Durham Planning Commission September 10, 2013


>>>GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO THE DURHAM PLANNING COMMISSION. THE MEMBERS OF THE DURHAM PLANNING COMMISSION ARE AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. THE ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON ANY ISSUE BEFORE US TONIGHT. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT, GO TO THE TABLE TO MY LEFT AND SIGN UP TO SPEAK. FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS CLEARLY WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. THOSE WISHING TO FAVOR OR OPPOSITION TO AN ITEM WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES TO PRESENT EACH SIDE. THE TIME WILL BE DIVIDED AMONGST ALL WISHING TO SPEAK. IF YOU HERE OPPOSING REZONING TONIGHT YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF A PROTEST PETITION. IT CAN BE VERY HELPFUL TO THOSE RESIDENTS IN THE REZONING AREA. PLEASE CONSULT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF FOR ANY DETAILS ON THE PROTEST PETITION, AND THEY’LL BE HAPPY TO HELP YOU. YOU SHOULD KEEP IN CONSTANT TOUCH WITH THE DEPARTMENT AS TO WHEN IT GOES BEFORE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR A FINAL VOTE. FINALLY, ALL THE MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. IF A MOTION FAILS OR TIES, THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR DENIAL. THANK YOU. CAN WE HAVE ROLL CALL? [ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GO FURTHER, I WANT TO WELCOME THE TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER HUFF AND WALTERS THERE AT THE END. WE WANT TO WELCOME THEM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WE’LL MOVE ON DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM 3, ADJUSTMENT TO THE AGENDA.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. PAT YOUNG WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AS YOUR VICE CHAIR REMINDED ME TONIGHT ACCORDING TO YOUR BYLAWS IS ELECTIONS FOR YOUR CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. YOU CAN VOTE TONIGHT OR TALK IT OVER, BUT WE NEED TO CONSIDER IT SINCE THE BYLAWS REQUIRE THAT THE SEPTEMBER MEETING BE WHEN THAT’S CONSIDERED. ALSO, I WANT LIKE TO QUICKLY CERTIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT HAVE BEEN ADVERTISING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AND THERE ARE AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EFFECT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THANKS.>>THANK YOU. CAN WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES?>>SO MOVED.>>SECOND.>>SO MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ALL THOUGH IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED LET IT BE KNOWN BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND.>>MOTION IS PASSED WITH 11-0.>>THANK YOU. WE’LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR HOPE CROSSING II PLANNED AMENDMENT CASE FOR A INTERESTS # 30004 AND ZONING CASE Z INTERESTS 1300011.>>>GOOD EVENING. I’M WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS PLAN AMENDMENT CASE A INTERESTS 1300004. THE APPLICANT, STEWART ENGINEERING, PROPOSED TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN EAST DURHAM FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED JUST EAST OF JUNCTION ROAD, NORTH OF INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, AND WEST OF TWIN LAKES PARK. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES IN SIZE. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERNS THAN THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. THE PROPOSED USE IS A REASONABLE TRANSITION BETWEEN TRIL LAND TO THE NORTH AND EXISTING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE WEST AND SOUTH. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE PROPOSED LAND USE WILL ALSO PROVIDE AN INCREASED OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEMAND OF FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEMAND IN EAST DURHAM. HERE ARE THE FOUR CRITERIA USED BY PLANNING STAFF TO EVALUATE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS. LET’S LOOK AT THE FIRST. IS THE PROPOSED USE CONSISTENT WITH ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES? STAFF CONCURS WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THE PROPOSAL SUPPORTS ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. IT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING URBAN SERVICES AND AVOIDS LEAPFROG NONCONTIGUOUS SCATTERED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH AREA. THE SECOND CRITERIA IS THE PROPOSED LAND USE CAPACITY I BELIEVE WITH EXISTING AND/OR FUTURE LAND USE PATTERNS. AS WE SEE IN THE PICTURE, THE LAND TO THE NORTH IS DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL. MUCH OF THAT LAND IS VACANT. THE LAND TO THE NORTHEAST IS DESIGNATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY IS AN EXISTING PARK. TO THE WEST AND SOUTH ARE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES. THE THIRD CRITERIA, DOES THE PROPOSED LAND USE CREATE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS? THE INDUSTRIAL — THE PROPOSAL PROVIDES AN EFFECTIVE TRANSITION FROM THE INDUSTRIAL LANDS NORTH OF THE SITE AND THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO THE EAST AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH. ALSO, ACCORDING TO THE RECENTLY COMPLETED DURHAM INDUSTRIAL LAND STUDY, THE DURHAM PLANNING DEPARTMENT DID NOT CONCLUDE THAT ANY OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WERE PRIME INDUSTRIAL LANDS. THEREFORE, THERE WOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS. THE FIFTH CRITERIA, THE SITE ADEQUATE IN SHAPE AND SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED LAND USE? YES, IT’S ROUGHLY 30 ACRES, AND IT IS A SUFFICIENT SIZE AND SHAPE TO ACCOMMODATE LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE SUBURBAN TIER. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSAL MEETS ALL CRITERIA, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. MISS WOLF, THAT COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION. MISS WOLF WILL PRESENT THE ASSOCIATED ZONING CODE.>>GOOD EVENING. AMY WOLF WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THIS IS ZONING CASE Z1300011. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OKAY. THIS CASE HOPE CROSSING II, THE APPLICANT IS STEWART ENGINEERING. THIS IS MOSTLY IN THE CITY’S JURISDICTION. AT THIS TIME THERE IS A 0.29 ACRE SLIVER THAT’S CURRENTLY IN THE COUNTY’S JURISDICTION. THERE IS A PENDING ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST, AND THEY’LL ALL CATCH UP AT THE NEXT — AT THE GOVERNING BODY HEARING. THEY SHOULD CATCH UP AND BE HEARD AT THE SAME TIME. THE REQUEST IS FROM A NUMBER OF EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS, INDUSTRIAL LIGHT, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN MULTIFAMILY WITH A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN 8 WITH A RESIDENTIAL PLAN, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN 8 NO RESIDENTIAL PLAN AND RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN 20. TO THE REQUESTED DISTRICT OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL 6.000, THE SITE IS 29.914 ACRES AND THE PROPOSED USE IS FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. THE SITE IS COMPRISED OF FOUR PARCELS AT 299 CHORLEY ROAD SOUTH OF JUNCTION ROAD SHOWN TO THE NORTH AND NORTH OF INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, WHICH IS JUST SOUTH OF THIS RED GRAPHIC HERE. IT ISN’T IN THE SUBURBAN TIER. IT’S IN THE WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY. IT IS IN THE EASTERN DURHAM OPEN SPACE PLAN. IT IS ADJACENT TO TWIN LAKES PARK, AS YOU SAW IN MS. WOODS’ PRESENTATION. THERE IS ALSO SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST. THE REQUEST SATISFIES THE STANDARDS FOR THE PDR REQUEST, THE REQUESTED DISTRICT. THEY ARE SPECIFYING A MAXIMUM OF 6 UNITS PER ACRE ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH EQUALS 128 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THIS SITE ARE SHOWN HERE. THERE IS A STREAM IDENTIFIED RUNNING EAST-WEST THROUGH THE SITE. THERE’S ALSO A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FOLLOWING THE STREEMENT. IT IS IDENTIFIED WITH A BUFFER. THERE ARE SOME WETLANDS ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE. THE SITE IS MOSTLY WOODED. THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF THE PLAN. IT HAS SEVERAL ACCESS POINTS, ONE ON CHORELY ROAD, THAT LEADS UP TO JUNCTION ROAD, AND ONE TO — I CAN’T QUITE READ IT. TO DODSON STREET AS AN EXISTING ROAD THAT’S GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO BE CLOSED AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE AND MANSFIELD IS THE OTHER CONNECTION. THERE’S ALSO A PROPOSED ROAD THROUGH THE SITE, MIDLAND TERRACE EXTENSION, WHICH WILL ALSO PROVIDE ACCESS. IT DOES SHOW A POTENTIAL STREAM CROSSI CROSSING ASSOCIATED WITH MIDLAND TERRACE EXTENSION. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS SHOWN ON THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE ONTO THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALONG WITH THAT, THERE’S A NUMBER OF COMMITMENTS. I MAY HAVE MENTIONED SOME OF THEM. A MAXIMUM OF 128 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ONE POTENTIAL STREAM CROSSING, FOUR EXTERNAL AND TWO INTERNAL SITE ACCESS POINTS. THE INTERNAL SITE ACCESS POINTS ARE SHOWN ON TO MITT LAND TERRACE EXTENSION. THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS 7% AT THE SITE AND TREE PRESERVATION IS SHOWN AT 20%. THERE’S GRAPHIC COMMITMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, WHICH INCLUDE THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ACCESS POINTS AND THE LOCATION OF TREE PRESERVATION AREAS. THERE’S A NUMBER OF COMMITMENTS AS WELL AS, DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCTION — I’M SUMMARIZING HERE — CONSTRUCTION OF CHORLY ROAD FROM THE JUNCTION TO SITE, MANSFIELD AVENUE CONSTRUCTION WITH SIDEWALK FROM BELMONT TO THE SITE AS WELL AS I MENTIONED THE STREET CLOSING APPLICATION FOR DODSON STREET. THERE’S SOME DESIGN COMMITMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUEST. WHAT THIS DOES IS ALLOW THE RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES TO BE DECIDED LATER. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DOES NOT REQUIRE DESIGN COMMITMENTS TO BE MADE AT THE ZONING STAGE. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THEY’RE HERE, THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION TO DO SINGLE FAMILY BUT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO OTHER HOUSING TYPES. OTHER MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING TYPES IF THAT IS THE END PRODUCT. THIS REQUEST, AGAIN, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. YOU HEARD THE PRESENTATION BY MISS WOODS. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR OTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT APPLY TO THIS SITE, AND IF THE PLAN AMENDMENT IS APPROVED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMICABLE — APPLICABLE POLICIES AND ORDINANCES. I’LL LEAVE THE MAP UP IF YOU NEED TO LOOK AT IT.>>OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES.>>GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN JONES, AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS GEORGE STAVIEL WITH STEWART. I LIVE IN DURHAM. I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A — I WON’T BORE YOU WITH ALL THE FACTS, BECAUSE THE STAFF DID A GREAT JOB IN GIVING YOU REALLY ALL THE BACKGROUND THAT YOU NEED. I DID WANT TO TALK TO YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HABITAT AND WHAT — WHAT ITS MISSION IS. IT BEGAN ITS WORK HERE IN DURHAM IN 1985. EACH YEAR HABITAT HAS THE OVER 20 HOMES IN THE DURHAM COMMUNITY BY HABITAT STAFF. THERE’S STAFF MEMBERS THAT BUILD THESE HOMES AS WELL AS COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE PARTNERS. CORPORATE VOLUNTEERS. THE GOAL IS TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER OF HOMES TO 30 TO 35 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS PER YEAR. THE HOMES AVERAGE 1200 SQUARE FEET AND ARE SOLD AT AN AVERAGE OF $110,000. THESE ARE DONE THROUGH NO-INTEREST LOANS. FUTURE HOMEOWNERS SELECT INTERIOR FEATURES AND ARE MANY TIMES VOLUNTEERS DURING THE BUILDING PROCESS INVESTING THEIR OWN SWEAT EQUITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE HOUSES. THE HOMEOWNER IS EXPECTED TO PAY APPROXIMATELY $525 A MONTH ON THEIR LOANS. TO DATE, HABITAT HAS HELPED OVER 600 FAMILIES, BOTH IN DURHAM AND ABROAD. SO WE’VE MADE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY. YOU SEE HERE SOME OF THE HOMES THAT ARE BUILT. MOST OF THE HOMES LOOK LIKE THIS. THEY’RE VERY NICELY DONE. THEY’RE DONE WITH AWESOME VOLUNTEERS THAT WORK VERY LONG AND HARD TO BUILT THESE HOMES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. THEY’RE GREEN HOMES, SO THERE’S A LOT OF ENERGY CONSERVATION. HABITAT WORKS WITH MANY, MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS, CIVIC AND CORPORATE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY TO TRANSFORM COMMUNITY, REALLY. OUR FOCUS HAS BEEN IN EAST DURHAM. HERE YOU SEE SOME OF THE SPONSORS THAT HAVE — THAT ARE PART OF THE HABITAT MISSION. YOU’VE SEEN WHERE THE SITE IS. THE SUBDIVISION — THE SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTHEAST THERE IS ACTUALLY HOPE CROSSING I, SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. AGAIN, LAND USE REQUEST IS FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 4 TO 8 UNITS PER ACRE, WE’RE COMMITTING TO 6 UNITS PER ACRE. ON THE RIGHT-HAND IMAGE THERE’S A SIMILAR LAND USE JUST ADJACENT. FROM THE ZONING PERSPECTIVE, AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS FOR PDR-6 FOR UP TO 128 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING THE SITE. AGAIN, YOU SEE HOPE CROSSING I THERE. THAT’S A GENERALLY BUILT OUT COMMUNITY NOW WITH ITS OWN FUNCTIONING HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND HOPE CROSSING II WOULD BE AN EXTENSION OF THAT EXISTING COMMUNITY. THE LAST THING IS THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, YOU KNOW, HAVE A GREAT INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AS MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE HEARD AND A NUMBER OF OUR PAST CASES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN REQUESTS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPERS TO INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. SO HABITAT IS ONE OF THE KEY PARTICIPANTS IN THE EFFORT OF BRINGING AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE COMMUNITY, AND WE JUST ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I HAVE WITH ME HERE BLAKE STRAYHORN, OUR PRESIDENT AND CEO OF HABITAT. RAISE YOUR HAND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE HAD TWO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, NEITHER OF WHICH WERE REQUIRED. YOU KNOW, WE FEEL LIKE WE’VE WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND LET THEM KNOW, YOU KNOW, IN DETAIL THE PROCESS, WHAT ARE OUR INTENTIONS WERE AND SO FORTH. SO I’LL LEAVE IT AT THAT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE DON’T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. I’LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I’LL BRING IT BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS. MR. HARRIS.>>TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, YOU INDICATED YOU HAD TWO MEETINGS. HOW WELL WERE THEY ATTENDED BY THE RESIDENTS? THE SECOND QUESTION TO STAFF, WERE THE RESIDENTS NOTIFIED ON THE MEETING TONIGHT?>>I’M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE SPEAKING WITH THEM. FIRST MEETING WE HAD PROBABLY 15 RESIDENTS OR SO. THERE WERE MEMBERS OF THE — THERE WERE A FEW MEMBERS OF THE HOPE I COMMUNITY. THERE WAS SOME OTHER JUST RESIDENTS FROM AROUND THE SITE. ALSO, MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE SITE THAT OWNS A PIECE OF LAND, ACTUALLY, JUST SOUTH OF JUNCTION ROAD AND WEST OF CHORLEY ROAD. WE HAD ANOTHER — THAT WAS DONE PROBABLY THROUEE OR FOUR MONTHS AGO PRIOR TO US SUBMITTING FOR THE APPLICATION, AND THEN A COUPLE WEEKS — LAST WEEK WE HAD ANOTHER MEETING. WE TOLD THEM THAT WE WOULD COME BACK AND UPDATE THEM ON THE PROCESS, WHERE WE WERE, IF ANY CHANGES WERE MADE, AND WE DID THAT. I WOULD SAY THAT THERE WERE PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE RESIDENTS THAT WERE THERE, MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH AND A COUPLE OF RESIDENTS.>>COMMISSIONER — VICE CHAIR HARRIS, TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WERE THE RESIDENTS NOTIFIED, WE DO HAVE AFFIDAVITS ON RECORD THAT WE HAVE SATISFIED THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT, WHICH FOR THE PLAN AMENDMENT IS 1,000 FEET FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND TO R D.A.R.E. FOR — FOR THE ZONING 1,000 FEET. SO WE HAVE THAT ON FILE. THOSE LETTERS HAVE BEEN SENT. WE ALSO POST A ZONING PLACARD ON SITE AND DO THE NEWSPAPER AD.>>OKAY.>>ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANT TO SPEAK? MR. GIBBS AND MISS BEECHWOOD.>>JUST ONE QUESTION. HAS PARKS AND REC BEEN NOTIFIED OR SPOKEN TO, SINCE THIS ABUTS THEIR PROPERTY? I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEIR — HOW THEY CONTROL ACCESS TO PARKS.>>WELL, THEY’VE BEEN NOTIFIED BECAUSE THEY’RE AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. THEY DID NOT COME TO ANY OF THE MEETINGS. I FRANKLY IN ALL MY YEARS HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM COME TO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, WHEN THEY WERE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. MIKE, ACCESS TO THAT PARK IS FROM WHERE?>>FROM — >>SO, YEAH, YOU KNOW, IT’S ACTUALLY FROM THE — YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SOUTHEAST, COMING UP FROM THE SOUTHEAST.>>YEAH. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. AT FIRST I THOUGHT THERE — WELL, THERE IS PLENTY OF VEGETATION SEPARATING THESE, SO THAT’S TAI– I SEE THAT FROM TH AERIAL VIEW, SO THAT LOOKS FINE.>>ALSO ON THE SITE, AS AMY SAID, THERE’S A VERY SIGNIFICANT STREAM THAT RUNS THROUGH THE MIDDLE WITH VERY SIGNIFICANT BUFFERS. SO IT’S LIKELY, EVEN THOUGH WE TALKED ABOUT A POTENTIAL STREAM CROSSING, IT’S UNLIKELY THAT WE WILL DO THAT, AND THIS PROJECT WILL BE BUILT IN TWO PIECES, ONE TO THE NORTH AND ONE TO THE SOUTH WITH ACCESS FROM BOTH SIDES.>>AND THAT REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING. WHERE IS MIDLAND TERRACE DRIVE ROAD OR WHATEVER? I KNOW THE NAME OF THIS ROAD IS GOING TO BE AN EXTENSION, BUT IT JUST SOUNDS FAMILIAR TO ME.>>I’M SORRY. LET ME FIND IT. [ INAUDIBLE ]>>IF YOU LOOK AT THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE GREEN SITE THERE, THE ENTIRE RIDE — RIGHT-HAND SIDE, THERE’S A RIGHT-OF-WAY WE’RE PROVIDING THAT WILL RUN ESSENTIALLY ALONG THE ENTIRE RIGHT-HAND SIDE ALL THE WAY UP TO THE MAIN ROAD. WE’RE DEDICATING VARIOUS WIDTHS TO ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF BUILDING THAT ROAD IS. WE’RE DEDICATING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.>>I KNOW WHERE THE PROPOSED DEDICATED ROADWAY IS, BUT IT’S BEING CALLED MIDLAND TERRACE EXTENSION. WHERE IS MIDLAND TERRACE ROAD ITSELF?>>IT CROSSES OVER CAMDEN.>>MAYBE TRANSPORTATION CAN ANSWER THAT.>>DO YOU KNOW WHERE DUPONT DRIVE IS ? IF YOU TAKE IT SOUTH IT BECOMES THERE.>>IT CROSSES OVER CAMDEN AND GEAR STREET TO CHEEK. IT CROSSES OVER THAT WAY.>>I KNEW I HEARD OF IT BEFORE. I DIDN’T KNOW IF IT WAS A DUPLICATION. THAT’S ALL. THANK YOU.>>MISS BEECHWOOD.>>I HAD A QUESTION FOR GEORGE. YOU MENTIONED DURING YOUR TALK THAT PRIVATE DEVELOPERS WERE LOOKING TO TRY AND COORDINATE AND WORK WITH YOU WITH THE HABITAT PROJECTS. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO SAY?>>NO. I WAS JUST SAYING THAT THE VOLUNTEERS THAT HELP BUILD HABITAT HOMES COME FROM, YOU KNOW, CORPORATIONS, INDIVIDUALS, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES. SO THERE’S A GREAT DEAL OF THE LABOR THAT’S PUT INTO THESE HOMES ARE FROM PEOPLE VOLUNTEERING THEIR TIME, CORPORATIONS.>>ABSOLUTELY, YES.>>I WANTED TO REMIND IF THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS WEREN’T AWARE OF IT THAT THE HABITAT HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN RECENT YEARS, AND REALLY ALL ALONG THEY HAVE. THE QUALITY OF HOUSING AND ESPECIALLY THE QUALITY OF THE GREEN FEATURES OF THE HOUSING ARE A TREND-SETTER AND A BENCHMARK FOR OTHER LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS. THE QUALITY IS SHOCKINGLY GOOD. SO THESE — I DON’T DOUBT FOR A MINUTE THEY’LL BE QUALITY HOME AND VERY MUCH APPRECIATED AND VERY MUCH NEEDED.>>I’M VERY PROUD TO SAY THAT I’M A BOARD MEMBER AT HABITAT, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.>>ALL RIGHT. MAY WE — COMMISSIONER WHITLEY.>>YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO TELL YOU HOW PROUD OF HABITAT AND THE WORK THAT ITS DONE IN EAST DURHAM.>>THANK YOU.>>WHEN I WAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKING AT THIS, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS TOLD ME THAT THAT LAND FLOODS A LOT. SO — AND I’M THINKING YOU WON’T BE PUTTING IN TREES BUT CUTTING DOWN TREES.>>THERE’S A VERY SMALL PIECE OF FLOODPLAIN UP IN THE VERY NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE. OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN’T BUILD THERE. THERE’S ALSO, AS I SAID, A VERY SIGNIFICANT STREAM THAT RUNS THROUGH ESSENTIALLY NORTHWEST TO SOUTHEAST THROUGH THE SITE WITH VERY, VERY LARGE BUFFERS. MY SENSE IS THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME, YOU KNOW, FLOODING DOWN THROUGH THE CREEK AND THERE’S BUFFERS. AS FAR AS THE LAND THAT’S DEVELOPABLE, THAT’S NOT A PROBLEM. OF COURSE, WE’LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH STORM WATER RUNOFF AND BMPs AND SO FORTH.>>ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION — I’LL MAKE THE MOTION ON THE MAP CHANGE FIRST AND THEN COME BACK TO — OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE Z1300011, THE PLANNING AMENDMENT FIRST? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I’D LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION. HOPE CROSSING — I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE HOPE CROSSING II, A1300004.>>SECONDED.>>SO MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL RIGHT.>>MOTION HAS BEEN PASSED 11-0.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. A MOTION ON THE ZONING CASE.>>I’D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER Z1300011.>>SECOND.>>SO MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOWN BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT H HAND. ANY OPPOSED?>>THE MOTION PASSES 11-0.>>ALL RIGHT. REPEAT THAT WITH THE MIKE ON.>>THE MOTION HAS BEEN PASSED 11-0.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE’LL MOVE DOWN TO ITEM 6 A, MINERAL SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL, CASE Z1300001.>>AMY WOLF AGAIN WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I’M PRESENTING THE NEXT ZONING CASE FOR YOU. MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD RESIDENTIAL CASE Z INTERESTS 1300001. THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE IS THE CITY OF DURHAM THROUGH EDAM LAMBS CORP. THIS IS PRESENTLY IN THE COUNTY’S JURISDICTION AND ALSO HAS AN ANNEXATION AND A UTILITY EXTENSION AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST. THIS ZONING WILL BECOME THE INITIAL ZONING OF THE PROPERTY AND THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER IT ALL AT THE SAME MEETING. THE REQUEST IS FROM PLAN DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL 4.000 AND RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN 20 AND RESIDENTIAL RURAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL 4.180. TOTAL ACREAGE IS 9.09 AND THE PROPOSED USE IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE REQUEST IS TWO PARCELS AT 1525 AND 1607 SOUTH MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD. IT’S SOUTH OF DELMAR DRIVE, WHICH IS WHERE MY POINTER IS NOW. IT ALSO HAS FRONTAGE ON CALLENDALE LANES. THERE ARE — AGAIN, THERE’S TWO LOTS. THIS IS IN THE SUBURBAN TIER. THERE IS A BIKE PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES A BIKE LANE ALONG SOUTH MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD. IT’S IN THE EASTERN DURHAM OPEN SPACE PLAN AND THE LITTLE CREEK OPEN SPACE STUDY. THERE’S NO SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS OF THOSE LATTER PLANS, BUT THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BIKE PLAN FOR’ PROPOSED LANE ON MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD. I INDICATE ON THE STAFF REPORT THAT THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL WOULD ALLOW FOR 13 LOTS. THAT WAS JUST FOR THE PDR PORTION. IN TOTAL THE SITE WOULD ACCOMMODATE 25 TOTAL LOTS EXISTING. IS THE REQUEST DOES MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. THE REQUESTED ZONING IS 4.180, WHICH COULD, IF DEVELOPED UNDER 24%, IMPRO I AM PERVIOUS SURFAC. THE EXISTING PARTS OF THE SITE ARE SHOWN HERE. THE PORTION OF THE ROAD IS CLEARED. THERE IS A STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION, THE REAR OF THE PROPERTIES, WHICH FRONT ON CALLENDALE LANE, AND THEY ARE TREE-COVERED. THERE’S A STREAM AND EXISTING POND AS WELL ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE. THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS. IT SHOWS YOUR SITE ACCESS POINTS. THERE’S THREE OF THEM. ONE ON CALLENDALE AND ONE TO THE RR PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY AS WELL AS A PEDESTRIAN-ONLY ACCESS ON THE SOUTH MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD. IT DOES SHOW A POTENTIAL STREAM CROSSING AND ANOTHER OF COMMITMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE A MAXIMUM OF 33 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. THE STREAM CROSSING, THE ACCESS POINTS I MENTIONED, THE MAXIMUM OF 70% I AM PERVIOUS SURFACE. IF THE STREAM BUFFER WAS INCREASED TO 100 FEET, AND ALSO TREE PRESERVATION AT 20% MINIMUM. EVERYTHING SHOWN ON THE PLAN IS A COMMITTED ELEMENT. THERE’S A GRAPHIC COMMITMENT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TEXT COMMITMENTS, INCLUDING THE HOUSING TYPE OF FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ONTO SOUTH MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD TO ACCOMMODATE A 40-FOOT WIDTH FROM THE CENTERLINE AS WELL AS THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION SHOWN ON THE GRAPHIC. THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IT IS A RANGE FROM 4 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND ALSO THE OTHER CONDITIONS APPLICABLE POLICIES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE SATISFIED OR THIS PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT AS WELL. SO STAFF DETERMINES THAT THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPLICABLE POLICIES AND ORDINANCES. I’LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TONIGHT. JARED EATON. YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES.>>GOOD EVENING. MY OFFICE IS 2124 PAGE ROAD IN DURHAM. I’M REPRESENTING THE CLIENTS WHO ARE THE PROPER OWNERS OF THE TWO TRACTS IN QUESTION. I APPRECIATE AMY’S SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT. I’LL TOUCH ON AND REITERATE A COUPLE POINTS AND NOT TAKE UP TOO MUCH OF THE TIME. WE’RE CALLING FOR 4.18 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF LOTS OF 33 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. I DO WANT TO TOUCH ON — I THINK IT’S ON PAGE 3 OF THE STAFF REPORT AT THE TOP WHERE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE STREAM BUFFER WITH 50 FEET VERSUS 100 FEET. YOU KNOW, 50 FEET IS SHOWN ON THE PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT THE REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTH IS NOR IMPERVIOUS UP TO 24%. AT THIS TIME NOT KNOWING WHO THE END USER IS AND KNOWING HOW MUCH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS THERE WILL BE BECAUSE THE SITE IS NOT DESIGNED YET, WE WON’T KNOW UNTIL SITE PLAN STAGE WHERE THE BUFFER IS 50 FEET OR 100 FEET. IF WE GO OVER 24% IMPERVIOUS ON THE BUFFER, BUT THE REQUIRED MINIMUM IS A 50 FOOT BUFFER. AMY MENTIONED THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION AT THE MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD. I WANT TO POINT OUT OF THE 20% OF THE SITE TREE COVERED, WE’RE COMMITTED TO THAT BEING TREE PRESERVATION. WE’RE NOT TEARING DOWN TREES ONLY TO REGRADE AND PLANT TREES IN ITS PLACE. WE’RE GOING TO SAVE 20% OF THE TREE COVERAGE OF THE PROPERTY. STREAMS AND WETLANDS WERE TLIN YATED BY THE CONSULTANT AND VERIFIED BY THE CITY OF DURHAM AND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IN MARCH. VERY FEW ATTENDEES. THERE WERE TWO COUPLES WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING. I RECEIVED NO OPPOSITION, NO CONTACT FROM ANYONE SINCE THAT TIME. I LIVE IN THIS PART OF DURHAM. I THINK THE PROJECT FITS VERY WELL WITH WHAT’S GOING ON MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD. IT’S SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY ASHTON HALL, WHICH IS A SIMILAR PRODUCT AND LOT SIZE TO WHAT YOU SEE ON THIS PROPERTY. TO ME, IT’S JUST FILLING IN THE MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE THERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I’D BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK? NO? CAN WE GET A MOTION? SORRY. COMMISSIONER HUFF.>>I’M CURIOUS ABOUT THIS ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY YOU ALL DON’T OWN. IS THAT JUST A RIGHT-OF-WAY YOU’RE PUTTING IN THERE OR A STUB-OUT? WHAT IS IT?>>IT’S A CODE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ACCESS — I THINK THE CODE SAYS ALL FOUR CARDINAL DIRECTIONS, BECAUSE STAFF AND I DISCUSS THIS OFTEN. SO WHAT WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO BY STAFF WAS TO JUST SHOW A RIGHT-OF-WAY CONNECTION. I DIDN’T WANT TO COMMIT TO BUILDING A ROAD THAT STOPS AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE’S PROPERTY LINE, BECAUSE I WOULDN’T LIKE THAT AND I’M SURE THEY WOULDN’T LIKE THAT. STAFF AFWREEED TO ALLOW A RIGHT-OF-WAY IF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WANTED TO REDEVELOP OR GET A DRIVEWAY ONTO THE ROAD, THEY’LL HAVE ACCESS TO IT. IF NOT, IT WILL JUST REMAIN GREEN.>>THANK YOU.>>COMMISSIONER GIBBS.>>MY QUESTION AND YOU PARTIALLY ANSWERED IT ABOUT THE STREAM BUFFER AND DENSITY. WOULD THAT BE A COMMITMENT — I’M NOT ASKING FOR ONE. I’M ASKING THE QUESTION. DEPENDING ON THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THE 33 UNITS WITH THE 24% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, THOSE TWO RATIOS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS A COMMITMENT ALONG THE WAY?>>THE COMMITMENT IS TO A MAXIMUM OF 33 UNITS, AND YOU KNOW, I GUESS I SLIGHTLY DISAGREE THAT THE STAFF REPORT SAYS TO DEVELOP 33 UNITS YOU END UP WITH — IF YOU HAVE A 11 HUNDR — 100-FOOT BUFFER, YOU CAN’T HAVE 33 UNITS. UNTIL THE FINAL DESIGN IS PERFORMED, WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY LOTS FIT IN THERE. WHAT I’M COMMITTING TO IS IT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE STANDARDS FROM THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED. TO WE ARE MAXED AT 33. YOU’RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO 33. WE’RE JUST MAXED AT 33. IF WE DO THE CALCULATIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND WE’RE OVER 24% IMPERVIOUS, WHICH IS DEPENDENT ON THE END USER, BUILDER, WHAT KIND OF HOMES THEY WANT TO BUILD, I DON’T KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW, HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS TOO YOU NEED PER LOT, BUT IF YOU ADD IT UP, THEN THE STREAM BUFFER WOULD BECOME 100 FEET WIDE.>>TO STAFF, DOES THIS SQUARE WITH — >>YEAH.>>YES, THE — I DID A BACK OF THE ENVELOPE CALCULATION, AND IT JUST BASED ON VERY ROUGH FIGURES IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU DOUBLED THE EXISTING BUFFER, YOU MIGHT LOSE A LOT OR TWO. THAT’S CONSIDERING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET. SO I DON’T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT BACK ON THE ENVELOPE CALCULATIONS SAYS A UNIT OR TWO MIGHT BE LOST. IF IT WERE OVER 24%.>>I DON’T KNOW IF WE MAY GET INTO AN ISSUE WITH THE 50 FOOT VERSUS 100 FOOT BUFFER, WHICH WOULD IMPACT YOUR PROJECT. ANYWAY, I THINK YOU’VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION PRETTY GOOD. THANK YOU.>>ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER HARRIS.>>AMY, WERE ALL THE NOTIFICATIONS SENT OUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY ALSO?>>YES, SIR, THEY WERE.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IF WE DON’T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, WE CAN GET A MOTION.>>I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING CASE Z INTERESTS 1300001.>>I’M SECOND.>>SO MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOWN BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL RIGHT.>>MOTION HAS PASSED 11-0.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE’LL MOVE DOWN TO HUTSON PROPERTY CASE, Z1300010.>>AMY WOLF AGAIN WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. OUR FINAL ZONING MAP CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE EVENING IS HUTSON PROPERTY, CASE Z1300010. THE APPLICANT IS DAVIS MOORE CAPITAL. THIS IS WITHIN THE CITY’S JURISDICTION AND IT’S FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN 20 TO OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE SITE IS 7.99 ACRES AND FOR A PROPOSED USE OF UP TO 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. THE SITE IS ONE PARCEL AT 117 EAST NC-54 HIGHWAY. IT HAS FRONTAGE ON CROOKED CREEK PARKWAY TO THE NORTH. IT’S IN THE SUBURBAN TIER AND TRANSIT AREA. IT’S ALSO WITHIN THE WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR OVERLAY ASSOCIATED WITH INTERSTATE 40. THERE IS A CONDITION ON THE BIKE PLAN SHOWN THAT IMPACTS THIS SITE ALONG NC-54, AND THE APPLICANT AS I’LL GET TO HAS MADE SOME PROFFERS IN THAT REGARD. THIS PLAN DOES MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT AS SHOWN HERE, A SUMMARY ANYWAYS. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS DO SHOW THERE’S FLOODPLAIN ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE ASSOCIATED WITH AN OFFSITE STREAM. THE SITE HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CLEARED, BUT THERE ARE — THERE IS SOME VEGETATION ON THE FRINGE. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS SHOW THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, THE SITE ACCESS AREAS, ONE FROM 54, ONE FROM CROOKED CREEK PARKWAY DOES SHOW YOUR TREE PRESERVATION AREA, WHICH IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THE BUILDING ENVELOPE DOES STAY OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAINS. THERE’S A NUMBER OF COMMITMENTS. THE RANGE OF FLOOR AREA WILL BE FROM 50,000 TO 150,000 SQUARE FEET. THE TWO ACCESS POINTS, THEY’RE COMMITTING TO 60% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND 10% TREE PRESERVATION. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TRANSPORTATION COMMITMENTS, AS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE. THEY DO SATISFY THE BIKE PLAN PROPOSAL FOR THE BIKE LANE ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF 54, AND THEY DO MAKE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS PROFFER FOR THE EXISTING BUS STOP. THERE’S A NUMBER OF DESIGN COMMITMENTS FOR THIS NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECT. THE SUMMARY IS ON THIS SLIDE AS WELL AS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND COMPREHENSIVE LAND, THAT DESIGNATES THIS SITE AS OFFICE AND RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, WHICH MATCHES THE FLOODPLAIN LINE. THIS REQUEST DOES SATISFY OR IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND STAFF DETERMINES FOR THAT REASON CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPLICABLE POLICIES AND ORDINANCE, THIS SITE IS CONSISTENT. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I DON’T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. IS THAT CORRECT? YES? OKAY. I’M SORRY. COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME.>>GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS BOB ZIMWALT WITH McADAMS, AND I’M DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DESIGN GROUP. I’M HERE ON BEHALF OF DAVIS MOORE CAPITAL TONIGHT REPRESENTING THE PROJECT. AUSTIN IS HERE AS WELL AS EARL. AS AMY STATED, THIS IS ABOUT AN 8-ACRE SITE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 54th AND FAYE YELL VIT. IT ONCE CONTAINED A MOBILE HOME PARK. IT’S PART OF THE REASON IT WAS CLEARED NOW AND VACANT. THERE IS 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND STREAM ON THE EASTERN EDGE, AS AMY MENTIONED. WE’RE NOT PROPOSING ANY IMPACTS TO THE FLOODPLAIN OR ANY STREAM BUFFERS. WE’LL HAVE TO CONNECT TO SEWER AT SOME POINT DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SITE, BUT OUR BUILDING ENVELOPES AND PARKING ENVELOPES ARE ALL OUT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS. THIS IS KIND OF THE ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING SORT OF INFIELD PARCELS AT THIS KEY INTERSECTION AT FAYETTEVILLE AND 54. FOR THAT REASON, YOU KNOW, MY CLIENT BELIEVES THIS IS AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR A CLASS A OFFICE SPACE AND OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION. AS AMY MENTIONED, THE PLAN IS FOR OFFICE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE, AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE DOING. WHILE THE PLANS FOR THE SITE HAVEN’T BEEN FINALIZED, WE WILL BE SOMEWHERE PROBABLY IN THAT 100, 100,000-PLUS SQUARE FEET. I’M NOT QUITE SURE YET. ALL THE ACCESS IS SHOWN IN THERE. KIMLEY-HORNS COMPLETED A TRAFFIC STUDY REVIEWED BY D.O.T. AND THE CITY. ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STUDY WE’VE COMMITTED TO MAKING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE RESTRICTING OUR ACCESS TO 54 TO A RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT AND BUILDING THE BIKE LANE THROUGH THE FRONTAGE OF OUR SITE. WE’D ALSO DEDICATE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. IN AN EFFORT TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORS IN THE LOOP, WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WITH ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS BACK IN MARCH AT ONE OF THE NEARBY CHURCHES. WE HAVE TWO COUPLES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND THAT CAME AND THEN A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEX BEHIND THE KROGER. I’M NOT SURE WHAT IT’S CALLED NOW. IT CHANGES NAMES A LOT. MOST PEOPLE WERE REALLY JUST GLAD WE WEREN’T PROPOSING RETAIL. THERE WEREN’T A WHOLE LOT OF ISSUES, JUST THE QUESTION OF TIMING. WE HAVEN’T HAD ADDITIONAL CONCERNS COME TO OUR ATTENTION FROM THE NEIGHBORS SINCE THAT MEETING. IN CLOSING, I’D JUST WOULD POINT OUT A FEW OF THE COMMITMENTS THAT WE’RE MAKING THAT AMY MENTIONED. TRANSIT SHELTER AT THE BUS STOP ON 54, A CONNECTION FROM THE TRANSIT SHELTER INDOOR SITE, THE BIKE LANE, AND THE WIDENING ON 54 MAXIMUM OF 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND THEN A 30-FOOT WIDER BUFFER ALONG CROOKED CREEK PARKWAY. WE’RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE’D LOVE YOUR SPPT. AUSTIN IS HERE, AND HE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. HE DOESN’T NEED TO SPEAK UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTION. I HAD HIM SIGN UP SO HE’D BE AVAILABLE IF YOU NEEDED ANYTHING.>>OKAY. THANK YOU. WE WON’T FORCE HIM TO SPEAK EITHER, SO THAT’S PRETTY GOOD. WE DON’T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, AND I’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION. I HAVE COMMISSIONER DAVIS THAT WANTS TO SPEAK.>>I DID HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I THINK I ANSWERED IT BY JUST READING. STAFF CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 50 FEET, CORRECT?>>YES.>>THERE’S A BUILDING ALREADY — WELL, OKAY. SO I GUESS I KNOW THE HEIGHT MAXIMUM. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT.>>OKAY. ANY — OKAY. COMMISSIONER WINDERS.>>DID I SEE ON — IS THERE GOING TO BE A — DID YOU HAVE A MEDIAN STRIP ON 54th?>>YEAH. IN ORDER TO BUILD THE — TO RIDE IT OUT, WE WILL PUT A MEDIAN IN 54, YEAH.>>THAT WILL BE JUST A LITTLE CONCRETE THING?>>PROBABLY, A CONCRETE MEDIAN.>>IN THE MIDDLE?>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>THAT’S WHERE THEY ARE.>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>ALL RIGHT. CAN WE GET A MOTION? WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK.>>MR. CHAIR, I MOVE WE APPROVE ZONING CASE Z1300010, THE HUTSON PROJECT.>>ALL RIGHT. SECOND?>>SECONDED.>>SO MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOWN BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSITION?>>THE MOTION HAS BEEN APPROVED 11-0.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE MOVE DOWN TO ITEM 7 A, ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? WHAT DO WE HAVE NEXT MONTH, STAFF?>>GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS. I’LL LET SCOTT SUMMARIZE OUR NEXT MONTH’S CASES, BUT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT AT YOUR SEATS IN FRONT OF YOU IS A SIT SFWLENS GUIDE TO PLANNING FOURTH EDITION. THIS IS A CLASSIC TEXT IN THE FIELD. IT EXPLAINS PRINCIPLES OF PLANNING IN PLAIN ENGLISH, KIND OF WANTED TO PROVIDE THIS TO YOU AS A FOLLOW-UP FROM THE RETREAT LAST YEAR. PROBABLY NOT A LOT YOU TONIGHT KNOW AT THIS POINT, BUT IT’S A HANDY RESOURCE GUIDE. DO YOU WANT TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF NEXT MONTH’S AGENDA?>>WE HAVE THREE ZONING CASES SCHEDULED FOR NEXT MONTH.>>OKAY. WE THANK THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THIS PIECE OF LITERATURE. I’M SURE IT WILL COME IN HANDY. THERE’S NOT ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS, WE WILL MOVE DOWN TO ITEM 7B, WHICH IS THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I’LL ASK FOR ANY NOMINATIONS AND IF YOU RECALL NOMINATIONS TONIGHT NEED A SECOND. ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? THIS IS A ONE-YEAR TERM FROM NEXT MONTH’S MEETING THROUGH NEXT SEPTEMBER’S MEETING.>>I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, SINCE WE HAVE SOME NEW COMMISSIONERS ON, SO WE HAVE AN OPTION CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG TO SUSPENDED CURRENT RULE AND DO IT NEXT MONTH TO GIVE THEM TIME TO THINK IT THROUGH, SINCE WE DON’T HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS PER SE UNLESS EVERYONE IS ABSOLUTELY HAPPY WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW.>>THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT. YOU CAN VOTE TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND POSTPONE THIS TO ANY DATE YOU SEE FIT. YOU CAN ALSO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT. IT’S YOUR CHOICE.>>ANY OPEN COMMENTS?>>I HAVE A QUESTION.>>YES, MA’AM.>>WOULD YOU EXPLAIN AGAIN ABOUT THE CITY AND COUNTY.>>SURE. THE BYLAWS AND I BELIEVE THE INTERLOCAL AND THE BYLAWS CALL FOR THE CHAIRMANSHIP AND VICE CHAIRMANSHIP TO ALTERNATE EVERY TWO YEARS BY JURISDICTION. NOT NECESSARILY BY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER. COMMISSIONERS JONES IS SERVING THE TERM, AND HE’S A CITY APPOINTEE. MR. JONES IS A COUNTY APPOINTEE. SO ANY OF THE 12 — ANY OF THE MEMBERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR EITHER OFFICE AT THIS POINT.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. BEFORE US IS WHETHER WE WANT TO HOLD OFF A MONTH AND COME BACK AND DO IT NEXT MONTH, OR WE CAN DO IT TONIGHT.>>I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US WAIT A MONTH BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY NEW PEOPLE. WE HAVE SO MANY NEW PEOPLE, AND IT WASN’T ON THE AGENDA. IT’S NOT LIKE WE’RE NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT’S GOING ON, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE BRAND-NEW AND ARE JUST WALKING IN TONIGHT. SO IT’S A LOT TO TAKE IN.>>I GET IT, TRUST ME.>>IT WASN’T ON OUR AGENDA. FRANKLY, IT WASN’T EVEN ON MY RADAR SCREEN WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS TONIGHT. I DON’T THINK WAITING 30 DAYS WILL BE A BIG DEAL FOR PEOPLE.>>RIGHT. ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY IS IT’S 6:30. NEXT WEEK IT MAY BE 8:00, AND THEN WE WANT TO DO ELECTIONS. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LIKE, LET’S PUT IT OUT ANOTHER MONTH. ARE WE GOING TO STUDY EACH OTHER FOR ANOTHER MONTH TO FIGURE OUT A DIFFERENT — I MEAN, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS WE HAVE THE TIME. LET’S DO IT NOW. IT’S EARLY. BUT IF YOU WANT TO WAIT 30 DAYS FOR SOME INCLINATION, I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T SEE WHY THE 30 DAYS IS GOING TO MATTER. THAT’S JUST MY OPINION.>>YES, MA’AM.>>I’M REALLY NEITHER HERE FOR THEIR ABOUT IT. WE HAVE TWO NEW PEOPLE AND TWO PEOPLE ABSENT, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU’RE GOING TO ELECT OFFICERS, EVERYBODY OUGHT TO BE HERE. THAT’S JUST MY OPINION.>>SO I’M COOL WITH WAITING A MONTH. WE’LL MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO STUDY AND DO WHAT THEY DO AND MEET AND GREET AND POLITIC AND DO WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE. THAT’S COOL, TOO. SAY IT TO — WHAT, TONIGHT? SO THE MOTION — SO CAN WE GET A MOTION, AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF CLOSE THIS MEETING OUT, IF THAT’S OKAY WITH EVERYONE.>>I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE WAIT UNTIL NEXT MONTH TO DO THE ELECTION.>>OKAY. CAN WE SUSPENDED FIRST RULE AND THEN DO THE MOTION?>>WE’LL SUSPEND THE RULES AND MOVE THE ELECTIONS TO OCTOBER. WAS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT?>>SECOND.>>ALL RIGHT. SO MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOWN BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN — ANY OPPOSITION, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.>>THE OTHER RIGHT HAND.>>THE MOTION PASSED WITH 7-4, 6 FOR IT AND 4 AGAINST.>>ALL RIGHT. SO NEXT MONTH BE PREPARED. WE’LL HAVE THIS ON AND GET IT MOVED. ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS? IF WE HAVE NO OTHER ANNOUNCEMEN ANNOUNCEMENTS, WE’LL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN. THANK YOU. ■■

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *