Durham Planning Commission Nov 12, 2019 (with closed captions)

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO THE DURHAM PLANNING COMMISSION. THE MEMBERS OF THE DURHAM PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AS AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON ANY ISSUE BEFORE US TONIGHT. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT, PLEASE GO TO THE TABLE TO MY LEFT AND SIGN UP TO SPEAK. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS CLEARLY WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM. PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY AND INTO THE MICROPHONE. EACH SIDE — THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF AN ITEM AND THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO AN ITEM — WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES TO PRESENT FOR EACH SIDE.

THE TIME WILL BE DIVIDED AMONG ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK. FINALLY, ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE SO IF A MOTION FAILS OR TIES, THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR DENIAL. THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO ALSO ADD THAT THIS IS BEING BROADCAST ON SPECTRUM, AT&T U-VERSE, FRONTIER, GOOGLE FIBER. IT IS ALSO STREAMED ON THE CITY'S YOU TUBE, FACEBOOK, AND TWITTER ACCOUNTS.

NEEDLESS O T SAY, WE ARE LIVE! THANK YOU. CAN I HAVE THE ROLL CALL PLEASE? [ROLL CALL]. >> COMMISSIONER MORGAN IS EXCUSED. REQUESTS AN EXCUSE. [ROLL CALL CONTINUES]. >> THANK YOU. >> MADAM CHAIR. >> YES. >> I MOVE AN EXCUSED ABSENCE FOR COMMISSIONER MORGAN. >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT COMMISSIONER MORGAN BE GRANTED AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINE AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONERSON. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS ACTION, LET BIT KNOWN BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. — JOHNSON. THE NEXT ITEM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND CONSISTENCY STATEMENT FOR, UM, THE OCTOBER 15TH MINUTES. I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER BRINE. >> UM, MADAM CHAIR, I UH HAVE A CORRECTION TO THE MINUTES. ON PAGE THREE, THE TOP OF THE PAGE, THIS IS THE MOTION REGARDING THE OLIVE BRANCH ROAD CASE.

I THINK IT SHOULD SAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE Z 180015 WITH TWO ADDITIONAL COMMITTED ELEMENTS. BECAUSE APPLICANT DID OFFER US TWO COMMITTED ELEMENTS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> THANK YOU. THEN I CA — IF THOSE ADJUSTMENTS CAN BE MADE, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A MOTION TO APPROVE. COMMISSIONER MILLER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED? >> YES. PLEASE. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE OLIVE BRANCH ROAD MOTION ACTION RECORDS IN THE MINUTES. SO IN THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT IT SAYS MORGAN DURING KIN, ETC, VOTED NO. I VOTED NO. >> SORRY, ARE YOU SPEAKING OF OLIVE BRANCH O OR THE FLUM FOR FOREST HILLS? >> OKAY. I'M SORRY. I AM, I GOT MYSELF MIXED UP. >> WE'RE GOOD ON THAT, OKAY. >> EVERYTHING'S FINE. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AND CONSISTENCY STATEMENT FROM OCTOBER 15, 2019, WITH ADJUSTMENTS AS PRESENTED.

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> OKAY. MOTION BY — WHO DID THE — BY COMMISSIONER BRINE AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER — OKAY — COMMISSIONER AL-TURK. IT'S LIKE, WE'LL GET THIS TOGETHER. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, LET IT BE KNOWN BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. OKAY. ADJUSTMENTS TO TH AGENDA. WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.- STAFF WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE ITEM UNDER NEW BUSINESS. WE NEED TO HAVE THE COMMISSIONER REVIEW AN AMENDED MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2020. WE HAVE CONFLICT FOR THIS ROOM FOR SEPTEMBER DATE SO WE NEED TO PUSH OUR MEETING O OUT ONE WEEK. CITY COUNCIL'S GOING TO NEED THIS ROOM THE DATE WE THOUGHT WE WOULD USE THIS ROOM, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE BUMPING CITY COUNCIL OUT OF THEIR CHAMBERS, SO AT THE E APPROPRIATE TIME LATER IN THE EVENING I'D LIKE TO REVIEW THAT AND HAVE THAT APPROVED.

MR. MILLER. >> MADAM CHAIR, SINCE WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED IT, I MOVE WE ADJUST OUR ADOPTED MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2020 BY MOVING THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE FOR THE SEPTEMBER MEETING BACK ONE TO ONE WEEK LATER. >> SEPTEMBER 15TH. >> TO THE TUESDAY FOLLOWING THE CURRENTLY-SCHEDULED TUESDAY. >> THANK YOU. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINE THAT WE MAKE THE AUH APPROPRIATE ADJUST M AS PRESENTED.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS ACTION LET IT BE KNOWN BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. OKAY. SO THERE'S NO NEED FOR US. >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. ONE LAST THING. STAFF I WOULD LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT ALL PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING ITEMS HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAW, AND AFFIDAVITS ARE ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE NO ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA. WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

I DON'T HAVE ARE THE — THE SIGN UP SHEETS, PLEASE. >> MADAM CHAIR, WHILE WE'RE GETTING THE SIGN UP SHEETS TO YOU, I'D JUST LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BRINE. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINE, AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AL-TURK THAT WE THEN APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION LET IT BE KNOWN BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL OPPOSED. OKAY UH. NOW WE'RE READY FOR THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FIRST ITEM. >> EMILY STRUTERS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. CASE Z1900004, 600 NORTH ROXBORO. THE APPLICANT IS TIM SIVERS WITH HORVATH ASSOCIATES. .707 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 600 NORTH ROXBORO STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE ZONING FROM R ARE UM TO RU-M(D) IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY.

THE PROPOSED, PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE FLUM WHICH IS CONSIST WITH ZONING REQUEST. PROPOSALS CONSIST OF MAXIMUM OF 14 MULTIFAMILY UNITS USING APARTMENT HOUSING TYPE. AERIAL MAP SHOWS SITE IN RED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH ROXBORO STREET AND MALLARD AVENUE IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT TIER. PROPERTY UH PREVIOUSLY CONTAINED ONE-STORY BUILDING USED FOR PLACE OF WORSHIP. STRUCTURE DEMOLISHED. RECENTLY APPROVED APARTMENT HOUSING TYPE. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT TIER TO THE SOUTH, CLEVELAND TO THE WEST, HIGHWAY TO THE EAST. SURROUNDING AREA INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, APARTMENTS AND PROPOSED TOWN HOUSES.

SITE PRESENTLY ZONED RU-M PROPOSING TO KEEP THE DEZING NATION BUT ADD DEVELOPMENT PLAN. CHANGING ZONING TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL DENSITY IS PERMITTED BY UDO SECTION 641. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP HERE SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED MEDIUM-HIGH KENSTY ON FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REZONING REQUEST. DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDES SITE ACCESS POINTS, BUILDING AND PARKING ENLE VE LEPS, PROJECT BOUNDARY BUFFERS AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS. KEY COMMITMENTS, 14 APARTMENT HOUSING TYPES, IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIRED AT TIME OF SITE PLAN AND DESIGN COMMITMENTS INCLUDING BRICK-BANDED SIDEWALKS. PROPOSED RU-M(D) ZONING DEZ IG NEIGH COMPLIES WITH CURRENT MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY ON FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND APPLICABLE POLICIES. SIT CONSISTENT WITH POLICY 212 D, 231 A, 232 A AND 11.11 A. STAFF DETERMINE THIS IS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER POLICIES AND ORDINANCES AND STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO — AT THIS TIME GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK: TIM SIVERS, JAMES BRADFORD. >> THANK YOU. TIM SIRS WITH HORVATH ASSOCIATES. THANK YOU E EMILY FOR YOUR AND YOUR WORK ON THIS PROJECT. AS MENTIONED THIS REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU IS FOR REZONING FROM RU-M WHICH ALLOWS 12 UNITS PER ACRE TO RU-M(D) FOR MAXIMUM OF 20 UNITS PER ACRE. SECTION 641 OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT IN EXCESS OF THE 12 UNITS PER ACRE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS APPROVE AND THAT MAXIMUM IS THE 20 UNIT PERS ACHE.

PROJECT AREA IS .7 ACRES. ALLOWS EIGHT UNITS AS CURRENTLY SITS, AND THIS REQUEST IS TO INCREASE IT TO A 14 UNITS; TOTAL OF SIX UNITS FOR THE INCREASE. WE DID HOLD A VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FOR THIS PROJECT. WAS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 23RD AT DURHAM CONVENTION CENTER. WE HAD TWO NEIGHBORS SHOW UP. THERE WERE A COUPLE OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT REACHED O OUT TO ME THAT WERE NOT ALE TO BE IN ATTENDANCE.

BOTH NEIGHBORS THAT SHOWED UP, THAT WAS A COPLE SO IT WAS ONE OWNER, AS WELL AS ADJACENT OWNERS THAT REACHED OUT TO ME WERE ALL IN APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ILLUSTRATES COMMITMENTS TO BUS STOPS, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS, 70% IMPERVIOUS AREA, MAXIMUM OF 70 UNITS AS WELL AS ACCESS POINTS ON ROXBORO AND MALLARD AVENUE. ALSO COMMITS TO UPGRADING SIDEWALKS AND CON DESTRUCTING BRICK BANDING ALONG PORTIONS OF THE SIDWALK. IN ADDITION TO THESE COMMITMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS TONIGHT AND PLANNING I SENT THESE TO PLANNING AND THEY HAVE REVIEWED THESE AS WELL. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DIFFERENT CANT OF OCCUPANCY PROVIDE $1,500 CONTRIBUTION TO THE DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS. SECOND ONE WOULD BE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CO, PROVIDE A ONE-TIME $1,400 CONTRIBUTION TO FUND.URHAM AFFORDABLE HOUSING – I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO MEET WITH A FEW OF YOU AND I APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT YOU TOOK OUT OF YOUR SCHEDULE TO MEET WITH ME.

I'M SORRY I COUNT GET TO ALL A OF YOU BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER QUESTIONS AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER IS HERE TONIGHT TOO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MR. JAMES BRADFORD. >> GOOD EVENING. JAMES BRADFORD 7616 HERNDON ROAD. MY PARTNER AND I UH OWN THE PROJECT ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT, THE TOWNHOMES, ELLIOTT SQUARE. WE MET THE DEVELOPER SOME MONTHS AGO AND WOULD JUST LIKE TO SUPPORT THEIR PROJECT. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE 600 NORTH ROXBORO PROJECT? IF NOT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GIVE OUR COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS. I'M GOING TO START WITH COMMISSIONER BAKER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WANTED TO LET EVERYONE NOTICE CLOSE THAT I UH LIVE ACROSS THE STREET BUT I AM A RENTER AND SO I DID NOT RECEIVE A LETTER AND MY LANDLORD DID AND SO I DID CHECK WITH STAFF AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE AREN'T, THAT THERE IS NO REASON I SHOULD BE UP HERE VOTING AND THEY CONFIRMED I SHOULD BE UP HERE AND SHOULD TAKE A VOTE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A RECUSAL WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR COMMISSIONER BAKER, AND WE WANTED TO BASICALLY STATE THAT FROM THE BEGINNING. TRANSPARENCY. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE? I'M GOING TO START WITH COMMISSIONER BRINE AND COMMISSIONER DURKIN. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THERE IS A COMMITMENT TO NOT MAS GRADE AND TO NOT CLEAR CUT, WHICH NORMALLY I'D BE EXCITED ABOUT EXCEPT ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS ENABLES THE OUTCOME TO BE EXEMPT FROM ARE THE REQUIRED TREE COVERAGE; IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THE REQUIRES TREE COVERAGES DOES NOT APPLY PROVIDED THAT MEANS TO VERIFY THOSE ELEMENTS ARE PROVIDED AND SO THEY'RE DOING THAT BY WAY OF TEXT COMMITMENT. >> THANK YOU. PERSONALLY FOR THE APPLICANT, I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE SEEN THE TREE COVERAGE.

ANOTHER QUESTION EITHER STAFF OR APPLICANT CAN ANSWER, BUT COULD WE HAVE USED THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS ON THIS? WE'RE STARTING WITH 12 UNITS, THE 15%, YOU GET 1.8 WHICH I'M HOPING WE COULD ROUND UP TO TWO AND GET 14 UNIT BUS TWO OF THEM WOULD BE AFFORDABLE AND TO ME HAVING SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS LOCATION SO CLOSE TO THE DOWNTOWN TIER WOULD BE VERY DESIRABLE. COULD IT HAVE BEEN USED? >> AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY UH BONUS IS ALLOWABLE IN THIS AREA. I CAN'T SPEAK TO IF THE APPLICANT INTENDS ON USING THAT OR NOT. >> OKAY. THEN THE QUSTION COMES TO THE APPLICANT. [LAUGHTER] >> NO, SIR, WE'RE NOT GOING USE DENSITY. THAT DENSITY BONUS THAT TIME THAT'S WHY WE CAME THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS TO INCREASE DENSITY. >> OKAY, WELL, LET ME LOOK AT THIS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE IF YOU'LL STAY AT THE MICROPHONE.

HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS WILL BE IN EACH APARTMENT BUILDING? >> SO THERE'S — I'M NOT COMMITTING TO A NUMBER OF BUILDING. THERE WOULD BE EITHER ONE OR TWO BUILDINGS. TOTAL OF 14 UNITS. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A SITE PLAN AS STAFF SAID THAT HAS AN APPROVAL FOR EIGHT UNITS IN THAT BUILDING SO WE MAY INCREASE THAT TO A TOTAL OF 12 UNITS, AND PROVIDE ANOTHER BUILDING WITH LARGER UNITS OR PROVIDE A SECOND BUILDING THAT'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF THE SIX UNITS WE'RE HERE TONIGHT REQUESTING. >> OKAY. WOULD YOU CONSIDER MAKING ANY OF THE DWELLINGS IN THESE BUILDING AFFORDABLE? >> NOT AT THIS TIME, SIR. >> WHY NOT? >> IT COMES DOWN TO THE, THE GOAL THAT THIS CLIENT IS TRYING TO REACH AND THE INTENDED TARGETS ARE — TESE ARE GOING TO BE HIGHER-END CONDOS, SO THOSE LOCATIONS OF THE — SHOULD BE DOWN CLOSER TO THE DOWNTOWN TEER.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR REQUEST BUT RIGHT HERE WE'RE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO DOWNTOWN TEER BT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HIGER-END CONDOS IN THIS AREA. >> WE JUST PASSED A # $5 BILLION BOND — $95 MILLION BE ON THE AND THE REASONS IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAIR MARKET VALUE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS RECOGNIZED SO THAT DIFFERENCE COULD BE MADE UP FROM SOME OF THIS BOND MONEY ONCE THE CITY FIGURES OUT HOW THEY'RE GOING ADMINISTER EVERYTHING. IT SEEM TO ME YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LOSE ANY MONEY IF YOU PUT IN A FEW UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. >> YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD THERE, UNTIL THE CITY FIGURES THAT OUT. IT'S NOT BEEN FULLY FIGURED OUT YET. I'LL DISCUSS THAT WITH MY CLIENTS BU FOR RGHT NOW I'D LIKE TO PROCEED WITH AS-IS. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER DURKIN. >> TO ADD ON TO HIS QUESTION I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF RELATED.

IF THIS WAS APPROVED, COULD THEY THEN ALSO USE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS TO FURTHER INCREASE THAT NUMBER? >> ONE MORE TIME. >> RER REZONING TO 14, WOULD STLA THE OPTION OF YUGZ AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS GOING ABOVE 14? >> YES. >> SO THEN GOING BACK TO THE APPLICANT, THEN I PERSONALLY UH WOULD PREFER THAT WAS CONSIDERED. I THINK $1,400 TO AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM IN LOU OF ADDING AFFORDABLE UNITS IS NOT COMPARABLE AND NOT SUFFICIENT TO LOCATION THAT'S SO CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN.

IF YOU WANTED TO RESPOND TO THAT WITH THE OPTION OF INCREASING THE UNITS, THEN BE HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT YOU TO SAY. >> I WANT TO CLARIFY, I THINK IT IS WHAT YOU ASKED BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY UH SO IT'S CLEAR TO THE AUDIENCE AS WELL THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS CAN BE ADD ON FOLLOWING REZONING SO IT'S DONE BY RIGHT. THEY CAN DO IT ON TOP OF WHAT'S PROPOSED BY THIS REZONING. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. >> CAN I RESPOND? >> YES. >> TIM SIVERS. WE'LL LOOK AT THA. I HAD 30-SECOND CONVERSATION WITH THE CLIENT. WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AS A ADDITION TO THE 14 UNITS. FOR TOIGHT IS INCREASE IN THE 14, BUT WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IF THAT DENSITY IS APPROVED OR IS REQUESTED TO GO ABOVE THE 14, WE'LL TAKE A AND SEE IF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A POSSIBILITY. >> FOR ME RIGHT NOW GIVEN YOUR RESPONSE TO THE PRIOR QUESTIONS I'M A NO UNTIL THAT ANSWER IS RESOLVED JUST HAVING THAT AS AN OPEN THING — YOU'RE NOT COMMITTING TO ANYTHING WICH I UNDERSTAND.

>> UNDERSTOOD, YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. >> OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR APPLICANT. THANK YOU. YOU MENTIONED THAT THESE ARE INTENDED TO BE HIGH-END RESIDENCES. DO YOU HAVE A PRICE POINT THAT YOU'RE TARGETING FOR THESE TOWNHOMES? >> UM, THEY'LL BE SIMILAR TO ELLIOTT SQUARE ACROSS TH SREET WHICH IS IN THE 300 RANGE. THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND. >> SO ELLIOTT SQUARE, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT, IT'S BEEN PROGRAMMED; I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT PRICE POINT WAS HIGHER THAN $300,000. >> I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THAT, IT'LL BE EQUIVALENT TO THAT PROJECT. >> [LOW AUDIO]. >> RIGHT. >> PER SQUARE FOOT. >> RIGHT. >> OKAY. >> COMMISSIONER AL-TURK. >> THANK YOU, SIR. I'LL ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER BRINE AND DURKIN SAID. I THINK THIS IS A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO A NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT ARK LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IN AN AREA THT'S ALREADY GENTRIFIED AND ALREADY SEEN SKYROCKET HOUSING PRICES AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, ADDING SIX UNITS, 14 UNITS TOTAL IS NOT ENOUGH TO — IT'S NOT THE KIND OF SUPPLY THAT WE NEED TO REALLY REDUCE THE LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY ISSUE WE HAVE IN DURHAM AND I THINK A REAL COMMITMENT WOULD BE THE WAY TO GO SO I'M ALSO LEANING TOWARD VOTING NO UNLESS I HEAR OTHERWISE FROM MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON SOMETHING CONVINCING TO SWAY ME ANOTHER WAY.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> QUESTION FOR STAFF. VISITING AGAIN THE AVAILABILITY OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS IF THIS REZONING IS PASSED; THIS IS A FAIRLY SMALL SITE, ONLY TWO AND THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE, PUTTING 14 UNITS ON IT. I'M ASSUMING TO DO THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A FOUR OR FIVE STORY BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO SIT ON THAT PODIUM PARKING — DOESN'T HAVE TO BUT I'M ASSUMING IN ORDER T GET ALL UNITS IN THERE. THERE'S A VOLUME UH THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH RU-M AND I'M ASSUMING THAT TO GET THESE 14 UNITS IN THERE ON SO SMALL A SITE WE'RE GOING TO USE UP ALL THE AVAILABILITY VOLUME.

ASSUMING THAT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPEN, UM, WILL THAT CONSTRAIN THE ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO ADD AFFORDABLE UNITS EEN IF THE DENSITY BONUS WOULD ALLOW IT? IN OTHER WORDS, WITH THE DENSITY BONUS, ARE THERE, IS THERE RELIEF FROM THE DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED WITHOUT AFFORDABLE UNITS? >> THEY WOULD STILL NEED TO MEET DI MENTIONAL STANDARDS, REGARDLESS. >> SO THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO UP A FLOOR IN ORDER TO ADD AFFORDABLE UNITS IF THEY WERE ALREADY AT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT? >> THEY ARE ALLOWED — SORRY, I THINK I — LET ME CHECK ORDINANCE BEFORE I SPEAK NEXT TIME. LOOKING AT HEIGHT HERE IT SAYS WHEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS IS UTILIZED, ADDITIONAL 15 FEET OF HEIGHT WOULD BE ALLOWED. >> THEY WOULD GET ONE RESIDENTIAL LEVEL, ESSENTIALLY? >> CORRECT. >> THAT HELPS A LOT.

MY CNCERN WITH THE PROJECT, QUITE FRANKLY, HAS TO DO WITH ITS DESIGN AND I'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE DEVELOPER WHO'S BEEN VERY PATIENT WITH ME. ONE WAY UH TO BUILD THIS BUILDING OR BUILDINGS IS — AND I BELIEVE THE MOST LIKELY WAY — IS TO LOCATE THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS UP ONE LEVEL ON TOP OF A PARKING PODIUM, WHICH MEANS THAT THE ROCK BORROW STREET FACADE OF THE BUILDING WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE PARKING. UM, AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A MAJOR CORRIDOR LINED WITH BUILDINGS — NOT THAT THIS IS NECESSARILY GOING REPRESENT A TREND BUT LET'S FACE IT THESE BUILDINGS JUST LIKE THIS ONE ARE GOING UP — I CAN'T EASTBOUND KEEP TRACK OF THEM.

FIRST ONE OR TWO WERE NOVEL THETIES NOW THEY'RE BRINGING UP EVERYWHERE. I'M BEGINNING TO LOSE MY MENTAL IMAGE OF WHAT THIS PART OF TOWN LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE AS. SO I WOULD LIKE FOR THERE TO BE SOME SORT OF HUMAN SCALE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AT THE GROUND LEVEL FACING ROXBORO STREET. UM, SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER USE THE BUILDING, DRIVE PAST IT, WALK PAST THE BUILDING HAVE SOMETHING THAT INDICATES THAT THIS IS PEOPLE SPACE. THAT ISN'T ALL LOCATED ABOVE. I THINK THAT SOME OF THE BUILDINGS LIKE THE BUILDING I ANTICIPATE WILL BE BUILT HERE, DON'T REALLY ADVERTISE THEIR SCALE, THAT WITHOUT A TREE OR A PERSON STANDING NEXT TO THEM, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE TWO STORIES OR TEN STORIES.

AND I THINK THAT'S BAD DESIGN AND BAD ARCHITECTURE AND I THINK IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS REZONING, WE CAN, IF THE DEVELOPER'S WILLING TO COMMIT TO IT, INTRODUCE SOME SORT OF HUMAN-SCALE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AT THE STREET LEVEL SO I'LL ASK PUBLICLY THE DEVELOPER IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH STAFF BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THAT COUNCIL COES ALONG TO ADD A COMMITTED ELEMENT THAT, UM, THAT — AND THE ONE I'M THINKING ABOUT IS THAT A PROMINENT ENTRYWAY, ONE THAT WOULD BE FRAMED, LOCATED ON ROXBORO STREET, AT LEAST ONE FOR EACH BUILDING, UM, BE THERE SO THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WALK PAST ON THE SIDEWALK WILL REALIZE THAT THIS IS A BUILDING FOR PEOPLE AND THEY'RE NT ALL LOCATED ABOVE, AND I THINK THAT WILL, I THINK IT'S TOO MUCH TO EXPECT THEM TO PUT BAY WINDOWS AND ALL THAT, BUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO SAY THIS IS THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING, IT'S A HUMAN-OCCUPIED BUILDING, AND IT ENGAGES THE STREET, WE'RE NOT PUTTING PEOPLE UP ABOVE THE STREET, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN ON THE INSIDE.

I WAS WONDERING IF UH YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE STAFF TO INLUDE SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR THIS PROJECT. >> TIM SIVERS, HORVATH ASSOCIATES. YES, ABSOLUTELY. WE CAN — AND UH YOU DID — I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS FINE. I'D LIKE TO REVIEW THIS WITH MY ARCHITECT WHO'S NOT HERE, BUT YES, THE HUMAN-STEAL, SOMETHING ON THE HUMAN SCALE TO BRING THAT DOWN TO ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF BOTH BUILDINGS. >> I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE GOING HAVE DOORS. >> EXACTLY CORRECT. >> DRESSING THOSE DOORS UP A LITTLE BIT SO THAT THEY SHOW THAT THEY'RE NOT HIDDEN. >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> I IMAGINE STAFF WILL HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON AND THIS THEN I'D ALSO LIKE TO FOLLOW BACK ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMENT, IF POSSIBLE.

>> IT'S A FAIRLY SMALL REQUEST IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DO IT. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO DELAY THE PROJECT IF YOU'RE ASSURANCE IS SUFFICIENT FO ME AND SO WITH THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS ONE HOWEVER I HAVE TO SAY UH IT WOULD BE LOVELY TO HAVE A COUPLE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR A PROJECT THIS SMALL I'M NOT GOING INSIST ON IT. >> IM GOING TO RECOGNIZE STAFF AT THIS TIME.

>> THANK YOU. CONFIRM STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WORKING WITH APPLICANT ON THAT TEXT COMMITMENT YOU'VE INDICATED. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER BAKER. >> I'M WANTING TO ECHO FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, IN PARTICULAR THE COMMISSIONERS CNCERNED ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS AND WANTING TO PROMOTE THAT IN THIS PRJECT ANOTHER OTHERS. COMMENT APPLICANT FOR MAKING A COMMITMENT TO FOSTER HUMAN SCALE ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THAT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT, AND IF THERE WERE TO BE ONLY PARKING OR ONLY A BRICK WALL WALL ALONG FRONTAGE THAT WOULD BE VERY CONCERNING. I ALSO HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR TRANSPORTATION. THIS IS, THIS RELATES TO THIS PROJECT BUT IT'S LATE BIT HIGHER LEVEL AS WELL. I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT AND GOING OVER SOME SITE PLAN AND HE MENTIONED THAT NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT STREET TREES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IS THAT TRUE? IS IT DIFFICULT? DOES NCDOT NOT ALLOW STREET TREES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY? >> EARL LIEN THOMAS, TRANSPORTATION.

CAN'T SPEAK DIRECTLY TO WHAT THEIR POLICY IS. I DO KNOW — I SAY L SAY IT'S BECOMES A MAINTENANCE ISSUE FOR THEM SO IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT THOSE PLANTINGS AND TYPES OF THINGS ARE PROPOSED. >> DO WE TEND TO ASK FOR STREET TREES WITH NCDOT? >> UM, I KNOW OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES IT LKE IN DOWNTOWN AREAS AND DOT HAS ALLOWED THOSE THINGS, UM, OUTSIDE OF THAT, I'M NOT CERTAIN THEIR POLICY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. >> COMMISSIONER BAKER, MR. SIVERS WANTED TO RESPOND TO YOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMENTS, SO I'M GONG TO LET HIM SPEAK AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU CHAIR. AFTER DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT, WE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE IF WE DO GO FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS, THOSE WOULD BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS SO ANYTHING ABOVE THAT 14 WOULD THEN BE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.

WE HAVE TO REVIEW THAT WITH STAFF FOR FINAL TEXT COMMITMENT, BUT — >> WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT BETWEEN NOW AND CITY COUNCIL TO EXACTLY GET THAT WORDING NAILED DOWN AND MAKE SURE IT'S LEGAL AND ENFORCEABLE. >> CORRECT. >> I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOU'RE PROVIDING SO IF WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMMITMENT IT'S BETTER — I'D RATHER YOU NOT PROFFER THOSE THINGS TONIGHT AND TRY US TO WORK THOSE OUT AT THE MIKE BECAUSE WE WOULD ASK FOR CONTINUANCE HERE BUT WE HAVE TIME BETWEEN NOW AND COUNCIL TO GO BACK AND MEET WITH APPLICANT TO DO THAT BETWEEN NOW AN COUNCIL BUT WE WOULD NOT ABLE TO WORK THAT OUT TONIGHT, I DON'T BELIEVE.

>> OKAY. >> WHICH IS FINE. >> TE CHAIR RECOGNIZES — THANK YOU. CHAIR RECOGNIZES COMMISSIONER DURKIN AND THEN COMMISSIONER MILLER AND THEN COMMISSIONER BUZBY. >> JUST GOING BACK TO WHAT THE APPLICANT JUST SAID. MY CONCERN IS NOT AN IF BECAUSE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMMITTING 14, ANYTHING ABOVE 14 WOULD HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO PLY WITH DENSITY BONUS GOING ABOVE 14 AND IF DOESN'T REALLY GET US TO WHERE I'D LIKE US TO GO BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO COMMITMENT, NOT JUST AN IF. ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. IN STAFF REPORT IT REFERS TO APARTMENT UNITS WHICH TO ME MEANS RENTAL BUT IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT PRICE, YOU MENTIONED FOR-SALE PRICES; CAN YOU CLARIFY WHETHER THIS IS A RENTAL PROJECT OR A FOR-SALE CONDO? >> FOR-SALE PROJECT.

THAT'S THE ULTIMATE DESIGN. STAFF MAY WANT TO FOLLOW UM ANSWER THAT CONCERNING THE APARTMENT DESIGNATION. >> OKAY. DOESN'T IMPACT MY STANCE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING POINT, BUT I WAS CONFUSED. TO ME, APARTMENT WAS RENTAL. >> DEFINITELY UH CLARIFICATION WORTH NOTING. WE'RE RELYING ON HOUSING TYPES. THERE'S NOT A CONDO TYPE IT'S BROKEN DOWN BY UH FORM AS OPPOSED — BROKING DOWN BY FORM TO APARTMENT HOUSING TYPE IS YOUR M MULTIPLE UNITS. >> COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> SO TWO POINTS. IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, IF THIS REZONING GOES THROUGH AS BEEN REQUESTED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER COMMITMENTS WITH REGARD TO AFFORDABILITY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS IS AVAILABLE. >> CORRECT. >> AND SO AND RGHT NOW WHAT WOULD THAT BONUS BE FOR THIS PROPERTY SITUATED WHERE IT IS IN THIS ZONE? >> WHAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM BONUS? >> I WOULD HAVE TO RUN THAT MATH WHICH I HAVE NOT DONE. >> WHAT'S THE RATIO.

>> PULLING IT UP RIGHT NOW, ONE SECOND HER. >> OKAY. >> IN URBAN TEER MINIMUM OF 15% OF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS COMMITTED WITHIN BASE DENSITY ARE REQUIRED TO USE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING BONUS, AND THEN FROM THERE FOR EACH AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT CONSTRUCTED A BONUS OF TWO. >> TWO-TO-ONE RATIO BUT YOU TO ACHIEVE TO GET ANY BONUS AT ALL IT'S GOT TO BE 15% OR MORE OF THE UNITS. >> CORRECT. >> VERY GOOD. I'M JUST THINKING THROUGH THE CONCEPT THAT MR. SIVERS PRESENTED IN TERMS OF UNITS MORE THAN 14 MIGHT BE AFFORDABLE. THAT ACTUALLY SEEMS TO ME THAT SINCE DENSITY BONUS IS BY-RIGHT AND THAT THE BONUS ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE AN EXTRA LEVEL FOR EACH BUILDING THAT THEY'RE BETTER OF WITHOUT ANY KIND OF COMMITMENT SINCE IT WAS A CONDITIONAL COMMITMENT JUST TO GO WITH BONUS JUST LIKE IT IS.

UM, IF THEY ADDED TWO UNITS THAT WERE AFFORDABLE — IS IT 15% OF THE TOTAL OR 15% OF THE BASE? >> 15% OF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS WITH THE BASE DENITY. BASE DENSITY. >> WITH THE BASE. SO TWO WOULD THEN RUN THEM OVER, WELL ONE WOULD RUN THEM OVER SA% AND THEN GET TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS. AND IF THEY KEPT GOING THAT WAY UNTIL THEY FILLED UP THAT EXTRA LEVEL, THAT EXTRA 15 FEET THEY GET, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I DON'T SEE HOW A COMMITMENT COULD ACTUALLY IMPROVE THEIR SITUATION OVER WHAT THE DENSITY BONUS WOULD ALLOW ANY UHWAY. I UH THROW THAT OBSERVATION OUT, AND I FORGOT WHAT MY OTHER ONE WAS SO AISLE LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BUZBY. >> THANK YOU. MR. SIVERS, I KNOW YOU'RE WEARING A PATH UP HERE BUT I HAD A SIMILAR ANALYSIS TO COMMISSIONER MILLER'S SO I WANTED TO CHECK WITH TO YOU MAKE SURE, DO YOU MIND REPEATING YUR COMMITMENT AND THEN I UH WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF YOUR COMMITMENT BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE INTENDING TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO US TONIGHT BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE I UH HEARD IT AS A COMMITMENT THAT IS BASICALLY YOU'RE ALREADY ALLOWED TO DO THAT BY-RIGHT.

I WANTED TO HEAR WHAT YOU WERE OFFERING US JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD IT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE'D BE SAYING IS THE BY-RIGHT SITUATION. >> OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. >> W'LL WORK THAT OUT WITH STAFFER, BUT OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT A TEXT COMMITMENT BUT SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS WITH STAFF AS WELL. >> JUST JUST TO MAKE SURE UNDERSTANDING, YOU'RE SAY YOU'RE WILLING TO EXPLORE WHAT IS ALREADY AVAILABLE TO YOU AS OPPOSED TO ANYTHING THAT'S ABVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS AN AVAILABLE OPTION? >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU I'LL ADD I APPRECIATE THE DESIGN COMMITMENTS. I LIKE THIS PROJECT, BUT I SHARE THE SME CONCERNS ON AFFORDABILITY. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO RUN SOME QUICK MATH BECAUSE WE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY ISSUE. SO APPLICANT STATED THAT THE ANTICIPATED COST IS AROUND $300 PER SQUARE FEET. FOR A 1,500 SQUARE FEET UNIT, THAT'S $450,000. FOR TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT UNIT, IT'S LIKE $600,000. EVEN TALKING ABOUT WE JUST PASSED THE BOND, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT THE BEST USE OF LIMITED RESOURCES TO MAKE SOMETHING AFFORDABLE THAT — HOW DO YOU MAKE A $600,000 UNIT AFFORDABLE EVEN IF YOU SUBSIDIZE IT? WHEN WE THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IN DURHAM AND LIKE AFFORDABILITY IS HOW DO YOU INCENTIVIZE AND A ENCOURAGE ENTRY-LEVEL HOME OWNERSHIP? THIS IS NOT THE MODEL FOR HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

SO I THEY TRYING TO MAKE THIS PROJECT AS IT IS SOMEHOW AFFORDABLE IS WISHFUL UH THINKING IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S NOT REALLY ACCOMPLISHING WHAT WE SAY WE WANT TO DO SO I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. >> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TRY TO RECOGNIZE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. COMMISSIONER — ALL RIGHT, THEN COMMISSIONER DURKIN. >> JUST TO GO OFF OF WHAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAID, NOT DOING ANYTHING IS NOT ACHIEVING GOAL. SO USING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS IS ONE OF THE TOOLS WE HAVE AND IT SHOULD BE ACTUALLY UTILIZED.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> I REMEMBERED MY OTHER POINT AND IT WAS SIMPLY THAT WE TALK AID UH BOUT THE KIND OF UNITS THAT WOULD WHETHER RENTAL OR PURCHASE UNITS AS I READ DEVELOPMENT PLAN THERE WAS NOTHING THERE THAT COMMITMENTED TO DEVELOPER TO ANY PARTICULAR TYPE, IT COULD BE FOR SALE OR FOR RENTAL. WE DON'T NORMALLY HAVE COMMITMENTS FOR RENTAL OR FOR SALE SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T VOTE EXPECTING THIS TO BE RUN WAY OR THE OTHER WHEN IN FACT IT COULD BE EITHER WAY AND WE CAN'T CONSTRAIN IT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? IF NOT, I THINK I UH WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MOVE WE SEND CASE Z1900004 CONCERNING 600 NORTH ROXBORO ROAD FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.

>> SECOND. >> DO I HAVE A QUESTION? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER BRINE. >> AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE APPLICANT TOLD US THAT HE'D MADE TWO NEW COMMITMENTS BOTH CONCERNING PAYMENTS ONE TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND TWOUN AFFORDABLE HOUSING — ONE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ARE THOSE COMMITMENTS ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF? >> GRACE SMITH, CLOSEST TO THE MIKE SO I'LL ANSWER THAT. THEY WERE VETTED AHEAD OF TIME >> MODIFY MOTION TO INCLUDE THREE PROFFERS THAT WERE MADE TONIGHT; THE TWO FIRM ONES AND THE ONE LOOSE IS I-GOOSE SI ONE ON ARCHITECTURE. THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN MY MOTION. >> THERE'S A FOURTH ONE OUT THERE THAT SEEMS LOOSE SI-GOOSE SI ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

>> THEY'VE ONLY PROFFERED THE TWO VETTED AHEAD OF TIME. THE OTHER TWO WERE NOT PROFFERED BECAUSE THEY'VE NOT CHECKED FOR LEGALITY AND ENFORCEABILITY. THE MOTION SHOULD BE WITH THE TWO THAT WERE PROFFERED AN VET AID HEAD OF TIME AND THEN WE CAN WORK OUT THE OTHERS WITH APPLICANT BETWEEN NOW AND COUNCIL IF THAT'S AGREEABLE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT'S HOW I WOULD HAVE TO THANLD. >> THAT'S WHAT I UH INN MEANT IY MOTION. >> DID I GET A SECOND. COMMISSIONER AL-TURK DID PROVIDE A SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT WE SEND ITEM NUMBER Z1900004, 600 NORTH ROXBORO FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION I'M GOING ASK FOR A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. [ROLL CALL]. >> OFTHE MOTION? YES? [ROLL CALL]. >> MOTION PASSES 9-4. >> THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.

STAFF REPORT ZONING MAP CHANGE: Z1900016, HEBRON VILLAGE. >> GOOD EVENING, EMILY SRUTHERS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRESENTING CASE Z1900016, HEBRON VILLAGE. APPLICANT IS TIM SIVERS, THIS 31.267 SITE LOCATED AT 4728 DENFIELD STREET. THIS SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RS-20 AND RS-10 TO PDR 5.117. THE PROPERTY UH IS DEZ IGUATED LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON FLUM, CONSIST WITHSONNING REQUEST. PROPOSE CON SISES OF MAXIMUM OF 160 UNITS.

PER CURRENT TEXT COMMITMENTS UNITS MAY BE SINGLE FAMILY, TOWN HOUSE OR COMBINATION NONE TO EXCEED 149 PEAK HOUR TRIPS. APPLICANT SPOKEN WITH STAFF ABOUT POTENTIAL CHANGE TO HOUSING TYPE COMMITMENT. APPLICANT SPEAKS TO THAT LATER. THIS AREA MAP SHOWS SITE IN RED LOCATED OFF OF DENFIELD AND HEBRON ROAD. CONTAINS FORESTS AND [INDISCERNIBLE] SITE UNDEVELOPED. SITE ADJACENT TO MIX OF HOUSING TYPES INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND ATTACHED, TOWN HOUSES AND APARTMENTS. ALSO COUPLE OF PLACES OF WORSHIP ADJACENT TO THE SITE. SITE PRESENTLY ZONED RS-20 AND RS-10. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE DESIGNATION TO PDR 5.17. SITE LOCATED WITHIN BOTH ENO DISTRICT B AND FALLS/JORDAN-B PROTECTION OVER LEIS. PROPERTY DESIGNATED LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON FLUM WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH REZONING REQUEST. DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDES SITE ACCESS POITS, BUILDING AND PARKING ENVELOPES, PROJECT BOUNDARY BUFFERS AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

KEY COMMITMENTS INCLUDE MAXIMUM OF 160 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, SINGLE FAMILY, TOWN HOUSE OR COMBINATION OF THOSE. MINIMUM OF 20% TREE PRESERVATION AREA, TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTED INCLUDING RIGHT OF WAY, LEFT-TURN LANES AND ADDITIONAL ASPHALT TO ALLOW FOR BICYCLE LANES, SITE ACCESS POINTS LOESHG CASE OF BUILDING AND PARKING ENVELOPES, PROJECT BOUNDARY BUFFERS AND MAXIMUM OF 50% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SHOWN GRAPHICALLY. DESIGN COMMITMENTS RELATED TO BUILDING MATERIAL, ROOFS AND DISTINCTIVE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE INCLUDED. PROPOSED PDR 5.117 ZONING COMPLIES WITH CURRENT LOW MEDIUM DESIGNATION AND APPLICABLE POLICY. CONSISTENT WITH POLICY 2.12 D-C, 2.32 A, AND 11.1.1 A. STAFF DETERMINE THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH COMP HEB HEN SIEVE PLAN AND A OTHER POLICIES AND ORDINANCES AND AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR AND THREE AGAINST. I'M GOING TO CALL THE FIRST TWO INDIVIDUALS: TIM SIVERS, FRANK BULLLOCK. >> GOOD EVENING. TIM SIVERS, HORVATH ASSOCIATINGS, 16 CONSULTANT PLACE. THANKS TO STAFF FOR THEIR REPORT. THIS PROJECT IS A REZONING REQUEST FROM RS-10 AND RS-20 TO PDR 5.117. PROJECT AREA IS A LITTLE OVER 31 ACRES AND PDR 5.117 WILL ALLOW 160 UNITS. THE PDR 5.117 ALSO WITHIN CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT THE CITY HAS SET ASIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN FOUR TO EIGHT UNITS AN ACRE.

WE HOLD ANOTHER VOLUNTARY MEETING FOR THIS PROJECT, HELD AT DUKE'S CHAPEL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH. WE HAD 20 NEIGHBORS COME OUT TO THIS. AT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING THERE WAS TWO PRIMARY CONCERNS BROUGHT UP. FIRST WAS ACCESS INTO THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST AND THE SECOND ONE WAS LANDSCAPE BUFFERING TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE ADJACENT EXISTING HOMES, EXCUSE ME. I DID DISCUSS THE NEIGHBORS AND TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT THE STREET STUB TO THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION WAS A REQUIREMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY ORDINANCE AND I ALSO EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT THE PDR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND NORTHEAST IS A PDR DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 4.7 UNITS. THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A BUFFER BETWEEN OUR PROPOSED P PDR AND ADJACENT. HOWEVER, WE WORKED WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THERE AND ON OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAVE GRAPHICALLY COMMITMENTED TO A 20-FOOT BUFFER ALONG THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT BACK UP AGAINST THOSE EXISTING HOMES. AGAIN, THAT IS SHOWN ON OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT'S IN FRONT 06 YOU TONIGHT AS A GRAPHIC COMMITMENT.

SINCE WE HELD THAT MEETING BACK IN JULY, I DID SEND AN E-MAIL OUT COUPLE OF TIMES INFORMING NEIGHBORS OF THE PROGRESS OF THE PROJECT. ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THOSE NEIGHBORS THAT SIGNED UP AND GAVE ME THEIR E-MAIL ADDRESS WAS AWARE OF THE MEETING TONIGHT. I INFORMED THEM OF THAT IN CASE THEY DIDN'T GET THE MEETING FROM THE CITY.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES ILL STATE COMMITMENTS TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, 20% TREE PRESERVATION AREAS, 50% IMPERVIOUS AREA AS MAXIMUM, MAXIMUM 160 UNITS AS WELL AS ACCESS POINTS ON HEBRON AND SUMMER BEREAVE DRIVE AND OPTIONAL ACCESS POINT SHOWN ON DENFIELD. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED ON HEBRON TO PROVIDE LEFT-TURN LANES.AS WELL AS PROVIDING BIKE- IN ADDITION TO THESE COMMITMENTS, ONCE AGAIN I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL AND REVISED COMMITMENTS AS STAFF MENTIONED, THSE PROVIDED TO PLANNING LAST WEEK SO THEY'VE REVIEWED THESE AS WELL. REVISION TO TEXT COMMITMENT NUMBER ONE AS MEM EMILY MENTIONED: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 160 UNITS. UNITS MAY BE TOWN HOUSE OR COMBINATION OF SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWN HOUSE; NOT TO EXCEED 149 PEAK HOUR TRIPS. KEY ITEM THERE WE'VE CHANGED IS WE'VE REMOVED ABILITY FOR THIS TO BE 10% SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE COMMITTING TO THAT. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CO, PROVIDE A ONE-TIME $11,000 CONTRIBUTION TO THE DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CO, PROVIDE JUAN-TIME $16,000 CONTRIBUTION TO THE CITY OF DURHAM AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND. I DID HAVE THE ABILITY TOW MEET THERE ARE ANY OTHER FURTHER IF – QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S MR. BULLLOCK. >> THANK YOU. FRANK BULLLOCK, AN ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM LOCATED IN DURHAM. ALSO REPRESENT GEORGE MILLER WHO'S THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF DURHAM COUNTY. WE HAVE A PROPERTY AFFECT BID THE ZONING CHANGE IS 402 HEBRON ROAD AND IT IS PART OF THE ESTATE OF SADIEB. LLOYD WITH REGARD TO THIS ZONING CHANGE THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR HA NO OBJECTION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE THREE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AGAINST: JULIA BARTELL, DIANE BARTELL. >> >> JULIUS BARTELL, WE LIVE AT 4911 DENFIELD STREET, WITH MY LIFE, DIANE BARTELL AND WHEN Y'ALL DONE SUMMER MEADOWS MY PROPERTY WAS NOT [INDISCERNIBLE]. SINCE Y'ALL DONE SUMER MEADOWS, MY PROPERTY FLOODSES AND WITH THIS PROPERTY HERE, I'M GOING TO LOSE THREE FORTIES OF MY PROPERTY.

RIGHT NOW I'VE DONE LOST OVER HALF OF IT. RETENTION POND THEY PLAN ON BUILDING WILL NOT HOLD WATER BACK. THEY'LL LET IT OUT. WE CHECKED WITH THE STORMWATER RUNOFF OF DURHAM, THEY SAID NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT. ONLY THING COMING OFF THEIR PROPERTY THEY'RE CONCERNED WITH. YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT WATER RUNNING OFF THAT GOES ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY, ENO RIVER, I'VE GOT TRENCHES BACK BY UH ENO RIVER THAT I CAN WALK THROUGH THAT WAS NEVER THERE BEFORE. THE CHURCH NEXT TO ME BEEN FLOODED OUT. THEY'VE HAD TO HAVE UNIT REPLACED TWICE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN UNDER WATER THREE TIMES. LUCKILY UH I HAVEN'T HAD THAT MUCH WATER BY MY HOUSE. THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM ON HEBRON ROAD WITH THE NEW NORTHERN HIGH SCHOOL YOU'RE GOING BUILD ACROSS THE STREET BETWEEN DENFIELD AND ROXBORO ROAD IS GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC TREMENDOUSLY.

YOU CANNOT GET OUT AT DUKE STREET AND ROXBORO ROAD ON HEBRON WITHOUT WAITING FOUR OR FIVE LIGHTS BECAUSE ALL THE TRAFFIC'S TRYING TO GO STRAIGHT DOWN HEBRON OFF OF ROXBORO ROAD. YOU'RE GOING NEED TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT HEBRON ROAD AND DANUBE ROAD. TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT DENFIELD AND HEBRON. MOTH ROAD AND ROXBORO ROAD NEED TRAFFIC LIGHTS. THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE TREMENDOUS FOR PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE. THANK YOU. MY WIFE. >> NEXT IS DIE BARTELL. >> DIANE BARTELL, 4911 DENFIELD STREET. WE'RE NOT USED TO THE EQUIPMENT. BEAR WITH US, PLEASE. OKAY. HAZEN AND SAWYER DID A THING ABOUT THE RAW WATER STORAGE FOR THE WHOLE CITY OF DURHAM AND I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF EXCESS WATER BECAUSE THE INTAKES THEY'RE WANTING TO DO AT A LATER DATE FROM THE ENO RIVER, THEY'RE WANTING TO PUMP INTO THE QUARY AND WHERE THIS PROPERTY HE'S WANTING TO DO PLY WHERE IS THE SCHOOL AFTER NORTHERN HIGH COMES IN, GOES ACROSS ON TO BEHIND OUR PROPERTY AND STRAIGHT DOWN AND WOULD END BEFORE THE INTAKE TO EVEN TAKE IT FROM THE ENO.

YOU'RE GOING HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF CONTAMINANTS FROM PARKING LOTS, FROM 160 HOUSES ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONTAMINATING AND PULLING INTO THE QUARY THAT'S GOING HAVE TO BE TENDED TO. AND THIS IS FOR THE WHOLE CITY OF DURHAM FOR WHEN WE START RUNNING OUT OF WATER IN A FEW YEARS. HAZEN AND SAWYER, YOU CAN LOOK AT. THIS IS MORE INFORMATION UP HERE WITH HAZEN AND SAWYER ABOUT STORAGE DEVELOPMENT ABOUT THE LEVEL IF THEY UH DO 265 FOOT ELEVATION ON THE ROCK QUARY FOR THE CITY OF DURHAM, I DON'T WANT BAD WATER GOING TO MY PEOPLE AROUND HERE, YEAH KNOW? I GOT THIS MAP FROM THE CITY PLANNING BOARD IN DURHAM, FEW WEEKS AGO, AND IT SHOWS HEBRON VILLAGE IN TE VERY CENTER. THEY'RE DOING ARE RETENTION BOND ON THE CORNER OF MEADOW CLOSE TO THE CHURCH AND THERE'S ALREADY A RETENTION POND RIGHT ACROSS FROM IT FROM SUMMER ME GO WHRE THEY'VE ALREADY GOT A BIG ONE THAT THEY'VE HAD BREAK THROUGH SEVERAL TIMES; THAT'S HOW THE CHURCH KEPT GETTING FLOODED, AND THEN IF YOU LOOK ON THE LEFT SIDE WHERE NORTHERN HIGH SCHOOL IS, THEY WANT TO DO, THE RETENTION POND ACTUALLY BACKS UP TO OUR PROPERTY ON THE BACKSIDE OF OUR PROPERTY, AND IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH MORE MASSIVE THAN THE ONE AT SUMMER MODO OR THE ONE THERE AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THIS AT THESE RETENTION PONDS HOLDING ALL THESE CHEMICALS BUST, IT'S GOING TO GO RIGHT BEFORE THE INTAKE FOR THE CITY OF DURHAM DRINKING WATER — >> [LOW AUDIO].

>> NORTHERN HIGH THEY'RE PLANNING THERE SO Y'ALL CAN CHECK WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY AND ALL THAT. CAN YOU GO SMALLER ON IT? SMALLER. THE OTHER WAY. >> [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> OKAY. IT HAS MY NUMBER ON IT TO CONTACT ME IF YOU NEED TO DISCUSS ANYTHING ON IT. IT ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT THE LIGHTS WE NEED ONE ON DENFIELD AND HEBRON. MOLT AND ROXBORO WE NEED TURN LIGHT SPECIAL PROTECTED TURN LIGHT WHERE COMES OUT CAPTAIN D'S ON DENFIELD AND ROXBORO STREET. EVEN COPS I'VE SEEN GO TWO CARS BLOCKING THAT INTERSECTION IF THEY GOT TO GO TURN LEFT TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL OR CITY OF DURHAM.

'CUZ THEY KNOW THAT THEY WOULD NEVER GO ON CERTAIN TIMES OF DAY. IF THE SCHOOL GOT DEVELOPED OUT THERE TO, THERE NEEDS TO BE TURN LANES AND THEY'VE ALREADY TOLD US THEY CAN'T EVEN DO TURN LANES BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM WITHOUT TAKING BUILDINGS. WE'RE IN A QUANDARY ON THAT. AND THEN THIS IS ALSO WHAT I SAID LIKE THE LIGHTS NEED — THIS PIECE OF PAPER LISTS ALL THE DIFFERENT LIGHTS E EXCEPT IT DOESN'T MENTION THE LIGHT NEEDED AT DANUBE AND HEBRON BECAUSE OF ALL THE BUILDINGS AND STUFF. WHEN THEY BUILT THE CALLIER STREET EXTRENGS THROUGH THERE, WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW UNLESS YOU'VE CHECKED RECENTLY, THERE'S SEVERAL NEW DEVELOPERS LOOKING TO BUY MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF LAND. FROM A NEIGHBOR ON OXFORD ROAD SAID SAYS THERE'S GOING BE 1,500 HOMES OR MORE WHERE THEY'RE BUYING THAT VACANT LAND BETWEEN THAT IT FREED UP. THAT'S GOING TO BE FOUR BLOCKS AWAY FROM WHERE HIS DEVELOPMENT IS. EN ON DENFIELD, WE NEED SPEED BUMPS. WE NEED BEFORE WEEPING WILLOW BECAUSE THEY COME OUT OF THAT SUBDIVISION ALREADY WHERE THEY COME TWO OR THREE CARS AT A TIME AND DON'T STOP TO TLOOK SEE DUMP TRUCK TRAFFIC LET ALONE US.

THERE IS DUMP TRUCKS HIT CARS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. ALSO NEED SPEED BUMP ON THAT SHORT CURVE THAT'S AT THE TOP OF THE HILL ON DENFIELD AROUND WHERE THE SCHOOL WOULD BE AND HIS SUBDIVISION HE WANTS TO BUILD. WE ARE INUNDATED WITH BEING FLOODED, SO MANY CARS ON THE ROAD, SO MUCH DANGEROUS TRAFFIC WITH DUMP TRUCKS. IT'S REALLY A BAD, BAD MIX. SO I WANT Y'ALL TO LOOK AT ALL THIS INFORMATION.

IF THEY WILL ALLOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU, HAVE COPIES MADE FOR EVERYBODY ON HERE AND THE CITY COUNCIL. I'LL BE FINE WITH THAT. EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE AND STUDY THIS THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE OTHER INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP: KA SANDRA — I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE OUT THE LAST NAME, IF YOU COULD HELP ME. >> SALAMEN. ON BEHALF OF MY COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD — >> PLEASE STATE YOUR ADDRESS AND NAME. >> KA SAN DA, 200 MONTH ROAD AND ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS AND MY COMMUNITY, I'M ASKING THE PLANNING COMMITTEE TO LOK AT STOPLIGHT TO BE PUT ON MONK AND ROXBORO BECAUSE WITHIN THE LAST WEEK THERE HAS BEEN AT LEAST FOUR ACCIDENTS AND IT'S AREA ANYWAYS SO IT WOULD BE SAFE AND BETTER IF THEY WOULD PUT A STOP RIGHT AT THAT LOCATION — LIGHT AT THAT LOCATION.

DUE TO HEAVY DEVELOPMENT THEY'RE DOING AROUND THE HEBRON AREA AND DENFIELD THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC. SO, UM, IF THEY WOULD LOOK AT THAT ON BEHALF OF ME AS PROPERTY OWNER AND OTHER NEIGHBORS AROUND, WE WOULD LIKE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOOK AT THAT TO PUT STOPLIGHT AT CORNERER OF MONTH AN ROXBORO ROAD. >> THANK YOU. DO I HAVE OTER INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO — I DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHERS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP — BUT DO I HAVE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE HEBRON VILLAGE CASE BEFORE I UH CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I WILL NEED YOU TO COME FORWARD AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND THEN SIGN YOUR NAME ON OUR LIST.

>> YOLANDA WILLIAMS 406 SUMMER BREEZE CLOOIF, SUMMER BREEZE SUBDIVISION AND I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT EVERYONE ELSE SAID. WE HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THE TRAFFIC. WE WILL NEED TRAFFIC LIGHTS. I DID ATTEND THE MEETING IN JULY HELD AT THE CHURCH WITH MR. SIVERS. THE MAJORITY OF MY NEIGHBORS DO HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THAT SUBDIVISION. ONE ISSUE WAS THE BARRIER, BUT THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF, BUT THE MAJOR CONCERN IS THAT ONE OF THE MAIN ENTRANCES OR THE MAIN ENTRANCE WILL COME THROUGH MY SUBDIVISION. IT WILL LITERALLY COME RIGHT DOWN MY UH STREET, PAST MY HOUSE, WHICH CURRENTLY IS A, UM, IT IS A BARRIER, ITSELF. IT IS JUST A WALL, AND IN SPEAKING WITH THE FLOODING, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WITH THIS LADY AND HER HUSBAND LIVE BUT I CAN ATTEST TO FLOODING. VI A NEIGHBOR THAT LIVES AT TAT END WHICH IS CURRENTLY SELLING HERRER HOME. SHE HAS TO TAKE HER OWN MONEY AND BUILD ROCKS NEXT TO HER PROPERTY TO COMBAT SOME OF THE FLOODING COMING DOWN IN OUR BACKYARDS. UM, SO I JUST WANT YOU TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN IT COMES TO THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GIVE — YES. >> THERE'S ONE MORE — >> PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE. >> THERE'S ONE MORE SITUATION THAT HE HASN'T MENTIONED ABOUT THAT PROPERTY THEY WANT TO DEVELOP. IT'S ABOUT A 40 DEGREE ANGLE FOR ABOUT SIX HUNDRED FEET COMING DOWN TO WHERE THEY WOULD WANT TO DO THE RETENTION POND. THE FORCE OF THAT WATER IF IT WAS HEAVY RAIN LIKE WE'RE GETTING MORE AND MORE OF COULD REALLY BUST THROUGH THE DAM AND GO FLOODING EVERYWHERE. >> THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM MS. DIANE BARTELL. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GIVE COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.

I'M GOING START WITH COMMISSIONER BUZBY AND COMMISSIONER BRINE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I THINK MY FIRST QUESTION I'LL START WITH STAFF AND THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION TO START, BUT IT WAS MENTIONED THE CONNECTION ON CARVER ROAD AND I'VE HEARD THIS ELSEWHERE AS WELL THAT THIS WILL LIKELY LEAD TO A SERIES OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, AND I'M JUST — CAN STAFF SHARE, ARE ANY PROPOSALS COMING INTO THIS AREA TO HELP GIVE US A PICTURE OF WHAT TO EXPECT BECAUSE WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THIS BY ITSELF, BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LOT MORE COMING IN THE PIPELINE. WHILE WE WAIT I WAS GOING TO ASK MR.

SIVERS IF HE COULD SHARE ANYTHING AS WELL. I WAS HOPING TO HAVE STAFF GO FIRST IF THEY HAVE A RESPONSE. >> JAMIE SUNYAK WITH PLANNING. CARVER STREET IS NOT SHOWN ON YOUR AERIAL SO IT'S HARD TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT BUT THERE IS AN APPLICATION THAT IS UNDERREVIEW, IT'S CARVER STREET ASSEMBLAGE IN THE 500-600 RANGE MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY AND APARTMENTS. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT, TIM SIFRS IS HERE SO HE CAN — SIVERS IS HERE SO HE CAN SPEAK. THAT'S UNDER REVIEW. ADJACENT TO THAT, THERE'S ANOTHER CASE THAT JUST WAS RECENTLY, UM, SUBMITTED ALSO FOR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TO THE CARVER STREET ASSEMBLAGE SITE. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. MR. SIVERS IF YOU COULD EXPAND ON THAT. >> TH AREA I BELIEVE YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT IS A LONG CARVER STREET EXTENSION. THE ROAD THAT'S JUST BEEN NEWLY OPENED WITHIN THE LAST 30-45 KAYS. I AM THE APPLICANT FOR PROJECT THAT HAS WITHIN SUBMITTED IN THAT AREA ON BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF CARVER STREET EXTENSION INCLUDES TOWNHOMES, SINGLE, AND APARTMENT FOR RENT.

IN THE 650 UNIT RANGE. I'M AWARE OF ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF CARVER, OXFORD, HAM LYNN THAT'S ALSO RESIDENTIAL THAT'S A TOWNHOME AND SINGLE FAMILY MIX. I'M NOT THE APPLICANT ON THAT, HOWEVER, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT. I'M ALSO WORKING ON TWO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE AT THAT SAME INTERSECTION FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. >> THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL FOR NO, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD A SENSE OF WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO SEE IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY GIVEN TH INPUT THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE RAISED AND I KNOW WE DON'T GET AL THAT HERE AND I KNOW THAT'S A CRITIQUE MANY OF US HAVE BUT I'M TRY KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE DELIBERATE ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT. THAT'S IT FOR THE MOMENT. >> COMMISSIONER BRINE. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO START WITH QUESTION FOR STAFF. BY MY ACCOUNT, WE HAVE THREE NEW COMMITTED ELEMENTS. THE $11,000 PAYMENT TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS; $16,000 PAYMENT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING; AND THEN IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, A SLIGHT CHANGE IN THE HOUSING WILL HAVE UP TO 160 UNITS BUT THE NEW COMMITMENT WOULD BE OR REVISED COMMITMENT WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOMES.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WOULD BE TOWN HOMES OR A COMBINATION OF TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY. >> OKAY. PLEASE CLARIFY IF YOU WOULD SIR. >> STAFF IS CORRECT. IT'S EITHER TOWNHOMES OR A COMBINATION OF TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY. >> AND WHILE YOU'RE AT THE MICROPHONE, THERE WAS A LIMITATION THAT WHATEVER'S OUT THERE YOU'RE NOT GOING EXCEED 149 PEAK HOUR TRIPS AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? >> SO THERE'S COUPLE ITEMS WHERE THAT CAME FROM AND TRANSPORTATION MAY BE ABLE TO ASSIST WITH ME ON THAT, BUT THE 149 PEAK HOUR TRIPS COMES FROM REALLY TWO ITEMS IN THIS CASE. ONE, IT ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THIS PROJECT. HOWEVER, I'LL IT RATE THAT 160 UNITS AS A QUICK CALCULATION OF IF IT WAS ALL TOWNHOMES WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 80-90 TRIPS SO WE'RE WELL UNDER THAT 149 PEAK HOUR TRIPS. I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE MISCONSTRUED. THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE PUT ON THIS SITE WOULD NOT EVEN BE CLOSE TO THAT PEAK HOUR TRIPS. WHY THAT'S INCLUDED IS IT WAS A CORRELATION BETWEEN W TRANSPORTATION THAT THEY ASK ME INCLUDE THAT FOR CLARIFICATION.

>> OKAY. WHILE YOU'RE THERE I VU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. >> OF COURSE. >> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WENT DOWN SUMMER BREEZE DRIVE? >> I DROVE THAT AREA THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN I WENT UP FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WHENEVER THAT DATE WAS. JULY 30TH. >> I'M SUE YOU NOTICED THAT THERE'S ABOUT A 12 FOOT ELEVATION DIFFERENCE.

>> YES, SIR. >> 13 FEET. >> 13, OKAY. SO IT'S GOING TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF DIRT MOVED. CONSIDERING THAT TOPOLOGY OF THAT SITE, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT IT'S MOT LIKELY TO BE CLEAR CUT AND MASS GRADED; IS THAT A FAIR SUMPTION? >> MOST LIKELY, YES, SIR. >> SO YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE 20% TREE COVERAGE, BUT CONSIDERING THAT IT'S A HEAVILY-WOODED SITE, THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT COIN WOULD BE 80% TREE LOSS, WHICH YOU WILL NOT, I KNOW YOU'LL HAVE TO REPLANT SOME TREE BUS I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE UP FOR THE 80% LOSS.

TEXT COMMITMENT EIGHT, THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO A BIKE PED REQUEST ABOUT HAVING BIKE LANES ON DENFIELD, AND THE WAY THE TEXT COMMITMENT READS IS IF ACCESS POINT NUMBER THREE IS CONSTRUCTED, THEN YOU'LL PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL ASPHALT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> MY QUESTION IS, WILL YOU PROVIDE BIKE PED LANES ALONG DENFIELD IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT THIRD ACCESS POINT? >> UM, I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT COMMITMENT AS IS FOR NOW. PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE NECESSARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR THAT. IF WE MAKE THAT ACCESS TO DENFIELD WILL BE IMPROVEMENTS TO POTENTIALLY UH BE IMPROVEMENT TO DENFIELD FOR THE ACCESS WHICH WOULD THEN INCLUDE THE BIKE LANES. >> OKAY. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, UM, THAT THIRD ACCESS POINT WOULD SEEM TO BE ONE THAT'S NEEDED BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT THIRD ACCESS POINT, YOU HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS BUT ONE OF THEM COMES THROUGH ALREADY-DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THE ACCESS POINT OFF OF HEBRON ROAD YOU AN EMERGENCY OUT THERE, EMERGENCY VEHICLES ARE GOING TO BE COMING THROUGH AN ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK COMING DOWN DENFIELD WOULD HAVING AN ACCESS POINT OFF OF DENFIELD WOULD BE VERY GOOD AND WOULD HELP PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PEOPLE UP IN THE NORTHWEST POINT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND IT ALSO LOOKS TO ME LIKE AN ACCESS POINT THERE WOULD BE EASIER TO CONSTRUCT BECAUSE THE LEVEL OF THE ROAD AND THE LEVEL OF YOUR SITE ARE PRETTY EVEN.

>> RIGHT. EXACTLY WHY WE SHOWED IT AS AN OPTIONAL. IN THIS CASE WE'RE WORKING FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO'S TRYING TO SELL THE PROPERTY. IT'S JOVEN GROUP. BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A DEVELOPER SET IN PLACE FOR THIS, WE WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT AS AN OPTION BUT DIDN'T WANT TO PROVIDE IT AS A COMMITMENT AS A FULL REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THE DEVELOPER, WHOEVER THAT IS IN THE FUTURE, AN OPTION TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION THE MAIN ACCESS IS ON HEBRON. YES, THE CONNECTION TO SUMMER BREEZE IS A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION MADE THAT STREET STUB, AND YES UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS A LARGE TOPOGRAPHY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AT THE BACK OF THOSE HOME WHICH IS IS ALSO WHY DURING THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEET SOME NEIGHBORS SPOKE UP AND SAID OUR REALTOR TOLD US WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A BUFFER BACK THERE.

WELL, I'M SORRY, THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT WHICH IS WHY WE WORKED WITH THEM AND SAID WE'LL PROVIDE THE BUFFER, SORRY THAT WASN'T THE CASE BUT WE'LL STEP UP AND PROVIDE THAT BUFFER FOR YOU. SO YES, THAT'S AN ACCESS POINT, BUT THE PRIMARY ACCESS POINT WILL BE ON HEBRON WHERE WE'RE PROVIDING THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR IT. >> AND ASSUMING FROM THE WAY HEBRON IS CURVED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU GUYS WILL BE CONSTRUCTING THE REALIGN PORTION THAT'S ON YOUR PROPERTY TO BE EXTENDED OVER TO ROXBORO SCHOOL SITE? >> THAT'S A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION.

WE'RE NOT COMMITTING TO CONSTRUCT THAT PORTION. IN FUTURE SCHOOL SITE THERE'LL BE A CONNECTION OVER TO ROXBORO. WE'RE GIVING THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY, THAT LAND FOR THE FUTURE CONNECTION FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION, SO WE'RE COMMITTING TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION BUT NOT CONSTRUCTION. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. ONE FINAL QUESTION, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT SORT OF AMENITIES WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR THE RESIDENCE THAT LIVE HERE? >> BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A DEVELOPER, I DON'T. THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES ACTIVE OPEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE AMENITIES BECAUSE OFTHE DENSITY WILL BE I BELIEVE IT'S EITHER 15 OR 16% OF THE SITE HAS TO REMAIN IN OPEN SPACE AND A THIRD OF THAT HAS TO BE ACTIVE MEANING SOCCER FIELDS, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT WILL BE INCLUDED AS IT IS A REQUIREMENT, SO IT'S KNOT SOMETHING I CAN COMMIT TO TONIGHT BECAUSE SIT A UDO REQUIREMENT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DURKIN, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> SINCE THERE'S NOT A DEVELOP HERB, I WILL REFRAIN FROM ASING MY AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS QUESTION. BUT QUESTION FOR STAFF CONCERNS ABOUT RETAINAGE PAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WAS THERE AN EIF REQUIRED OR AT WHAT POINT WILL THAT BE REQUIRED? >> STORMWATER REVIEWED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AT DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE THERE'S VERY LITTLE INFORMATION. SO DETAILED OF WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO TREAT OR MANAGE STORMWATER WOULD BE FLUSHED OUT AT SITE PLAN LEVEL. >> OKAY. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> THANK YOU. SO MAYBE STAFF CAN HELP ME CLARIFY THIS. I UH HEARD THE APPLICANT STATE AND COMMISSIONER BRINE STATE THAT THE MAXIMUM UNITS OF 160, BUT WHEN I'M LOOKING AT, SAY, TRANSPORTATION IMPACT AND THE MAXIMUM IMPACT USE, YOU HAVE 135 SINGLE FAMILY UH RESIDENCES AND 19 TOWN HOUSES.

THAT'S 154 UNITS. IS THERE REASON FOR THAT DISCREPANCY OR IS IT 160 OR 154? >> I'M GOING TO CONSULT WITH TRANSPORTATION BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S TIED TO THE MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR TRIPS BUT I WANT TO VERIFY WITH THEM. >> EARLENE THOMAS, I BELIEVE THAT'S UH TIED WITH THE ORIGINAL MIX OF UNITS APPLICANT WAS CONSIDERING TO GET THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT A TIA WAS NEEDED. AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS NOT A COMMITMENT TO A UNIT MIX, WHICH IS WHY WE REQUIRED THE STATEMENT REGARDING THE LIMITED TO 149 PEAK HOUR TRIPS, BUT APPLICANT HAS REVISED TEXT COMMITMENT TO SAY THERE WILL BE A UNIT MIX AND THAT COULD VARY, UM, BUT CANNOT EXCEED THAT 149 PEAK HOUR TRIPS.

>> SO IT'S THE PEAK HOUR TRIPS THAT'S BASICALLY DRIVING FINAL NUMBER? >> CORRECT. CORRECT. >> AND SO, TO THE APPLICANT, IN ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONCERNS PARTICULARLY, THE WHEN IT RINS AND ALL THE WATER THAT COLLECTS ON THE ROADS AND STUFF; AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT UP WHEN YOU MET WITH THE COMMUNITY AND PRESENTED, WHAT NOT? WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE CURRENT REALITY AND THEN THE PROJECT THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING TONIGHT, WHICH IS BASICALLY JUST CUTTING AND MASS GRADING, AND THE PIPELINE PROJECTS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT WILL LIKELY ENTAIL MORE MASS GRADING AND CUTTING DOWN TREES? WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THE REALITY NOW AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT, IN PARTICULAR, ON POSSIBLY CONTRIBUTING MORE TO THE NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT THE EXISTING COMMUNITY IS EXPERIENCING? AND IF IT'S A CASE OF YOUR RETENTION SYSTEM THAT YOUR PROGRAM IN THE SITE IS VIABLE AND RELEVANT ENOUGH TO ADDRESS IT, HOW CAN YOU ASSURE THE COMMUNITY THAT THAT, IN FACT, IS THE CASE? >> COUPLE QUESTIONS AND COUPLE ANSWERS THERE.

FIRST, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY, IT IS 160 UNITS. THE MAXIMUM OF SAYS 154 FOR THE 135 AND 19 BUT OUR PROPOSAL DOES HAVE 160, OKAY. AS FOR THE STORMWATER, THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT. I WAS HOPING THAT QUESTION WOULD COME UP SO I'D HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK TO THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE NEIGHBORS — I APOLOGIZE YOUR NAME WAS — >> MARTELL. >> THE MARTELL FAMILY ARE LOCATED — CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG — I BELIEVE IN THE UPPER, LET'S SEE, NORTH TO WEST CORNER OF YOUR PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF DENFIELD, ALMOST ACROSS FROM WEEPING HILL, RIGHT UP IN HERE? >> YEAH. THIS IS OUR PROPERTY LINE HERE. >> AND SPEAKING WITH THE HERE, CHURCH IS DIRECTLY ADPROSZ WEEPING HILL, THEY'RE DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH IS WHERE THEIR PROPERTY IS. AND IF YOU NOTICE ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN, THE TOPOGRAPHY IN THAT AREA, YES T EXISTING, THERE'S EXISTING LOW AREA THAT DRAINS TO THAT NORTHWEST CORNER ALMOST POINTED DIRECTLY AT THEIR HOME. OUR SITE WILL BE REGRADED — GOOD AMOUNT OF TOPOGRAPHY CHANGES ON THIS — OUR SITE WILL BE REGRADED AND WHETHER THERE'S A STORMWATER FACILITY IN THAT LOCATION OR IF THAT AREA IS BROUGHT TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION AND TREATED — THOSE DETAILS HAVEN'T BEEN DESIGNED YET BECAUSE TR'S NOT A DEVELOPER INVOLVED — HOWEVER I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT STORMWATER DOES REQUIRE WHATEVER'S FALLING OFF-SITE NOW WE CANNOT INCREASE THAT.

SO THERE'S — FOR EXAMPLE, PEAK HOUR, THERE'S AMOUNT OF WATER IN A RAINSTORM THAT FLOWS OFF OF EXISTING PROPERTY NOW. WE WILL NOT BE ABLE T INCREASE THAT. WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO HOLD THAT WATER AND SLOW THAT DOWN OVER A THREE-FIVE DAY BEER YOD RELEASE THAT BACK DOWN TO THE EXISTING CHANNEL. THEIR PROPERTY, YES, THERE IS SOME EXISTING STORMWATER THAT RUNS FROM THIS PROPERTY TO THAT, AND IF THAT DOES CONTAIN, IT'LL NOT BE INCREASED.

AS FOR EXISTING FLOODING ISSUES, THEY LIVE THERE, THEY'RE THE ONES AWARE OF THIS, I HAVEN'T BEEN MADE AWARE. IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING I SHOULD SAY, BUT AS FOR THE PROJECT, THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS TO THE RIGHT OR TO THE EAST, THE SAME APPLIES THERE. WE'LL HAVE STORMWATER FACILITY THAT WILL NOT ONLY TREAT BUT HOLD THAT WATER BACK AND HELP TREAT THAT WATER AND HOLD THAT WATER TO SLOW THE RELEASE OF IT DOWNSTREAM. >> SO IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, WHAT YOU'VE ARTICULATED TO ME AND REFLECTED BACK TO THE CONCERNED NEIGHBORS IS THAT, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY PER WHAT'S REQUIRED WHEN YOU GET TO SITE PLAN IS THAT THEY CAN ONLY — THEY SHOULD ONLY EXPECT THEIR BAD SITUATION TO REMAIN BAD. YOU WON'T MAKE THEIR BAD SITUATION WORSE? >> CORRECT. BASED OFF OF CITY AND STATE REGULATIONS. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? COMMISSIONER BAKER AND THEN COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> I'D LIKE TO ASK MY COMMISSIONERS TO LOOK AT THE AERIAL OF THE SITE BECAUSE IT'S AN AWKWARD SITE.

IT'S BORDERED ON THE SOUTH AND WEST BY DENFIELD AND HEBRON, AND ON THE EAST AND ON THE NORTH BY OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAT THERE'S ONLY ONE CONNECTION THAT CAN BE MADE. TO THE NORTH, NO CONNECTIONS. WE DID THAT. WE CONTINUE DO TO DO THAT. THAT'S THE DNA WE HAVE IN PLACE TO BUILD THIS CITY IS DO DISCONNECTED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. WE'LL CONTINUE TO BE DOING THAT. THERE ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPING THAT WAY WHETHER IT COMES BEFORE US OR NOT, AND SO WE NEED TO BE DEMANDING BETTER FROM DEVELOPERS AND FROM OURSELVES. I AM NOT GOING BE VOTING FO THIS. THIS IS AN EASY NO FOR ME. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WOULD NEED TO CHANGE FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT. I DON'T THINK THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE THE NUMBER OF COMMITMENTS THAT I WOULD REQUEST.

ONE OF THOSE COMMITMENTS BEING TO FOLLOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 222 D, SUBURBAN TEER MIXED USE WHICH REQUIRE ENCOURAGES ELEMENTS OF TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN FOCAL NODE OF ACTIVITY, LAND USES THAT ARE PHYSICALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY INTEGRATED, DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS SUPPORTIVE OF A WIDE RANGE OF HOUSING OPTIONS, EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, COMMUNITY CHOICES.S, TRANSPORTATION – THESE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE INCORPORATED IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS. POLICY 421 G, SUSTAINABILITY, INCORPORATING BEST PRACTICES. 425 D, INCREASES USE OF SOLAR POWER, WIND POWER. 422 A, VARIED HOUSING NEW DEVELOPMENT, HAVING A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES. WE HEARD A LOT OF COMMITMENT TO POTENTIALLY HAVE TWO OPTION FOR HOUSING, BUT MOST LIKELY HAVE ONE, AND A I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR US T BE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF IMPORTANT FEATURES AND BEST PRACTICES THAT I THINK NEED TO BE INCORPORATED, NOT JUST INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT BUT INTO DEVELOPMENTS THAT COME BEFORE US. YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY TESE BEFORE, AGAIN, COMPACT DENSE, INTEGRATED VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, CONNECTED STREETS WITH SHORT-WALKABLE BLOCKS.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THOSE BLOCKS ACTUALLY MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE, HAVING SIDEWALKS AND STREET TREES BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND CURB, HAVING PRIORITY VARIETY OF ACCESSIBLE USES. HAVING CENTRALIZED OPEN SPACES, HOUSES THAT FRONT ON TO THAT OPEN SPACE AND CREATE CIVIC PLACES. PROTECTION O AND ACCESS TO GREEN SPACE AND SMALL SCALE AGRICULTURE, ANTICIPATING POTENTIAL FUTURE BUS TRANSIT. I CAN GO ON AND ON WITH THE LIST, AND THESE ARE DEFINITELY ENCOURAGED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEY'RE ALSO CONSIST WITH BEST PRACTICES. IT'S, OF COURSE, OUR JOB UP HERE, THIS IS A DISCRETIONARY DECISION, IT'S OUR JOB UP HERE TO DETERMINE IF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL PROPOSED HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE FOR DURHAM.

IF IT MAKES DURHAM A BETTER PLACE. COMMISSIONER BRINE POINTED OUT THIS COULD LEAD TO 80% REDUCTION OF TREES. I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT — I'M NOT SAY WE SHULDN'T DO THAT — IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, IT BETTER BE GOOD AND BETTER MAKE DURHAM A BETTER PLACE. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. I WILL BE VOTING TO, UM, I WILL BE VOTING TO RECOMMEND DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL ON THIS. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> SO, THANK YOU. I WANTED TO ASK MS. BARTELL IF SHE'D COME BACK UP TO THE MICROPHONE JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD, AND I BELIEVE THE STAFF CUT OFF THE OVERHEAD. CAN WE CUT THAT BACK ON AGAIN BECAUSE YOU HAD A MAP THT I THINK WAS MORE INSTRUCTIVE THAN THE ONE WE HAVE. THERE YOU UH GO. >> WHICH MAP? >> YOU HAD A MAP SHOWING SCHOOL PROPOSAL. >> YES, SIR. >> I'M NOT SGRES INTERESTED IN IT SO MUCH FOR THE SCHOOL PROPOSAL, UH BUT BECAUSE IT DEMONSTRATES, ONE, IF YOU COULD PUT YOUR FINGER ON YOUR PROPERTY JUST TO MAKE SURE — ALL RIGHT.

THAT ONE. SO IF I'M DRIVING NORTH ON DENFIELD THERE, I JUST PASS — >> [LOW AUDIO]. >> RIGHT, SO I PASS WEEPING WILLOW AND THEN YOURS IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT ONE ON THE LEFT. >> [LOW AUDIO]. PROPERTY RIGHT HERE — >> KIND OF A TRIANGLE SHAPE, SEVEN ACRES. >> THAT CHURCH IS RIGHT TR OPPOSITE WEEPING WILL LOI IMMEDIATELY TO YOUR SOUTH.

>> YES, SIR. >> I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOP POE ON THE EXISTING CONDITION Y'ALLS MAP THAT WE WERE DIRECTED TO. SITE HAS TWO HIGH SPOTS — AND IT'S GOT THIS INTERESTING WATERSHED DIISION LINE. ONE OF THE HIGH SPOTS IS WHERE SUMMER BREEZE DRIVE [LAUGHTER] AND PRESUMABLY THAT'S THE WAY THE DEVELOPER OF THAT SUBDIVISION CREATED THAT WALL THERE. THE OTHER ONE IS THE HILL THAT'S DOWN KIND OF IN THE LOWER CENTER.

THEN THE PROPERTY GOES — THEN THERE'S A RIDGE THAT RUNS OVER TOWARDS WEEPING WILLOW AND YOU'VE GOT A SHOOT OF WATER RUNS RIGHT UP TOWARD THE BARTELL'S PROPERTY. >> MM-HMM. >> ANOTHER SHOOT THAT RUNS THE OTHER DIRECTION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIDGE LINE, AND I'M JUST LOOKING FROM THE TOP OF THAT HILL WHICH IS LIKE YOU SAID ABOUT 396 DOWN TO WHAT I AM GUESSING THE TOP POE IS WHEN IT HITS YOUR PROPERTY AROUND 340 SOMETHING.

THAT'S A 50-FOOT DROP. YOU'D HAVE TO DO A LOT OF GRADING TO CHANGE THE WAY WATER WILL FLOW IN THAT AREA. >> [LOW AUDIO]. >> IT'S A LOT BIGGER THAN ANY OTHER TWO OR WHAT SUMMER MEADOW IS PUTTING TOGETHER THAT'S EVEN BIGGER. >> SO AND THEN THERE IS — SO I'M JUST, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UH UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE TELLING US ABOUT WHERE THE WATER GOES; HAVE I GOT IT RIGHT? >> THAT BLUE LINE IS WHERE TE WATER GOES TO.

>> RIGHT. >> 27,154 GALLONS OF RAIN RUNOFF PER ACRE FOR ONE INCH OF RAIN. >> AND WE DO HAVE A CONCERN. WE ASKED THE DEVELOPER WHEN HE WAS AT DUKE'S CHAPEL WITH US, WHAT LIKE INCH EXPANDED HOUSING CHOICES INCHES OF RAIN PER HOUR THE RETENTION POND WOULD HOLD AND NO GOTTEN BACK WITH US ON THAT, AND REALLY WITH THIS ALL THIS GLOBAL WARMING AND STFFER T WHOLE CITY AND COUNTY OF DURHAM NEEDS TO RETHINK EXPANDED HOUSING CHOICES RETENTION WATER INCHES PER HOUR BECAUSE WE NEED TO INCREASE THAT SO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS BEING DEVELOPED LATER WON'T BE FLOODED OUT. P IT NEEDS TO BE INCREASED. >> TALKING OVER 6 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER JUST FROM THIS SUBDIVISION COMING DOWN MY PROPERTY.

>> 40 DEGREE DROP. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS GETTING THE PICTURE. UM, AND SO I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND TO EACH MEETING MR. BAKER PERSUADES ME MORE AND MORE THAT WE NEED TO EXPECT MORE AND MORE OF SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT IS WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SHOE HORN THEM BACK INTO THE URBAN TIER. WHEN THEY COME, WE'RE GOING PUT THEM IN SUBURBAN TIER AND WE NEED TO BE MORE DELIBERATE ABOUT WHAT WE APPROVE IN SUBURBAN TIER. WE MIGHT FRIGHT ON THIS PROJECT OR THAT PROJECT ABOUT MIX OF UNITS AND NUMBER OF UNITS AND DENSITIES AND ALL THAT BUT I UH DO THINK WE NEED FO BE MORE DELIBERATE.

WE HAVE A PAT UP HERE OF WHEN THE REAL DEVELOPER OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY IS STANDING AT THE MICROPHONE WE ASK FOR ALL KINDS OF COMMITMENTS BUT WHEN SOMEBODY WHO IS SEEKING TO REZONE A PIECE OF PROPERTY IS NOT THE REAL DEVELOPER BUT WANTS TO PUT THE PROPERTY UP FOR SALE, WE USE A DIFFERENT STANDARD SAYING THEY CAN'T COMMIT TO WE WON'T ASK FOR COMMITMENTS. I THINK THAT'S INVERTED. IF ANYTHING, SINCE IT'S OUR LAST SHOT AT TRYING TO INFLUENCE DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS THE GOOD, WE SHOULD EXPECT MORE. SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO BE MORE DELIBERATE IN THE TIME I HAVE LEFT ON THE COMMISSION ABOUT EVALUATING SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENTS OF SIZE, AND 30 ACRES IS A BIG ONE, STILL, NOW THESE DAYS. AND ALSO BE LESS LIKELY TO GIVE T THE SPECK LA TI APPLICANT A PASS I WOULD NEVER GIVE TO THE ACTUAL BUILDER/DEVELOPER. SO BASED ON THAT AND BECAUSE I DO THINK — I THINK THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE DEVLOPED. I THINK IT SHOULD BE DEVELOP CORRECTLY AND SENSITIVELY AND I THINK IT NEEDS DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THAT'S THE GREAT THING ABOUT PDR, IT HAS TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IT'S OUR CHANCE TO USE THE UDO TO GET THE THINGS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS WE WANT. WE HAVE ONE SHOT AT IT. AND SO I WANT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED. A MIX OF THE RIGHT MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TOWN HOUSES COULD SELL ME, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE RIGHT MIX BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT. IT COULD BE 156 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND FOUR TOWN HOUES. IT'S UNLIKELY BUT TOWN HOUSEst HAS TO COME IN BLOCKS OF FOUR SO IF THERE HAS TO BE A MIX, THAT'S KNOT A REAL MIX.

AND I DON'T THINK WHAT ANY DEVELOPER WOULD DEVELOP IT THAT WAY BUT I'D LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER EXPRESSION OF MIX AND THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT, THAT IS STILL GIVES PLENTY OF FLEXIBILITY. I LKE THIS IDEA OF INTEGRATING HOUSING TYPES FOR VARIETY; SOMETHING OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ANTICIPATED SINCE WE ADOPTED IT IN 2006 AND I'VE HARDLY EVER SEEN IT. MAYBE IT'S TIME TO — AND SO I THINK UH BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE IT WE DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. MAYBE IT'S TIME TO START TAKING IT SERIOUSLY SO I'LL JOIN MR. BAKER NO VOTE ON THIS ONE BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS PROPERTY SHOULDN'T HAVE 160 DWELLING UNITS, AND WITH THE RIGHT PDR PROPOSAL, WITH GOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMITMENTS FROM SOMEBODY WHO'S READY TO FOLLOW THROUGH AND ONE COMMITMENT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS A COMMITMENT TO SOMETHING BETTER THAN THE STANDARDS STORMWATER RETENTION.

THAT IS POSSIBLE TO PUT IN A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE SHOULDN'T EXPECT IT MORE FREQUENTLY. I'LL BE JOINING MR. BAKER NO VOTE ON THIS ONE. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LOWE. >> YES. THIS QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. I BELIEVE I I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INCREASE THE RUNOFF TO THE BARTELL'S PROPERTY, WOULD NOT MAKE IT WORSE. I BELIEVE I I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> WHAT ASSURANCE CAN YOU GIVE THEM THAT IT WILL NOT BE MADE WORSE? THERE'S NO 100% GUARANTEE, I GUESS. IS IT LIKE 80% SURE? >> THAT STATEMENT IS BASED OFF THE STORMWATER REGULATIONS TAT ARE PUT IN PLACE BY THE CITY AND THE STATE. AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THOSE REGULATIONS. SO AS A PERCENTAGE OF A GUARANTEE, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE'S OPINION OF WORSE AND EVERYONE'S OPINION OF A FLOODING IS DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS, BUT AS THE LAW STATES, THE REGULATIONS WE HAVE TO FOLLOW ARE A FULL REQUIREMENT AND THAT REQUIRES AT THE PROPERTY LINE QUESTION NOT INCREASE THE FLOW THAT CROSSES THAT PROPERTY LINE.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY — COMMISSIONER AL-TURK. >> THANK YOU. HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I'LL START WITH TRANSPORTATION. CURRENTLY, THE ASSUMPTIONS ARE 135 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 19 TOWNHOMES BUT LETS STAY IT'S 160 TOWNHOME WHICH IS IS A POSSIBILITY NOW, RIGHT? WOULD THAT BE FEWER, LESS TRAFFIC OR MORE TRAFFIC? LESS, RIGHT? >> I WOULD HAVE TO RUN THE NUMBERS TO SAY FOR CERTAINTY UH WHAT THE AMOUNT WOULD BE BUT IN GENERAL, TOWNHOMES GENERATE LESS TRIPS THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. >> OKAY. >> SO YOU WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE LESS IF IT WERE MORE TOWN HOMES AND LESS SINGLE FAMILY. >> THANK YOU. ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THERE IS COMMISSIONER BRINE MENTIONED OPTIONAL ACCESS POINT NUMBER THREE AND IT SAYS IT'S CONTINGENT ON NCDOT APPROVAL. WHAT IS THAT APPROVAL FOR? >> GENERALLY, I MEAN ANY CONNECTION TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY DOT AND SO FOR IMPROVEMENT MADE REQUIRED SUCH AS TURN LANES, HOWEVER, ACCESS POINT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT WHTHER OR NOT IT'S IMPLEMENTED.

IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR EMILY, I GUESS, OR STAFF, MORE GENERALLY. SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT IMPACTS ON STORMWATER, TRAFFIC, AND SOMETIMES IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS, BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SCHOOLS IT GETS PAPERED OVER BECAUSE TYPICALLY OR ALWAYS IN OUR STAFF REPORT WE SAY THAT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM HAS THE CAPACITY TO ABSORB HOWEVER MANY STUDENTS BUT THAT'S BASED ON A SYSTEM-WIDE NUMBERS. NOW WHEN I WAS FIRST ON WHEN I GOT ON THE COMMISSION ABOUT THREE OVER THREE YEARS AGO THERE USED TO BE OUR NUMBERS LOCAL THE SCHOOLS THT ARE NEARBY. IS THERE A REASON THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERN — YOU KNOW WE CAN'T ACCESS SCHOOLS? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM REQUESTED WE LOOK AT IT IN WHOLE. I'LL CHECK WITH MY SUPERVISOR. >> SCOTT WHTEMAN WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. REASON WHY WE USE SYSTEM-WIDE IS THAT'S WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY REFERENCES. A LOT OF REASONS FOR THAT. IT'S NOT — DON'T WANT TO CONTRADICT BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE THE SCHOOL SYSTEM PREFERS BUT DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS WE HAVE A LOT OF MAGNUM PROGRAMS.

THE CLOSEST SCHOOL TO THIS SITE IS MAGNUM. CLOSEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. WE HAVE OVERLAPPING YEAR-ROUND SCHOOLS. SO IT IS REALLY HARD TO DETERMINE THAT ONE STUDENT WHO HOUSES IS GONG TO GO TO WHICH – SCHOOL. >> WE COULD PROBABLY USE HISTORICAL DATA TO KIND OF GET SOME ESTIMATE OF WHERE OR THE DISTRIBUTION, RIGHT? OR NO? DON'T THAT? >> IT'S PROBABLY SOME DATA THAT MIGHT HELP BUT IT'S REALLY HARD TO DO.

>> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPACT ON TRAFFIC WE DON'T TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, WE TALK ABOUT LO LOCAL TRAFFIC. I WOULD TALK TO SCHOOL SYSTEM AND TRY TO REASESS THAT. SEEMS TO ME TO MAKE MORE SENSE, BUT I TAKE YOUR POINT. I APPRECIATE THAT. ONE LAST QUESTION I GUESS FOR STAFF. COMMISSIONER BAKER MENTIONED A NUMBER OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT HE DOES NOT THINK THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH. WHY PICK — WE OFTEN GET THESE PARTICULAR POLICIES IN ATTACHMENT SIX YOU KNOW SUBURBAN TIER DEFINED, CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT, ENOUGH CAPACITY, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF POLICIES IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, GET TO SEE AND WE DON'T SEE WHETHER THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE POLICIES OR NOT.

I'M INCREASINGLY CONVINCED BY COMMISSIONER BAKER THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE, I GUESS, ON THOSE POLICIES THAT HE'S HIGH LIGHTED IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS IN STAFF REPORT AND WHETHER — I WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION ON WHETHER HE'S CORRECT OF WHETHER THEY'RE CONSISTENT OR NOT WITH THOSE POLICIES. THANK YOU. >> SARA YOUNG WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

I WANTED TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONER THAT A LOT OF THE POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDING MANY OF THE ONES THAT COMMISSIONER BAKER OFTEN REFERS TO START WITH THE PHRASE THROUGH THE UDO. THAT MEANS THAT THAT IS HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT FOR THE STAFF TO DEVELOP E EITHER A SET OF REGULATIONS OR A PLAN OR SOME DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE TO PUT IN PLACE. THOSE WERE NEVER INTENDED AND ARE NOT TO BE APPLIED TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AS THEY COME THROUGH THE PIPELINE. THIS IS A TOPIC THAT WE'VE TOUCHED ON, I BELIEVE, REPEATEDLY IN VARIOUS SESSIONS; SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE TO NOT CONFUSE FOLKS ANY TIME A POLICY STARTS WITH THAT, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY A PROJECT FOR PLANNING STAFF OR SOME OTHER DEPARTMENTAL STAFF TO WORK ON AND THOSE POLICIES ARE NOT TO BE APPLIED TO INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. >> THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BUZBY. >> I SAID I'D BE BACK, HERE I AM. JUST TWO QUESTIONS. ONE IS FOR STAFF, AND I JUST HAVEN'T BEEN THINKING OF THIS BEFOREHAND.

KNOWING THIS IS ADJACENT TO THE LIKELY FUTURE SITE OF NORTHERN HIGH SCHOOL, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT NEED TO BE MET? BECAUSE I'M THINKING, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE IN THE WAK ZONE FOR THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL AT SOME POINT, SO ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL STANDARDS WE NEED TO MEET BECAUSE OF THAT? WE KNOW THAT IN ADVANCE? >> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY OTHER POLICIES RELATED TO THAT OR ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD SUBMIT I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD THINK ABOUT THAT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT AS WE MOVE FORWARD. I'M OF A SIMILAR MIND OF COMMISSIONER MILLER. I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE SITE TWO DEVELOP GIVEN OUR GROWTH BUT I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES IN THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL THIS EVENING. SECOND QUESTION WAS FOR MR. SIVERS. I KNOW YOU HAD MADE THE ADDITIONAL CMMITMENT ON THE TOWN HOUSES AS COMMITTED ELEMENT POTENTIALLY WITH SINGLE FAMILY AND IT WILL BE 160 TOTAL UNITS NOT TO EXCEED 149 PEAK HOUR TRIPS. ARE YOU WILLING TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS ON NUMBERS THIS EVENING? I'LL SAY, I'M GLAD TO SEE THE COMMITMENT TO THE MIX OF TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY, BUT IT'S STILL PRETTY WIDE RANGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND ARE THERE NUMBERS YOU'RE COMFORTABLE MAKING COMMITMENT IN TERMS OF CERTAINTY FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND FOR THE COMMUNITY? >> TIM SIVERS, HORVATH ASSOCIATES.

YES. REVISED TEXT COMMITMENT TOOK OUT THE ABILITY TO HAVE A COMPLETE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. >> RIGHT. >> WE STILL INCLUDE AND FOR CLARITY WE DO STILL INCLUDE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT PLEAT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD BE LESS TRAFFIC AS TRANSPORTATION STATED. IF THS WOULD SUFFICE AND STAFF WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH US, I WOULD BE WILLING TO COMMIT TO A MINIMUM TOWNHOME NUMBER BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT QUITE GETS YOU TO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. SOME OF THE DEVELOP — THIS HAS BEEN PUT OUT, SOME DEVELOPERS THAT ARE LOOKING AT THIS ARE LOOKING FOR A MIX. SOME OTHERS ARE LOOKING FOR TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. SO THE ABILITY FOR THE MY CLIENT TO BE ABLE TO SELL THIS, I DON'T FEEL COMFORT BLG COMMITTING TO AN ABSOLUTE COMBINATION OF BOTH, BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO COMMIT TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF TOWNHOME BUS I'M NOT SURE DWLOOURS LOOKING FOR.

>> I'M NOT SURE IT DOES. I'M INTERESTED IN MOST CLARITY POSSIBLE YOU'RE WILLING TO COMMIT IN WRITING AT THIS POINT. THERE'S NOT A NUMBER I HAVE IN MIND. I ACTUALLY PREFER HAVING SOME MIX, PERSONALLY UH, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET A SENSE OF HOW FAR YOU WERE WILLING TO MAKE A COMMITMENT THIS EVENING. I'M NOT EXPECTING ANYTHING. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANKS. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE? IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE IN CASE Z1900016 CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT OF HEBRON VILLAGE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEND THAT FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, ALSO INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS THAT WERE PROFFERED TONIGHT WHICH I BELIEVE RELATE TO SCHOOLS, AFFORDABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND, AND ALSO A COMMITMENT THAT THERE WILL BE A MIX OF TOWN HOUSES AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

>> SECOND. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT WASN'T — >> QUESTION. >> IT WAS NOT A COMMITMENT FOR A MIX. IT WAS A COMMITMENT THAT IT WOULD BE TOWNHOMES OR A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY. >> PARDON ME, THAT'S CORRECT. IT WOULD NOT BE ALL SINGLE FAMILY. THAT IT WOULD E EITHER BE ALL TOWN HOMES OR A MIX. >> OKAY. I JUST NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT THE STAFF IS CLEAR ON THE COMMITMENTS THAT WERE MADE AND INCLUDED.

>> THAT WAS MEANT TO BE COMPREHENSIVE EVEN IF IT WASN'T. >> YES. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED COMMITMENTS AND IS COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD. >> THANK YOU. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AL-TURK THAT WE MOVE ITEM Z1900016 HEBRON VILLAGE FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION INCLUDING COMMITMENTS PROFFERED COMMITMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECORDED. I'M GOING CALL FAR ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. [ROLL CALL VOTE]. >> MOTION FAILS 13-0. >> THANK YOU. WE'RE READY TO MOVE TO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. ZONING MAP CHANGE: Z1900018, GLENN ROAD TOWNHOMES. READY FOR STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. YES. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, JAMIE SUNYAK WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRESENTING CASE NUMBER Z1900018, GLENN ROAD TOWN HOMES. THE APPLICANT IS CHARLIE YOKLEY FROM AK ADAMS. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3516 GLENN ROAD. IS CURRENTLY LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTY JURISDICTION PENDING ANNEXATION APPLICATION.

THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 52 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PDR 7.046. FLUM IS CURRENTLY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND NO CHANGE TO THAT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING UP TO 279 TOWN HOUSE UNITS. THIS SLIDE SHOWS PROPERTY HIGH LIGHTED IN RED LOCATED WITHIN SUBURBAN TIER, NEUSE RIVER BASIN AND FALS/JORDAN. OVER HALF PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN MTCI I-85. PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND HEAVILY WOODED. AN EXISTING POND. SEVERAL AREAS OF WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN FEATURES ON THIS SITE. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ABUT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST. ADDITIONAL LANDS TO THE EAST AND WEST ARE UNDEVELOPED.

INTERSTATE 85, COMMERCIAL SHOPPING, AND TRANSIT SERVICES ARE LOCATED LESS THAN ONE HALF MILE ALONG GLENN SCHOOL ROAD. THIS SLIDE SHOWS EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING. ON THE LEFT T PROPERTY SHOWN IN YELLOW WHICH IS RR, AND AGAIN THE PROPERTY THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE TO A PDR DISTRICT 7.046. FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS MENTIONED BEFORE IT IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING REQUEST. AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP, THIS LOCATION SERVES AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE NORTH THAT'S IN YELLOW. THE OFFICE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE WEST, AND INDUSTRIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE SOUTH AND EAST, AND THE RED AREA IS THE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT IS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST AS WELL. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWN HERE PROVIDES SITE ACCESS POINTS, PROJECT BOUNDARY BUFFERS, RIPARIAN BUFFERS, AND CROSSINGS, TEN-FOOT NO-BUILD ZONES, BUILDING AND PARKING ENVELOPE, THREE COVERAGE AREAS AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. KEY COMMITMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PLAN INCLUDE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT TO TOWN HOUSE UNITS, LIMITING NUMBER OF UNITS UP TO 279, INCLUDING ADDITIONAL ASPHALT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FUTURE BICYCLE LANE AND DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY.

IN ADDITION, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS GRAPHIC COMMITMENTS FOR VARIOUS ROOF TYPES, BUILDING MATERIALS, AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND POLICIES T PROPOSAL IF APPROVED WOULD INCREASE DENSITY AND COMMIT TO RESIDENTIAL WHILE STILL REMAINING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MEDIUM DENSITY. IN TERMS OF PLICY 212 C, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD ALLOW FOR A MORE UNITS AD GENERALLY A MORE AFFORDABLE UNIT TYPE, MULTIFAMILY AS OPPOSED TO SINGLE FAMILY, ACCOMMODATING ADDITIONAL GROWTH WITHIN SUBURBAN TIER. THAN A HALF MILE FROM INTERSTATE 85 AND EXISTING BUS ROUTE ALONG GLENN SCHOOL ROAD AND RETAIL SHOPPING. THE PROPOSAL SUPPORTS ORDERLY I DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THAT IT WOULD EXPAND UPON EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST. TOWN HOUSE DEVELOPMENT DOES CREATE AN APPROPRIATE BUFFER AND TRANSITION BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, OFFICER AND INDUSTRIAL NEARBY HIGHWAY, SHOPPING AND COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS ROAD, WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY ARE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH POLICY 11 — SORRY, SOME TYPOS ON THIS SLIDE FOLLOW ALONG WITH ME. PROPOSED DWEMGS PLAN CONSISTENT WITH POLICIES RELATED TO SCHOOLS AS THEY'RE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY WITHIN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL GROWTH.

THAT'S POLICY 11.1.1 B. STAFF DETERMINES THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER POLL SIS AND ORDINANCES. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> MM-HMM. >> I HAVE THEE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR AND TWO AGAINST. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND START THE NAMES I HAVE LISTED ARE CHARLIE YOKLEY, BOB MISHLER, AND MATISIA. >> REARRANGE THE ORDER. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WHEN YOU COME FORWARD. >> BAHATI, WITH PARKER PO ADAMS AND BERN STOOEN. WITH ME IS THE DEVELOPER BUILDER ASHTON WOODS AND BOB MISHLER AND ALSO IS CHARLIE YOKLEY WITH McADAMS. THANK YOU FOR A WONDERFUL SUMMARY OF OUR REQUEST. I'D LIKE TO ADD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. AS JAMIE MENTIONED WE ARE REQUESTING REZONING OF 52.5 ACRES ON GLENN ROAD FROM RR TO PDR 7.046 UNITS PER ACRE FOR 279 UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. ON THIS SLIDE WE THINK THIS LOCATION IS GREAT LOCATION FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT GIVEN THAT ITS PROXIMATE SIMILARLY TO I-85 WHICH WOULD GIVE FUTURE RESIDENCE ACCESS TO JOBS AND OTHER SERVICES IN DURHAM.

ADDITIONALLY THERE'S COMMERCIAL NODE TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE AND IT'LL PROVIDE NICE BUFFER BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO THE NORTH AND THAT I-85 CORE DOER AND COMMERCIAL NODE TO THE SOUTH. LOOKING AT EXISTING ZONING MAP, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED RR BUT AS MENTIONED THERE'S COMMERCIAL NODE TO THE SOUTH AND THE HOMES TO THE NORTH OF THE SIDE ARE ZONED RR AS WELL, MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY. BY PROVIDING TOWNHOMES WOULD BE PROVIDING TRANSITION BETWEEN HOMES TO THE NORTH AND THAT COMMERCIAL NODE IN THAT I-85 TO THE SOUTH. JAMIE ALSO MENTIONED THE DESIGNATION FOR THE SITE IS MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALLOWS 6-12 UNITS PER ACHE SORE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE STAYED WITHIN THAT DESIGNATION. WE WERE CONSIDERING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT BUT WITH THE POND THAT'S ON THE SITE AND OTHER RIPARIAN FEATURES THERE ARE SOME SITE CONSTRAINTS AND SINGLE FAMILY PLAN WE INITIALLY CAME UP WITH WAS NOT ALLOWING US TO GET TO HIGHER DENSITY TO BE WIHIN THE 6-12 UNITS WE WANTED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FLUM SO WE ENDED UP GOING WITH FULL TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT WHICH KEEPS US IN THE RANGE AND KEEPS US CONSISTENT WITH FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ALLOWS US TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL UNITS TO MEET GROWING HOUSING DEMAND.

JAMIE ALSO MENTIONED WHAT OUR KEY TEXT COMMITMENTS ARE. MAXIMIZING NUMBER OF UNITS TO 279 AND MAKING SURE COMMITTING TO TOWNHOMES. MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA WILL NOT EXCEED 70%. DEDICATING ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE REALIGNMENT OF GLENN SCHOOL ROAD WHICH IS IN THE IMAGE ON THE SEE SCREEN IT'S GOING BE THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE SITE SO THAT EXTENSION IS GOING TO COME THROUGH THE SITE AND DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THAT TO HELP WITH MAKING TRANSPORTATION IN THE AREA EASIER. ALSO INCLUDE EASTBOUND LEFT TURN LANE ALONG GLENN SCHOOL ROAD AT THE ACCESS POINT THAT'LL HELP WITH TRAFFIC CONCESSION SO WE HAVE PEOPLE EXCLUSIVELY IN THAT TURN LANE GETTING OUT OF THE SLEEN NOT A LOT OF BACKUP. ALSO OFFER FIVE FEET OF ASPHALT FOR BIKELINE EXCEEDING UDO REQUIREMENTS THERE. ACTUALLY I WANT TO GO BACK. USING IMAGE I WANTED TO POINT OUT WE HAVE MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS ON THIS SITE TO HELP WITH ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY IN THE AREA.

TWO ACCESS POINTS THAT ARE ALONG THE WHAT WOULD BE EASTERN BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SITE BUT WHAT WOULD BE LOOK LIKE NORTHERN BOUNDARY LINE, THOSE ARE LIKELY GOING TO BE STUBS THAT COULD BE BUILT OUT. IF SOMETHING IS DEVELOPED ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WE COULD HAVE CONNECTIONS THERE. AS JAMIE MENTIONED WE DO HAVE A POND ON THIS SITE AND SOME RIPARIAN FEATURES.

WE WANT TO MAINTAIN POND AND CLEAN UP VEGETATION AROUND IT SO IT CAN BE AMENITY ON THE SITE FOR THE RESIDENCE THERE. WE ALSO BE L BE MEETING 20% TCA AND 17% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE AIM TO KEEP LOT SIZES RELATIVELY SMALL ON THE DEVELOPMENT SO THAT HOPEFULLY KEEP PRICE POINT LOW. WE WERE LOOKING AT PRICE POINT BETWEEN 200-300 THOUSAND BUT TRYING TO KEEP IT AT LOWER 200 END. WE'RE LOOKING AT VARIETY OF DESIGN STYLES. THOSE I MENTIONED ARE DESIGN COMMITMENT AND THE GOAL WITH HAVING VARYING STYLES TO HAVE VARIETY IN THE LOOK OF THE HOMES. WE HAD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON AUGUST 21st. WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO ONE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AMENDING THE FLUM. ONE MAIN COMMENTS MADE WAS THE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO SEE LOWER DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BUT WE EXPLAINED TO THEM THE SAME THING I MENTIONED ABOUT DESIRE OF WANTING TO STAY WITHIN THAT MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 6-12 UNITS PER ACRE TO MEET GROWING HOUSING DEMAND IN DURHAM AND THEY ALSO MENTIONED THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC BUT AS MENTIONED BY STAFF EARLIER BY TRANSPORTATION EARLIER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES YIELD MORE TRAFFIC TRIPS THAN TOWNHOMES DO.

WE'VE MENTIONED TALKED TO THEM ABOUT ACCESS POINTS. THEY RASED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF STORMWATER MECHANISMS WE WOULD HAVE AND WE'D MENTION W'D DO PROPER STUDIES TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT INCREASING STORMWATER MAKING ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS. WE EXPLAINED TO THEM WE'LL HAVE OPEN SPACE ON THE SITE AS WELL AS TCA AND WE ALSO MENTIONED WE'LL BE PRESERVING POND. I SPOKE WITH NEIGHBOR WHO MENTIONED THAT WAS E FEEDING GROUND FOR OUR ANIMALS SO I WANT ODD MAKE SURE SHE KNEW WE WERE GOING BE PRESERVING THAT AND WE DISCUSSED THE PRICE POINT. CRITERIA THAT'S BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY WE THINK WE MEET ALL FOUR OF THESE BULL LET POINTS HERE. BULLET POINTS HERE. WE'D BE ADD PRIORITY OF PRODUCT TYPE TO THE AREA BUT OF COURSE IT'S IN A GOD LOCATION FOR RESIDENTIAL GIVEN PROXIMITY TO I-85 AND COMMERCIAL NODE. SITE SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AS STATED IN STAFF REPORT IT DOES MEET A SPECIFIC DEMAND THAT'S IN DURHAM AND OF COURSE STAFF REPORT MENTIONED INFRASTRUCTURE IS AVAILABLE AND SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THIS USE ON THIS SITE.

WANTED TO ALSO HIGHLIGHT OTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT STAFF MENTIONED IN STAFF REPORTs. WITHIN SU WITH YOUR BAN TIER HIGHER DENSITY IS APPROPRIATE AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE AIMING TO PUT HIGHER DENSITY HERE PAY AFFORDABILITY IS SOMETHING WE'VE HEARD EXHIBITION SPEAK ABOT. AS MENTIONED WE'RE AIMING TO KEEP LOT SIZES SMALL TO KEEP PRICE POINT RELATIVELY LOW. ALSO WE WILL BE MAKING CONTRIBUTION TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND OF $41,850.

WITH REGARD TO THE CONTIGUOUS AND HOW IT FITS INTO THE AREA, AGAIN, BEING NEAR I 85 IT'S PROVIDING TRANSITION BETWEEN HOMES TO THE NORTH AND COMMERCIAL NODE AND HAVING THOSE TWO STUBS THAT COULD BE BUILT OUT TO BE CONNECTED TO OR DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY BE BUILT ON THE EVEN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SCHOOL CAPACITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE; STAFF INDICATES THERE'S SUFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT THE YIELD STUDENT YIELD FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NINE STUDENTS SO WE'LL BE MAKING CONTRIBUTION TO THE SCHOOL FUND OF $4,500. WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR THOSE WE DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO MEET W WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME WITH EVERYBODY, WE HEARD A LOT OF WONDERFUL COMMENTS THAT WE AGREE WITH AND WE'RE WORKING WITH ON TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THE RIGHT LANGUAGE FOR ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS AND WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH STAFF FOR THAT BUT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO COMMIT SPECIFICALLY TO DEVELOPMENT TO THOSE COMMITMENTS TONIGHT BUT WE DID TAKE YOUR COMMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND A WE'RE WORKING ON THAT LANGUAGE AND I'M SURE YOU MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS THAT WILL BRING THOSE UP AND WE'LL DISCUSS THOSE AT THE TIME IF YOU LIKE.

>> THANK YOU. YOU HAVE LEFT VERY LITTLE TIME FOR YOUR COLLEAGUES BUT THEY'RE WELCOME TO USE THE NEXT MINUTE. >> DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL — >> THEY'LL YIELD THEIR TIME. WE'RE GOOD ON THAT. >> THOSE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT I UH HAVE LISTED TO SPEAK FOR. NOW VI TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AGAINST: WILLIAM HERNANDEZ AND AALENA HERNANDEZ.

>> WILLIAM HERNANDEZ, 3724 GLENN ROAD. I LIKE MY WIFE SPEAKING. THANK YOU. >> SINCE WE'RE ALMOST RUNNING OUT OF TIME — >> WELL, YOUR TIME IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THOSE WERE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE SPEAKING FOR. NOW YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NINA HERNANDEZ, 3724 GLENN ROAD, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA. IT IS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY THAT IS RIGHT CONNECTED BEIDE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO PU ON.

IF YOU GO DOWN GLENN ROAD FROM THE STOP SIGN ON THE VERY FIRST PROPERTY THAT UH YOU HI BEFORE THIS BIG PIECE OF LAND. I'VE GOT SEVERAL CONCERNS. ONE OF THEM IS A TRAFFIC ON THAT ROAD. I KNOW THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT TURNING LANES BUT EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CONNECT TO 85 THINK OF ALL THE TRAFFIC COMING DOWN CAL MILL ROAD ALSO TO GET TO THAT DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S AN EXTREMELY SHARP TURN DOWN THERE THAT EVEN WITH THE MINIMUM TRAFFIC WE HAVE NOW, THERE HAS BEEN VERY CLOSE CALLS BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A SHARP TURN COMING DOWN THE OX FED WAY. OTHER CONCERN IS I KNOW THEY SPOKE ABOUT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM BEING ABLE TO MANAGE ALL THE SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS COMING IN. OUR DISTRICT IS NORTHERN HIGH SCHOOL. THEY ARE BUILDING A NEW HIGH SCHOOL DUE TO OVERLOAD OF THE STUDENTS AND THEN YOU'RE BRINGING IN MORE DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT HIGH SCHOOL, AND THEN I'M HEARING EVEN TONIGHT THERE'S MORE DEVELOPMENTS AT OTHER PROPERTIES ALSO CLOSE TO NORTHERN HIGH SCHOOLS, THE NEW ONE THAT'S GOING TO ALSO BE ADDITIONAL STUDENTS TO THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL THEY'RE ABOUT TO BUILD.

SO THAT'S A LITTLE CONCERN THAT I'M LISTENING, I'M GETTING FROM TONIGHT. UM, LET ME SEE WHT ELSE. I KNOW THEY STATED THAT HAVING A TOWNHOMES WOULD ALSO BE A BUFFER FROM A RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIALS BUT AS I'VE SAT HERE TONIGHT LISTENING TO Y'ALL HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT COMBINATION TOWN HOMES AND SINGLE HOMES. I PREFER TO HAVE SINGLE HOMES BESIDE ME SINCE WE'RE ALL OF A COMMUNITY OF SINGLE HOMES, BUT IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER HAVING A MIX OF SINGLE HOMES AND TOWNHOMES JUST TO MAKE IT MORE OF A COMMUNITY FLUENT FROM ALL THE SING SL HOMES WE DO HAVE IN THIS AREA? I UH KNOW THEY SPOKE ABOUT THE RUNOFF FROM AND THEM TRYING TO KEEP ALL THEIR RUNOFF AT A MINIMUM DUE TO THE REGULATIONS. MY ONE CONCERN IS, WE HAVE ALREADY A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT BACK THAT A LOT OF THAT DRAIN H- STORMS COMES DOWN ON THE SIDE OF MY PROPERTY WHERE THERE IS AN ACTUAL LIKE DREAM THAT RNS RIGHT AT THE BAK OF MY PROPERTY THAT ALL THAT RAINWATER RUNS INTO.

WHICH IS A CONCERN BECAUSE ONCE YOU GOT MORE OF THE CONCRETE, MORE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT JUST MEANS THERE'S COMING MORE INTO THAT STREAM AND IF THERE'S MORE THERE, IT'S GOING BACK UP INTO MY PROPERTY EVENTUALLY. UM, LET ME SEE. I I KNOW THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, ALSO. MY UH PROPERTY IS RIGHT BESIDE THAT BUILDING THAT THEY'RE ABOUT TO BUILD. I'VE HAD MULTIPLE CARS FLIPPED IN MY YARD BECAUSE WE ARE COUNTY AND THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO BECOME CITY, THE OTHER NIGHT WE WAITED ALMOST TWO HOURS FOR THE SHERIFF TO COME OUT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET THE CAR OUT OF MY YARD THAT HAD FLIPPED BECAUSE OF HOW THE SPEED LIMIT FROM COAL MILL ROAD ALL THE WAY DOWN WILL HAVE TO BE DECREASED TO 35 TO BE ABLE TO COMPROMISE FOR AL THE TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO COME IN AND OUT OF THAT CMPLEX THAT THEY'RE ABOUT TO BUILD.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE DONE THIS SO I'M TRYING TO GET ALL MY THOUGHTS TOGETHER. >> PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME, YOU STILL HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME LEFT. >> THERE'S ONLY A STOP SIGN RIGHT THERE AT GLENN SCHOOL ROAD INTO GLENN ROAD. THERE IS NO LIGHT THERE. THERE HAS BEEN THREE CLOSE CALLS WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT WE DO HAVE COMING FROM DEVELOPMENTS FURTHER DOWN GLENN ROAD. THERE WOULD — I'M QUESTIONING, IS THERE GOING TO BE A STOP LIGHT THERE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN COMING BACK FROM GEAR ROAD AS YOU COME DOWN GLENN ROAD, THAT TRAFFIC CAN SPEED UP QUICKLY AND IF THERE'S NO SPOTLIGHT THERE AND THERE'S JUST A STOP SIGN IT'S GOING TO CAUSE ANOTHER POINT OF ACCIDENTS, ALSO.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WELL AT THIS POINT AGAINST THISH SHOE BECAUSE WE HAVE VERY LITTLE TIME LEFT ON THE OTHER SIDE. IF NOT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GIVE THE COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS. I'LL START TO MY RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRINE AND THEN COMMISSIONER DURKIN. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DID YOU ALSO HAVE YOUR HAND UP? THANK YOU. WE'LL START WIH AND I'M PRONOUNCING THE NAMES SO THAT THE AUDIO ABLE TOFOLLOW YOU VISIBLY UH. IF I START SAYING YOUR NAME, IT IS BECAUSE THE CAMERA IS GOING TO BE FOCUSEDED ON YOU. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. FIRST, QUESTION FOR STAFF JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I HERD THINGS RIGHT.

I I HEARD TWO ADDITIONAL COMMITTED ELEMENTS OFFERED: $41,000 TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND $4,500 TO SCHOOL; AM I CORRECT IN THAT? >> OH, EIGHT FIFTY, THANK YOU. >> JAMIE SUNYAK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I'M SORRY, I ONLY HEARD ONE OF THE PROFFERS AND I WAS GOING TO ASK APPLICANT TO CLARIFY THAT, SO MAYBE — >> OKAY. >> WHAT I UH HEARD WAS $41,850 TOWARD AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND AND I UH DIDN'T HEAR THE SECOND ONE. >> $41,850 TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND $4,500 TO SCHOOL. >> PARDON ME. SO STFF TYPICALLY WHEN WE SEE THESE PROFFERS AND COMMITMENTS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND AND SCHOOL FUND, WE ALSO NEED TO PUT IN A TIMING COMMITMENT FOR THAT, SO STAFF WOULD ONLY SUGGEST LANGUAGE INCLUDING THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE FIRST CO.

>> I'LL CONFER WITH CLIENT AND WE'LL WORK ON THAT LANGUAGE WITH YOU TO MAKE SURE WE GET THAT CLARIFIED. >> SO IF YOU'RE PROFFERING THOSE COMMITMENTS TONIGHT, WE'LL NEED TO KNOW IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, OTHERWISE IF YOU'RE NOT, TEN WE CAN WORK WITH YOU ON THE LANGUAGE, BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU'RE PROFFERING IT TONIGHT.

>> WE'LL WORK WITH YU ON THE LANGUAGE. >> OKAY. >> SO THEN NOT ADDITIONAL PROFFERS TONIGHT. WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF ON THE LANGUAGE AND HAVE TO PROFFER THEM BEFORE COUNCIL. >> OKAY. WHILE YOU'RE AT THE MICROPHONE — >> YES. >> — OR STAFF MAY ALSO NEED TO COME IN ON THAT, BUT, UM, I UH HAD A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING THE BIKE PED RAISED ABOUT TEXT COMMITMENT TO DEDICATED TRAIL EASEMENT FOR A PAVED GREENWAY TRAIL AN TRANSPORTATION RESPONSE WAS APPLICANT HAS ALREADY INCLUDED PROOFFER FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. I DIDN'T SEE THAT ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SO I ADMIT I'M OLD AND MY EYES ARE NOT AS GOOD, BUT — [LAUGHTER] >> EARLENE THOMAS, TRANSPORTATION. I DON'T KNOW IF ALL OF THE RESPONSE WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECORD, BUT THE TRAIL ACTUALLY FOLLOWS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ROADWAY NORTHERN DURHAM PARKWAY, SO THAT RGHT-OF-WAY IS INCLUDED WITH WHAT'S BEING DEDICATED.

>> OKAY. >> IN FACT, THEY ARE ACTUALLY PROFFERING MORE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THAT CORNER. >> AND WHILE YOU'RE AT THE MICROPHONE, UH, THERE IS GOING BE A FUTURE GLENN SCHOOL ROAD REALIGNMENT AT SOME TIME? >> THAT IS A PAT OF THE FUTURE NORTHERN DURHAM PARKWAY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. UH, I NOTICED YOU HAVE TWO ENTRANCES, I THINK A NUMBER FOUR AND NUMBER FIVE OFF OF GLENN ROAD, ITSELF, BUT YOU HAVE NO TURN LANES FOR THOSE ENTRANCES. >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS REQUIRED BY OUR CONVERSATION WITH TRANSPORTATION STAFF.

THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED WHEN WE SPOKE WITH TRANSPORTATION BUT IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYMORE — >> OKAY, WELL, I PERSONALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE AS IT STANDS NOW, THE TRAFFIC ESTIMATION YOU'RE GOING TO BE GENERATING 1,400 MORE TRIPS PER DAY AND IF YOU HAVE THREE MAIN ENTRANCES THAT ARE GOING TO BE USED RIGHT AWAY, I WOULD SAY MAYBE TWO-THIRDS OF THAT'S GOING TO COME INTO GLENN ROAD, SO THAT'S ADDING OVER NINE HUNDRED TRIPS A DAY TO GLENN ROAD AND YOU ALREADY HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC ON GLENN ROAD, SO I THINK THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY TURN LANES THERE, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GET BY FOR A LITTLE BIT, BU I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE IF THIS DOES GO FORWARD.

SO, UH, AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF YOU WANT A TO FACILITATE PEOPLE GETTING AROUND A BICYCLE LANE ALONG GLENN ROAD WOULD BE USEFUL. AN I NOTICED THAT YOU HAD ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A SITE ACCESS POINT NUMBER SIX, I THINK IT WAS, WHICH LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT'S CENTERED RIGHT ON THE HERNANDEZ PROPERTY. >> THAT'S GOING TO BE MOVED. >> YOU'RE GOING TO BE REMOVING THAT. >> WE'RE MOVING IT — >> EAST? OKAY. SO BE COMING OFF OF THT RS-M PIECE? >> YES, CORRECT. APOLOGIZE FO NOT MENTIONING THAT EARLIER. >> AND THERE YOU HAD AN INTERESTING CONTEXT STATEMENT ON YOUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH [INDISCERNIBLE] LAST TWO SENTENCES, THE PROPOSED MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT WILL CONTINUE THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THIS AREA. THE TWO AND/OR THREE-STORY BUILDING HEIGHT WILL BE SIMILAR TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE, UH, WHEN I UH DROVE AROUND IN THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, I SAW ONLY TWO, TWO-STORY HOUSING, EERYTHING ELSE WAS SINGLE STORY, AN I CAN'T SEE HOW TWO AND THREE-STORY BUILDINGS ARE REALLY GOING TO BE THAT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ABUTS THE DEVELOPMENT. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT OR NOT, BUT — >> WELL, I'LL SAY THAT THE EXACT HEIGHT OF THE TOWNHOMES IS NOT DETERMINED AT THIS TIME, BUT I BELIEVE, UM, AND I MAY HAVE TO CHECK WITH STAFF ON THIS ABOUT WHETHER THE ZONING FOR THOSE HOMES ALLOWS TWO TO THREE STORIES — I THINK THAT'S THE INTENTION.

>> SO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, UNLESS YOU'RE IDENTIFYING IT ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD BE 35 FEET, CURRENTLY. SO YOU'RE HELD TO THAT. >> RIGHT. I'M SAYING FOR THE ZONING FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE NORTH IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BE TWO TO THREE STORIES WITHIN THAT ZONE? >> I'LL DOUBLE CHECK BUT THE BUILDING HEIGHT WOULD BE 35. >> OKAY. OKAY. >> IT GOES BY FEET, NOT STORIES. >> OKAY. >> UM, MADAM CHAIR, THAT'S ALL VI AT THE MOMENT, BUT I MAY — I HAVE AT THE MOMENT BU I MAY ASK TO SPEAK AGAIN. >> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER DURKIN. >> QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHETHER YOU THOUGHT ABOUT USING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS ON THIS PROJECT? >> WE DO NOT — MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE GOAL FOR MAKING THE DEVELOPMENT MORE AFFORDABLE WAS TO LIMIT THE LOT SIZE HAVING SMALLER LOT SIZES TO KEEP THE PRICE POINT LOWER AND SO THAT WAS THE GOAL WE WERE GOING INTO WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

>> BUT NO CONSIDERATION FOR ACTUALLY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE BONUS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT YOU COMMIT CERTAIN NUMBER TO BE DEFINED AS AFFORDABLE? >> YEAH, AND AT THIS TIME WE'RE NOT ABLE TO COMMIT TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT AT THIS TIME BUT AMONG OTHER THINGS WE'RE CONCERN CONSIDERING, WE'RE CONSIDER THAT BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT AT THIS TIME. >> COMMISSIONER BUZBY. >> CAN STAFF HAD COUPLE CLARIFICATIONS WE WANTED TO MAKE. >> GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> EARLENE THOMAS, TRANSPORTATION. I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO COMMISSIONER BRINE'S QUESTION REGARDING THE TURN LANE REQUIREMENTS ON GLENN ROA. SO THIS IS A STATE-MAINTAINED ROAD. NCDOT DID NOT REQUIRE THE TURN LANES AT THE TIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN; HOWEVER, THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN DEPENDING UPON SPACING AD INTERNAL SITE LAYOUT. I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE MY UH OPINION THAT I THINK THEY'RE NEEDED. [LAUGHTER] >> AND STAFF HEARD MENTION OF SHIFTING SITE ACCESS NUMBER SIX, SO WE JUST WANTED ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS. >> THIS ACTUALLY CAME OUT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. IT'S POINTED DIRECTLY AT HERNANDEZ'S HOUSE WHICH WE THINK IS A PRETTY BAD IDEA SO IT'LL BE SHIFTING EAST ENOUGH SO THAT IT'S KNOT POINTED AT THEIR HOUSE.

WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THAT IN WITH THE SCHEDULE WE WERE ON TO GET TO THIS HEARING TONIGHT, BUT IT'S OUR INTENTION TO SHIFT THAT TO THE EAST. IT'S NOT A BIG SHIFT, JUST SO IT'S NOT POINTED AT THEIR HOUSE. >> SO STAFF SUGGESTS OR REQUIRES THAT YOU WORK WITH US ON TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHERE THAT IS GOING TO GO. >> WE'LL BE TALKING A LOT AFTER THIS MEETING. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER AL-TURK AND THEN COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> YOU RECOGNIZED ME. THAT'S OKA.

>> GO AHEAD. >> I RESEMBLE THAT. >> THANK YOU. ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. ON THE FIRST PAGE, THIS SAYS THAT THIS IS CURRENTLY COUNT IN THE COUNTY AND THAT IT'S PROPOSED TO GO INTO THE CITY. I DIDN'T SEE NIT THE REPORT. I ASSUME THERE'LL BE A CONCURRENT ANNEXATION GOING TO CITY COUNCIL? >> CORRECT. THERE'S AN ASSOCIATED ANNEXATION CASE TIED TO THIS SO IT'LL BE CONSOLIDATED TO CITY COUNCIL. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. AND THEN I'LL JUST SAY THAT MS. HERNANDEZ RAISED THIS AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT OF JUST CONSIDERING A MIX OF HOUSING IS ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS APPROPRIATE.

I UH PERSONALLY LIKE THAT WE'RE GOING SEE A FAIR AMOUNT OF TOWN HOUSES BUT THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WOULD BE WORTH CONSIDERING AS WE LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL AND THEN UH I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY THAT THE PROFFERS MADE EARLIER HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF THE TABLE THIS EVENING SFKS; IS THAT CORRECT? I >> MOVING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE WE GET LANGUAGE CORRECT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THAT TONIGHT, SO — ARE YOU — >> [LOW AUDIO]. >> JUST ONE SECOND. >> SURE. >> CLARIFICATION. WE ARE FINE WITH THE TIMING OF THE PROFFERS THAT WE MADE HAVING IT BE AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST CO. SO WE CAN KEEP THOSE IF STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT LANGUAGE, WE CAN PUT THOSE ON THE TABLE TONIGHT AD LEAVE THEM ON THE TABLE TONIGHT. >> GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THEN FINAL QUESTION, AND EVEN WITH THAT CLARITY WHICH I THINK IS HELPFUL AND I APPRECIATE THAT, I'M NOT CONVINCED WE'RE — I'M NOT READY TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT AND I THINK UH THE BACK AND FORTH WE JUST HAD ABOUT THE SITE ACCESS NUMBER SIX IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE WORK THAT I THINK NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND I JUST WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU THAT OFTEN LEADS TO US DEFERRING A PROPOSAL FOR ONE OR TWO CYCLES.

ONE MONTH OR TWO MONTHS. TELL US ABOUT YOUR TIMING CONSTRAINTS BECAUSE IF I HAD TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT JUST GIVEN THE LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY, I'M LIKELY GOING TO VOTE NO, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THIS THE SOMETIME THAT WHEN DO VOTE I UH HAVE MORE CERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE SIE PLAN, SOME OF THE DETAILS THAT YO'VE TALKED TO MYSELF AND OTHERS ABOUT.

I'M JUST NOT COMFORT TO BELIEVE VOTE AND SEND IT FORWARD AN FWIEND OUT LATER SOME OF IT DIDN'T WORK. TELL US ABOUT YOUR TIMING CONSTRAINTS. >> THANK UH YOU FOR THAT CONSIDERATION. GIVEN WE DO HAVE SOME TIMING CONSTRAINTS. WE'RE UNDER CONTRACT AN PUSHING IT BACK 30-60 DAYS WOULD REALLY HURT THE PROCESS AT THIS TIME SO WE WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH ANY TYPE OF CONTINUANCE TONIGHT. >> THAT MEANS I'M GOING TO VOTE NO SO JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT'S HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK. THANK YOU. >> I DO WANT TO CLAIFY. I BELIEVE EARLIER I MENTIONED THAT LOT SIZES WOULD BE SMALLER, IT'S THE UNIT SIZES THAT WOULD BE SMALLER, NOT NECESSARILY THE LOT SIZES. WE'RE LOOKING AT KEEPING UNIT SIZES SMALLER IN ORDER TO KEEP PRICE POINTS LOW. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER AL-TURK AND COMMISSIONER DURKIN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. IN A LOT OF WAY THIS IS APPLICATION IS NOT VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE LAST ONE AND WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AGAINST IT, SO I'M FLOWING THAT OUT THERE BUT I DO THINK BECAUSE I'VE SPOKEN WTH APPLICANT THAT THERE ARE — AND YOU'VE MENTIONED IN YOUR REPORT TO US OR YOUR REPORT TO US — THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS IN TERMS OF HOUSING TYPES N TERMS OF KEEPING THE TOWNHOMES AFFORDABLE, AND THN WE HAVIE ISSUES THAT COMMISSIONER BUZBY MENTIONED.

I'M WITH HIM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE — IF IT WAS UP TO ME I WOULD ALSO VOTE NO, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING GO HERE AND I THINK YOU ALL HAVE PROPOSED A NUMBER OF THINGS IN PRIVATE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BE COMMITMENTS. IN TH PAST, I THINK WE'VE SAID WELL LET'S WE'LL PASS IT AND SE WHAT CITY COUNCIL SAYS OR WE'LL PASS IT CONTINGENT ON THE DEVELOPER DOING SOMETHING. I THINK THAT WE'RE STARTING TO DO THAT LESS SO ON THE COMMISSION AND I LIKE THAT WE'RE DOING THAT LESS SO. I THINK IT'S NICE FOR US TO HAVE COMMITMENTS FIRM COMMITMENTS SO I'M WITH COMMISSIONER BUZBY. I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING HERE. I THINK IT HAS POTENTIAL.

TWO MONTHS, I'D LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT. I KNOW YOU'VE SAID YOU DON'T WANT THE CONTINUANCE, BUT I THINK SOME CHANGES HERE AND THERE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. >> COMMISSIONER BAKER. >> PROBABLY DON'T EVEN NEED TO SAY THIS BUT I AGREE E WITH FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND THINGS THEY'VE SAID AND WANTING TO SEE THESE COMMITMENTS TONIGHT AND OTHERWISE VOTING NO. THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH MULTIPLE POLICIES. ALSO I THINK THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH 231 A CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS TO SUPPORT ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND THIS IS NOT CONTIGUOUS WITH CITY LIMITS. THAT WOULD ALSO SORT OF PLAY INTO MY THINKING ON THIS. THAT'S ALL. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? IF NOT — AND THANK YOU. — COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> SO, UM, TO THE APPLICANT, WHEN IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IF YOU WERE TO GO BAC, EVEN THOUGH YOU EXPRESSED DESIRE NOT TO THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU COULD COME BACK WITH SAY A PROGRAMMING OF THE SITE THAT INCLUDED SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWN HOUSES.

I UNDERSTAND YOU SAID THAT THE DENSITY ISSUE WAS A CONCERN AND WHEN WE MET YOU ALL HIGHLIGHTED THIS BUT JUST HEARING SOME OF THE FEEDBACK AND FROM BOTH THIS SIDE AND THE AUDIENCE MEMBERS, IS THAT ESSENTIALLY A NOT A VIABLE PROGRAMMING BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE TRIED TO DO WITH THIS SITE THUS FAR? >> THS ACCURATE. WE'VE LOOKED AT AS MENTIONED WE STARTED LOOKING AT SINGLE FAMILY, WE DIDN'T LOOK AT MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOMES AND THEN WE ULTIMATELY END UP GOING WITH TOWN HOMES IN ORDER TO MEET THAT DENSITY, BUT IN ORDER TO CONSIDER IT BEING NOT A COMPLETELY MONOTONOUS DEVELOPMENT WE LOOKED AT DESIGN ELEMENTS OF VARY DESIGN STYLES TO GO TO THAT POINT. WE ARE CONSIDERING OTHER — I WANT TO HIGH LIGHT OTHER THINGS WE'RE CONSIDERING MAKING SOME OF THEM ALLEY-LOADED. THAT WILL ALSO ADD VARIETY AND ALSO HAVE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING ADUs GIVEN THERE WILL BE SOME ALLEYS WE JUST CAN'T COMMIT TO PERCENTAGE AT THIS POINT. IT'S LIKELY MAKE AROUND 20% BUT AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE TO GET THE LANGUAGE STRAIGHT WITH STAFF SO WE CAN'T MAKE THAT PROFFER TONIGHT BUT WE ARE CONSIDERING HAVING ALLEY-LOADED DEVELOPMENT, AND WHEN I I MENTIONED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ACTUAL UNITS, GOOD NUMBER OF THEM WILL LIKELY NOT EXCEED 1,600 SQUARE FEET WHICH WILL ALSO HELP WITH AFFORDABILITY.

WE'RE LOOKING AT MAKING THE BLOCK LENGTH MAXIMUM OF 700 FEET, THAT WILL HELP WITH WALKABILITY IN MAKING IT ACCESSIBLE AND LIVABLE FOR PEOPLE OF ALL AGES. WE HAVE TO WORK ON LANGUAGE, THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE THOSE PROFFERS TONIGHT. IN TERMS OF ACTUAL MIX WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT AND OUR TEAM HAS COME BACK WITH IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ALL TOWNHOMES. >> AND SO JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, IS SO WHEN I MET WITH YOUR TEAM, I WAS MORE INCLINED TO SUPPORT A PROJECT LIKE THIS BUT THEN I UH WENT AND DROVE THE SITE. WE READ THE APPLICATION, DROVE THE SITE, AND SO I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER BRINE OR SOMEONE SAID THAT YOU WENT AND DROVE IT AND IT'S NOT A CONTIGUOUS LIKE FLOW OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS TRUE, AN ONE COULD POSSIBLY MAKE THE ARGUMENT IT COULD BE A TRANSITION DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING NEW OR SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, AND SO WHEN THINKING ABOUT BRIVENGING SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK CLARITY MORE THAN GRAYISH IS MORE PREFERABLE SO THAT NOT ONLY COMMISSIONERS AND ME BUT THE NEIGHBORS CAN HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY WILL SEE AND I KNOW YOU STATED WHEN I MET WITH YOU THAT THE DEVELOPER IS ABLE TO DESIGN A PRODUCT TO MEET WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THAT PARTICULAR SITE, AND I'M MORE ON THE FENCE NOW IN THE SENSE THAT I TOO AGREE WITH THE NOTION OF MAYBE TAKING A CONTINUANCE — WHICH I KNOW YOU ALSO STATED THT IT'S NOT A DESIRE — BUT IN THE SENSE THAT I THINK THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SUPPORT FROM THIS SIDE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT WHAT WILL ACTUALLY BE THE FINAL COMPONENT AND YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE YOUR CHANCES AND SEND IT ON TO THE COUNCIL BUT I THINK FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT IT MAY BE A GOOD THING TO CONSIDER MAYBE A CONTINUANCE SO THAT THERE COULD BE GREATER CLARITY AND GRAYISH AREAS THAT MAY BE AREAS THAT COULD COME UP BEYOND THIS PANEL HERE.

THAT'S MY COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU. OTHER COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? IF NOT, COMMISSIONER BRINE. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY STRIKES ME ABOUT THIS IS THAT YOU HAVE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING IN THE AREA RIGHT NOW AND YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A PDR SEVEN PLUS NEXT TO IT AND IN SOME CASES; AND TO ME THAT'S A VERY BIG JUMP IN DENSITY, AND I THINK IT DOESN'T FIT WELL WITH WHAT'S OUT THERE. NOW, HAVING DENSITY, EVEN HAVING TOWNHOMES ON THIS SITE, THAT, I CAN LIVE WITH, BUT I THINK YOU'RE TOO DENSE FOR THE AREA. THAT'S MY BIG CONCERN. AND THERE'S A BIG PIECE OF UNDEVELOPED LAND ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THAT AND IF YOU PUT SOMETHING THIS DENSE ON THIS SITE, THEN I PREDICT THAT THESE OTHER PIECES ON THE WEST SIDE OF GLENN ROAD WILL PROBABLY DEVELOP AT A HIGHER DENSITY THAN RURAL RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT, AGAIN, PUTS PRESSURE ON THE EXISTING RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALREADY ON THE GROUND, AND I UH KNOW THAT YOU'RE STRUCK WITH WHAT THE FLUM SAYS, AND TO ME, THE FLUM IN THIS AREA IS BAD, BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW UNLESS YOU WANT TO ASK FOR A CHANGE IN THE FLUM, BUT I JUST, I THINK SOMETHING THIS IS DENSE DOESN'T FIT, AND THAT'S GONNA BE MY MAIN REASON FOR VOTING AGAINST IT.

>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? IF NOT, I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MADAM CHAIR, WITH REGARD TO Z1900018, GLENN ROAD TOWN HOMES, I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION AND YOU'LL ALL HAVE TO HELP ME WITH THIS, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE PROFFERS THAT WE HEARD TONIGHT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND AND SCHOOL FUND, BUT REALIZING THAT THERE ARE OTHER COMMITMENTS IN THE EXPRESS ONE I'LL NAME IS MOVING THE ACCESS POINT NUMBER SIX EAST THAT THOSE WILL BE UNRESOLVED AND THE DEVELOPER WILL WORK WITH STAFF BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THIS GOES TO COUNCIL. >> THERE ARE SOME UNREADY UHNESS.

>> I THINK APPLICANT HAS A QUESTION. I KNOW THIS IS NOT USUAL BUT I THINK SHE SPLA A QUESTION FOR YOU. — MAY HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. >> WE DO HAVE A QUESTION. WITH REGARD TO THE CONTINUANCE OPTION, IS IT POSSIBLE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF 30 DAYS INSTEAD OF THE 60? IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> AS FAR AS STAFF — >> UP TO STAFF. >> WE DON'T HAVE A CONCERN. 30 DAYS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BUT WE NEED TO PROBABLY DISPOSE OF THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. >> WASN'T SECONDED. >> RIGHT. YOU COULD AMEND IT TOO. >> I DIDN'T HEAR IT. SO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION — >> WELL I'M GOING THE WITHDRAW THE MOTION BUT BEFORE I VOTE IN FAVOR OF DELAY I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS FOR.

>> OKAY. >> WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE DOING IN THE 30 DAYS. IT MIGHT BE USEFUL FOR STAFF TO UNDERSTAND IT TOO. I HOPE IF IT'S JUST FOR ACCESS SIX, I TRUST YOU GUS TO WORK THAT OUT. IF IT'S FOR OTHER THINGS, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. >> CORRECT. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MILLER. HOWEVER SH THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS DISCUSSED AND FEW THINGS I HEARD EARLIER, 30 DAYS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A SUMMARY OF WHAT THEY'RE THINKING.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITHIN THE 30 DAYS WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND HOPEFULLY WORK ON ADD COMMITMENTS THAT WOULD BE RELATED TO, UM ADDING ALLEY-LOADED WHAT PECENTAGE WHAB ALLEY-LOADED, WHAT WER PEN SAGE TEENAGE WOULD BE UNDER A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE. MAKING SURE WE HAVE CORRECT LANGUAGE REQUIRING MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH TO MAKE IT WALKABLE/LIVABLE SPACE. ALSO CONSIDERING ADD COMMITMENTS REGA REGARDING SETBACKS TO MAKE FRONTAGE OF THE HOMES MORE AUKABLE, BUT WE NEED TO WORK ON LANGUAGE FOR THAT AS WELL. MOVING ACCESS POINT. I BELIEVE THAT SUMMARIZES THE DIFFERENT, THE AREAS THAT WE WOULD BE WORKING ON TRYING TO ADD COMMITMENTS FOR.

>> INCLUDE CHANGE IN MIX OF TOWNHOMES [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> THANK YOU. I'LL BE INTERESTED TO SEE HOW UH STAFF RESPONDS TO THEIR TIME NEEDS ON THAT BECAUSE IT'S A PRETTY SHORT CYCLE. AND IT WOULDN'T BE 30 DAYS, IT WOULD BE TO THE DECEMBER MEET CHG MAY BE 30 DAYS — >> JUST OVER THREE WEEKS. >> CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, IN 30 DAYS IS ACHIEVABLE; HOWEVER, WE REALLY ONLY HAVE ABOUT TEN WORKING DAYS TO WORK ALL THIS OUT BEFORE WE HAVE TO PACKAGE IT BACK UP TO COME BACK NEXT MONTH. WANT TO MAKE SURE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THAT. >> WE THINK WE CAN MAE THAT. >> WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU BUT TEN DAYS A AGGRESSIVE AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU KNEW THAT. >> COMMISSIONER MILLER HAS THE FLOOR BUT I WAS LOOKING TO BE RECOGNIZED WEN HE WAS FINISHED. >> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION — >> QUESTION, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK THAT'S — I WILL VOTE TO BE CLEAR, I HEARD A LOT OF GOOD THINGS IN HERE. NOT SURE IF IT'S ENOUGH BUT I UH THINK IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO TAE THE TIME TO GET THE DETAILS IN WRITING AND GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT YOUR MOST DELIBERATE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PUT SOMETHING IN FRONT OF US. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK IT WAS VERY HELPFUL OFFER. I WILL VOTE FOR THE 30-DAY CONTINUANCE WHEN THE MOTION IS MADE. >> LET ME ASK ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT. I WANT TO BE SURE THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S NOT BEING CONSIDERED IS TOWN HOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES; SO IT'S STILL DIRECTLY TOWNHOMES? THANK YOU.

CHAIR RECOGNIZES COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> BEFORE COMMISSIONER MILLER MAKES MOTION, IN THE EVENT THAT THE APPLICANT TRIES TO MAKE THIS NEXT CYCLE TURNAROUND BUT THEY CAN'T, WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY CAN'T MEET? >> SO THE COMMISSION HYPOTHETICALLY WOULD CONTINUE THIS 30 DAYS IF YOU VOTE TO DO THAT AND IT PASSES T CONTINUE FOR 30 DAYS. THAT'S A DATE-SPECIFIC. WE HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE THAT'S A DATE-SPECIFIC HEARING, WE HAVE TO OPEN THE HEARING BACK UP. AT THAT POINT, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN UH WHAT THEY DID ACCOMPLISH OR DID NOT ACCOMPLISH AT THAT TIME. >> IT COULD BE CONTINUED AGAIN BECAUSE WE'D STILL BE WITHIN 90 DAYS. >> WE WOULD HAVE TO OPEN IT AURLS OF WHAT THEY'VE ACCOMPLISHED.

>> THANK YOU. >> IF I COULD ASK QUESTION. >> YES. >> SORRY. IS IT CONTINUING FOR 30 DAYS OR JUST TO THE NEXT DATE? >> TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. A DATE-SPECIFIC. >> SECOND TUESDAY IN DECEMBER. DECEMBER 10TH. >> MAAM CHAIR, SHALL I MAKE THE MOTION? >> LET'S SEE IF SHE — WAITING FOR APPLICANT TO LET US KNOW YOU'RE DONE. >> [LOW AUDIO]. >> THANK YOU. THENALLY ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE THIS CASE L UNTIL THE COMMISSION'S REGULARLY-SCHEDULED MEETING IN DECEMBER, WHICH I BELIEVE WILL BE THE SECOND TUESDAY OF DECEMBER. GRACE, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE ACTUAL DATE IS? >> 10th. >> 10th DAY OF DECEMBER. HAVING MADE THAT MOTION AND BEFORE ANYBODY SECONDS IT, I WILL SAY THAT I WANT TO GIVE THESE APPLICANTS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO CONVINCE THE COMMISSION MEMBERS THAT THE PROJECT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD VOTE FOR; HOWEVER, VI TO AGREE WITH MR. BUZBY, THERE ARE SOME THINGS ESPECIALLY ABOUT UNIT MIX THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND MIGHT BE DISAPPOINTED IF IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE.

>> OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINE THAT WE HAVE A ONE-CYCLE CONTINUANCE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 10TH, ON THE GLENN ROAD TOWN HOME PROJECT. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, LET'S HAVE A RLL CALL, PLEASE. [ROLL CALL VOTE]. >> I NEED CLARITY, AM I VOTING FOR CONTINUANCE? YES, I'M VOTING YES. >> [ROLL CALL VOTE CONTINUED]. >> PASSES 11-2. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM WE HAVE: PUBLIC HEARINGS: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE: TC1900002 OUTDOOR LIGHTING. STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. THANK YOU. >> CARL KOLOSNA, FIRST TIME HERE WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT; PLEASE BE NICE. >> WE PROMISE TO BE NICE. >> JCCPC DID SAME THING FOR ME, THANK YOU.

THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TC1900002, PRIVATELY-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND UDO. ARTICLE 7.4.2 B .2 OF THE UDO CONTROLLED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING SECTION AND ARTICLE 7.4 IN GENERAL IS WHAT REGULATES OUTDOOR LIGHTING SO IT DOES SO BY SETTING STANDARDS FOR HEIGHTS THAT LIGHTS CAN BE ALO AND FOOT-CANDLE LIMITATIONS AT CERTAIN PARTS OF THE SITE. SO WHAT CURRENTLY WITH THE ORDINANCE ARTICLE 7.4.2 BE .2 OUTDOOR LIGHTING THAT IS USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IS AT LEAST 100 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND IS NOT ILLUMINATED DURING LATE HOURS DEFINED AS 1:00 A.M.-8:00 A.M.

MONDAY SATURDAY AND MIDNIGHT ALL OTHER DAYS. IF IT MEETS CRITERIA IT'S EXEMPT OF THE REST OF 7.4. WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE WOULD BE ALLOW LIGHTING THAT OPERATES DURING LATE HOURS TO MAINTAIN EXEMPTION AND KEEP 100 FOOT SEPARATION AND RECREATION USE BUT IT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE EXAMPLE FLD HOURS OF OPERATION PROVIDED THAT A MINOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAS ISSUES. PER FACTION TAX LANGUAGE PROVIDED TO US BY APPLICANT, THE REVIEW CRITERIA RELATED TO THAT MINOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT INCLUDES THE REVIEW CRITERIA FOR LOOKING AT LIGHTING. SO, UM, THAT'S BASICALLY THE AMENDMENT IN A SHORT NUTSHELL. THIS WENT TO JCCPC ON OCTOBER 2ND, NO MAJOR COMMENTS FOR I THEN AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. HERE FOR QUESTIONS AND I BELIEVE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL AND WE'LL HAVE COMMENTS.

>> SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? APPARENTLY, THERE IS. THANK YOU. >> SORRY, THAT'S A PART WHERE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON YET. >> I DO HAVE THREE PEOPLE SIGNED UP T SPEAK. TODD WALLDO, ERIC JACKSON, KEITH BURNS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NME AND ADDRESS. >> KEITH BURNS, LONG-TIME DURHAM RESIDENT, MEBER OF THE DURHAM BAR BUT UNFORTUNATELY OFFICE IN RALEIGH. THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING US TONIGHT. THANKS CARL AND WELCOME TO YOUR FIRST MEETING. WE HAVE WORKED HARD WITH STAFF TO GET TO SOMETHING THAT WE ALL COULD LIVE WITH. THIS STARTED THAT REQUESTED A BLANK DPOEFRPGS ALLOW FOR LATE HOUR LIGHTING IN INDUSTRIAL ZONE. STAFF CONCLUDED THAT WAS TOO BROAD AND CAME BACK TO US FOR MODIFICATIONS. WE SUBMITTED SEEKS JUST THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY THROUGH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS FOR LATE-HOUR LIGHTING SO LONG AS IT RELATES TO SPORTING AND OTHER OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. SO, I'M REALLY HERE AS THE ATTORNEY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TEXT OF THIS.

I KNOW YOU'RE ALL WONDERING WHY WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR THIS AND A I KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO GET TOO FAR INTO BECAUSE THIS REALLY IS ABOUT THE ABILITY COME BACK AND ASK FOR PERMISSION LATER THROUGH THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT BUT WE ARE GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHY AT THE RISK OF GOING DOWN A RABBIT HOL. ERIC WILL COME UP, HE'S TE DEVELOPER FR SITE THAT IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF PAGE ROAD AND I 40. SO OUT MORE IN THE PARK AREA AND CERTAINLY HAS THE BUFFERS IN PLACE, NOT MUCH RESIDENTIAL ANYWHERE AROUND IT, AND HE'LL SPEAK BRIEFLY TO THAT AND THEN TODD WILL COME UP, THE MAJOR USER WHO HAS THE NEED NOR OUTDOOR LIGHTING AND HE'LL SPEAK TO THE REASON WE NEED LATE OUT DOOR LIGHTING.

ERIC. >> ERIC JACKSON, REALTYLINK. REPRESENT THE DEVELOPER FOR THE PROPERTY. REALLY HERE MORE FOR MORAL SUPPORT. WE HAVE A TENANT, TODD, WHO'LL SPEAK HERE IN A LITTLE BIT BUT AS ELUDED TO, PROPERTY LOCATED AT I 40 AND PAGE ROAD, BOUNDED BY THE NEUSE RIVER AND INTERSTATE. NOT A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL AROUND. I MEAN, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHERE WE STAND. LET TODD COME UP AND SPEAK MORE TO THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. >> GOOD EVENING. TODD WALLDO WITH TOP GOLF, 8750 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESS WAY, DALLAS, TEXAS, EXCITED TO BRING FIRST TOP GOLF TO RESEARCH CRY TRIANGLE AND DURHAM. I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE'S FAMILIAR BUT IT'S A PREMIER GOLF ENTERTAINMENT VENUE WITH BEST IN CLASS OPERATION PROPOSING TO BRING NEW CONCEPT TO DURHAM, MORE FAMILY-FRIENDLY CONCEPT COMPLETE WITH A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT AND BAR, GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE GOLF AND OTHER OUTDOOR GAMING ACTIVITIES.

THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS CRITICAL TO US BASED ON THE LATE HOURS OF THE OPERATION SO IT WOULD MORE COINCIDE WITH THE GAMING OPTIONS AVAILABLE AT THE VENUE AND ALSO THE MAINTENANCE OPERATION ARES THAT WOULD OCCUR AFTER HOURS AT THE VENUE AS WELL. THIS IS SAY BOUT A 64-ACRE MIXED USE DWENLT. WE'VE BEEN LOOKING IN DURHAM FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND FEEL THIS IS THE BS FIT FOR US. SITE HAS A LOT OF CHALLENGES, A LOT OF CONSTRAINTS. VERY MUCH AN ENGINEERING EXERCISE WE'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW WITH TRYING TO DESIGN THE SITE TO EFFECTIVELY ACCOMMODATE NO ONLY TOP GOLF VENUE BUT THE OTHER TENANTS AND USERS THAT WOULD BE PART OF THIS. VERY CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT AND HOPING THAT FOR YOUR FAVORABLE SUPPORT TONIGHT AND OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THANK YOU. WE STILL HAVE ONE OTHER — THAT'S ALL THREE. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MADAM CHAIR IF I COULD ONE OR TWO THINGS IN CONCLUSION. TOP GOLF OPERATES INTO THE EVENING SLIEK MANY ENTERTAINMENT VENUES AND AFTER THSE RGULAR EVENING HOURS ARE CONCLUDED AT MIDNIGHT, 2:00 A.M., THEY THEN HAVE TO SEND THEIR MAINTENANCE FACILITIES OUT INTO THE FIELD TO PERFORM MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS SO THEY'RE READY TO OPERATE THE NEXT DAY. IT'S THAT MAINTENANCE OPERATION THAT REALLY DICTATES THAT THERE BEING B AN ABILITY TO KEEP LIGHTING ON THERE TO CLEAN UP AND PREPARE AFTER THE END OF IT. IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO TOP GOLF'S OPERATION TO HAVE THESE ADDITIONAL HOURS. OTHER THINGS TO STRESS AGAIN IS WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR APPROVAL FOR ANY PARTICULAR USE OR ANY PARTICULAR SITE TONIGHT, WE'RE MERELY ASKING FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO COME BACK AND PROVE IN CONNECTION WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT THIS REALLY IS A GOOD IDEA FOR THESE HOURS AT THIS SITE.

SO AGAIN, IT'S JUST TONIGHT JUST ABOUT THE ABILITY TO COME BACK AND MAKE FORMAL REQUEST LATER. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING? IF NOT, I'M GOING CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GIVE COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS. START TO MY LEFT; ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS? CHAIR RECOGNIZES TOM MILLER. >> THANK YOU. SO IF I UH CAN ASK MR. WALLDO TO COME BACK UP. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EXTRA HOURS, HOW MANY? >> TYPICAL HOURS OF OPERATION FOR TOP GOLF VENUE IS SUNDAY-THURSDAY 8:00 A.M. TO MIDNIGHT. WE HAVE EXTENDED HOURS ON THE WEEKEND, FRIDAY AND SATURDAYS EXTENDED TO 2:00 A.M. AFTER THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS, THERE ARE SOME MAINTENANCE OPERATION AS THAT OCCUR WITHIN THE OUTFIELD AREA, THE PLAYING SURFACE, THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH COLLECTING THE GOLF BALLS FROM THE DAY, REPAIRING SOME OF THE ELECTRONICS WITHIN OUTFIELD — TWO TO THREE HOURS. >> IF YOU CLOSED TO AT TWO YOU'D WANT TO BE OPEN TO FOUR. >> CLOSED AT TWO, LIGHTS TO STAY ON EXTRA TWO TO THREE HOURS AFTER CLSE.

>> UNTIL SUN COMES UP NEXT DAY. >> THIS TIME OF YEAR, OBVIOUSLY, IT GETS DARK EARLIER AND HOURS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WITH DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME ENDS, SO, YES. LIGHTS WITH OUR ORIENTATION OF THIS BUILDING WOULD FACE AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL. PRETTY ISOLATED WITH A LOT OF VEGETATION THAT WOULD REMAIN AROUND THE PERIMETER SO WE FEEL THERE'S LIT TOLL NO IMPACT TO ANY OFF-SITE USERS OR ROADWAYS OR THINGS OF THAT SORT. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE COUPLE PROBLEMS WITH FIRST WITH THE WAY THIS IS DRAFTED. ONE, I NOTICE THAT — AND THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT EXISTS TODAY WITH THE EXISTING THEME.

I'M LOOKING AT THE DRAFT HERE. WE HAVE RULES IN A SECTION THAT'S IDENTIFIED AS APPLICABILITY. NORMALLY WHEN IT'S JUST A MAT MATTER OF CODE WRITING WHEN IDENTIFY APPLICABILITY YOU CONFINE WHAT'S IN IT TO THE SCOPE OF APPLICABILITY AND DON'T PUT SUB NAHTIVE RULES IN THERE. WE ALREADY HAVE SUB NAHTIVE RULES IN THERE BECAUSE WE LIMIT THE HOURS OF OPERATION. SUBSTANTIVE RULES. WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, WE HAVE, HERE'S THE RULE AND HERE ARE THE EXCEPTIONS. THE EXCEPTIONS ARE, UH, IN THE UC 2 OR DOWNTOWN TIER. THEN W THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE AND AS AUTHORIZED BY MINOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT THE STANDARDS WOULD BE FOR THE MINOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

UM, I UH WISH THERE WAS A WAY TO RECODIFY THE WHOLE SECTION ONE THAT CURED THE APPLICABILITY ISSUE, AND ALSO STRUCTURED THE THING MORE CLEARLY AS TO THE BASE RULE, THE EXCEPTIONS, AND THEN THE USE PERMIT. RATHER THAN TO RUN IT ALL TOGETHER IN A PARTICULARLY LONG SENTENCE. SO THAT WOULD BE ONE THING. MY OTHER PROBLEM WITH IT IS, IS USE PERMIT HAS TO HAVE SOME SORT OF OUTWARD CEILING IN IT. A USE PERMIT THAT'S WIDE OPEN, IN OTHER WORDS, UNLIMITED HOURS THAT'S NOT A USE PERMIT, THAT'S NOT WHAT STATUTE HAS IN MND FOR USE PERMITS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE WAY A USE PERMIT WORKS IS HERE'S THE BASE ZONING, IN THE ZONE YOU CAN DO ABCD AD WITH USE PERMIT IF YOU SATISFY THESE STANDARDS YOU CA HAVE E TOO.

THE PROBLEM HERE IS, IS THAT E IS OPEN-ENDED, AND SO IT'S NOT AN E, IT'S LIKE A VARIANCE AND THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS WITH DIFFERENT STANDARDS, AND I THINK WE'RE MIXING THE VARIANCE APPROACH WITH THE USE STANDARD. A USE PERMIT NEEDS TO HAVE A CAP ON IT. A COUPLE OF EXTRA HOURS OR THREE EXTRA HOURS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEN IT'S GOT TO BE GOT TO HAVE HARD CEILING ON IT. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE ONE, IN MY OPINION IT'S NOT COMPETENT UNDER NORTH CAROLINA STATUTES.

THOSE ARE MY TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE THING, BUT I WILL SAY THAT I HAVE A POLICY OBJECTION AND THAT'S CHANGING THE WHOLE UDO FOR EVERYBODY FOR ONE PARTICULAR USE ON ONE PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO. NOW, THE, UH-UH, APPLICANTS LEGAL COUNCIL SAID YES WE'RE ASKING TO CHANGE IT GENERALLY AND THAT'S TRUE BUT THE APPLICANT SEES IT AS THIS ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I DON'T LIKE CHANGING ZONING FOR EVERYBODY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE A PARTICULAR USE, AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST TOP GOLF OR ANY OF THOSE OTHER THINGS IT DOES, BUT I DO NOT LIKE TO CLANG CHANGE THE RULES FROM ROUGEMONT DOWN TO C CHATHAM COUNTY.

IF WE ARE GOING TO REND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO LET SOMEBODY THROUGH THEN I WANT IT TO BE THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE TEAR. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE NO AGAINST THIS ON THE BROAD POLICY ISSUE EVEN IF WE WERE TO FIX WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MILLER. ARE THERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? COMMISSIONER BRINE AND THEN COMMISSIONER AL-TURK. >> COMMISSIONER MILLER HAS ALREADY TOUCHED ON MY CONCERN AND HE EXPRESSED IT FAR BETTER THAN I PROBABLY COULD, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS SPECIFICALLY FOR ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT BY MAKING THIS CHANGE, WE AFFECT OR MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO AFFECT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS ELSEWHERE, AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MILLER, I DON'T PARTICULARLY UH LIKE DOING THAT. >> COMMISSIONER AL-TURK. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER MILLER IF YOU WILL. SO YOU SAY ON FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE YOU DON'T LIKE THIS, SO WHAT IS A DIFFERENT APPROACH, I GUESS? >> I'M NOT SURE THERE IS A DIFFERENT APPROACH AND THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION THAT I WOULD APPROVE OF.

WE'RE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS NOW THAT'S NOT BEEN NOTIFIED BUT WE'RE CREATING EXCEPTION FOR ALL A KINDS OF RECREATIONAL USES THAT ARE COULD BE APPLIED EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTY. THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WANT TO SLEEP AT NIGHT IN THEIR HOMES WHO DON'T KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET A NOTICE, BUT THERE ARE NEIGHBOR WHO IS MIGHT WANT TO SET UP LIGHT POLES AND RUN LIGHTS LATE AT NIGHT FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSE WILL HAVE A PROCESS AVAILABLE TO THEM THAT AS A RESULT OF THIS; IN OTHER WORDS T PROCESS WE'RE CREATING ISN'T GOING TO JUST HELP TOP GOLF, IT'S GOING TO BE EVERYBODY ELSE. AND I KNOW WE'VE GOT THINGS BUILT IN THE CODE, BUT THEY'RE NOT PARTICULARLY IN MY OPINION — IF YOU HAD HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO A REC WRAGSAL FACILITY THAT HAD A LIGHT POLE 100 FEET AWAY I WOULD WANT THE LIGHTS TO BE OFF BETWEEN 12 AND 8.

100 FEET. MY LOT IS 110 FEET WIDE. IT'S NO DISTANCE AT ALL, AND I THINK WE — EVEN IF WE WERE GOING TO CONSIDER THIS, I WOULD LIKE THE HAVE A MORE ROBUST PROCESS IT WENT TO JCCPC, I'M SURE ALL THE PROPER NOTICES WERE PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER, AND NOW AT PLANNING AND NOW OFF TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE MOST IMPACTED BY THIS HAVE NO IDEA THIS IS EVEN BEING TALKED ABOUT. JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY OF DOING IT. IF YOU COULD COME TO US AND DEMONSTRATE THAT OUR CURRENT STANDARDS FOR LIGHTING FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES WERE CREATING PROBLEMS ALL OVER THE PLACE FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND MIDDLE SCHOOL FOOTBALL GAMES AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, THEN WE'D NEED TO LOOK AT THE RULES, BU THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

RULES HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR LONG TIME. NOW WE HAVE ONE USER WHO'S A TENANT OF AN OWNER ON ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY A THEY POINTED OUT, THAT ONE MAY BE A LONG WAY AWAY FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL, FROM WHAT I WOULD THINK WOULD BE THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS QUESTION, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ONE PARCEL, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE COUNTY, UM, SO, I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS THE WAY TO GO.

I MEAN, AND THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER WAY TO GO, BUT I CAN'T CRAFT IT SITTING HERE. THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO FIX THIS SO THAT THESE FOLKS — I THINK YOU COULD SOLVE TECHNICAL PROBLEM BUT SAYING ADDING TWO EXTRA HOURS TO THE LIMITED HOURS HERE BUT IT MAY NOT SATISFY TOP GOLF BECAUSE THEY MAY NEED THREE HOURS. THEY NEED AN EXTRA HOUR ON SATURDAY NIGHT WHICH IS BEYOND BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GO TO TWO AND WE STOP AT A ONE AND THEN TWO TO THREE HOURS AFER THAT. I MEAN, IS THERE A WAY TO FIX THIS THAT I MIGHT VOTE FOR IT? CLEVER PERSON CAN PROBABLY DO THAT. I'M NOT THAT PERSON TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S HEPFUL. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> THANK YOU. OF COURSE I WAS HOPING THIS CONVERSATION PLAYED OUT BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO GET CLARITY ON WHAT SHOULD I REALLY BE FOCUSING ON.

THE ONE THING THAT CAME TO MIND WAS OFF OF COMMISSIONER MILLER'S COMMENTS IS THAT WHAT'S BEING WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED WIH THIS WHAT'S BEING ASKED IS THAT SOMEONE COULD COME NEAR OR IN YOUR COMMUNITY WITH SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN THERE BEFORE AND THAT SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO GO TO SLEEP AT MIDNIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS COMING ON ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY HAVE ANY ENTERPRISE OR INDIVIDUAL IF THERE IS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES — IT DIDN'T SAY SOMETHING ZONED AS RECREATIONAL — THIS COMES TO COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD OR WHAT NOT AND THEY'RE LIKE HOW'D THIS HAPPEN AND WE'VE ALREADY SAID THAT THIS IS NOW THE NEW STANDARD AND THEY HAD NO INPUT INTO RECOGNIZING WHT THE IMPLICATIONS IS IS.

SO I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MILLER'S LOGIC IN THINKING, LIKE, WELL THIS HAS BROADER RAMIFICATIONS. I WAS CURIOUS WHEN I WAS ARE REREADING THIS, IT WAS LIKE WHAT DID YOU CONSIDER THE APPLICANT TAKING THE APPROACH OF JUST TRYING TO GET THE EXISTING LANGUAGE JUST TO ADD ANOTHER COUPLE ADD HOUR EXTEND HOURS WITHIN HOW IT'S SITUATED NOW VERSUS THIS MORE WHERE IT'S ESSENTIALLY BROADER APPLICATION OF THE CHANGE. >> THANK YOU. >> AND IF THEY EVEN ALLOW. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR THIS STANDARD WOULD ALLOW THEM TO SEEK A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND HOURS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH CASE. IF THIS WERE APPROVED, THEY COULD REQUEST THAT AT A PUBLIC HEARING. IT WOULD NOT ALLOW EVERYONE IN COUNTY TO INCREASE THE TIME THEY'RE LIGHTING IS ON BY RIGHT. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER SANTIAGO. >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS THE ABSOLUTE ONLY WAY FOR THIS APPLICANT TO ACHIEVE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO LONG-TERM? OR IS THERE ANY OTHER PROCESS? >> THEE'S PROBABLY LOTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS IT COULD HAPPEN.

I WILL AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MILLER THT DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS AT THIS PARTICULAR OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DURKIN. >> FOR CLARIFICATION, IF THIS WAS ENACTED AND THEY SOUGHT MINOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT THEN THEIR NEIGHBORS WOULD BE NOTICED AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME OUT AND SPEAK AGAINST IT OR WHAT — CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE PROCESS BECAUSE I'M PROBABLY NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT DOESN'T KNOW THE PROCESS. >> A MINOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING WHERE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT AND ANY OPPONENTS. P MINOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT HEARD BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WHICH IS CITIZEN BODY MUCH LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU SIT ON, AND THERE ARE THEY DO ALL THEIR HEARINGS ARE PUBLIC AND THERE'S NOTICE PROVIDED AND THE TYPICALLY IT'S 300 FEET, I THINK. AND SO FOR EACH CASE WHERE THE LIGHTING THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING THIS EXTENDED LIGHTING TIE THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING HELD.

>> WE ACTUALLY HAVE A MEMBER OF THIS PROCESS WELL. SHOULD KNOWN- I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER LOWE BECAUSE YOU'RE ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD — SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT BUT I KNOW YOU WERE ON THAT BOARD BEFORE. >> QUITE ALREADY. NO, I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD WHAT HE SAID A MINUTE AGO, WE HAVE THAT QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COMMITTEE THAT MUST GO THERE AND BE VOTED UPON. >> DO YOU FIND THE PUBLIC COMES TO THOSE MEETINGS IN THE SAME RATE THEY COME TO OURS? >> ABSOLUTELY. PUBLIC SHOWS UP AT THAT MEETINGS. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> IT'S DIFFERENT. THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE. YOU CAN COE GIVE YOUR OPINION BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE LAW. EVERYTHING THAT WE DO HERE, THE BOARD O ADJUSTMENT SINCE IS JUDICIAL BODY.

FIRST OF ALL, NOT EVERYBODY CAN COME AND SPEAK. STANDING RULES OF NORTH CAROLINA ARE CONSTANTLY SHIFTING AS COURT DEGREES COME DOWN AND IT CAN BE DIFFICULT AND I'VE HEARD PEOPLE COMPLAIN RECENTLY THEY'VE BEEN SHUT OUT BY APPLICANTS ATTORNEYS BY SAYING PEOPLE DON'T HAVE STANDING. THEN YOU HAVE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, CAN'T GIVE AN OPINION, YOU HAVE TO GIVE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE STANDARDS.

THIS IS SOMETIMES HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO DO THAN JUST COMING TO THE MIKE AND SAYING I UH LIVE NEXT DOOR AND I DON'T WANT THESE LIGHTS TO BE ON. >> I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE. I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. >> BUT IT IS THE WAY THIS WOULD BE DONE AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF TIMES WHEN I THINK A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS A GREAT WAY TO MANAGE SPECIAL SITUATIONS AND STILL HAVE PUBLIC, MEANINGFUL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. I'M NOT CRITICIZING SPECIAL USE APPROACH. I DO THINK THE WAY THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENT EVEN TO ACCOMPLISH IT, BUT [INDISCERNIBLE] OVER BIG CHANGE FOR ONE PERSON. >> COMMISSIONER AL-TURK. >> I UH JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS AGAIN. SO IF SOMEONE ASKS FOR MINOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, EVERYONE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD GET A NOTICE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING, RIGHT? >> CORRECT.

>> THEY COULD COME BUT AS COMMISSIONER MILLER POINTING OUT THEY DON'T ALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK; IS THAT CORRECT? >> THEY ALL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE STANDING IF IT WERE CHALLENGED IN COURT IS A MORE COMPLICATED ISSUE WHERE FOR EXAMPLE PANNING COMMISSION ANYONE WHO SIGNS UP TO SPEAK HAS STANDING TO GIVE YOUR THEIR OPINION. >> WE HAVE A MAJOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS? >> WE DO. IT'S THE SAME PROCESS WITH THE SAME FINDINGS, IT JUST GOES TO THE GOVERNING BODY INSTEAD OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. >> CITY COUNCIL SITTING IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. >> AND IS THERE A REASON YOU WENT TO MINOR RATHER THAN MAJOR? >> RESERVE ONLY THE JUICIEST VERY BIG STUFF FOR MAJOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> IS THAT A LEGAL TERM? >> YES, IT IS. >> COMMISSIONER BRINE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. DOES THE DEELOMENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REZONING? >> THERE IS N REZONING REQUIRED THERE, BUT IT WILL BE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS AND SO THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF ENTITLEMENT WORK TO BE DONE ON THE DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE. >> YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION. DON'T NEED ANY REZONING. THAT'S ALL. >> CERTAINLY. JUST TO ONE OF THE POINTS THAT MR. MILLER RAISED, WE'RE HAPPY TO ACCEPT A THEE-HOUR CAP ON THE EXTENSION THAT MIGHT BE GRANTED THROUGH A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS. THE OTHER POINT I'D MAKE WHILE I GOT THE MIKE FOR A SECOND WAS IS AT QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THIS IS APPROPRIATE.

>> THANK YOU. >> IF I MAY UH JUST ADD — >> CHAIR RECOGNIZES COMMISSIONER LOWE. >> THANK YOU. SORRY. ON THE BOARD OF ADJUST MS QUESTION CAME UP WOULD EVERYONE BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK. ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS THEY ARE. IT WAS SIGN UP JUST LIKE WE DO HERE AND THEIR NAME IS ON A ROSTER AND CHAIR WOULD ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK, EVERYONE THAT SIGNS TO SPEAK. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? COMMISSIONER BUZBY. >> I WOULD JUST LIKE THE SAY, I APPRECIATE THE PROFFER FOR THE I DON'T KNOW EVEN KNOW IF THAT'S A PROFFER, NECESSARILY, BUT THE COMFORT WITH THE THREE HOURS, I'M PLANNING TO VOTE FOR IT REGARDLESS, I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT DISCOMFORT OF BUT ALSO KNOW ONE HAS GIVEN BETTER ALTERNATIVE SO I DO PLAN TO VOTE FOR IT AS-IS.

AS IT MOVES FORWARD I THINK THE THREE-HOUR LANGUAGE WOULD BE WORKED IN AND IT GIVES CLARITY AS WE MOVE FORWARD BUT I'M NOT THINKING WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TONIGHT TO INCLUDE THAT BECAUSE I THINK THE STAFF NEEDS A LITTLE TIME TO WORK APPLICANT AS IT MOVES FORWARD. THAT'S MY THINKING. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRINE. >> QUESTION FOR STAFF. WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO SEEK A VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE SPECIFIC TO HIS SITE? >> THEY COULD. STANDARDS FOR VARIANCES ARE TYPICALLY HARD TORE MEET THAN SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND IN PARTICULAR THEY'D HAVE TO SHOW HARDSHIP BASED ON THE LAND AND I HAVE A HARD TIME IMAGINING HOW YOU WOULD PROVE THAT NOT HAVING LIGHTS ON UNTIL 5:00 A.M.

IS HARDSHIP. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER SANTIAGO. >> I JUST WANTED TO ASK REAL QUICK, UM, IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS IN WRITING TEXT AMENDMENTS, IS THERE ANY WAY TO MAYBE DRAW UP SOME DESIGN STANDARDS IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS? I'VE BEEN TO MULTIPLE TOP GOLF LOCATIONS, THOSE LIGHTS ARE VERY TALL, SO I WONDER IF THERE'S ANY WAY UH TO DESIGN SITE ITSELF IN A WAY TO LIMIT DISTANCE THE LIGHT AFFECTS SURROUNDING PROPERTIES EVEN IF THE 100 FOOT BUFFER IS THERE. >> IF I COULD RESPOND TO THAT. THE PROCESS ON THIS WAS WE STARTED WITH AN INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH STAFF ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT WE FACED AND THE PROBLEMS WE WERE TRYING TO SOLVE. WE DISCUSSED VARIANCE OTION AND CONCLUDE THAT WAS NOT GOOD. WE PROFFERED TEXT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR AFTER-HOURS LIGHTING IN EVERY INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND STAFF SAID, GEE, I THINK THAT'S TOO BROAD AND WE SAID LET'S TALK ANOTHER ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE.

WE AND STAFF AFTER LOOK AT THIS SETTLED ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE TO ACHIEVE WHAT THE APPLICANT'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE AT THIS SIE WHILE PROTECTING THE CITY AND THE COUNTY INTEREST IN NOT CREATING SOMETHING THAT APPLIED INDISCRIMINATELY ACROSS ENTIRE COUNTY AND TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT STANDARDS, THOSE STANDARDS ARE A PART OF THE SPECIAL USE PROCESS. THE SPECIAL USE PROCESS REQUIRES US TO APPEAR AND PROVE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THERE ARE A WHOLE LIST OF THINGS THERE. THEY ARE THE THINGS THAT I THINK THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO BE THERE AND WOULD WANT TO BE THERE, AND THE COMFORT THAT I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD DRAW FROM THE WAY WERE TRYING TO APPROACH THIS IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUST MS, THEY WILL BE LOOKING FOR US TO PROVE WE'VE MET THOSE STANDARDS AND THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA ARE PROTECTED. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> UM, COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> HOW IS THE PROPERTY THAT YOUR CLIENT HAS NOW CURRENTLY UH ZONED? >> INDUSTRIAL. >> INDUSTRIAL OR INDUSTRIAL LIGHT? >> LIGHT, I THINK. >> IP ZONING. >> IT'S PLANNED INDUSTRIAL? SO AN A EXTRA LAYER OF LIMITATION THAT COULD BE PUT HERE SO THEIR APPROACH WAS LET'S APPROACH IT BY ZONE AND CHANGE STANDARDS.

STAFF RESPONSE, IT WAS TOO BROAD. I AGREE. LET'S TO DO IT BY UH USE PERMIT. WE COULD COMBINE BOTH APPROACHES AND SAY IN CERTAIN ZONES WITH A USE PERMIT, SPECIALIZED STANDARDS LIKE THIS ONE DOES LIKE THIS ONE HAS, AND THAT CAP. YOU COULD GET A LOT CLOSER TO SOMETHING I MIGHT VOTE FOR BUT I WOULD STILL WANT TO STUDY THE MAP A LITTLE BIT SO SEE WHAT WE WERE GETTING PEOPLE IN FOR.

>> ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? OKAY. GREAT. COMMISSIONER AL-TURK. >> I MOVE THAT WE SEND CASE TC1900002 TO THE CIY COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. >> SECOND. >> IT HAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER AL-TURK AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BUZBY THAT WE SEND ITEM NUMBER TC1900002 OUT DOOR LIGHTING FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, LET US HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. [ROLL CALL VOTE].

>> MOTION PASSES 9-4. >> THANK YOU. WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE: TC1900005 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT DEFINITION. >> MICHAEL STOCK WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WOULD AMEND CURRENT DEFINITION OF DWELLING UNIT 17.3 OF UDO. PURPOSE IS TO REFLECT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RENTAL AND FOR-SALE UNITS, ALLOW FLEXIBLE FOR RESIDENCE TO REMAIN IN UNITS AS THEIR INCOME INCREASES TO A CERTAIN EXTENT AND ALSO TO BE CONSISTENT WITH NEW POLICIES AD PROCEDURING BEING ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS THEY DEVELOP THOSE PROCEDURES FOR TRACKING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS BUILT PURE PURSUANT TO ANY PARKING ALLOWANCES, ETC. THIS WAS DEVELOPED IN CON STRUNGS WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ALSO REVIEWED THIS. WAS ALSO SENT OUT TO A NUMBER OF NON-PROFITS AND ALSO MARKET-RATE PROVIDERS TO GET INPT AND FEEDBACK ON AND IT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TRANSIT TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK ON.

THE AMENDMENT WOULD REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH CHARTER PROVISIONS OF THE CITY THAT ALLOWS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND THAT THE IT REMAINS LOW-INCOME INCENTIVE DEFINITION AS ESTABLISHED BY HUD. SO THE DEFINITION THAT IS PROVIDED WILL MEET THAT REQUIREMENT AS DOES THE CURRENT DEFINITION, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE DO HAVE KAREN LOTTO WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THAT HAS A LOT MORE BACKGROUND AND KNOWLEDGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS DO I. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THEY DID NOT INDICATE FOR OR AGAINST SO I'M GOING TO START WITH — >> HE'S FOR. >> THIS MAY BE AGAINST. WE'LL START WITH DICK HAILS. >> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I AM ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE COALITION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TRANSIT AND BACK WHEN WE WERE WE TRY AND ADVOCATE FOR THREE MAIN THINGS: RESERVING PUBLIC-OWNED LAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PUTTING MORE MONEY INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING — WHICH HAS HAD A BIG BOOST LATER — AND ALSO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WAYS OF ENCOURAGING MORE ADDED HOUSING STAFF SUCH AS THROUGH EXPANDED HOUSING CHOICES INITIATIVE.

WHILE THAT WAS GING ON AND WE ALONG WITH YOU ALL WERE ACTIVE IN TRYING TO SIFT OUR WAY THROUGH THAT, UM, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT SEVERAL OF THE MAJOR NON-PROFIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS IN TOWN SAID BY THE WAY WE ALSO NEED TO AMEND THIS DEFINITION OF LOW-MODERATE INCOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE MORE WORKABLE AND THE CONCERN WAS PARTICULARLY ON THE SIDE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SALE. AT THAT TIM, IT WAS DURING THE CLOSING STAGES OF THE EHC AND THERE WAS NOT AN ACTUAL DRAFT THAT HABITAT AND LAND TRUST AND OTHERS HAD PUT TOGETHER AND REVIEWED, AND SO WE ENDORSED AT THAT TIME TRYING TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY TO COME BACK BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE IT WAS A SPECIFIC PROBLEM THEY'D HAVE IN TRYING TO MAKE FULL USE OF THE HOPEFULLY APPROVAL OF THE BOND FUNDS AND OTHER THINGS TO PRODUCE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN TOWN. SO WE'RE, SO I'M SPEAKING IN ADVOCACY FOR THE NON-PROFITS THAT REQUESTED THIS CHANGE AND WE THINK IT'S ONE SMALL THING THAT CAN BE BENEFICIAL IN HELPING TO PRODUCE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN TOWN.

THANKS. >> THANK YOU. THE NEXT INDIVIDUAL I HAVE IS LISTED AS JULIUS BARTELL. >> NOT FOR OR AGAINST, I JUST — ALL RIGHT. MY [INDISCERNIBLE] OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS SOMEBODY THAT'S MAKING $600 A MONTH ON SOCIAL SECURITY HAS A PLACE TO RENT. HOUSINGS AROUND HERE NOW AR NOT, PERIOD, BUT THEY CAN BE. TRAVEL TRAILERS. I LIVED FIVE YEARS IN A TRAVEL TRAIL TORE GET ON MY FEET WHEN WE FIRST GOT MARRIED. FROM THAT I OWN PROPERTY IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND NORTH CAROLINA. TRAILER GAE ME A CHANCE TO GET ON MY FEET AS A MAN, AS A 20-YEAR-OLD, MY WIFE WAS 20 YEARS OLD. IF YOU HAD A MOBILE HOME PARK, WHICH TRAILERS RUN ANYWHERE FROM EIGHT TO $23,000, TO PUT PEOPLE IN IT, HOMELESS PEOPLE. YOU CAN CHARGE THEM A HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH RENT. IT'LL HELP PAY FOR THE TRAILERS AND AFTER YOU'RE DONE WITH THEM YOU CAN SELL TO PEOPLE WHO WANT TRAVEL TRAILERS TO GO ON TRIPS, BUT I SUGGEST TRAVEL TRAILERS TO HELP WITH HOMELESS PROBLEM AS WELL AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE YOU CAN BUY A TRAILER WITH $20,000 OR YOU CAN BUILD – THESE COME FURNISHED WITH COUCHES, BEDS, FRIDGES, STOVES, HEATERS, SINKS, COMODES.

BUILD A HOUSE FOR $70,000, YOU STILL GOT TO PUT ANOTHER $20,000 INTO IT. THEN AFTER THAT, YOU KNOW, BUT TRAVEL TRAILERS WOULD HELP OUT THE SITUATION. YOU CAN TAKE NINE MONTHS TO BUILD A HOUSE OR YOU CAN TAKE 30 DAYS TO PUT IN WATER AND SEWER ON THE LOT AND PULL TRAILERS IN THERE AND PARK THEM AND PUT PEOPLE IN THEM THAT NEED TO BE PUT IN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GIVE COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER DURKIN. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND IT MIGHT BE BETTER SUITED FOR KAREN, NO OFFENSE, MICHAEL.

>> [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> KAREN LOTO, FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. >> RENT AND INCOME LEVELS TIE TOGETHER. THE DEFINITION DOESN'T INCLUDE RENTAL REQUIREMENT SO TYPICALLY UH AN AFFORDABLE UNIT WOULD BE 30% OF THE APPLICABLE AMI, SO YOU COULD PUT ANYBODY WHO'S AT 60% IN A UNIT BUT THE RENT, IT DOESN'T MEAN THE RENT IS AFFORDABLE SO IT DOESN'T MAKE IT AN AFFORDABLE UNIT. >> VERY GOOD QUESTION. GOING ALONG WITH THIS UDO DEFINITION, THERE IS ACTUAL LAY SET OF PROGRAM REGULATIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER FOR RIGHT NOW THE ONY — BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THIS DEFINITION APPLIES TO THE DENSITY BONUS. >> MM-HMM. >> THAT IS THE ONE KIND OF UDO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM. WE ARE GOING TO BE BRINGING FORWARD A SET OF REGULATIONS FOR THE DENSITY BONUS TO CITY COUNCIL, ACTUALLY TO THIS BODY — WAIT, WHAT'S THE PROCESS? I DON'T GENERALLY GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION. ARE WE GOING STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL? >> FOR YOUR REGULATIONS? >> STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL.

YOU DON'T GET TO SEE THEM, BUT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE DETAILED SET OF REGULATIONS THAT WILL LAY OUT ALL HOW IS INCOME CALCULATED? HOW IS RENT CALCULATED? WHAT IS MAXIMUM RENT? HOW IS FOR-SALE PRICE? WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM FOR-SALE PRICE? THAT'LL ALL BE LAID OUT IN THE REGULATIONS WE'LL ASK COUNCIL TO APPROVE. >> SO BUT HOW DO WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THOSE REGULATIONS — IT SAYS WE'LL FOLLOW POLICIES — >> THAT'S THE REFERENCE RIGHT THERE. THAT THIS WILL BE THE POLICY AND PROCEDURES. >> MY CONCERN REALLY IS THEY'RE NOT TIED IN THE DEFINITION SO IT DOES NOT MAKE HAVING 60% AMI TENANT IN A UNIT WHERE THEY'RE PAYING 70% OF INCOME TOWARDS RENT IS ZERO WAY AN AFFORDABLE UNIT.

J THERE ARE A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT — YOU CAN ONLY PUT SO MUCH INTO THE DEFINITION. >> RIGHT. >> AND AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE HAS TO BE A MUCH MORE — WE HAVE 15-20 PAGES OF REGULATIONS TO GO WITH HOW THIS ACTUALLY ROLLS OUT, AND THAT WILL ALL BE LAID OUT IN THE REGULATIONS HOW ALL THIS IS CALCULATED. >> WITHOUT HAVING THOSE REGULATIONS THIS DEFINITION DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING WITH ME AND I CAN'T VOTE FOR IT WITHOUT HAVING THE BIGGER CONTEXT. YOU COULD HAVE DEFINITION THAT TIES THE RENT TO IT AND IT'D BE CONCISE AND MAKE SENSE AND REGULATORY AGREEMENTS ARE FULL OF WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE AN AFFORDABLE RENT AND JUST ADDING THE FACT THAT — I >> I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAY — >> WITHOUT HAVING LARGER CONTEXT THE DEFINITION DOESN'T REALLY DO A LOT. >> THIS IS THE DEFINITION THAT'S IN THE UDO, THIS IS REFINEMENT OF THE UDO DEFINITION. >> I DON'T THINK THAT DEFINITION WORKS.

>> BUT I THINK UH THE IMPORTANT THING TO, UM, DEFINE HERE IS THIS IS NOT THE DEFINITION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE CITY OF DURHAM AS A WHOLE. UM, THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PROGRAMS USING AFFORDABLE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE UDO. >> MM-HMM. >> AND THOSE PROGRAMS HAVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. SO IT'S NOT — YOU COULD NOT GO AND USE THE DENSITY BONUS AND JUST SAY WELL I'M GONG TO PROVIDE UNITS AT 60% AMI BUT PEOPLE HAVE TO SPEND 70% OF THEIR INCOME FOR HOUSING. THAT'S NOT HOW THE PROGRAM IS SET UP. YOU HAVE TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT WITH THE CITY AND THAT'LL SPECIFY UH AFFORDABILITY LEVELS OF YOUR UNIT, HOW THEY'RE DISTRIBUTED, WHAT THE RENTS WILL BE, HOW YOU'LL CALCULATE INCOME, WHAT DOCUMENTS YOU'RE EXPECTED TO HAVE IN THE TENANT FILE, HOW THE CITY, HOW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WILL MONITOR THOSE UNITS, WHAT REPORTING WILL BE REQUIRED, ETC, ETC. SO THERE ISN'T AN A OPTION RIGHT NOW WHERE YOU CAN GO AND JUST DO WHAT YOU WANT AND SAY IT MEETS DENSITY BONUS BECAUSE IN ORDER TO DO THAT YOU HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR REGULATIONS.

>> SO THERE ARE REGULATIONS IN PLACE FOR THE DENSITY — >> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TAKING THROUGH COUNCIL IN THE COMING WEEKS. >> OKAY. JUST SEEMS LIKE A BACKWARD WAY TO DO IT THEN. >> WELL, WE CAN'T TAKE REGULATIONS THAT SAY THAT 80% AMI IS THE FOR-SALE RULE IF IT'S NOT IN THE DEFINITION OF THE UDO RIGHT NOW. >> [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> SO AS KAREN WAS ELUDING TO, WE WANTED TO RUN THESE CONCURRENTLY. SO COUNCIL'S GOING SEE THOSE REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURE THAT KAREN'S DEPARTMENT IS DEVELOPING AT THE SAME TIME THEY'RE GOING TO SEE IS THE TEXT AMENDMENT SO IT'S GOING TO RUN TOGETHER.

>> WE'RE JUST BLIND TO THE LARGER CONTEXT, UNFORTUNATELY. >> YEAH. WE NEEDED TO EXPLAIN THAT BETTER FOR YOU. >> OKAY. I DON'T LIKE THAT AT ALL. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MILLER. >> SO I UH HAVE A PROBLEM BUT MINE IS A LEGAL DRAFTING PROBLEM. YOU'RE INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE STANDARDS TO BE MADE OR POLICIES TO BE ADOPTED BY CITY AGENCY THAT CAN BE CHANGED BY THE CITY AGENCY WHICH WILL IN E EFFECT CHANGE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE YOU'LL BE CHANGING THE RULES. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THE CITY MAY INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE AN EXISTING STANDARD FROM AN OUTSIDE AGENCY BY IDENTIFYING IT, BUT YOU CANNOT INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE STANDARDS THAT MIGHT BE MADE OR CHANGED IN THE FUTURE BY AN AGENCY CITY GOVERNMENT. THAT'S A DELEGATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION TO A CITY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICIAL.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS DELICATED LEGISLATIVE FUNK — FUNCTION TO THE CITY AND HAS TO FOLLOW RULES. CITY COUNCIL CANNOT, IN TURN, SAY UH THIS IS ST BIG RULE BUT ALL THE DETAILS WILL BE HANDLED BY OUR STAFF AND CHANGEABLE BY THEM IN THE FORM OF POLICIES. YOU CAN'T DO IT THAT WAY. NOT LAWFUL. BECAUSE I ALSO DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE ARE BUT ALSO BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A COMPETENT WAY OF ADOPTING LAW UH, I HAVE TO VOTE AGINST THIS TOO AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EHC AND DICK AND FOLKS CAME TO US AND SAID WE HAVE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, DOESN'T WORK FOR DURHAM, I WAS ALL ABOT THAT, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE — AND I AGREE E WITH KAREN, YOU UH DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO PUT THE WHOLE DAMN THING IN THE ORDINANCE.

YOU CAN INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE AND WE DO, WE INCORPORATE THINGS BY REFERENCE IN OTHER PLACES, AND WE CAN DO THAT HERE BUT IT'S GOT TO BE ALREADY EXISTING. IT'S GOT TO HAE A DATE. WHEN WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT, WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND CHANGE THE ORDINANCE BY THE DATE. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DONE AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL. THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN PLACES, THERE ARE PLACES WHERE FEDERAL LAW SPECIFICALLY SAY YOU CAN — LIKE FUTURE CHANGES TO THE IRS CODE AND THOSE HAVE BEEN HELD COMPETENT AT THE STATE LEVEL BUT NOT WHEN YOUR DELEGATING CITY AGENCY THE ABILITY TO MAKE DETAILS OF THE RULES.

YOU CAN'T DO IT. YOU CAN DO IT BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT THIS WAY. YOU CAN'T INCORPORATE FUTURE CHANGES. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CHANGE. DO WE KNOW — I MEAN WE'RE CREATING THESE REGULATIONS, AND A WHEN WE HAVE THEM DONE WE'LL ADOPT THM SOMEHOW, AND THEN IN MY OPINIONING — YU CREATE THE REGULATIONS FIRST AND THEN YOU CHANGE TIS BY SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND DATED BYLAW BLAH BLAH BLAH THEN IT'S COMPETENT AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE MS. DURKIN LIKE TO SEE IT, FIRST. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HER EXPLAIN WHY IT'S GOOD OR NOT GOOD BECAUSE THIS IS HER AREA, NOT MINE. >> IT IS MY AREA. [LAUGHTER] >> AND BUT I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT ALL COMING TOGETHER AND HAVE THE INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE TO BE AN APPROPRIATE AND CORRECT ONE.

THEN ANOTHER QUESTION JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE A CHARTER PROVISION THAT EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATES INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND I BELIEVE BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN OTHER COMMUNITIES TRY TO KIND OF MESS AROUND WITH THEIR CODES AND THEIR PROCESSES TO TWIST DEVELOPERS ARMS AND TO PROMISE US T BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COURTS AR LETTING THEM OUT. DURHAM HAS CHARTER PROVISION THAT EXPRESSLY SAYS IN DURHAM THE CITY CAN WITH AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS OR OTHER INCENTIVES — WE COULD EVEN HAVE OTHER INCENTIVES — TAKE A DEVELOPER'S PROMISE.

IN ANY OPINION BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT IN THE CHARTER, WE HAVE SOMETHING IF SOMEBODY TAKES US TO COURT, WE'VE GOT LAW AT THE STATE LEEL BECAUSE CHARTER IS STATE LAW THAT THE OTHERS DON'T HAVE AND WE'LL WIN, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE CHANGE THE DEFINITION AWAY FROM 60% AMI, THAT — AND WE GET A DEVELOPER WHO PROMISES AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 80% AMI, PURCHASE UNITS AT 80% AMI, THAT THAT WILL STILL BE THE KIND OF AFFORDABILITY THAT IS CONTEMPLATED A A MINIMUM IN THE CHARTER. DOES IT TIE US TO A STANDARD OR CAN WE MAKE STANDARD TOUGHER IN PLACES LIKE GOING TO 30 YEARS AND RELAX IT IN OTHER PLACES LIKE GOING TO 80% AMI PURCHASE UNITS? I WANT TO BE CONFIDENT ABOUT THAT. WHAT DOES THE CHARTER SAY? >> MICHAEL STOCK WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THE CHARTER PROVISION DISCUSSES LOW AND MODERATE INCOME MEANING REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY HUD AND IF THEY HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED IT THEN CITY CAN GO AHEAD AND ESTABLISH WHAT IT WANTS. [CAPTIONS WILL RETURN SHORTLY]. >> IT IS AFFORDABLE. YOU HAVE PURCHASED THE UNIT AT THAT POINT. WHAT HAPPENS AND SO LONG AS YOU WERE ICOME ELIGIBLE AT THE TIME YOU PURCHASED THEN OUR CONCERN IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS — OUR HOPE IS ACTUALLY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GO OUT AND A BECAUSE YOUR HOUSING COST IS REASONABLE, YOU'RE GOING TO GO OUT AND INUH VEST IN OTHER THINGS AND INCOME WILL RISE.

IT IS ONLY AT THE POINT THAT YOU GO T SELL THE HOME IF IT'S WITHIN THE 30-YEAR PERIOD THAT THE ISSUE IS YOU HAVE TO SELL TO AN INCOME-ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD, AND IT WILL FURTHER INDICATE IN PROCEDURES YOU HAVE TO SELL AT A PRICE AT OR BELOW THE MAXIMUM PRICE THAT THE CITY ESTABLISHES IN THAT YEAR FOR AUH FOR-SALE PRODUCT AND THAT MAXIMUM PRICE WILL BE CALCULATED EVERY YEAR BASED ON MORTGAGE RATES AND OTHER FACTORS IN THE MARKET.

BUT, NO, YOU'RE AT A HOME OWNER AT THAT POINT THE ONLY THING WE WOULD BE MONITORED AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IS DO YOU STILL LIVE IN THE HOME. >> THANK YOU. I WILL ECHO COMMISSIONERS AND IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AT LEAST FOR ME TO SEE THE RULES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I FEEL LIKE I'M THINKING IN A VOID. >> OKAY. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER DURKIN. >> I CAN'T NOT VOTE FOR THIS. I FOAL LIKE I'M IN A REALLY CONFLICTING PLACE HERE BEING THE ONE WHO ALWAYS ASKS ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT I DO THINK IN MY COMMENTS, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BUZBY THAT IT IS KIND OF A TRUST FALL AND IN MY COMMENTS I'LL BE EXPANDING ON WHAT MY CONCERNS ARE, BUTLY BE VOTING FOR IT BUT WITH A LOT OF RESERVATIONS IN MY COMMENTS.

>> ANY OTHER UNREADINESS? IF NOT, I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> MADAM CHAIR I MOVE TC 1900005 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT DEFINITION FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER; SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AL-TURK THAT WE MOVE ITEM TC 1900005 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT DEFINITION FOR WARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. >> ALSO GOES TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONER RIGHT? >> YEAH. >> TO BOTH BOTH ELECTED BODIES. >> BOTH ELECTED BODIES AMENDING OUR MOTION TO ENSURE IT'S BOTH. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. [ROLL CALL VOTE]. >> MOTION PASSES 12-1. >> ONE ITEM UNDER NEW BUSINESS. YOUR PRESENTATION TEER QUARY/ENO INTAKE PRESENTATION. >> TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT TO YOU ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BUT DOESN'T GET SEEN BECAUSE MOSTLY IT'S UNDERGROUND. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY COLLEAGUE SID MILLER WHO'S SENIOR WATER RESOURCES MANAGER AT THE WATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.

WITH WE AT THE CITY OF DURHAM ARE PROPOSING A NEW INTAKE ALONG ENO RIVER WHICH HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DELIVERY OF CLEAN WATER TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN DURHAM AND WILL ALSO HAVE IMPLICATIONS TO THE WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT EXISTS ALONG ENO. SID WILL GIVE PRESENTATION ABOUT INTAKE AND THEN I'LL TALK ABOUT ENO WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY. >> THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M NOT USED TO — NOT USUALLY IN THIS ROOM, USUALLY IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM SO THIS IS ALL A LITTLE DIFFERENT FOR ME.

I SHOULD ALSO WARN YOU THAT I UH GET UP AT 5:00 IN THE MORNING AND WE'RE ALREADY APPROACHING MY BEDTIME. >> YOU DON'T NEED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO STAY UP LATE. [LAUGHTER] >> I CAN'T SAY. SO, I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE FIRST THREE ITEMS HERE ABOUT OUR WATER SUPPLY IN GENERAL FO TH CITY TO PROVIDE A LITTLE CONTEXT. TALK ABOUT TIER — TEER QUARY, ITSELF. THEN SCOTT WILL TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE. SO WE HAVE LAKE MICKIE, ONE OF OUR MAIN RESERVOIRS FOR THE CITY BUILT QUITE SOME TIME AGO.

ALSO HAVE LITTLE RIVER RESERVOIR. BOTH OF THOSE TWO SUPPLIES ARE — THAT'S MAINLY, THOSE ARE OUR MAIN SOURCES OF SUPPLY. WE RECENTLY INCREASED OUR ALLOCATION OUT OF JORDAN LAKE. AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T HAVE AN INTAKE, OURSELVES, ON JORDAN LAKE. I'LL EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THAT. SO, THESE ARE OUR WATER SUPPLIES THAT WE HVE SORT OF A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THEM. JORDAN LAKE YOU SEE I'VE CROSSED THAT OFF AND THAT'S BASICALLY BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE AN INTAKE IN JORDAN LAKE AT THIS TIME. ONE OF OUR WATER TREATMENT PLANTS — >> WHEN YOU SAY INTAKE YOU MEAN LIKE A SFWRU THE WATER? >> EXACTLY. THERE IS AN INTAKE IN JORDAN LAKE IT'S OWNED BY THE CARRY AND APEX, JOINTLY. THIS IS ONE OF OUR WATER TREATMENT PLANTS WHICH I KNOW SOME OF YOU ARE QUITE FAMILIAR WITH. >> VERY.

1917. >> THIS IS THE OTHER THE WE G. BROWN CURRENTLY UNDERGOING EXPANSION. THIS IS JUST A BRIEF ABOUT THE TWO. AND THEN THIS IS WHERE OUR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INTERFACES WITH OUR WORK. THIS IS OUR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. THIS IS WHERE THE LAND USE CHOICES YOU ALL MAKE, UM, HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE WATER THAT WE DELIVER AND ARE LIMITED BY OUR ABILITIES TO DELIVER THAT WATER TO ANY SPECIFIC LOCATION WITHIN THE CITY.

SO, THE WESTERN INTAKE PARTNERSHIP IS SOMETHING WE JUST RECENTLY FORMED, INCLUDES THE CITY OF DURHAM, THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, PITTSBURGH AND CHATHAM COUNTY. DEVELOP NEW FACILITY ON THE SEVEN SIDE OF JORDAN LAKE WHICH WILL INCLUDE AN INTAKE, A LARGE TREATMENT FACILITY AND REGIONAL PUMP STATION TO SEND TREATED WATT TORE EACH OF THE PARTNERS. THIS IS OUR CURRENT PROJECTION OF WATER SUPPLY NEEDS. THE DOTTED GREEN LINE IS AVERAGE DEMAND WHICH IS HOW WE PLAN FOR THE QUANTITY OF WATER THAT WE HAVE IN SUPPLY.

THEN THAT DASHED RED LINE IS MAXIMUM DEMAND WHICH IS HO WE PLAN THE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY THAT WE NEED. SO I'VE SHOWN WHERE OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF WATER SUPPLY IS WITH THAT SOLID GREEN LINE. THAT IS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE ALREADY LATE IN GETTING JORDAN LAKE ONLINE. NOW, WE HAVE INTERCONNECTION WITH THE TOWN OF CARRY WHICH IS HOW WE'RE ABLE TO TRANSFER TREATED WATER AS WE NEED AND THAT'S HOW WE CURRENTLY ACCESS OUR JORDAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY STORAGE ALLOCATION BUT WE'RE LIMITED IN EXPANDED HOUSING CHOICES WATER WE CAN TRANSFER FROM THE TOWN OF CARRY. THIS IS WHERE TIER — TEER QUARY COMES IN. THAT'S A NICE PICTURE OF TEER QUARY. THAT'S WHERE IT'S LOCATED WHICH INCIDENTALLY IS ON DENFIELD ROAD.

>> HMM. >> SO TEER QUARY IS ESSENTIAL. WE NEED TO BRING IT ONLINE AS A WELL WATER STORAGE FACILITY. THE THING ABOUT TEER QUARY IS THAT IT'S ESSENTIALLY ONLY FILL LD BY RAINWATER. SO IT WAS LAST USED IN 2007, DURING SEVERE DROUGHT. >> I REMEMBER THAT. >> WE INSTALLED A TEMPORARY INTAKE AND TEMPORARY PUMPS AND PUMPED WATER FROM TEER QUARY INTO A WELL WATER LINE THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE QUARY AND SENT IT DOWN TO WILLIAMS WATER TREATMENT PLANT. SO, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO FILL TEER QUARY FROM E EITHER THE ENO RIVER OR FROM LAKE MICKIE. WHEN I SAY EITHER, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO FILL IT FROM BOTH.

NEED BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHAT WE FILL IT FROM WHEN WE NEED TO FILL IT. GOING BACK TO HERE, YOU SEE OUR EXISTING ENO RIVER ARE INTAKE. WE HAVE ONE DOWNSTREAM OF THE QUARY AND I DON'T REALLY HAVE A WAY OF POINTING. SO IT'S THE ONE TO THE EAST. >> WESTERN MOST — >> EASTERN MOST PIN ON THE MAP. THAT'S OUR EXISTING INTAKE. WE HAVE ONE BUT IT'S NOT NEAR THE QUARY. >> NO, IT'S NOT. >> ONE THAT WE WOULD LIKE IS THE WESTERN MORE PIN WHICH IS CLOSEST TO THE QUARY.

THAT'S ADVANTAGEOUS FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, IT'S MUCH CLOSER TO THE QUARY, AND TWO, IT'S AT A HIGHER ELEVATION. pIF WE HAVE AN INTAKE CAN BORE A TUNNEL FROM THE RIVER TO THE QUARY WHICH WILL ALLOW US TO FILL THE QUARY ABOUT 55% FULL JUST BY UH GRAVITY. THE REST OF THE STORAGE TO THE QUARY WILL HAVE TO BE PUMPED. THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO OPERATE THE QUARY, THE INTAKES, IS THAT WE WILL ONLY WITHDRAW WATER FROM THE ENO RIVER WHEN IT IS FLOODING. SO THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 12 DAYS DURING AN AVERAGE YEAR WHEN WE WOULD SKIM WATER FROM THE ENO RIVER, WE WOULD TAKE BETWEEN 10-20% OF THE FLOW AND PUMP IT OR SEND IT BY GRAVITY INTO THE QUARY.

WE WOULD ALSO PUMP WATER FROM LAKE MICKIE, AGAIN, WHEN LAKE MICKIE IS FULL WE'LL PUMP WATER FROM LAKE MICKIE TO THE QUARY. THERE'S A RAW WATER LINE JUST TO THE EAST OF THE QUARY. SO, UM, IN ORDER TO BUILD A NEW INTAKE ON THE ENO RIVER, THAT SECTION OF THE ENO NEEDS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A WATER SUPPLY BY THE STATE. ONCE IT'S CLASSIFIED AS A WATER SUPPLY, THEN THERE ARE LAND USE IMPLICATIONS. THAT'S WHERE YOU COME IN. >> SO IF SOMETHING IS CLASSIFIED AS WATER SUPPLY BY THE STATE, THERE ARE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REQUIRED TO ENACT WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE QUALITY OF THAT WATER. WE CURRENTLY HAVE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED OVERLAYS FOR FALLS LAKE AND JORDAN LAKE, LAKE MICKIE, FR LITTLE RIVER AND FOR THE ENO. >> NOT FR THIS. >> THERE IS ONE FOR THE ENO.

>> NOT FOR THE QUARY. >> THERE IS ONE FOR THE EXISTING EMERGENCY INTAKE, THE ONE THAT'S FURTHER TO THE EAST. I DON'T KNOW A LOT OF THE DETAILS BUT THE STATE HAS CLASSIFICATIONS, WS 1-4 BASED ON EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WATER TREATMENT, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. THE ENO IS A WS 4 WHICH IS THE MOST DEVELOPED TYPE WICH HAS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF RESTRICTIONS ON NEW DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S A — BEFORE ANY OF THIS HAPPENS, THERE'S NOT ONLY THE LAND USE IMPLICATIONS I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT BUT THEE'S ALSO A LOT OF OHER APPROVALS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN THROUGH THE STATE.

THIS WILL ALSO AFFECT THE RIVER-BASED WATER SUPPLY UH HAS A PROTECTED AREA OF TEN MILES FROM WHEREVER THE INTAKE IS, SO THE CURRENT ENO OVERLAY AFFECTS THE CITY OF DURHAM, COUNTY OF DURHAM, AND ORANGE COUNTY EXTENDING IT WOULD ALSO AFFECT SMALL BIT OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH. SID HAS HIS WORK CUT OUT WITH HIM TO WORK WITH THE STATE AND SOME NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST. THIS VISUALIZE WHAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT. OVER HERE ON THE EAST IS THE PART OF DURHAM WHERE THE INTAKE IS. IT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN THE ENO, OVER HERE TO THE TOWN OF HILL UHS BORROW AND THIS SHOWS THE AREAS IN ORANGE COUNTY AND HILLSBOROUGH THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED.

>> MORE ORANGE COUNTY THAN THERE IS A DURHAM. >> TRUE. SO THIS IS THE — SO ONE STEP BACK, SO IT'S PART OF THE WATERSHED OVERLAY. THERE'S A STATEMENT CRITICAL AREA WHERE THEY RESTRICTIONS APPLY AND THEN PROTECTED AREA WHICH HAVE LESS STRICT RESTRICTIONS. THE MINIMUM THE STATE REQUIRES HALF MILE CRITICAL AREA. AN OPTION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO SELECT A ONE-MILE CRITICAL AREA. FOR ALL OF DURHAM'S WATERSHEDS WE HAVE SELECTED A ONE-MILE CRITICAL AREA. THIS IS THE EXISTING ENO CRITICAL AREA. THE OLD EMERGENCY INTAKE IS OVER HERE AT THE EASTERN END. DARKER AREAS IN THE CITY, LIGHTER AREAS IN THE COUNTY. IF THE INTAKE REMOVED CRITICAL AREA WOULD NEED TO MOVE AS WELL.

SMALL HALF CIRCLE HERE WIH HATCHING INDICATE WHAT IS A HALF MILE CRITICAL AREA WOULD LIKE LIKE. LARGER BLUE SEMICIRCLE IS WHAT A MILE WOULD LOOK LIKE. SO THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE UDO FOR THE EA IS ABBREVIATION FOR CRITICAL AREA, EB IS ABBREVIATION FOR PROTECTED AREA. IN THE EA INDUSTRIAL USES AND FUEL FAILS ARE PROHIBITED. 24% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMIT WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. THERE'S A STREAM BUFFER OF 150 FEET PERENNIAL AND 50 FEET FOR INTERMITTENT AND MINIMUM 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE. IN THE EB THERE'S NO USE RESTRICTIONS, A 24% LOW DENSITY OPTION, 70% HIGH UH DENSITY OPTION WHERE ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROLS ALLOW YOU TO PUT MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

THERE'S A SLIGHTLY SMALLER BUFFER FOR PERENNIAL STREAMS AND NO ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR LOT SIZE OR THINGS LIKE THAT. WE DISCUSSED THIS AT THE DURHAM CITY-COUNTY PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THEIR JUNE MEETING. SOME THINGS DISCUSSED IS THAT THE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS AREA, ADDING THE MORE RESTRICTIVE ONE MILE CRITICAL AREA DOES NOT GIVE US THAT MUCH IN THE BENEFIT FOR BENEFIT OF WATER QUALITY BECAUSE IT'S PRIMARILY DEVELOPED, SO IT ALSO WOULD AFFECT A LOT MORE PROPERTIES IF WE USED ONE-MILE CRITICAL AREA, TAKES IN A LT OF PROPERTY ALONG ROXBORO ROAD AN PROHIBIT A LOT OF REDWEFRMENT ALONG THAT AREA.

EXISTING FUEL SALES WOULD NO LONGER BE PER FITTED. COMPROMISED SOLUTION WE TALKED ABOUT WITH JOINT COMMITTEE WAS THAT KEEPING THE EXISTING EMERGENCY INTAKE AND ESTABLISH A HALF MILE CRITICAL AREA FOR THE NEW INTAKE. THE PROTECTED AREA WOULD STILL BE TEN MILES DOWN STREAM. >> THERE'S NO OPTION IN THE MIDDLE. IT'S HALF OR ONE? >> YEAH.

TWO CHOICES. SO THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD CITY AND WATER MANAGEMENT THE WORK THEY NEED TO DO TO GET THIS PERMITTED AND GET AGREEMENTS FROM OTHER LOCALITIES. ONCE WE KNOW IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO A GO, WE PLAN ON BRINGING A UDO TEXT AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP CHANGE FOR THIS. WE'VE TALKED IT OVER WITH ATTORNEY AND THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH US HAVING IT GO FORWARD BEFORE THE STATE ACTUALLY APPROVES IT AND HAVING EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE BE AT THE TIME THE STATE APPROVES IT, THAT WAY COUNCIL'S AND COMMISSIONERS HANDS AREN'T TIED TO HAVING TO APPROVE ZONING CHNGE BASED ON ENACTION.

>> WOW. >> SO THAT, WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> BY ALL MEANS, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER MILLER, COMMISSIONER AL-TURK, AND COMMISSIONER BAKER. >> YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT. IF WE DRAW WATER FROM THE ENO RIVER, WILL WE HAVE TREATMENT IMPACTS? IN OTHER WORDS, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TREATMENT FACILITIES THAT ARE SET UP TO TREAT WHAT WE EXPECT TO GET OUT OF THE WATER SOURCES THAT THEY DRAW FROM. IF WE ADD THE ENO RIVER, WHICH WAS DURHAM'S ORIGINAL WATER SOURCE MANY YEARS AGO AND NOT A VERY GOOD ONE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DISCHARGE UP STREAM, IT'S A DIRTIER SOURCE THAN THE OTHERS, UH, WILL WE HAVE TO CHANGE OUR TREATMENT AT WILLIAMS — I UH GUESS THAT'S WHERE THIS WATER WILL GO? >> UM, SO, THE SHORT ANSWER IS I'M NOT CERTAIN, BUT MORE COMPLETE ANSWER IS THAT, UM, SO YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THE WATER WITHIN THE ENO RIVER IS LIKELY DIFFERENT FROM THE WATER THAT'S IN LAKE MICKIE OR LITTLE RIVER RESERVOIR. WHAT'S ACTUALLY MORE DIFFERENT IS THE WATER THAT'S ALREADY NOW IN THE QUARY.

BUT BEFORE WE DO ANY OF THIS WORK, WE'LL BE DOING WATER QUALITY STUDIES AND TREATABILITY STUDIES. SO IF THERE ARE ANY REQUIRED CHANGES IN TREATMENT OR IF THERE IS PRETREATMENT THAT'S REQUIRED, ALL THAT WILL BE FIGURED OUT BEFORE ANYHING'S PUMPED. >> AND SO — AND WILL THERE BE BASED UPON THE REGULATORY CHANGES AND ALSO THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTING THESE FACILITIES AND OPERATING THEM CHANGES ON IN HOW IMPACTS ON THE RECREATION QUALITY OF OUR ENO RIVER BASE PARKS AND IS THERE WILDLIFE IMPACT WHICH YOU DON'T NORMALLY HEAR ME ASK ABOUT BUT I'M A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT IT THIS TIME. >> NO. THE OPERATING RULINGS THAT WE'VE COME UP WITH, WE WORKED ON THAT IN COLLABORATION WITH THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES, WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION, AND U.S. FISH AWILDLIFE UH SERVICE. EVERYBODY IS GOOD WITH IT. >> ENO RIVER ASSOCIATION? >> I'VE ATTENDED THE ENO RIVER USERS GROUP TWO MONTHS AGO. THE ENO RIVER, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS THERE, AND WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE HAD PROPOSED DOING AND EVERYONE WAS OKAY WITH IT.

>> AL RIGHT. THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S WHAT I HAD. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER AL-TURK. >> THANK YOU. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS RELATED TO WHAT COMMISSIONER MILLER JUST ASKED, BUT ON THAT LAST SLIDE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO PROPOSE A HALF MILE CRITICAL AREA FROM THE PROPOSED INTAKE; IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO HAS THAT BEEN DISCUSSED WITH SOME OF THE GROUPS THAT TYPICALLY LIKE THE ENO RIVER ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS? >> NOT YET.

INFANCY. >> OKAY. PLAN ON DOING THAT BEFORE YOU START WRITING TEXT AMENDMENT OR KIND OF BETWEEN THAT AND THE TIME WE SEE IT? IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE THEM KIND OF EARLY PROVIDE SOME FEEDBACK EARLY ON. >> GOOD IDEA. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER BAKER. >> JUST GOING TO ASK IF A GREEN ROOF COUNTS AS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA? >> TECHNICALLY THAT'S A STORMWATER QUESTION WHICH IS A WHOLE OTHER DEPARTMENT/DIVISION. MY UNDERSTANDING IS GREEN ROOFS, I DON'T KNOW HOW EXACTLY THEY'RE TREATED IN TRMS OF CREDIT THAT'S ALLOWED AND TYPICALLY THIS HAS TO DO WITH NUTRIENTS. AS FAR AS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, I'M GOING GUESS THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS, IT'S IMPERVIOUS. >> OKAY. IS IT PSSIBLE TO TRANSFER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA CREDITS FROM ONE PARCEL TO ANOTHER PARCEL? >> IT IS. IT HAS TO B WITHIN THE SAME WATER SHED CLASSIFICATION. WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE EA TO THE EA OR EB TO TE EB. >> OKAY. DO YOU THINK THERE COULD BE SME SORT OF SIMILAR — SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH THE SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE IF YOU UH DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT? DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE? >> I WILL SAY THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT ARE NOT STATE MANDATED THAT ARE IN THIS AND THAT MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS ONE OF THEM.

FUEL SALE PROHIBITION IS ANOTHER. THERE ARE PROBABLY OPTIONS, DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE STANDING HERE AT THIS VERY MOMENT, BUT THIS IS CERTAINLY REFLECTING OF A OLDER TIME. J SURE, SURE. JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO EXPLORE. >> THE ENO IS EVEN WHEN THIS WAS ESTABLISHED 25 YEARS AGO WAS ALREADY PRETTY WELL DEVELOPED. IN OUR OTHER WATERSHEDS WHICH ARE MUCH BIGGER AND LESS DEVELOPMENT, WE ACTUALLY GET MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TRANSFERS IN THOSE AREAS. >> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? THANK YOU BOTH FOR AN EXCELLENT AND VERY INFORMATIVE PRESENTATION. >> NEW AND DIFFERENT. >> NEW AND A DIFFERENT. AND THAT'S OUR LAST ITEM. MOTION TO ADJOURN..

As found on YouTube

PEOPLE – SERVICES – IMPACT