolutely um but I would encourage you to continue that openness and that engagement uh if this does proceed uh to try and meet some of these additional needs particular around safety and traffic calming yeah understood I want to Echo I thought our Commissioners has have done a great job and laying out some very critical questions and I thank you for that I've heard the um Community talk about safety traffic height um single units where they're located and commitments that haven't been followed through on I've heard the applicants say that they have met commitments and there's been a lot of discussion but there's still a disconnect for me still a disconnect as to where the old perver rubber beats the road so my question for the app applicant first of all is tell me how the development and flow for Niagara Drive will work because I see

the site map I'm just trying to visualize how much flow will go to Niagara which will be also in the development your your question is how will the flow of traffic from the development to the uh VCA through Niagara drive work so and uh Earl I might ask for for your assistance here just to describe because I I mean I'm sorry I can't hear robot yeah yeah I was I was I was uh just asking our traffic consultant to to be available because they you know he ultimately did a traffic study for this and made some assumptions about that but in general this is not in general um you know you're you so there will be homes [Music] in well in in this area right and they will be split by this North South Road which will be Offset you also have an access off Fairington road so you know it is my assumption that you know the majority of

people are going to be first of all living you know in line with this and south of that on this site um and so is my understanding that most of those people are projected to use the Fairington road um entrance or exit I should say uh where I think the most influx of traffic through um village cul Barbers is actually from inbound traffic southbound is that in theory yeah so in theory the the the most traffic that results from this development that will be routed through the existing Community would be the inbound traffic that might be headed south on Fairington road come into the cul Arbor neighborhood and continue south on the extension of Niagara to get into the neighborhood if that Mak sense yeah it does my followup question is just silly of me can this development proceed without access to niag well no the Udo requires that connection to you

okay then that thank you got a couple other questions we haven't talked about schools and based on the data that was in the applicant data uh they're all at capacity other than Middle School which is like25 or 35 25 um and then you're adding potentially another 129 students at about $700,000 impact how is that going to be addressed I didn't see any proffers about covering cost on impact to schools in anything that I read yeah no we I'm sorry nor did I read anything about addressing the school impact either what was the first I thought you said the profer for the cost impact on the schools we'd have to deal with the question in our community about how to deal with the ex or the access to schools if they're already at capacity but it's the first one profer for the school impact of $700,000 yeah that's something that we had talked about internally now the $700,000 is not quite the number that we're looking at um you know the I think the figure in the staff

report is related to what the county would would expect to put in on a per student basis of course people in this community will be paying into that tax fund so a lot of that cost is already covered by the increase by the new residents to begin with just like we all pay taxes uh in the city so no profer is what you're telling well no I think I think we are willing to make a profer I just don't think it' be $700,000 and if you were to make one are you willing to make one tonight or yeah I think we can make a commitment tonight to provide a one-time commitment to dur Public Schools this is something that we talked about already and um give me a second I can probably reduce that to a number yeah one second chair one chairwoman chair I'm GNA ask a question

while oh you're ready I'm sorry I was going to ask a question of community go ahead oh yeah we would we would make a commitment to provide a one-time commitment to uh dur public schools in the amount of $64,500 $4,500 did you $64,500 thank you if I could ask the community a question I understand the impacts that you're talking about I understand the the the ability to walk roads Believe Me versus sidewalks I get it you want a 60-day pause because of Transportation looking at the safety issues disconnects in your view between what you felt was a commitment versus the applicant what exactly and one of you please come up what do you expect to happen in those 60 days and if nothing changes after 60 days and we're back here what's the outcome so I'm sorry this you're really not supposed to ask that oh oh not to the applicants okay this is not we wanted to

talk I apologize for I'll I'll being quoted so no that that's fine sorry chair um I'm done thank you thank you I'm sorry I'm slow to uptake so I'm I'm going to call for a 5 minutes recess right now um because I we I do want to get with the staff uh about some questions about this particular um case and some questions that I have about some of the community questions so um it is 6:58 we'll come back at 7:03 thank you owning a home provides a sense of

financial stability family community and pride but housing prices are now higher than ever making it hard for many Durham residents to afford their first home that's why the city of Durham is offering the down payment assistance program to support eligible individuals with up to $80,000 in 0% interest forgivable loans to purchase a house within the city limits visit this site or call to find out if you qualify for the program we the people humog we the people hold these truths to be self evident that all men and women are created equal and shall be afforded the inalienable right to fair housing the city of Durham and HUD are committed to ensuring that everyone is treated equitably when searching for a place to call home

[Music] hey hey hey [Music]

hey e e

e e

e e call the meeting back to order all right who uh commissioner CE you want to go sure thank you um a couple of points that I think have not been made or at least uh not not in the way that I want to address them first of all there was a

reference to to the hiring of the vision zero coordinator I I don't think um there are too many people more excited than I am and a number of folks on this commission that this the city has made that higher um and and so I wanted to acknowledge that and in fact you know much of um much of the task of that role pertains to a lot of these issues but across a lot of different contexts that is how places have been built across our city over different periods of time and I just reflect on you the fact that I'm I'm fortunate to live in a neighborhood that has ample sidewalks adequate sidewalks and every single day um because of where I live and what's nearby there are people who are moving about the neighborhood uh to the neighborhood Park via um whether with Mobility devices or assistance on both sides of them the sidewalks accommodate that um the the streets are traffic calmed because of the design standards and to me I think there are

really two there really three critical issues here tonight one is the affordable housing you've heard um what I think a number of Commissioners here U believe is important there and I think you'll encounter that at at uh with the elected officials as well based on their comments around those issues um the second issue is that uh this is consistent with the place type map and the place type map was a product of a fairly extensive comprehensive plan um effort years of Engagement lots of work it doesn't mean that every parcel that is identified with a particular intended use was nailed correctly but there is a lot of intentionality and a lot of effort expressed in what that place types map represents and this um application I think it it's important to acknowledge it is consistent with that um to me the biggest challenge and this is the third item is the is the that

this issue that has been expressed by the Culp Arbor Community with regards to connectivity and traffic concerns and a lot of the challenges there I think are um are a product of it having been built in a different time with a different set of design standards uh but that street is is a public Street and connectivity is important how that connection is made whether it be via traffic calming measures or certain devices that's also important those are as the applicant indicated things that are typically resolved at site plan stage but I I do think they need that needs to remain at the top of the list of how to make that connection carefully um but I'm I'm going to you know fall back on uh the broader consideration of all these issues but that place types map is kind of a guiding principle with um uh full support in my comments even though I'll be supporting the project in my comments supporting what the Commissioners here uh some of my

colleagues have addressed regarding what is really um um seemingly insufficient commitment to affordable housing uh right around 2% that that number really seems to um need to be higher based on the the the broader needs of our community and the the surroundings in this area and the you know not just the availability of affordable housing but affordable housing in in this part of our city so that's what I'll end with thank you thank you I have a com Vice chair I have a question for the applicant specifically concerning policy 85 for the Udo um about new developments and tree coverage and tree canopy and mature tree canopy uh being dispersed throughout a new development to maintain a consistent mature tree canopy wherever possible there are numerous mature trees on this site uh I believe the largest one I saw was a 48 Oak uh 40 Oaks are

generally 200 years or older so what is what part of this proposal helps meet that policy to make a design such that these mature trees and this mature tree canopy will be preserved so that Durham doesn't have to wait 200 years to reestablish it I mean I think consistent with that policy or not ultimately I think that's uh what the planning staff evaluates um and I I mean I know Dan are you able to speak to which tree specifically I mean I I believe you all have done somewhat of a tree survey and I don't know if you can speak to I I certainly don't know the particulars certainly Ken thanks Neil Dan juwel Thomas Hutton landscape architect um yes the uh what we're committing to it a

minimum is the western part of the site there's a stream uh partially on the property there's a stream buffer and there are quite a bit of mature trees in there we are committing to saving that area uh and that will be at least 7% of the site we're aware that there's other mature trees on the property they may or may not be located in areas where they could necessarily be saved we'll certainly look at that you know as a landscape architect I don't go out of my way to cut trees down uh and as we get into site plan and careful design we'll we'll look at that I can't at this time say we will save that 48 inch tree but I can say at this time that we will preserve all those trees in the Stream buffer where there are steep slopes and those are by far the most sensitive areas of the site where land disturbance and tree cutting would negatively affect the water quality of that Creek which eventually flows into uh Jordan Lake so no commitment to policy 85 that

the tree canopy will be distributed throughout the development there will be other tree coverage areas on the site in the uh where where we have landscape buffers along the front uh and a few areas along the north side where uh villages of C Barber are I can't commit to those though being tree preservation areas they may be tree replacement areas okay thank you thank you chair my comments are is I've heard a lot about the calming and I and I realize that it'll be laid out more specifically but I still don't have what I call my wife would call warm and fuzzy I I don't don't see the connection I also am seen with the layout of the buildings relative to what was presented at different meetings to what it is

today I've seen sort of a better buffer in terms of the height the type of unit to try to work within the community that you're adjacent to that's just a reaction I have from looking at the various site Maps I do applaud you for recognizing School impact thank you I realize property tax will eventually catch up but but it is a concern to me on many projects about the capacity of schools and how we're looking at that sort of like Transportation I heard the staff and thank you staff for the transportation connection about current projects future projects but I I see a disconnect with that many projects in that area about the unended consequences about how many cars s will show up actually what the workflow the the agregation of the uh the roads so I'm I'm just trying to get into context but I appreciate commissioner CE you saying within the confines of the ud the

comprehensive plan of what fits within that and the overall intent versus years ago which is a different environment versus today and the objectives that are trying to be met I would say though and I think you said this well sometimes we look at sort of that plan as its own road map when in fact we need to step back within the communities that we're impacting and ask ourselves what are those sort of tradeoffs to meet but thank you chair I just wanted to make those comments thank you commissioner cutright anyone else anyone else have any comments are we ready to move this forward we are may I have a motion to move this case forward chair as it relates to case oh sorry chair uh chair Cameron if I could just ask the applicant to confirm the two additional commitments that were made tonight uh

what we heard was first that the access road from Fairington road will be public uh we'll have a public access have a public access yeah okay and the second is the one-time commitment to Duram public schools of 64,500 $0000 that's correct okay thank you we're ready thank you chair as it relates to case z23 0020 Fairington road multif family I make a motion that we send this case and the associated profit forward to city council with a favorable recommendation second it's been moved by commissioner cutright and seconded by commissioner Valentine to move case z232 forward with a favorable recommendation to city council may I have the roll call vote please chair Cameron yes Vice chair sharis no

commissioner cutright yes commissioner Gham no commissioner Johnson no commissioner cop P yes commissioner mver yes commissioner CE yes commissioner Valentine yes commissioner Williams yes commissioner wal no the motion passes 7 to4 thank you moving on to committee updates at this time we don't have any committee updates moving on to new business new Udo update hey good evening Madam

commissioner commission bod brinsky uh assistant director of the plan Department can you hear me barely barely am I on yeah there we go better I've never had a mic actually short enough for me when I walked up to it it it threw me off all right as as I'm sure some of you know um we have uh contracted with code Studio and their team of subc Consultants to work on a new unified development ordinance uh this project is is thank you uh really to uh focus on the or to implement the comprehensive plan um we've also contracted with toana Allen uh for engagement working with engagement ambassadors um they uh began their work um sort of kickoff introductions uh late last year um we we had held open houses in February uh last month they presented to the Joint City County plan committee uh a an approach

and an audit of our existing Udo um so I'm here to sort of update you on status and what that means and what the steps are moving forward so they they presented their audit to the uh JCC PC uh some direction was provided um sort of four four key themes in in the recommendation um they're really going to look at uh concentrating density within the uh Urban growth boundary you know buildup not out um that's consistent with Comprehensive plan uh really focusing on streamlining and consolidating Zoning districts um big piece of their uh analysis was that we had too many and too many that were similar um and so that'll really help simplify things for both development Community you all staff especially um this is the the next one really is uh probably the biggest one and also uh maybe the most obvious uh they will uh

be aligning zoning districts with the comprehensive plan Place types that'll help your lives tremendously uh as you're making the recom that you do um and then of course uh place a greater emphasis on form and less focus on density so right now we spend a lot of time talk about density and and some some fairly uh some numbers that don't necessarily speak to uh the outcomes uh of the development themselves or the feel um certainly as it relates to uh the engagement that we heard with the comprehensive plan um so they will uh they will take this guidance and move on move forward with uh dra drafting the document itself uh they will be working on the the first module which will be these districts and sort of the we'll see the consolidation of them and then subsequently it will be uh development standards themselves uh that would be applied to these districts um we will uh begin getting some drafts August September um at that time and then of course sort of that will become an

iterative process uh a great deal you know there'll be a lot of back and forth in terms of comments from staff uh comments from uh committee and then of course there'll be a lot of public input throughout the process as well um so that's where we're at I I sent you all a copy of the presentation that was given as well as a copy of the uh or a link to the YouTube so you may have already gone through this material if any of you have any questions um I'd be glad to to answer any now go ahead commissioner C right um and this I guess maybe is um we'll be answered later but just from like a technical standpoint if you're consolidating zonings um naturally there are there are um all the zonings have different uh development standards associated with them and so if you look at a map and you take those zonings that have been Consolidated I assume that that uh those

development standards will apply to the map I don't know take all the rs's for example let's just say all those are combined now do you you have all this flexibility now that you know again this sort of gets a little technical but let's just say you had an RS8 or an RS5 um that converted or rs20 that converted to an RS5 now you can you have more flexibility on that now how would that work yeah let me back up because I'm I'm certainly excited to S of get in the weeds like this um their analysis saw districts that are very redundant for example we have ru5 and then we have r52 there is no real difference between them now that duplexes are allowed in r52 we also have RS8 and RS10 those districts are incredibly similar and we really don't have much RS8 and so really just looking at that it was clear that we have so many of these distinctions um obviously that those numbers are based on um lot size and so as we change to uh districts

that will be focused on implementing the place type it it'll just it'll be much different but it'll result in less overall zoning districts certainly when we look at residential so your specific question probably isn't answered yet but that's that's what the analysis meant uh anyone else go ahead commissioner C thank you uh thanks for the update two questions one um with regards to I think what what you described as an August September kind of time frame for beginning to receive materials or draft materials on this the first module um uh could you say a bit more about the schedule in terms of what that iterative process looks like relative to the endpoint how many months over which um do they or staff anticipate stretching out that those those those iterative um iterative sets of exchanges no that I'm really glad you asked that so the

uh sort of the overall project and the schedule that we've presented and you've seen in the materials um really has us uh wrapping up the drafting of the the code itself all of the modules um sort of spring of next year February March and obviously then at that point we would move into public review and revisions um the adoption process itself you know that there'll probably need to keep some flexibility in mind um as we uh go through with engagement okay and so that um it's is still consistent with what their original correct uh we've got some additional details sort of internally about okay uh specific modules and when they'll be delivered and now even that we need to keep in mind there'll be some flexibility because for example depending on what the comments are uh right the revisions may take longer separate a separate question um and a couple couple of things are intertwined here so the uh alignment

with proposed districts with the comprehensive plan and place types map um sounds like an excellent move much of the discussion around the comprehensive plan process and um and even actions by the city since then as evidenced through the hire of the vision zero coordinator um focused on the ways in which different modes of Mobility can be accommodated within the public rights of way MH moving in a form based or moving to a zoning ordinance that emphasis emphasizes form more kind of moves Us in the direction although this term I don't know that has been used explicitly is a form-based code but oftentimes those I think appropriately address um design standards for public spaces thoroughfare standards roadway standards um but yet our ordinance today doesn't really do that with the exception of of uh the design districts what discussion has there been or what expectations are there for ways in which we can um better integrate the

public space standards and thoroughfare standards within this zoning code modification yeah uh I appreciate the the question commissioner CE as this is one of my favorite topics uh looking at the new udio certainly those themes are throughout the conference plan there's many policies that that you referenced um so we will certainly be uh evaluating that and moving forward with that and that has been discussed with code studio uh significantly it's also been discussed internally quite a bit in terms of the details and what that looks like I we don't I don't have those answers yet uh as you already know we've got uh sort of some cross-sections in the current code um that are applicable in the design districts and they have uh been relatively successful in terms of how how we've applied them there you know some pros and cons and you know some learning experience so we certainly know we're going to be moving in that direction um but in terms of the the overall uh scope that or details I do not have that answer I'm glad to hear that the conversation is being had and

I'm sure there may be more um resistance possibly internally than just from the Consultants the Consultants are here to help us get to where we want absolutely I I hope that everyone involved will um reflect back on the comprehensive plan discussions around that point and and take this opportunity through the you to rewrite to really push for it absolutely thank you thank you commissioner Johnson I I appreciate the questions because obviously the devils are in the detail and I think um it would be advantageous to share as much information as you go through this process like you're doing today so as we get more comfortable with where this is going and how those details will be framed we'll be helpful to continue to provide feedback and inut based on the questions I heard which were good today uh so thank you for that I I wish you luck with the continue process I also would be uh wrong not to also go to

different topics for those that are mothers I forgot to say belatedly I hope you had a good Mother's Day and for those that are uh dealing with Memorial services for Memorial Day I hope you we remember you well so I just want to add that thank you thank you thank you any other questions none awesome all righty any other staff announcements Aaron or Grace any staff announcements there are none there are none we are hereby adjourned