 Good afternoon, welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that any of the issues before you tonight will go to the elected officials for a final decision. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom meeting platform. And in this virtual platform, the public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on video by default. And to maintain meeting decorum and a discernible record of the meeting, the chat function has been disabled. Speakers will be given the opportunity to speak on each of the items that has a public hearing tonight. If you sign up in advance, we already have your names and we will call them in the order that we've received them, the proponents and then the opponents. And we will provide opportunities if you haven't signed up in advance to be able to digitally raise your hand and we'll call on you and give you the opportunity to speak. If you'd like to dial into tonight's meeting, you can dial 1-301-715-8592. And to raise your hand digitally, you can press star nine on your phone. We'll see your hand raised and we will call on you, unmute you and give you the opportunity to speak. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties the recommendation is not favorable. May we have a roll call please. Good evening commissioners. I hope everyone's doing well. As far as I know, Grace Smith with the planning department, I'll identify myself for everyone watching. As far as I know, we only have one absence for tonight or possible absence and that's commissioner Cameron. I don't know of anyone else. So I'll go ahead and start the roll call. Commissioner Amondolia. Here. Commissioner Baker. Here. Chair Busby. Here. Commissioner Cutwright. Here. Commissioner Durkin. Here. Commissioner Kenchen. Here. Commissioner Low. Commissioner Low. Here. Commissioner MacGyver. Here. Here. Commissioner Miller. Here. Commissioner Morgan. Here. Commissioner Cease. Here. Commissioner Williams. Here. Okay. for the rest of the evening, I will just call your last name for taking books for the purposes of making things go a little faster. Great, thank you. We will move to the approval of the minutes and the consistency statements from our March 9th, 2021 meeting. I will note that an updated version was sent around earlier today and I believe is posted on the website. And so if there are any changes to that version, please let me know and then we can make adjustments to that before we approve it. I believe Commissioner Morgan found an error after we sent the corrected version out. I'll let him speak to that quickly. If I can unmute, I saw that the one where on the public hearing on the, I'm just looking at this, on the Rolling Dale 2 vote, it was voted down 4-8 and it said motion carried should be motion failed. That's all. Thank you very much for that catch. We have, we will correct that as well as make the other changes that we stated that were made when you saw the corrected version this evening or earlier today, sorry. So I'll also make a motion that we accept that as amended. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Commissioner Morgan moved it. Commissioner Miller seconded and we will have the roll call though, please. Pam Mendoia? Yes. Baker? Yes. Busby? Yes. Cut right? Yes. Durkin? Yes. Keenchen? Yes. Low? Yes. MacGyver? Yes. Miller? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Cease? Yes. And Williams? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I jumped ahead actually, we should also have a motion and a vote for an excused absence for Commissioner Cameron and I'll accept a motion for that as well. Don't move. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Miller moved. Was that Commissioner Baker? Who seconded? Pam Mendoia. Pam Mendoia. Sorry. And we'll have the roll call though, please. Pam Mendoia? Yes. Baker? Yes. Busby? Yes. Cut right? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Keenchen? Yes. Low? Yes. MacGyver? Yes. Miller? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Cease and? Yeah. Williams? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Smith, any adjustments to tonight's agenda? Actually, we do, the staff would recommend that the commission consider adjusting the agenda to move the new, under new business, we have resolutions for appreciation of service. And I know that former commissioner Lainfried is on the call. Looking to see if commissioner, former commissioner Johnson, former commissioner Johnson is on the call. Chair, do you see Cedric Johnson on the call? I don't. I guess commissioner Johnson, if you're with us, you can press star nine if you called in and we can that way move you over. Okay. I don't think he's with us right now. All right. Well, we can, if the staff would recommend that if the commission would consider moving under new business items see resolutions before public hearings said that former commissioner Lainfried can be recognized. And the only other announcement I have is that the, all of the cases were, and items were advertised in accordance with state and local law and affidavits for those advertisements or own file in the planning department. Thank you. I'll accept a motion to, for the adjusted agenda as proposed. Go move. Seconded. Thank you. Commissioner Miller moved. Commissioner Morgan seconded. Will the roll call vote? Amondoya. Yes. Baker. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Tension. Yes. Low. Mr. Low. Commissioner Low. Yes. Commitment. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner. Yes. Thank you. McIver. Yes. Miller. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Zace. Yes. Williams. Thank you so much. Thank you everyone. So we will move to that first agenda item and it is a resolution and appreciation of former commissioner Lainfried. And again, as commissioner Lainfried shared with us last month, given that she and her family will be moving to Charleston, she needed to resign her seat. And if you look at tonight's agenda, you may be feeling grateful for that. But I am thankful again for your time and would like to read the resolution that we have prepared in your honor. And we will vote on that resolution. And then certainly commissioner Lainfried will provide you the opportunity to speak as well. Thank you to the staff for helping pull together the resolution. This is a resolution and appreciation of Ms. Jessely Lainfried. Whereas Ms. Jessely Lainfried was a member of the Durham Planning Commission from June 22nd, 2020 through March 25th, 2021. And whereas the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens of the city and the County of Durham have benefited from the dedicated efforts that she displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission. And whereas this commission desires to express its appreciation for the public of a job well done, now therefore be it resolved by the Durham Planning Commission that this commission does hereby express its sincere appreciation for the service rendered by Ms. Lainfried to the citizens of this community and that the clerk for the commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official minutes of this commission and this resolution is hereby presented or will be sent to Ms. Jessely Lainfried as a token of the highest theme held for her adopted this 13th day of April, 2021 from the Durham Planning Commission. I will accept a motion for approval. Mr. Chair, I move that we adopt the resolution you just read. Second. Thank you. And we'll have the roll call vote, please. Ms. Emondoya. Yes. Baker. Yes. Lesbian. Yes. Right. Yes. Durkin. Yeah. Kenchin. Yes. Lowe. Yes. MacIvera. Yes. Miller. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. And Williams. Commissioner Williams. Yeah. Thank you. It's unanimous. Jessely, thank you again. We really have appreciated your service and hearing that you may return to Durham certainly hope that you will be ready and willing to continue to provide your services to our community. The floor is yours. Well, I have an hour long speech prepared. So I hope everyone settled in. Yeah, I hate to add to what looks to be maybe a long night for you guys but I'll just reiterate that I have so much respect for the commission and the staff. It's been a real honor to get to join you. I'm bummed I didn't even make it for a full year but I got really close. And I commend your ongoing work in trying to make Durham a more sustainable, welcoming, affordable place to live. And I think you're all doing amazing work in that direction. So with that, just thank you again and I hope to meet you all in person one day. Thank you and safe travels to you and your family. Thanks for all your service to our community. Thank you so much. So commissioners, we will move to our public hearings. We have three public hearings. I do want to just share in advance. We have nearly 80 people signed up in advance for these three hearings. So we have a jam-packed agenda. And then following those three hearings we also have two informational items. So just so you know in advance of what we're looking at. The first case is case Z1800034. This is the parcel K case. And this was continued from our March 9th, 2021 meeting. We'll begin with the staff report recognizing that it may be an abbreviated report since this was an item that we had previously looked at. Mr. Coulter, I'll hand it to you. Thank you. I am going to do a screen share and I am definitely gonna do an abbreviated report on this one. Start share again. It's wanting to do a split screen on me for some reason. Apologize for that. Still trying to do that. And it's not what I want it to do. I'm gonna proceed anyway. This is case Z1800034, parcel K which received from Jared Eden's, Eden's land court for four parcels land 2705, 2725 East Highway 70 and 4709, 4793 Leesville Road for 148.13 acres. It's in the County's jurisdiction, suburban tier and then the Falls Jordan watershed protection District B overlay. Has an annexation petition BDG1800017 associated with the case, which has to be approved as well. The applicant proposes to change from rural residential or industrial park IP to a plan development residential district 5.949 for up to 837 residential dwelling units consisting of maximum 185 single family units, 220 multifamily townhouse units and 432 multifamily apartment units. Future land use map or the flum is designated as low density residential, low medium density residential and commercial. If the zoning is approved, the recommended would be to change the flum to a low medium density residential designation. The aerial map shows this is off Highway 70 and Leesville Road. There are 14 comp plan policies after the development. Everyone has been met except for the future land use map and also there's a area of the natural inventory site that the applicant has not identified how certain exotic native species will be managed per the NCHP study. And I will say there's a final note. The applicant agreed to profit additional text commitments since the last meeting was held and those were vetted and approved by the planning staff. However, the package was sent out prior to any revised development plan being added to the agenda package. Therefore the applicant will need to convey the plan changes to the commission. I do believe Ms. Smith sent out this plan today to commission members. So you would have a chance to review this copy and with that I'll end this presentation and turn it back over to the commission and to the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Kulture. And one question Mr. Kulture before we get started. I know at the last meeting there were a series of proffers that were offered which are included in the updated version we were sent today. Are there new things since our last meeting as well that are in that packet or just what we went through at last month's meeting? I will be honest. I cannot remember if those were additional to that. And that might be something Mr. Eden's can address. I will let Mr. Eden's actually address that if those were added. I know we vetted all those, the additional proffers and since the last meeting and Mr. Eden's can address that. That's great. Thank you, Mr. Kulture. With that we'll open the public hearing. We have 45 people who have signed up to speak on this item six in favor, 39 against. We'll start with the applicant and their team who may make up most of the individuals signed up for. We'll provide 10 minutes as we always do. And then we can provide two minutes per individual speaker as well. Mr. Eden's, you may wanna let us know who's with you tonight. And then I can let you know if there's anyone else that has signed up to speak in addition to your team. Very good. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, good evening, Chair Busby, Applying Commission. Jared Eden's, Eden's land. I appreciate your time. Yeah, there are some signed up to speak. There are some adjacent neighbors and I'll just let them introduce themselves as they speak. But if I could, I'd like to speak to a few issues from the last meeting. I know we're familiar with the case and what we discussed. And Danny, I don't know if you could share that development plan now, the one that was routed. Yeah, I think I can do that. And I think I figure out why my stream was splitting as well, I think I've solved that. All right, very good. So yes, the development plan that was routed to you today and what Danny's gonna bring up, it reflects all of the proffers that were made at the last meeting. The only changes that were made since that time, there were three specific changes. A change in the unit count for the single family and town homes and I'd like to address that a little bit later if I could. Another change was we increased the percentage of rear loaded town homes from 5% to 15%. And we also added a maximum with the single family units of 40 feet to somewhat control costs. And so those were the three changes, the percentage of town homes that are rear entry, the unit counts and the 40 feet wide single family. The total unit count remains the same. If I could, I'd like to talk about a few key issues that we talked about last time. I'd like to start with traffic if I could. My approach on these rezonings has always been, if a project is borderline requiring a traffic study, I'm always saying, let's do the traffic study. Let's spend the money, let's do the traffic study. And the reason I wanna do that is because when I come to these public hearings, obviously I'm wanting traffic to be as least of an issue as it can be. And the best way I can address that is to hire a professional, have them prepare a study that's two inches thick and then let the city of Durham and NCDOT both review and vet that study and critique it and require revisions until it's approved. And we can't come to planning commission until the traffic study has gone through that process. It's a pretty rigorous process. So when I come to a project with a TIA, I'm always confident that I'm not just carrying the opinion of my team, but I'm also carrying the opinion of the city and DOT as well, because they've concurred with the study. But with the last meeting, it was almost as if the TIA hadn't even been performed. And maybe I didn't do a very good job of pointing that out, but we did perform a TIA, there are improvements, off-site improvements being made that will be beneficial for everyone. The signal at DOT Nichols and Leesville is a significant improvement for that area. But again, it was almost as if the TIA wasn't there and it was a little disappointing because I know how rigorous those things are studied. And just by my observation, from living in that area and looking at the staff report, I mean, if traffic was really that bad would Leesville Road be so under capacity currently? You know what I mean? Leesville Road, if those roads out there, Alla Branch, Leesville, DOT Nichols, Leesville's gotta be the most heavily traveled. And I think the staff report says it has a capacity of 14,000 cars and a current traffic of maybe 4,700 cars or something. There was almost 10,000 cars of available capacity in Leesville Road. And that just doesn't jibe with a big traffic issue in the area. And I'd also like to talk about environmental if I could. And generally when we talk about environmental, we're talking about grading and stormwater. And I can speak to the natural heritage also, but we did proffer last time that's been committed a hundred year detention for our site. But yet some of the feedback I was getting during the conversation was there were stormwater concerns. Well, how can there be stormwater concerns if we're committing to the most stringent requirement that Durham has in its code voluntarily? You know, I mean, this project's gonna have at least 15 ponds on it, maybe 20 ponds on it. So, you know, we committed to make all those larger to accommodate the maximum design storm we can accommodate. And in spite of doing that, you know, we were told that there were stormwater concerns. And also affordable housing. The original submittal for this project had zero affordable units, which is what we see everywhere, zero affordable units. We had some meetings with planning commission members and I mean, honestly, Commissioner Durkin made a great argument with me about affordable housing. And I took that to my client and we talked about it. And no, we didn't offer 10% across the board, but we made an offer of 5% of the apartment units. And you know, my hope was that that would be received normally in a way that might encourage future developers to give 5% here or there, because that's how you get to 10%, you start at 5%. But instead, the most of the feedback I got was that, well, that's not enough. And my thinking is, you know, I don't think there's a project in the basin that's been approved with affordable housing than I'm aware of, we're the first one and it just wasn't received very warmly. Also, I'd like to talk about the soil spacing a little bit in that study. One thing to note is when these rezonings, when they come to you guys, they've been in process for, you know, two and three years. And, you know, the projects weren't submitted, unfortunately, you know, three to six months ago and come before you. So when we start talking about, you know, not approving projects in the basin so that we can perform, you know, the land use study or whatnot, the projects we're talking about are things that started three years ago. And three years ago, City Council, or three plus years ago, made a decision, you know, we're gonna spend $20 million plus that basically stuck a flag out in the middle of that area and said, this is where you need to come develop. And they put the infrastructure in to support the development. So what happened was what was naturally gonna happen is developers started going there and applying for plans and applying for developments. So it's a little difficult, you know, when we, I guess let's say we some, we developers here about a pause on some projects in this area because so much time and effort was put in to get here and it was based on, you know, the prodding basically of the city by putting infrastructure in to begin with. But you could argue, and Danny, if you could bring up that color exhibit, you could argue that, you know, even if this project were held up for a Searle's study, you might get the exact same design that they were bringing to you now. I mean, use-wise, it's your next tab, yeah, next tab in. Use-wise, you know, I don't see retail, especially when the lease will road to connect to 70 is removed, retail would not be very viable there. I don't really see office there. I don't really see industrial, although industrial can be built there currently. I mean, one would argue that for this piece of property, you would put residential on it, which is why the city of Durham is extending a manhole to the tip of this property because they were encouraging the landowners to have it developed. But if you look at this exhibit, and I hope this clears up, because I agree the development plan is really hard to tell as far as where apartments can be and where townhomes can be and whatnot. We tried to color code this to show that we're sort of going from, you know, least impactful to the neighbors is what's adjacent to the neighbors and as you get further away from the neighbors, that's where you get to the townhomes and the apartments. And so the purple section, that's single family only. The blue section is gonna be a mixture of single family and towns, which is adjacent to single family and towns. And then the apartments would all be on the south side of that new collector road. We have some dimensions in there that's the average probably about 2,000 feet from the nearest unit to the northernmost tip of where the apartments could be. So you're talking about, you know, if you live in Brightley, if you've got two stream buffers between you and apartments that are half a mile away. And so I believe that, again, if this was included in a basin study, I think this would be a pretty viable option. And also, I think sometimes it's, and I don't even think of this sometimes, but it's good to consider what could be done, you know, in the current zoning. I mean, the current zoning is zoned industrial. I don't think anyone would argue that we should do something industrial there, but if it was done, it probably wouldn't have a hundred year detention. It would probably be have much more strong water runoff than the project we have proposed. And I doubt the neighbors, you know, I think residential next to residential would make more sense than the current industrial zoning that's there. Just in summary, you know, we didn't make a lot of changes. I need to speak to the unit count. I'm sorry. So yeah, we would like to reduce the single family from 185 to 120 and then increase the townhomes from 220 to 285. All this does is make the project more affordable and it generates less traffic because townhomes are by nature more affordable and they do generate less traffic. So I think staff felt that that was okay to verbally make that change. Again, the total unit count doesn't change, just more townhomes and less singles. But again, we didn't make too many changes from before because I really thought that we made a pretty strong submetal last time. I just, I probably didn't do a very good job of explaining some of it. But just to summarize, you know, we have a lot of things that planning commission has been asking for. You know, we've got a good, we've got all three housing types. We've got affordable. We're obviously recognizing environmental concerns with our stormwater detention, the offsite road improvements in a TIA that does, that's what TIAs do. They address traffic concerns. And we've got a school within walk a distance, which is normally a good thing. You know, at the meeting it was almost like that was somehow a bad thing. But I mean, I used to live in Brightleaf. Tons of kids walk to school in Brightleaf. Extending Northern Durham Parkway to another residential development where more kids can walk to school is normally a positive thing. So again, if you, be glad to answer your questions you have. And again, we have some other speakers signed up to speak, but I would just hope you could consider the project as a whole and just let me know how I can help. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Eden's. I'm gonna read off the other names. And if there are folks that are just on your team that are available and aren't speaking, if you can let me know, that'd be great. I've got Reinal Stevenson, Steve George, Mandanga Paul, Katri, Fanjing Lee, and Stan Damany. Chair Bousby, can I get a quick clarification for something? You may. Did the number of units for each unit type change since the last time? What was it? Yes. I'd like a new unit numbers too, please. Correct. So those in front of you, what we were just in those from, instead of 185 single, it's 120 single. And then we took those 65 and added it to the townhomes to make the townhomes 285, but the total unit count is still 837. So what we're looking at right now is not what you would be proposing. Craig, that's one of the three changes. And we talked about making, that I would clarify this at the meeting, what the unit count was. But yes. There's 120 single family. Correct. 285 townhomes. 285 townhomes. And the apartments are unchanged. And 432 apartments. Mr. Coulter, does that give you what you're looking for? It does. I just want to, yeah, I want to talk internally about that to see if that could have any, I don't think it will have any impacts. I just wanted to see if it would have any impact on our, on the utility statement. Great. And I do want to recognize Ms. Erling Thomas who also has raised her hand, who may also have guidance for us. Exactly. Thank you. Erling Thomas, city transportation. I just wanted to read a correction into the record for one of the text commitments on the coverage sheet. Text commitment number five is actually a duplication of one a little further down. The text commitment that should be in that location should read prior to the issuance of the 91st certificate of occupancy, construct Northern Durham Parkway to NCDOT standards from the end of the existing roadway near Flat River Drive to the Eastern Property Line at site access number nine. Thank you. So to be clear, right now it lists the same thing twice. And the first time it should say something totally different that you just read to us. Correct. I think just during some of the iterations that got dropped or removed. Does Mr. Eden's agree with that? Yeah, this is a note, Danny referred to this at the last meeting that we talked about transportation had a correction to make on the cover. And that's a note that Erling's referring to. Okay. Thank you both. Mr. Eden's, the names I just read of individuals who signed up to speak, are any of those a part of your team who do not plan to speak for the public hearing? Yeah, so Steve George and Ronald Stevenson are with us. And I think Ronald's here for questions and Steve's here for questions also. Okay, thank you. So we'll call off the other individuals and we'll give you each two minutes to offer your comments as proponents for the plan. Mandapole Cotry, are you with us this evening? We don't see them anymore, Chair. Okay, thank you. Fang Jing Li, I believe you're with us. And again, for public comments, if you can please give us your name, your mailing address. I will time your two minutes and when you reach the end of two minutes, if you haven't concluded your statement, I'll indicate that you've reached the two minutes and if you can then finish your thought that would be appreciated. Thank you, Commissioner, for the opportunity to voice my support. My name is Fang Jing Li. I own the property at 4793, this railroad, which is part of the property that's being considered for rezoning. I think this would be a really positive project in terms of making strong impact, in terms of housing shortage issue as well as the affordability issue in Durham. Part of the reason is we saw the housing price increase, which is not really surprising considering that we have 7,000 people moving in every year to Durham. And the new construction only would be able to accommodate about 60% of these people coming in that's gonna drive up the housing price. So having more of this type of development approved with the consideration of traffic issue and the environmental issue would be a great thing for the community. And also as just mentioned earlier, the developer offers 5% affordable rental units, which has never been offered before. I think even though this is not a very large number, but 5% would be a great start and would also likely to prompt other developer to offer similar type of incentive that would benefit the community in the long run. And the second part is traffic issue. I happen to be an engineering professor at NC State. I also went through this traffic study. I think it's quite rigorously done, even though I'm not a civil engineer, but I kind of go through a report all the time. I think it's a very well done report. Consider many issues, not just for today's traffic, but also considering out to 2024. And the commitment in terms of making the road wider and other improvements in traffic would based on the numbers, it will make the traffic better rather than worse. And finally, I think the developer seems to be, have been very conscientious about reserving natural area, allowing very large buffer zone around the creek, which I think also is a very positive issue. So as the owner of this property, I would fully support this and I would personally love to leave in that this type of neighborhood too. Thank you, Mr. Lee. The remaining speaker, I don't see them with us, but Stan Damany, are you with us this evening? And if so, if you're not identified, please press star nine and we'll make sure that you can speak. While we wait on that, I'm gonna read the next set of names. And again, I think some of these names I see, some I don't. So we will move through them as we go. We've got Connor, D'Amico, Bonnie, Rodgerson, Stephen, Canill, Christopher Deal, Donald, Avalos and Ashley Eason are the first folks who are lined up to speak. I don't see Stan Damany. So we'll move to Connor, D'Amico, Bonnie, Rodgerson. I don't see either of those names either. And Stephen, Canill, I do see your name. So if you will unmute you and give the opportunity to speak. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead. Great, Stephen Mill, 101 Restoration Drive. I live in the courtyards of Andrews Chapel, which is on one side of Leesville Road. I represent the Leesville Coalition, which is a group of residents from Courtyards of Andrews Chapel, Carolina Arbor, Spendle Farms and Brightleaf. I wanted to kind of comment against Jared Evans discussion about the road capacity. We've been very alerted to the road capacity issues on Leesville, the numbers you're using are 14,200 for road capacity with a current of 4,900. That's from a 2017 NC DOT study, I believe, with two other communities already approved and the 4,000 additional numbers from Parcel K, that gets us up to about 11,200. And now that doesn't include Fendle Farms, the Courtyards of Andrews Chapel, some of Carolina Arbor's and this new development called the Enclave, which is actually in Wake on Leesville. So you're getting really close to capacity by approving this individual community, if you take all the numbers from the communities that have been green lit in this area since 2020. I'm hopeful that my numbers are right, and I'm trying to do the best I can with the information that we have. We're opposed to this for one very specific reason, and that is that there is a small area study being done by Scott Whiteman in the planning group that is supposed to be finished by June. It's supposed to help determine the future of Southeast Durham since 2019. If these two communities tonight get approved by city council on the other one, an outlet branch that they're revisiting on early May, get approved, 5,500 homes would have been approved in this area without a real small area study about what we want in the future of this area. And quite frankly, other than the road infrastructure, a couple of lights and what is being done right in front of these communities, we have a big problem with Leesville Road having a fire station on that road and nowhere for cars to go if that fire engine has to get out. Additionally, with all the, I'll make it real quick here. Additionally, with all of your comments, please, that'd be appreciated. Additionally, with all the things being green lit and an outlet branch, a lot of those cars are gonna be coming down this way too, and none of that is figured into any of the calculations. Great, thank you, Mr. No, I appreciate it. And given the number of speakers, I am gonna try to keep an eye on the two minutes, but I'll be generous as I can. Next was Christopher Deal, and Mr. Deal, it looks like you're with us as well. Yes, thank you. So I'm the president of the, this is at Brightleaf here at Hunter's Association. I just wanna reflect what was said before that one of our primary concerns is the lack of road infrastructure to support this massive development and the other ones being approved. These roads, I have to remind everyone, are very rural, they're very narrow. They're already congested. They're dangerous. A friend of mine's mother was ran over on Sharon Road just back in January, while on the sidewalk set off pretty far from the road, on the road's very curvy, someone ran right through the curb and hit her. Until there's more road infrastructure investment in our area, I just think it's irresponsible to continue greenlighting more communities. These roads are not made for that. These roads look more like they did back home in Gates County, where I grew up, very rural community. The infrastructure's not here. And still something's done about that. I don't think there should be any more free lit communities. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Donald Avalos. I don't see his name listed. Again, if you have called in and you're waiting and we don't see your name, please press star nine. That way we can see you digitally raise your hand. That way we know it's you. As I get, after I get through the list as well, I will see if anyone else would like the opportunity to speak. So if you haven't signed up in advance, we're gonna give you that opportunity. Next is Ashley Eason. And it looks like you are with us. As we unmute you, I'll note the big thanks to Chris on the staff. He is putting the list of names in the order that I'm gonna call them in the chat box. So if you're watching as well, you can see if your name is coming up. I'll try to read through them as well. Ms. Eason, you're welcome to make your comments. My response from Ms. Eason. So I recommend we proceed and try to come back to her. Okay, thank you. Shawna Glassby. I did not see that you are with us either. Then Nicole Walton, it looks like you're with us. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead. I agree with the gentleman from Gates County. I'm from Gates County as well. The infrastructure that we currently have here in Durham isn't sufficient for the additional housing. I actually live on 1803 Sandoval Drive. I'm sorry. Please go ahead. If you could give us your name and address again and then please continue. Oh, my name is Nicole Walton and I live at 1803 Sandoval Drive. My stance is we don't currently have the infrastructure from a road perspective to actually support all of this housing. And then I actually had a question that really has not been addressed in any of the meetings that I've attended. We've talked about how close the housing is going to be to the townhouses that are here on the end of the road. But what we really haven't discussed is how close the housing is going to be to the homes here on Sandoval Drive. So it'd be great if someone could actually answer that question for me from the development company. Great, thank you very much. If you wanna continue with your comments, I'm writing your question down. We'll make sure to ask the applicant to address that. That's it, I'm done. Thank you. Yeah, and can you repeat that question again? How close will the houses be where? To the homes on Sandoval Drive. Thank you. Next is Erin Deitch. It looks like you're with us as well. And you're welcome to begin your comments when you are able. I asked him, he had no response. Okay. There we go. Did you get me? There you are. Okay, Erin Deitch at 1841, Sandoval Drive. I'm in Brightleaf at the park. I oppose this for multiple reasons. My stance at this point is I do believe it'll be developed at some point. I would like to ask for some traffic stuff to be put on Northern Durham. I've lived here since 2008 and my kids can't cross that road by themselves just with the traffic within the neighborhood. And because that road doesn't have those stops and it's a 45 mile per hour road, people do not slow down. So that's really, I'm opposed to it for many of the other reasons that people have said, but if it's going to go forward, I would like some commitments on Northern Durham for either four-way stops or late at Prospect and Northern Durham and Flat River and Northern Durham. And that's it. Thank you. Next is Alyssa McGowan. Allen Warren McGowan. Yes, hi, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Alyssa. I live at 227 Cross Blossom Road. So I got up right to where they're planning to have houses right on the edge of our property. I opposed for multiple reasons. I understand there's been a traffic study down on the Leesville Road side of parcel K. I'm curious if there's been a traffic study done in Brightleys. I know myself and the other people that have already spoken are concerned for an increase of traffic and pedestrian safety. The applicant mentioned that there is an elementary school. It concerns me that they seem excited for children to be able to walk to school. But like Erin mentioned before me, there is really no way for children to be able to cross the road safely currently. There are accidents that happen all the time. I don't even feel comfortable crossing that road. I'm concerned for a lot of other reasons too. Particularly environmental impacts in the natural area behind my house for the wildlife that lives back there. I'm sad to think of looking out at once was a beautiful natural area to be looking into someone else's backyard. I agree too. It'll probably be developed eventually. I would prefer for it not to be and agree with Erin that if it is gonna be developed, there needs to be a lot of thought that goes into how to manage increased traffic on Northern Durham Parkway. Thank you. Next is Lauren McGowan. Are they, Chris, are they with us? I thought I saw both Alyssa and Lauren McGowan. Yeah, I gave them the wrong Lauren access, so she should have access now. Okay, thank you. Hi, this is Lauren McGowan. Can you hear me? Yes. I don't have anything else to add, but I will say that I agree with Megan McGowan who just spoke. Great thing. Just for points. Thank you. Next is Kate Hepworth-Warren. Hi, I'm Kate Hepworth-Warren. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Okay, I live at 1835 Sandoval Drive, and I agree with the others that oppose this, just that if it is going to be developed, we definitely need some more control on the traffic because like many people, I run a lot in the neighborhood pretty early in the morning, and there's already a fair number of cars around that move quite quickly. So I can only imagine that later in the day with a lot of kids going across the street that it would require some more input from the city with regards to stop signs, et cetera, and traffic control. I also have the same concerns about the natural area because I'm on the side of the development that right now backs up basically to the natural area and would be unfortunate for that to be disturbed although I understand it'll likely happen eventually. Thank you for your comments. Next is Kimberly Kliwisch. I didn't see Kimberly with us, but please press star nine if you are with us. And in the meantime, we'll move on to Adam LaManna who I think is with us. I am. Please go ahead. Yeah, so this is Adam LaManna. I am at Six Pegram Court at Brightleaf at the park. I am, just so everyone knows, I am on the board of the HOA board, although I'm here of my own volition. I'm not representing the board as I speak, but I will reiterate all the same concerns and that's why I opposed. It's not so much that we wouldn't want the housing there and all the added benefits of, you know, tax revenue and everything like that, but you are running into issues with traffic. I think the last meeting that we had when we talked about this, it was literally a day or two after there was a nasty accident on Northern Durham Parkway and Prospect Parkway enough that it's flipped over a Jeep. We are trying to get the NCDOT to look at that. I don't think they're going to. I think the HOA board is actually looking into what we can do to try and alleviate that intersection problem. As far as the schools, there are a lot of kids that do walk or take the bus around the neighborhood. You wouldn't have to take that into account. So with Northern Durham Parkway being stretched, I think you're going to run into, you know, more problems. And last someone brought this up at the last meeting, while good that they're trying to get the 5% that is very unique, the 5% of I think low income housing. I think the bad part would be the people that might take advantage of that low income housing while it would be good for them to be able to afford to live. I don't think there's any infrastructure in place such as busing or something else to get them from potentially that neighborhood to other areas easily for say work, schooling, whatever it would be. And because of that, I am opposed to this. Thank you. I'm going to read a bunch of names. I don't see any of them, but I do want to just give the opportunity if they're with us. Again, if you're on and we don't see your name, but I call it out, press star nine to digitally raise your hand. Marla Cassidy, Sharon Van Fleet, Tina Cotto, April Goli, Lulu Milani, Rodney Jones. I don't see any of those names, but if you are here, raise your hand please. And in the meantime, the next name that I do see that signed up that is with us is Jason Walsh. So Mr. Walsh, we'll get you teed up to be able to share your comments. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Yes, Jason Walsh. I live at Five Rio Grande Court in Brightleaf at the park. I'm not going to bring up anything new, but just reiterate again that the traffic on Northern Durham Parkway is quite bad in regards to accidents, not feeling safe crossing the street. I live directly across from Spring Valley Elementary School so I do have a lot of concerns about children and their safety. The infrastructure just cannot support this housing development. One may go in at some point, but I really feel strongly too that the infrastructure really needs to be beefed up as far as the roads and connecting to Northern Durham Parkway right now, it's not a cut through, but with that development going in, it would become a cut through from these to be able to share in road. And that's a big concern for people in speed. So thank you. Thank you. Next we have Mu Zaba Nieste and it looks like you're with us. Yes, I am. And my name is Monica, that was a typo. So I'm laughing that you said Mu. That's not my name. Anyways, I'm also in Brightleaf at the park. I'm actually on the other end where many of the speakers from my neighborhood are closer to Sharon Road. And quite frankly, traffic is at capacity on Sharon Road and that's gonna certainly be affected even though maybe the numbers might look okay on the Leesville end. Over here, we're already at our limit and you add people over there. It's gonna come. I understand, I applaud first of all the affordable housing addition. I think that's wonderful and important but the roads have got to be helped. And my address, I'm sorry I didn't give you that. I'm at Forswindow Court. So I'm just concerned about crazy traffic congestion because we already have it. It was gone for COVID, but now it's back. Thank you, Monica. You'll always be Mu to me, but I appreciate your comments. Next is Tashima Peterson. I don't see that they're with us. And then Sherry Ruland, it looks like you're with us. So we'll get you lined up to speak next. Ms. Ruland, are you, did I get that wrong? See Sherry Ruland, but I think Carol place is with us. Okay, Carol, you are next. So we'll get you lined up to speak. I'm sorry, I think I lost Carol as well. Okay. Charles Hubert DeVaux, Jennifer Strange and Hannah Imankulov. I don't see any of those individuals signed up. Again, press star nine if you are with us. Next who is with us is Diane Clements or was with us a little earlier. So Ms. Clements, we're gonna unmute you if we can and let you offer your comments. Chris, can we, is that working or should we circle back? I submit a request, let's circle back. Okay. Then we have Kim Moore and Thaya Hines, C Rhodes and Andrea Summer. I know Ms. Sumner is definitely with us. Hi, it's Andrea Sumner. Yes, please go ahead. Hi, I'm at 6106 Cantor Ridge Court. I'm actually, I wanted to speak to Griffin place, but as I look through the agenda and I go through all of the submissions, it occurs to me that we really need to be thinking about these three or more projects that developers have proposed in the aggregate, not just a single development because it all adds to the increased usage of this area out here, which when you talk about country roads, I mean, for the people who live in town, I want you to know that there are no street lights and there are not curbs and gutters out here and the deer population is large because it's wooded. This is a rural area out here and we're, you know, we're five miles from the big city, but it's very rural. I mean, the other thing I wanna talk about for the all three is the school impact studies. My profession is not in planning, but I'm having a hard time justifying your school enrollment numbers, your projected enrollment numbers. I find them exceedingly low. I also think that some of your tables are misleading. For instance, on the Griffin place, when there, it talks about the feeder schools for elementary and it gives Glenn elementary and a magnet school, I think you really need to split that out. I think your numbers are not, it's not fake news, but it's also not accurate. I think you need to separate it out. How many of those kids on Griffin place are projected to go to Glenn elementary because just because we can do 110% capacity in our schools doesn't mean we should. Thanks for listening. Thank you. But the next few names, I don't see them signed up. I'm just gonna keep reading them out. If you're with us, we'll give you the chance to speak. Marguerite Esri, Thomas Wolfe, Garfield Cyrus, Alexandra Serber, and then Jerry Fulmer. I think Jerry Fulmer is with us, so we will- Garfield Cyrus is also on the feeder in the loft. Oh, thank you. Okay, Garfield Cyrus, please go ahead. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, please. Cool. Garfield Cyrus, the address is 1801 Sunderville, Sunderville Drive. And I kind of agree with all the comments that have been made in relation to the road infrastructure. It's just not up to speed in terms of being able to deal with this additional development. The investment really needs to be put into the road before you start looking at adding further house into this area. And secondly, I would also like to know how close this new development is going to be to the housing on Sunderville Road. That's it from me. Thank you very much. We'll have Jerry Fulmer next, and then the final name is Melanie Guzolos. I don't see them as well. Before we have Jerry Fulmer speak, let me just say, if you wanna speak, please press star nine to digitally raise your hand and then we can call on you. If you have not yet spoken, we'll give you the opportunity to speak. Jerry Fulmer, you may make your comments, please. Okay, good evening. Could you hear me okay? Yes, good. Good evening, everyone. And thank you for giving me the time. It's not anything new, but I agree with everyone that the traffic here is really terrible. In terms of that, you've got young kids that we have when we got in here, we looked at it as a neighborhood. I too am agreeing that I'm an advocate for affordable housing, but this study, it seems like it needs to be done better and looked at even better. The traffic patterns here are terrible. And also with us all here, I still don't get some of what's still going to happen. There's still some unknowns about even going up to Northern Durham Parkway. Will that be an entryway? Is there going to look at expanding that? So I'm definitely opposed to this, but it does seem to appear that there needs to be more study done if they are going to be moving forward as we go along. And I do agree with all, with my other folks that have agreed or have opposed this. And by the way, my address is 1004 Red Rock Drive here in Brightly. Thank you, Mr. Fulmer. Lauren Thompson, I see you've raised your hand. We will give you the opportunity to speak. And again, if anyone else has not spoken yet on this case and would like to please press star nine and we can call on you next. Thank you, can you hear me? I can, go ahead. Great, thank you. My name is Lauren Thompson. I live on 237 Cross Blossom Road. And I was in the last meeting and just also want to reiterate, same as everyone else, the traffic is, it's not where we don't have the streets and the capacity. And I would point back to what someone said earlier of, it sounds like you've done a traffic study on Laysville, but if this is connecting to Sharon, Northern Durham Parkway, even 70 with the congestion on the 70 and Miami intersection, I would argue that there needs to be more studies done before any decisions of building a community are made. And then secondarily with along with the safety is also the natural, the animals around here, if we displace the coyotes and some of the more, not nice animals, where are they gonna go? Are they gonna start roaming our neighborhoods and becoming a threat? So I think there's more study that needs to be done and I'm opposed to it. Thanks for your comments. So this will be the final call. Mr. Edens, I am gonna give you, you had a little bit of time remaining, so I am gonna come back and give you that opportunity. But I do wanna ask one last time, if you wanna speak on this case, you have not yet spoken, you can press star nine, you can raise your hand, we'll give you the opportunity to speak. And then Mr. Edens will give you just a, use your remaining time for wrapping up. And Mr. Edens, I would ask, if you are able to address the question that Ms. Walton and a few others reiterated about how close will houses be to Sandoval Drive, that would be appreciated. I don't see anyone else, so Mr. Edens, you've got a couple moments for any final comments during the public hearing. Yeah, thank you, Chair Busby. I was looking on GIS quickly and just did a quick measurement. Looks like the closest home on Sandoval Drive to our northernmost tip of the property is about 50 feet. The rear lot is about 50 feet from the northernmost property corner, but then also we'll have a perimeter buffer as well. And I don't know exactly what units would fit in that corner, but the nearest lot is 50 feet from the tip of the property. And on traffic, I think the best thing to do, because we've heard a lot of opinions on traffic and whatnot, and I've referenced, that we pay consultants to do this. I'd like to let my traffic engineer, Ronald Stevenson with Raimi Kemp, he signed up to speak. He could probably speak to some of the traffic issues. Please, that'd be great. Thank you. Thanks, Jared. Thanks, Chair Busby. Ronald Stevenson with Raimi Kemp and Associates, 5808 Farrington Place in Raleigh. And as mentioned, we did prepare a traffic impact analysis for the project. And that project, that TIA does look out at future traffic conditions. So we're not only looking at now, we're looking out in the future. We did look at Northern Durham Parkway. We did look at Leesville Road. A couple of important points I wanna make is, right now there is a lot of traffic on Northern Durham Parkway because they don't really have another way to go. You know, this project, if you look at it, this project will provide a connection down to Leesville Road. So some of the traffic in Brightleaf would be able to actually go through this development and not actually go up even past the school and to Sharon Road. So that's gonna be very important for the Brightleaf community to have another way out. You know, I remember a time when Leesville Road, you couldn't get down to really the backside of Briar Creek very easily. Now you can. I mean, this connectivity is very important for this region. Very important to have that. Another thing I'd like to point out about it is, this probably the biggest traffic issue on Leesville Road is at 70. And that's been a mess for many years out there and improvements have been needed for many years and it's never really gotten done. You know, this project would come in and has commitments to improve that intersection. And those improvements are very significant, by the way. If anybody's looked at them, adding an extra left-turn lane on Leesville and extra left-turn lane on 70. You know, when that's said and done, those improvements, even in the future, with those improvements, with the build out of this site, with build out of the adjacent sites, that intersection with 70 and Leesville would work better than it does today. Much better than it's today with those improvements. Those improvements are very significant. I don't want to really minimize those. So just wanted to point out those couple of things. And these TIA has to identify improvements to allow the intersections to work and that's what we've done. That's what we're required to do is build those improvements. And you'll see those commitments on the plan. So, you know, this is mitigating the traffic and in lots of cases, making it even better than it is today and providing very significant connectivity for this region, this whole area. And that's very important. Thank you for the additional context. Mr. Eden, is there any other final comments as part of the public hearing? I'm sorry, I just wait for questions. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see anyone who has not yet spoken. And so, and Ms. Walton, I do want to note, I do see your hand raised for the public hearing. We just call on folks one at a time. We're going to close the public hearing, but I'm going to call on you just to make sure you have had your question answered, which may be why you have your hand raised. But since no one who is not yet spoken is looking to speak, I'm going to close the public hearing. Commissioners, bring it to you. And this will be a time for commissioners to ask questions and offer thoughts and comments. I'm going to start us off though. Ms. Walton, I do want to give you the opportunity to, you've raised your hand again. I'm guessing you may have a follow-up. I want to, if you can be brief, but let us know why you raised your hand and what we can make sure we address tonight. Yes, thank you so much for circling back around to me. My follow-up question was, and thanks for looking at the GIS map. You said that the development would be within 50 feet of property on Sandoval Drive. Do we have an address for the property that would be closest to? So we understand kind of how it butts up to the community. Thanks, Ms. Walton. Mr. Reedens or if someone on your team could address that question, that'd be great. Yeah, I just pulled up the public map and located 1813 Sandoval, seemed to be the closest one, which is about 50 feet from the tip of the property. The tip of the property doesn't mean there's going to be a unit there. Which is the tip of our property. Thank you. Ms. Walton, is that a satisfactory answer for your question? And you may be back on mute. So if you would like a follow-up question, just raise your hand. We'll make sure that we give you the opportunity. While we wait on that, I'm gonna move to Commissioner Morgan. You got your hand up first, I recognize you. Thank you, Chair. Actually, I kind of live in that area and I'm familiar with the traffic there. Couple of comments, one is I asked Danny to provide some of the right-of-way information. I kind of look at it from a big picture perspective. And Danny, can you share that graphic that kind of shows the future plans for Leesville and the right-of-way for the Northern Durham Parkway? I'd be glad to, give me just one moment. Okay, while you're bringing that up, I do know that some of the improvements on Leesville that has been proffered is already under construction with the Leesville Route 70 intersection. So I'm not sure how much different or additional, and that would be a question to the applicant to see, is there anything additional that's going to be added in addition to the work that's being done currently? Yes, so I'm aware of the construction, but I'm not aware of the dimensions of the final product, right? So I don't know how long the storage lane is or whatnot. So all I can say is if anything that's being constructed now is short of what we have promised, then we have to continue and finish the remainder. But I can't speak, I don't know exactly what their design is. Okay, anyway, it looks like based on the graphic that I saw, and just as a comment, Chair and the commission is that it looks like that the area in yellow is part of the parcel K extension. And then there is a right-of-way plan with this NCDOT actually going from extending actually aviation parkway to US 70, and then this road would actually come from US 70 all the way up to where that extension is. I guess question for traffic is, is that project funded or is that still kind of in limbo at this point in time? I guess I want to clarify that information, but it does seem to be there is a plan. Are we executing on that or has it been funded yet? So Earlene Thomas transportation, I'll take that question. The Northern Durham Parkway is not a funded project that at this time it is on the long range transportation plan where portions of it have either been constructed or right-of-way reserved with private development. But on the whole, the project is not a funded NCDOT project. Okay, thank you. I guess my only comment is, is that we're kind of building stuff out a parcel at a time, and yet we should be executing some of this plan. And that was kind of what I wanted to make sure that was shared with the public and obviously see if there is anything we can do to kind of to bring that up. Cause I do drive along a lot of these, the certainly Leesville coming out of my neighborhood over to US 70 and it is a country road and it is curvy. And so it is, it's not lit. And you do have the fire EMT unit right there on a quarter of duck nickels and at Leesville. And my concern is as much like was brought up by one of the residents is that, how do you get to anywhere, you know, from an emergency perspective to these different neighborhoods that are coming up? So I do think it's an infrastructure issue. And I think we've heard loudly from the communities that that is a concern. And I don't fault the developer on that. They have to do their best on what they can provide an offer. But I do think this is important to bring it up as a concern. That's my comments there. Thanks commissioner Morgan, commissioner Durkin, you are next. So I just wanted to clarify on the affordable housing and the 5% it's not 5% of the 837 units that would be part of this project. It's 5% of the apartment units, which is two and a half percent of the overall aggregate number of units. So it's not 5%, it's two and a half percent. And I just wanted to make that clear because speaking about it as 5%, I think it's confusing and in place what's being offered. I do appreciate that this is a very, it's a step. It is a step. I will give you that, but it's too small of a step for me to really throw myself behind. I think that we need to do more than this. We need to do more than two and a half percent on a project that is 837 units because two and a half percent is 22 of 837. So I would like that number to be larger. I did actually have another question for Mr. Eden. With the, it's not clear on the development plan, but are the different housing types integrated together or are they sort of subdivided across this 140 acres? I think he's on mute. Yeah. Still on mute. Okay. All right. I can hear you now though. Sorry, the, that color exhibit that are referred to earlier. So I don't know if Danny could, if that's available again, but I think we identified the middle portion as being a mixture of single family and towns. The only section where we like explicitly named one use was the purple section there. So the purple would be single family only and then you allow a mixture through the blue and then the orange as apartments and or townhomes. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Durkin, any additional questions? Sorry, that was it for me. I'm done with my comment. Thank you. Excuse me. This is Danny Colts for the planning part. Can I clarify something though? That is not actually shown on the development plan. So those areas that would not be committed to the development plan unless they were added to the development plan. Thanks for that clarification. And we have no problem if we needed to add a legend in the development plan that reflects this, that would not be a problem. Well, yeah, I just, my concern is, I think having a mix of unit types is a good thing. And we're, I think all of us for the most part are really looking for that. But with 140 acres, you could very easily split that up into something that looks more like three distinct developments rather than one that has the uses actually mixed. So I don't know what that commitment looks like or if you are ready to commit to this color blocking, but I'm also curious if other commissioners have the same thought or concern. Thanks. Thanks, Commissioner Durkin. Mr. Edens, just to make sure before we move on is this a commitment that you are proffering or is that something you're saying you're willing to put it forward if asked? No, I mean the intention in showing it was that, that is our intention to do it that way when we brought up the color map. So we, I just thought that would be, you know, the development plan is admittedly hard to read. And I thought a black and white inset may not do the trick, but we can add a black and white inset with as we go that reflects what Danny has showed. Okay. And Mr. Kultra is that, I know sometimes we just want to check with the staff before we accept a proffer and put that, include that in our case. Are you and the staff comfortable with that? Actually, behind the scenes I was told that if it is being shown at the meeting that they're committing, then that it is actually committed. So we'll be committing to this now. Great. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Cutrate. Thank you, Chair. My comments are along the lines of Commissioner Durkin's as it relates to the affordable, she hit the nail on the head with the percentage. I guess my question to elaborate a bit is, do you have an indication of projected rents for these apartments and the projected, I guess, rents for the affordable units? Maybe what would be helpful is understanding sort of the financial commitment there. If we're committing $300 a unit across those 22 units to the tone of roughly $80,000 a year of cash flow, that's helpful to understand what the true commitment is there. As we think about, obviously we're not sort of in your financials and in your books and understanding how you're modeling this out, but I would expect that a purified percent at those types of numbers on a project of this magnitude, a purified percent, even just in apartments, there's probably some room for that. And if there is, I really like this project. I think it's needed. I think, I mean, there's no question all the housing is needed. And if there's some room in your finances and your financials to squeeze in a few more affordable units, I think that's helpful. And I think that goes a long way on this project for me, at least, to looking at it really favorably. Thanks, Commissioner Covray. Commissioner Covray, do you have a question for Mr. Edens or just more that's just your statement to share? That's my statement. Thank you. We'll move to Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering, would it be possible to show a map of Brightleaf up where the Northern Durham Parkway crosses from this project into it? Because I wanna understand, we have a lot of speakers expressed concern about the way Northern Durham Parkway performs in their neighborhood and their concerns about how traffic from the parcel K, the K parcel will affect what they're already experiencing. And I'd like to kind of see that. I mean, I've driven all around these places, but quite frankly, Brightleaf is bewildering to me as a driver, I'm sure those of you who live there know it like the back of your hand, but I've been a little confused about where I am from time to time. Do we have a map that shows at least a portion of Brightleaf that has the Northern Durham Parkway running through it? And if we don't, then to ask the people who live there, is there a particular intersection or intersections where some sort of traffic calming measures would make things better for you? And then to the staff, I mean, this meeting is all about Northern Durham Parkway, but I don't have a very clear understanding of what that road will look like, where it will go and who it will serve. And I may be way behind the eight ball on this, but I'd like to know more about it. So those are my questions, Mr. Chair. And maybe we could start with the Brightleaf, somebody from Brightleaf to just say, oh, yes, isn't that handy? Thank you. So somebody to kind of show me how the Northern Parkway and these roads are currently functioning in terms of the safety issues that you raised. Commissioner Miller, okay, so you're just asking for someone who spoke during the public hearing who lives in the community? Right, we had several people. There was a gentleman who was on the board, but wasn't speaking for the board. Perhaps he could come to the mic. Maybe he could be unmuted and he could show and help us understand how, traffic from parcel K will work in Brightleaf. Great. I think Chris unmuted Mr. Lamana and there were others who raised their hand as well. I would just ask if you can briefly answer Commissioner Miller's question, that'd be great. Sure, thank you for the question, right? So you're on the map right there at Northern Durham Parkway and Prospect Parkway, so right there. So that's the problem area. I think when they first put that road in, I don't know who first put that road in. It was before I got here. It used to be, so coming, let's see, Prospect Parkway across there, there would be two lanes. So if you were going that way, that you're going right there, there'd be one way to go left or straight. And if you're coming the other way, going right or straight. They have, no, that was also going left or straight. They have since blocked off the left-hand turns for there. I think the NCDOT or the Durham County, I forget who someone came there because of the problems that we raised and said for lack of a better term, we shouldn't have these extra left turns. So they have put posts in there. If you went down that road, you'd actually see them. There's like reflector posts. So currently there's only one way you can go straight in there. I don't think this shows it. Yeah, so this shows the, when you look at it, you can see how it's going either straight or there's a left-hand turn. That left-hand turn is basically blocked out now. What regulates the traffic? If I'm driving on these streets and I pull up to this intersection, is it current stop signs or? Yeah, so on, yeah, you have two-way stop sign on Prospect. So the stop signs are on, yep, that side and that side. And the other one's a straight through. It's a 45-mile-per-hour road. When it gets to the school, when it's flashing, it's supposed to go down to 25. And of course- Danny, can you go back and so we can see where the school is and also where North Durham Parkway enters Parcel K? So the school is, yeah, up, there's the school right about a half an inch down. There, yeah, to the right, to the right, to the right. So go up about it. That's the house. So you go up just about an inch there. So that big blight, yep, right, right. Oh, you just went past it. Well, I think we see it. That's the school. That's the school. And if you kept going up North Durham Parkway, you're going to Sharon. They would be extending the road the other way, up past, I think, Flat River. Now let's go back the other direction and show us where North Durham Parkway enters Parcel K from Brightley. Yeah, so whoever's doing that, yeah, you'd have to show it. So our issue is at that intersection. That's where we have, we've had accidents. We had that other nasty accident. I told you where a car got flipped. We've had people nearly get hit up and down that road as they're walking, running, with their kids trying to cross. They actually had to move the walkway for the school because they put in some added, I think right-hand turn lanes for the buses to get in more smoothly into the school. It actually caused the walkways to have to be moved closer to school for safety reasons, I believe. The issue that we've come across, someone from the board actually looked into this, NCDOT, at some point, they will take over these roads. They're still under the developer or something. There's some rule that they get turned over at a certain time, and that time is not now. The issue is, whenever it does get turned over then, NCDOT, it's been pretty apparent to us that even when they get these, this isn't going, unless something probably really bad happens, I don't think this is at the top of their list to look at and try to alleviate or do whatever they need. They will at some point, but that's what they told us. I do appreciate that a lot. I do see traffic coming out of Parcel K, going down to Leesville Road, of course, and I also see some bright-leaf traffic coming through Parcel K to get to Leesville Road, which was a good point that the developer's engineer made, but I do see a lot of Parcel K traffic on the Northern Durham Parkway to get to Sharon, and I guess because that's the way everybody in this neighborhood gets to that school, I share the concerns, and I wonder whether or not we can improve that intersection to make it safer. And so that's a concern I have, and I'm grateful to the neighbors who brought it up as a specific point. And Commissioner Miller, Ms. Thomas with transportation has her hand raised. Oh, I'd love to hear from Erlene. Yeah, so if we can unmute you, Ms. Thomas. Thank you, Erlene Thomas, transportation. I just wanted to point out some of the things that are currently being worked on in conjunction with NCDOT along Northern Durham Parkway. You've heard tonight some of the concerns that have been raised. The first thing is, I guess, to address NCDOT is currently in the process of taking over or accepting the Northern Durham Parkway for maintenance. I understand that there are some punch list items that need to be addressed before they can take over maintenance, but that it's certainly in the works, and I think they're very close to doing that. The city did make some pedestrian improvements at the school driveway a little bit further north with some crossing improvements where that crosswalk was relocated for safety reasons and also, again, getting towards NCDOT, assuming maintenance responsibility. Once NCDOT does take over maintenance, the city has agreed to convert Prospect Parkway to a four-way stop condition until such time that the intersection can be signalized. And that requires some warrants that are standards that are more than just convenience of the community. Correct, correct. Meeting those warrants and then funding availability as well. Let me ask you, is it necessary that the road be a 45-mile-an-hour facility? That just seems awfully fast for that community. The roadway is intended to be a parkway-type design. Ultimately, it will be a four-lane-divided facility similar to Martin Luther King Parkway, if you can imagine. But it's on the plan and it's not funded and it exists in pieces where it exists at all. Does it have to be four... When it's not a parkway, does it have to have a parkway speed limit? So, NCDOT could certainly look at lowering the speed on Northern Durham Parkway. I don't know if they would be amenable to that. Once you lower it, if the expectation is that's what it will remain as being. And that's certainly the design speed that the road has been designed and constructed under. Yes, I get it. You've been very kind and very informative. I'm gonna learn a lot about Northern Durham Parkway to not suspect. I have to say that I find the proffer for even 20 units of affordable housing to be remarkable in the larger context of my experience on the Planning Commission. I share the concern that I'm sympathetic to the idea that out of a project this big with so many units that it could be more. And when I was trying to scan the submission that we were sent by the Planning Department today on my little computer screen and saw the 15%, I thought, oh my God, that's a huge... I mean, the 5%, I thought, that's a huge jump. And then I saw that it was still limited to the apartments and it's essentially the same. It's still something that I think is noteworthy. This is a project that I wanna support. I wish it had, you know, I'm the design commitment guy and the design commitments I hoped would be better. I have spoken with Mr. Eden's about this. I've also spoken with other representatives of the developer about this. This developer is interested in not only this parcel but other parcels in this area and is a big player. And if we could come to some understanding about minimum design elements, then, although I couldn't be their champion, I think their projects would find a smoother pathway to approval. Those design elements aren't here. However, I do appreciate the increase in the rear-loaded units. I suspect that with this many units in a project they're probably all the ones that are on the ends and corners. But still, I appreciate it. The, I'm not sure I understand the actual proffer. I mean, the commitment language is a little confusing to me, but I know what you mean. I'll admit, I'll fess up. I'm the one who has been concerned all along that we have all these really big projects in an area of where the city has, as Mr. Edens has said, has turned the green light on by creating the lift station. But creating the lift station is an important part of public infrastructure to encourage development, but it isn't the only part. And what we haven't done is planning. We're not planning to improve the country roads that serve all these parcels. We don't have any planning in place to identify reasonable and smartly designed commercial nodes or public parks. All of those things should have been lined up with the lift station in order to make this basin area a Durham expansion area. And so I'm still troubled by all of that. And I really want the staff's efforts to address some of that and try to get the planning in front of development again. But these projects have just come on inexorably. I, again, am the one that would like to see us get that planning process advanced. So I'll listen to the rest of you folks on how we ought to vote on this one. I had hoped that we would see a few more commitments that would make it just enough so that I could vote for this one. This one's kind of on the edge of some of the others. I'm more concerned about the Olive Branch road projects than this one because of its proximity to Highway 70 by a leaseful road. And because it is tucked up against Brightleaf which is kind of an example for modern suburban development in the area. Again, haven't decided yet. I'm waiting for you folks to convince me. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Commissioner Miller. We're gonna move through the other commissioners. I do want to remind everyone but particularly the commissioners because of the closed captioning support, every two hours we've been asked to take a 10 minute break. So around 7.30, we're gonna hit that first break. I'm hoping we can at least finish this case before we get to that break. So just with that in mind, we'll move to commissioner Cease. Thank you. I will not accept the tall order of trying to convince Commissioner Miller how to vote but I will share some observations. And I would do so in maybe three big buckets to try to categorize my comments that I think can be hopefully convey some of my thoughts not just relative to this project but relative to the others that we have on the agenda night and then some larger planning issues. So the three buckets that I'd like to address just to categorize them are the application materials that we were presented with at the last time this meeting that this project came to us and then the deferral until tonight's session and some of the comments that the applicant, Mr. Edens has described to us. The second bucket kind of arises out of some of the concerns that we've heard expressed with regards to, I'm gonna call it specificity some of the specifics or whether it's characterizes design commitments or what goes where some of the things that we touched on last time and I still have some concerns about that but I'm gonna take these in reverse order. And so the third bucket is some of the transportation issues that we've heard about both from the many folks from the public who spoke and all of those comments were very helpful as has been Erling Thomas's contributions. So it's very helpful to hear from city staff in this regard and just the discussion around Northern Durham Parkway in particular is concerning independent of the project and what the project is proposing just the discussion with regards to proximity to the school ways in which children, parents, et cetera can walk along Northern Durham Parkway the fact that it's a 45 mile per hour facility and it meets the definition of facility it doesn't meet the definition of a street or a neighborhood street it's a facility and NCDOT terms and it has those characteristics in terms of the wide lanes and the wide curb radii that facilitate that 45 mile an hour design speed and so independent of what it is signed at I would still have concerns about the ways in which traffic would behave on that Parkway and how that interacts with expectations or travel behaviors in terms of particularly accessing the school. Also on the transportation question the graphic that Commissioner Morgan was referencing and it was pulled up and we don't need to see it now but I noticed that there was also an Anger Avenue extension that sliced across this site and that is not captured directly nor necessarily am I suggesting that be captured directly but there's a larger question about planning for this area that is propelled by the indication of that proposed extension and the way in which in this development plan it is picked up with a more curvilinear route coming all the way through parcel K the advantage of the way it's picked up by the applicant is that it can be constructed as part of this project but I think it would be important for the planning staff planning commission elected officials to understand what the larger implications of that are relative to the planning for the area. So those are just a few comments on transportation working back to my first bucket and particularly the applicant's comments to start off the night really focused on what I heard to be kind of a sense of frustration with the ways in which what he and his team had been hearing in our last meeting was about transportation. And I just wanna say that the concerns I heard from the last meeting were larger than that or broader than that. Certainly the affordable housing conversation has been referenced tonight. And so I just wanna highlight a few items. First, I completely agree and understand and have worked in this world for 20 years. This project has been in the works for two to three years of planning efforts, design efforts, design studies, lots of decisions to be made. And yet when it came before us for the first public hearing there were quite a few additional design commitments for proverbs that were put forth on the screen and we never actually had them in paper until later. There was a delay in getting us the information that was presented. And I'm not characterizing this as staff's problem. I'm characterizing this as coming to the table very late with additional design commitments very late in the sense of a two to three year endeavor to assemble a proposal for rezoning. And I think that raises some concerns. And then tonight, I'm also making these comments out of recognition that we didn't really talk about the vote for deferral last time. We had the motion, it made good sense. It was I believe a nine, three vote but we didn't have a lot of discussion about it. And I voted no for the deferral out of both concerns that what the applicant would bring forward tonight wouldn't change very much from the last time. Wasn't my imagination. That's what the applicant said when we met. The applicant said, I don't know that it'll change very much. And so that was one piece of input we had from the applicant. And then secondly, I felt like there were a lot of things just being put up at the last time to see what would be sufficient to secure approval. And quite frankly, I think that we as the commission should have, you know, it's every applicant's right to do whatever they think is necessary and in their interest and in their client's interest. But I think we as a commission have to have the respect for the staff, staff time and for the time that it takes for a public to show up yet again for another meeting to converse yet again on this particular issue. And so I was a little unsettled with the idea that this project was being deferred without the expectation of much else changing. That said, some things did change from the applicant with some additional proffers. And also what changed was the unit mix. And so we found out yet again tonight not in the paper copy, but verbally tonight again, two to three years in the planning for this endeavor that wait a second, we need to increase the townhouse count by 30 units. I mean, I'm sorry, by 30% and so yeah, there's a 10% increase in the rear load if my math is right on that point, which is of benefit in terms of the public realm for sure. But that 10% is offset by a 15%, I'm sorry, a 30% increase in the number of townhouses going from 220 on the application to 285. And so another way to think of that is it's just a shifting of single family houses to rear load townhouse. Now, this could be hugely beneficial in terms of adding housing supply. But I think we're at a point in Durham where the challenges around housing access and housing affordability need to be addressed more comprehensively and not with the provision of housing alone as being the end objective. So I guess my summary on this is that I was uncomfortable and remained so with regards to this application as being insufficiently detailed. And so that brings up my last point because it's not the full burden of the applicant in this instance. I think the PDR district itself is a hugely important tool in our zoning considerations in the city, especially for smaller sites, for infill sites, for challenging sites, and even for large sites if there is a sufficient amount of innovation or design clarity and where I'm coming with those terms is the plan development residential intent statement in the UDO. And so I'm gonna read that because it informs the way I'm thinking about this project. And so it states that the PDR district is established to allow for design flexibility and residential development check. We've got that. The applicant has 140 acres to really do a lot of different things that aren't clarified. But the paragraph goes on to state that the district has intended to encourage efficient use of the land and public services and to promote high quality design that will provide a variety of dwelling types. It provides a variety of dwelling types as well as adequate support services and open space for the residents of the development. The district regulations are intended to allow innovative development that is integrated with the proposed adjacent uses and compatible with existing patterns of development. And I guess I'm not convinced at all that there's any high quality design, however that broadly defined term could be interpreted in a thousand different ways. But it's especially the last sentence with regards to innovative development integrated with proposed adjacent uses and compatible with existing patterns of development. I guess I'm just very uncomfortable with this project just as I was last time when it came before us. My level of discomfort with it last time was because I wanted to see more information. My level of discomfort this time is the same but I feel even more so with that hearing the comments tonight less about the transportation concerns but more about the fact that there's ongoing planning in the area and also looking back just at the intense statement for the district that we're considering. And so that's where my thoughts are on the project at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Sees. We got Commissioner Baker and then Commissioner Williams again just a reminder looking to break at 7.30 if possible. We can run a few minutes over but I really would like us to wrap up this case before the break, particularly for all the neighbors who signed on. So Commissioner Baker, I'll recognize you. Yeah, I spoke at length on this case the last time it came up last month. So I'm not gonna go into the detail that I went into when I spoke last time. I'm just gonna keep high level. A lot of other commissioners have covered the things that I wanted to say. This is a massive site, 140 acres. 140 acres of contiguous land and forested land. And so if you're gonna be chopping down a significant portion of that, I think the question is, what are we gonna replace that with? I wanna take this to a high level. We're in a climate crisis and we have an equity crisis and a racial justice crisis going on. And I feel like sometimes we're just quite disconnected from the real world and what's actually going on. Much of these crises, I think are tied to the developments that we have, the developments that we are approving on a regular basis. In this city, we're approving over 1,100 acres of sprawl every single year in this city. You know, low density, automobile oriented, single use, no other way of getting around. We had a couple of folks talk about, they were concerned about some of the affordable housing units because they wouldn't actually be able to get anywhere unless they owned and operated a vehicle which we know is very expensive. Commissioner Sees just talked a little bit about housing and how we view housing in a bubble instead of viewing it as an integrated piece of the urban fabric and how important that is. So, keeping this high level, do we care about transitioning our city from one that is completely auto-dominated, one that is completely exclusionary in nature to one that is vibrant and that is walkable and that's mixed use and that's diverse in housing type and in people and possibilities and thinking about inclusivity and creating an inclusive city and one that's sustainable and a green city. And when I look at this proposal, I think not even close, no way. So, keeping this at a high level, there are small pieces that are attractive about this proposal, but it's 140 acres. It's 140 acres and there's only one use on it and no one can get anywhere and it's disconnected and it's just very similar to everything else we're seeing and it's just kind of a continuation of this status quo and we say the same thing over and over and over at our meetings and I'm not alone in the things that I'm saying right now. And sometimes we'll see a developer come forward with something a little bit different but they don't always. So, this is a pretty easy note for me. I'm not gonna get into the things that I do like about the proposal, some of the commitments that I do like because there are some, I'm just gonna say this doesn't come close to hitting the mark and I'm not gonna really put up with baby steps anymore, so that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner Amandolia. All right, so I know I can definitely keep my comments under nine minutes. Thank you very much, Chair Busby, for recognizing me. Nine minutes for everyone and then a vote to Commissioner Williams. Well, I definitely can keep mine under a minute and a half. My vote, this is simply no. I stand with the residents on this and I know traffic impact studies have been done by all types of people and the only thing computers can consistently come up with are guests. And though we may be trying to forecast what's going to happen with the communities that are being built but if this access is another road then other people who live in this area will figure that out and they will join in on the travel through this area. I am deeply concerned about the residents and their ability to remain safe and protected in this neighborhood. And as far as the proposed adjustments or the additions to this go, I'm kind of with Mr. Sees here. There were things that were proposed before we didn't discuss whether or not we should really continue it. We did, we knew nothing much was going to change. So in the prior meeting I was prepared to vote no, I'm going to vote no tonight about this. Definitely going to have some stronger comments that I want to leave out there but I am emphatically upset and I am deterred as a Durham resident that we should accept that 5% of affordable housing is better than nothing when everyone comes to the table saying that we're trying to address the crisis by doing this. And we have all of these other things that we're supposed to have a consideration for and I just feel as though there's a certain amount of arrogance that's in the place of things that are being presented and the amount of community lack of engagement and consideration for the residents and how they feel. I think that something is being presented just because it can be and there's no reason why we can't back off, break this up into smaller chunks without having to have a rezoning request for 140 acres to produce something that's going to dramatically change it the way that communities are formed and impacted. So in my promise to keep this brief, no will be my vote. Thanks, Commissioner Williams. Commissioner, I'm going to do it. Thank you, Chair. My plan is to ask a question, make a brief statement and then make a movement, make a motion unless anyone has a statement before then. My first quick question is just a clarifying point from the packet. This says that the estimated price point for single family units would be 250,000 and for town homes would be 325,000. That is the opposite of my intuition. And so I'm curious if there's a typo on what the actual estimated price point is. And I'll address that to Jared. I'm not sure. Are you talking about the staff report? I didn't prepare the staff report. I mean, I'm sure that's just a typo. That's not the intention, I'm certain. Can you tell us, say, the estimated price points you have for the single family town home units? It would be market rate. And that market changes by the day. So I don't like throwing numbers out, but I mean, it's going to be market rate, whatever the market will bear, whatever bright leaves selling for it right next door. Thank you. And I would just point out to folks if you aren't aware that homes they're currently selling about 20 or 30 pay more than their original list price point. So when we have these estimates in these median homes, you can bump them up a little bit. I'll keep my comments brief. I agree. The packet was hard to understand because of different information coming from the applicant. And I think this case in particular has shown that Durham is saying how it wants to approach the issue of affordable housing. We want more, we want it. And if applicants were to bring us more affordable housing, I believe this planning commission and the elected officials would be more likely to wiggle a little on some of the other things. There are some things we won't wiggle on, but if you bring affordable housing, it makes cases a lot more appealing to us more than just 22 units on 140 acres. And the last thing I'll say is we're making a choice. And when we accept or deny this approval, if we were to accept this, we would be saying that 22 affordable housing units is enough to put more lives at risk due to traffic near a school. It would be enough to clear cut 100 acres of trees that we can't get back. And for me, it is not enough. I would clearly be voting on this like my other commissioners that have said so beforehand. I will offer a pause before I make a motion in case Chair would like to make any final comments. But I am ready to make a motion at the appropriate time. Thank you. I will recognize you in a moment. First, I wanted to recognize Mr. Coulter who raised his hand. Yes, thank you, Chair Busby. Commissioner Almondella, I would like to point out that we do get those numbers for the staff report. Those are actually derived from numbers we receive from the applicant regarding the fiscal impact analysis. We require those numbers so that the fiscal impact analysis for the associated annexation petition can be created. So those were actually sent into us from the applicant. Thank you. Great. And then Commissioner Almondella, I did just want to share my thoughts. Thank you, Mr. Coulter. I think I feel very similar to Commissioner Miller I'm going to vote no for a variety of reasons, but I do want, I appreciate the affordable housing proffer and the a hundred year stormwater proffer. And Mr. Edens is consistently bringing us a hundred year stormwater proffers. That should be our code. And he is the first to do that. So I do want to commend those things. Those are important steps forward. I share other concerns and that's why I'm going to vote no, but I hope the applicant, Mr. Edens and his team will continue to bring those kinds of proffers because they are beginning to represent what we are hearing from the community and we've heard this evening. I did just want to say that before we begin a motion to vote, but with that, Commissioner Almondella, I'll recognize you to make the motion. In regards to case C 18 triple zero 34 parts of K, I would recommend that we, I would move that we recommend to approve this case and the associated from change to the Durham City Council. Second. Seconded. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Almondella. And I heard Commissioner Miller with the second first and we'll have the roll call vote please. Almondella? No. Baker? No. Busby? No. No. Durkin? No. No. Kenchen? Yes. Lowe? MacGyver? No. Miller? No. Morgan? No. Cease? No. And Williams? No. It passes. When I'm sorry, it fails. The motion fails on one to 11. Thank you. As I noted before, every two hours we've been asked to take a 10 minute break so our closed captioning staff can stretch. I'm sure that's good for all of us. So we're gonna go on mute and go off video for 10 minutes, but we'll be back in 10 minutes and we'll pick up our cases from there. Thanks everyone. Commissioners, when you're back, if you can come onto video and once I see a quorum, we'll get started again. This is Chris Pierce in Plain Farmer Almond. So many commissioners have their videos left on. So if you can't turn it on, just let me know. I have accidentally disabled your controls. Welcome back, everyone. We've got a quorum of commissioners. So we will get started on the next case. And that is case Z19-00027 Griffin Place. And we'll start with the staff report. Thank you, Chair Busby. Danny Kulture again for the planning department. This is a request for zoning map change Z19-00027 Griffin Place. It's been received from Fred Shekels of 10 Oaks Realty LLC and Jamie Guerrero, Moreston Richie Associates of NCPA, who's acting agent for three parcels located at 2308 Gear Street, 2315 Farrell Road and 2402 Carpenter Road, totaling 84.84 acres. The site is within the county's jurisdiction in the water suburban tier and then falls Jordan Watershed Protection District B or FJB overlay and also the mass transportation quarter I-85 overlay or MTC I-85. And annexation petition BDG-19-000-0-0-0-1-5 is associated with the case. It must be approved prior to resuming approval. The applicant proposes a change in zoning designation of the site from Rural Residential RR, Residential Suburban 20, RS20 and Industrial Light IL to Plan Development Residential 5.578 or PDR 5.578 for a maximum of 462 residential dwelling units, 168 single family and 294 townhomes. The future land use map is designated as Office Low Density Residential, Industrial, Recreational and Open Space. If zoning is approved, the recommended FLUM proposal is Low Medium Density Residential Recreation and Open Space. As you can see on the aerial map, the site is located at the northern tip of the site is located along Gear Street, Farrell Road, Disex, the site. Also a portion of it is located on Carpenter Road and also on Junction Road. The site photos indicate that the site is currently undeveloped with a mixture of hardwood pine and mature, hardwood vegetation and pine. There is jurisdictional streams located on the southern most portion of the site and also some hundred year flood hazard area. These are the site photos. The site is surrounded by public and civic uses to the north across Gear Street and also is adjacent to undeveloped and develop residential uses on residentially and industrial zone land to the southeast and west. The context map shows again that the site is owned residential, RR residential suburban 20 and industrial lights and it's planned zone for a PDR. The FLUM again indicates office, Low Density Residential Industrial and Recreational Open Space within the flood hazard area and the FLUM would be changed to Low Density Residential and Recreation Open Space within the flood hazard. The development plan indicates a proposed collector street network location, external access points, required tree covers location, project boundary buffers listed at maximum density open space and maximum properties surfaces of 50%. There are some key commitments on the development plan prior to issuance certificate off. I can see provide a five foot sidewalk connection from the intersection of site access one and the East Gear Street to the existing sidewalk located on the north side of East Gear Street that fronts Glen Elementary School including a crossing to NCDOT standards required accommodations for safe passages required by NCDOT and final location would be determined at some time site plan. Also dedicated 25 foot greenway easements along the western parcel boundary, excuse me, adjacent to the existing railroad corridor as illustrated on Sheep DV4 prior to issuance of building permit. Reserve minimum 110 foot right away for the proposed Northern Durham Parkway as illustrated on Sheep DV3 site will also contain a minimum three electric vehicles charging stations. Recreation Open Space will contain a minimum of 2,560 foot linear feet of 10 foot wide multi-purpose trail, 5,280 linear feet of five foot wide walking trail, minimum of acre dog park, two pocket parks, each at least 8,712 square feet in size, stormwater BMP size to capture 100 year storm event, maximum width of each individual town should be 20 feet. And also there are many traffic commitments listed on the develop plan, which were required by traffic impact analysis. Those are listed on the development plan and also on the staff report. There are 11 comprehensive plan policies, applicable to proposed development all being met except for the land use policy and staff that's analyzed all of these. And if the land use map is adopted, then this request will be consistent with the comp plan. I did want to point out two additional items to bring attention to. There's been some discussion concerning the North Durham Parkway alignment for the Northern portion of this development and a potential proposed industrial development adjacent to the South. These alignments being worked out and we as planning staff feel that they would not have an impact on the proposed development plan as a slight deviation to the illustrated alignment and shown would be allowed. And just wanted to point that out for the commission. So in that is the presentation. And if staff, if commission has any questions, staff's available. Thanks as always, Mr. Kultra. Commissioner Miller, your hands raised. I don't know if you're just getting in the queue or if you had a question before we open the public hearing. I do have a question. So we received yesterday a request to defer this for 90 days. And so where is that request? And should we go through a public hearing if we have a delay request on the table? Staff, if you want to address that, I do know the individual who made that request has signed up to speak. So I'm guessing, and a lot of folks, we have 22 people signed up to speak on this item. That would be a private request from the opposition. We as staff have not made that request. I didn't say you had, Danny. I'm sorry. We received the request. So if we have a request to delay the case and the request was for deferral, not a continuance. So I just want to know where we stand procedurally. I hate to have a whole bunch of people talk about a development plan that might be changed and then come back before the commission. I just, where are we right now? I see Miss Smith, I assume you may be able to offer context. Well, so there was a request for deferral. I'm not sure if they meant to say continuance because we have advertised this and open and we, because we've advertised the public hearing, we have to at least open it. Like you need to hear from the applicant before you make that decision because the request was from someone other than the applicant and not the staff. And then I'm going to take a look at the idea very quickly and read the actual nomenclature of deferral versus continuance because normally we don't get a request for a deferral during the public hearing or that's this close to the public hearing. So I'll be back in just a jiffy after I look at that. But in the meantime, I think you need to at least hear from the applicant. Potentially the person that made the request for the excuse me, the deferral. Well, is the request for a deferral still on the table? And if it is, should we just hear arguments on the deferral rather than launching into the whole presentation? I mean, if this were a court proceeding, which it is not a motion to delay would be heard as a motion before you got into the meat of the case. That's just my approach. It doesn't necessarily mean it's right or is the approach. This isn't something we get very often. Sure, and I think as far as how you handle the request for the continuance, that's really up to the commission. Again, I'm going to go off camera for a minute and look up something and I'll be right back. Thank you, Ms. Smith. I mean, Commissioner Miller, it's a good question. I'm inclined to, well, number one, we are obligated to open the public hearing. I would like to hear from the applicant. And then we do have a number of individuals signed up to speak for and against. Just from my eyeballing it, about half of the people who signed up to speak, I think are at the meeting. Many of them have sat through the last two hours and 10 minutes. So I'd like to give them the opportunity to speak. And we'll hear about the request. I think it'll probably come up both from the applicant, I hope we'll address it. And the individual who made the request I think third to speak for the opponents. So I'm inclined to open it up and have the public hearing. But I think it's a commission decision based on any staff updates that we hear as well. So with that said, I'll open the public hearing and we have three individuals, I think as part of the applicant team, Jared Edens, Fred Shekels and Jamie Guerrero. And so Mr. Edens, I'll hand it to you and let you and your team determine the order of how you'd like to speak. Yes, sir, thank you, Chair Busby. Jared Edens with Edens Land. I'll speak to the Northern Durham Parkway issue shortly. I'll just go through my presentation quickly. Fred and Jamie are here if there are questions. I just wanna highlight a few points that Danny pointed out. We're applying for 462 units. It's over about 82 acres. It's a density of about 5.6. Just for context, the suburban tier in Durham allows densities up to 20 units an acre. As the proposal of 5.6 is not relatively high. We believe it's a really good location for residential. It's not often that you have a project with a school and a Walmart shopping center and a planned industrial employment center to the West surrounding a piece of property that can be developed as residential. So we think that that could work well. Stormwater-wise, as with the last case, we are offering to detain a 100-year storm with this one as well. I know that we have some immediate neighbors. They have some legitimate drainage concerns. Drainage concerns are, I find them always a bit legitimate. But to offset that, we're gonna ensure that every pond on the site, we have to funnel our stormwater to the ponds and we will detain them to the 100-year event. That should alleviate any flooding concerns. Just highlight a couple of the conditions. When you told about the trail, it's one and a half miles of trail that we're committing to combined in the project. That's in addition to the miles of sidewalk that's gonna be located internally along all the proposed public roads. So we think it's a very walkable development. Also wanna point out that the commitment, the townhome committing to a 20-foot-wide maximum width, that does a couple of things. Again, it's something we try to do for affordability to limit the width. It also affects the appearance also because you really can't do a two-car garage townhome on a 20-foot-wide unit. So capping the width at 20 ensures that these are one-car garage units and you won't have that predominantly garage front look. Transportation and traffic, we did prepare TIA, as Danny mentioned. I've been in this a long time. I've not seen very many residential development only that are proffering three signals. I think this project's proffering signals at 85, at a couple of 85 ramps. And it's not often you see that, multiple pedestrian improvements. The zoning itself reduces just by the staff report. I mean, we're currently zoned. The zoning itself would reduce the car count by about 800 cars a day by downzoning to the residential. And Danny, if you don't mind, if you could bring up the development plan that shows the Northern Durham Parkway. Alignment, I don't know if that's forthcoming. Okay, so while we're waiting on it, the alignment shown on the development plan has been on that plan that way for about two years. You know, the reason I know that NCDOT is okay with what we have shown is because NCDOT is very much part of the rezoning and development plan review process. You know, if I had a major issue with DOT in my alignment at Northern Durham Parkway, I don't think I would have gotten their approval in November on the development plan. But what has shown that the fat line there, that matches generally the transportation plan. That's where we're supposed to start out trying to match the transportation plan. And then you adjust as needed, which is some of the issues that are cropping up to the south. But what I would like to point out is we've met with the neighbors to the south. You know, we've been working towards a compromise, even very recently on Friday, we received a compromise sort of sketch of how Northern Durham Parkway was looked, that we were happy to accept, staff was copied on that correspondence. And that change only resulted in our, where we connect that Farrell Road, it only resulted in that location, that alignment moving, I think they said 75 feet. I think Grace and Sarah would confirm that, I mean, oftentimes entry and access points and those road alignments can shift even following city council approval. It's up to the discretion of the planning director. And generally when you're talking about a 75 or even 100 or 200 foot shift in that access point to the west, that would not trigger a re-vote that would not go back before planning commission. The planning director has the ability to make that call. So I believe that, you know, what we're looking for tonight is a vote because we've been in process two and a half years. The other project in question, I don't think anything's been submitted yet, but we've been working diligently to try to find something that works for everyone. As of Friday, I thought we had a solution that worked for everyone. So we would like to continue with the vote tonight. And I'd be glad to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Redins. I'm sure we'll have some questions in a moment. Before we move to the opponents to speak, I know Ms. Smith, I believe is now available to come give us a follow-up to the work she's been doing. That's correct. As far as how this would be treated, based on how it was, the request was submitted. The request for the deferral was not submitted directly to the planning director and per UDA 3.5.7A2, this would be an other type deferral that does not meet the criteria for an actual deferral, so it would be treated as a continuance, meaning you can continue the case. Again, that's in Article 357A. Number one, excuse me, A has A1, A, B, and C, and that talks about deferrals, but then it talks about any other deferral that does not meet that criteria shall be treated as a continuance. So it would be up to the commission how they wanted to treat that request and if they wanted to grant any additional time. In addition, I can confirm what Mr. Jared, Eden's just stated on the record that shifting the alignment along ferrule, we did meet with both parties of interest last week, last Friday, and we did clarify for both at that time that that could be done outside of the zoning map change. Those points of access are shown in general locations, and so they do shift sometimes even after zoning map changes are approved and that is covered under the requirements for a development plan where it says to show general locations of access. So I think I answered everything you needed. If I didn't, I'm here and you can call me back. Thanks, Ms. Smith. That's really helpful. I'm gonna plan to then continue with the public hearing, give everyone the opportunity to speak when we get back to the commissioners. That's certainly something that sounds like it's our normal purview. We have the ability to continue a case for up to three cycles if we would like to. So I think I'm sure we'll hear that during the hearing as well. So moving to the opponents and I'm gonna read through the names and Chris just put them in the chat box as well. We've got Kathy Lewis, Robin Sorrell, Patrick Biker, Shauna, Glaspe, and Chase Markovic will start us off. So Kathy Lewis, again, two minutes per speaker. If you can give us your name, your address, make your remarks. If you get over two minutes, I'll let you know and that way you can just finish your thought and then we can move to the next speaker. But Kathy, you're welcome to start when you are available. I'm available and I thank you guys, all people for your time and your consideration with regard to what's going on in our neighborhood here. My address is 2522 Joyner Road and I also have the property at 2509 Farrell Road. I'm sure you've received the email that our group has sent so that you have a broad picture of our various concerns and I'm just gonna highlight a couple that are near and dear to my heart. The house that I live in is 100 years old and I am living with decision made 100 years ago. And I just wanna make sure that as we make move forwards that we're doing the same thing for our families and others who will move into our community that we make the right decisions for it. Our environment, it's noted on that we have a creek that runs through and currently right now before this project, we have a problem with the runoff situation. So in the past, someone decided that when we build the road we're gonna put a small pipe underneath the road which is going to cause water and I mean Joyner Road. Cause the water to back up on one side cause it can't get out through the pipe going down. It has led to so to speak lakes that were not there prior so flood zone areas and has led to erosion between Joyner Road and Ferrell. And I know studies have been made and I understand that there is a 100 year plan for the water, but I don't know if the current situation was in mind with the people who made this plan. I have no information saying I have no, no one has that I know have come by and the other part is the pandemic. I wanna say, this is my second- If you can wrap up your thoughts, you're about two and a half minutes, but if you can- Oh, okay, all right, yeah, I'm wrapping it up. The pandemic has had a tremendous effect on all of our lives, everyone. And when I hear these studies, is that taken into consideration? When was the study made? Because things have changed and will continue to change moving forward. And so are we keeping that high in our mind as we make decisions for the future? And I thank you for your time. Thank you, I really appreciate it. Robin Sorrell, you are next or Rob Sorrell. It was Robin on the sheet, it's Rob here. So if you can introduce yourself and make your comments, please. Okay, my name is Rob Sorrell. I live on Journal Road 2519. I have about three acres here and I have lived here for 40 plus years. I've raised a family and we live in a house that's also a hundred years old. See, I am against the Griffin Place rezoning as it stands. I have concerns about the increased amount of traffic that will bring to our area and the effect that the project will have on the community and the land. My land butts up to the project on the backside. I'm concerned about the amount of water runoff onto my land and my neighbor's land. The lower end floods now during a hard rain. Water backs up trying to get under Jordan Road. And I hate I didn't get pictures of this earlier before but at times it looks like a small lake. With all the new buildings of houses and roads that this will create, it'll just create more runoff. These are some of my concerns. I know this property will be developed sooner or later. I would like to see the number of units be kept to as low as possible. I know the developer does not have our best interest in mind but I hope the city council will and you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Sorrell. Next is Patrick Biker. Good evening, Chairman Busby, Vice Chair Kinshine, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Patrick Biker. I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm here tonight representing Scannnell Properties. We have submitted an annexation petition for approximately 200 acres to the south of the Griffin Place Development. And we submitted that annexation petition to the city on February the 5th. All 200 acres are already zoned industrial light. So it will be an annexation and a site plan approval in order for this industrial park proposed by Scannnell Properties to move forward. I do want to state the outset that we are not specifically opposed to Griffin Place. However, the Northern Durham Parkway alignment is a crucial infrastructure issue for our community. Our team, speaking for Scannnell Properties, has not met with NCDOT regarding the alignment of the Northern Durham Parkway as it crosses Fairle Road. This is an important intersection of two thoroughfares and it needs to be reviewed carefully and thoroughly by NCDOT in order to assess all of the environmental and design issues that need to be resolved in order for both projects to move forward. Accordingly, we are respectfully asking the Planning Commission for a 90-day continuance of this public hearing so this review and analysis by NCDOT can take place. Northern Durham Parkway has been an important issue for Durham for over 30 years and I had a great deal of personal involvement with it back in the 1990s. As a community, we need to get this right. And so we respectfully ask for a 90-day continuance. I'll be happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have and I thank you very much for your time tonight and we hope that you will approve a continuance in order to make sure this infrastructure issue is decided correctly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beiker. The next couple of speakers, I don't see them here but I'm gonna read them off in case they are with us. If you're calling in and your name's not listed but I call you, please hit star nine to digitally raise your hand so that we can call on you. Shauna, Glaspe, Chase Markovic and then Faith Neary and Jeff Bezdula. And so I believe Faith Neary is with us and Jason Bezdula, I believe, is also with us. Someone's on the line. If you can give us your name and your address and make your comments, please. I'm Faith Neary. Do y'all hear me? Yes. I'm at 2517 Feral Road and I am opposed to this development at this time because I'm agreeing with the past couple of speakers but also the two elementary schools that are within, one is like within a block of my house and one is like within two miles are both at capacity. And I know if we bring more building projects into housing those children are gonna need a school to go to. And also I am opposed because this neighborhood is I'm sorry, the current density is not similar to what's already here. And I would like to request that there be no more than a maximum of four units per acre to at least resemble what is in place already. It's a rural area. These are country roads. These country roads are not maintained and they're getting worse with all the traffic coming through with the stuff that developing going on around. There's also two developments within a mile radius of this development. And I'm wondering are these, is everyone communicating with each other? Do they know what the other's building? It just seems like the infrastructure in this part of the county does well is not set up for what is coming and got to build the foundation before we keep adding up. As far as the bridge is crossing over 85, there are two lane roads, more stop lights are needed and there's just a, there's plenty of concerns in that area. Thank you for hearing our concerns and giving us the time and the floor. Thank you, Ms. Neary. Next is Jason Buzdula. Hi, I'm Jason Buzdula. I live at 2503 Joyner Road. This proposed development about my property on two sides and I'm opposed to it in its current iteration. It doesn't, the density of this doesn't enhance the current community. It would detract from it. There's so many reasons why my neighbors and I are concerned about this. I can reiterate the flooding issue because I'm the other one, I'm next door to Sorrell and I'm the other person who gets a lot of flooding on my property from it. We also have a lot of concerns about our drinking water because all of us in this area have well water and we're concerned about this density and this amount of hard scape area, what impact that's gonna have on our aquifer for our water. Along with just the, what Faith just said about the roads being old narrow country roads that cannot really even handle the volume that's on them now and adding to that without upgrading these roads is gonna cause a lot more problems than it will help. And I'll leave it with that. Thank you. Thank you. Next is David Corley. I don't see that he is with us. So we will move to Bonita Green who I see is with us. Yes, good evening to everyone and thank you to the commissioners for allowing me to speak. There's a lot of development going on in this northeast corner of Durham and you running into the same issues that we discussed when Merrick Moore came before you that the infrastructure is not capable of handling the traffic of building these dense communities with no sidewalks along these roads then and you've got the increased traffic it's very dangerous for pedestrians to walk along these roads. The other thing is that we're dealing with going out further into the county we're in falls of the new flood basin and it'll be Creek zone. So a lot of these homes and many of these homes there are a lot of underground springs that run throughout this area. So you get a lot of flooding all over and how is this development gonna handle that? We often hear that they're gonna allow so much for 100 year flood plan or whatever whatever but realistically how does that really handle the runoff onto other people's property because you're cutting down a lot of natural area you're creating all of these impervious surfaces which are going to bring more runoff into the area and it's, you know and there's more development to come because at Red Mill Road and Cheek Road there's a developer that's planning to add in 600 homes. You know, so how much is too much? The infrastructure needs to be thought of the design of this rural area needs to be considered I know the city wants to have this dense development but the property this area of town is just not right for that type of dense development and also considering that one of the things that is you know, really talked about a lot in Durham is affordable housing and this particular development is not allowing for any affordable housing and not meaning affordable housing as for to you know, public housing but housing that people in Durham that can afford houses that you know, teachers can afford houses that you know, essential workers can afford not just people who are you know, moving into Durham but people who already live in Durham we need to also consider them in all of these spaces you know, especially where you have historical homes all of that needs to be taken into consideration builders are only concerned about their profit they're not showing any concern for the community and or the residents that already live there so I appreciate you listening to me and taking me into consideration. Thank you. Oh and I vote no against the development. Thank you as always. Next is Kyle Marion. I don't see that they are with us so then we have Diane Clements after that. Diane we'll try to take you off of mute as we wait the next bunch of speakers I think are with us so we have Lindsay Dunn next and why don't we go to you since it looks like you are off mute. Hi, my name is Lindsay Dunn and I've lived at 2522 Farrell Road just past the Carpenter Road intersection for five years now. There are precious few places you can live near Durham that aren't jam packed with housing and this area happens to be one of them living in a place where space is a commodity many are eager to get their hands on the parcels of land that are unclaimed we know it's inevitable that the land will be used yet it's natural that we want whatever goes there to fit in well with our current community. I am against the plan as proposed because of many areas of concern that need to be addressed I will name just a few some of them may sound very familiar. These are country roads there are no sidewalks in the proposed area that would be fitting for families with small children who would want to walk ride bikes or take care of pets. As someone who loves to walk I currently have to drive to another neighborhood to do this. I appreciate the proposed sidewalks and traffic things that have been mentioned and would want assurances these things would happen not just proposals. Frequently the area is used as a dumping ground where passersby throw their trash as they walk or drive by being out in the country as Faith mentioned before these roads are already neglected by the city and county so it's very hard to believe that all of these improvements will take place. Lastly and the one that is nearest and dearest to my heart what Durham needs more of is affordable housing. The proposed development in section D5 openly emits that Griffon place won't be categorized as affordable housing. My 1400 square foot house cost me $122,000 and it has between 0.25 and 0.5 acres of land I can enjoy. And the set median price of a house in this area will be $220,000 with an average of over five units an acre. With all of the development happening in downtown Durham people are going to be looking for options outside the city that are reasonable. From the limited information I have been given Griffon place does nothing to improve this. If the land will be used it should be used for something that will improve the community and amplify Durham making it something we can all be proud of. Thank you. Thank you. We'll circle back to Diane Clements who is still with us and if we're able to get you off a mute we'd love to hear your comments. Chris are we going to be able to make that work or do we need to move on? I'm going to see from the response from Diane and Clements. Okay. I'll circle back at the very end. Next is Luanne Lada. I'm here. Do you hear me? Yes, go ahead. We live on Back Road, 2715 Back Road which is very close to Joyner Road. We've lived here for almost 50 years in a house that was built in 1950. I'm very concerned about this type of growth in our neighborhood and our community being so dense. We have already had problems here. In fact, since in the last 10 years we have felt like our end of the county sometimes it's kind of neglected altogether. We have issues with zoning people that are not caring for their property. We have trash issues on the road. There are water issues. The school issue is a big issue. Glen School and Merrick Moore both are at capacity and you're trying to attract families and to come into the community and that's a good thing, but they do have to have a place to preparation for the education of their children. So we're not against growth. We just want to be sure that we're not. Just have so many things coming at us so fast and not well thought out or planned well enough to we find ourselves in a situation that living in a very rural community for so many years we never anticipated this kind of growth coming and I certainly don't think the roads are prepared for it. Our roads are not in good condition out in this part of the county at all. They need attention. So overall I just think this needs to be really free thought not that we don't want to grow but maybe not at this amount of growth and this densely all at one time and I thank you for your time. Thank you. Next is Mary Wilkins. Ms. Wilkins, if we're able to get you off a mute we'd love to hear it from you. No response right now, I'd recommend we circle back. Okay. David Wilder. Hey y'all, my name is David Wilder. I live at 2712 Little Rogers Road. It's about five minutes away from this area that we're talking about here. I am opposed to the development proposal because of a few reasons, a lot of the things that some of the people have said before me. You know, this is really gonna impact the wildlife out here. We're gonna have a lot of animals that get displaced and don't have homes to live in and are probably gonna end up deceased because of this development if it does go through. It's gonna negatively impact the environment, the watershed out here and just have a negative impact on the environment. And like a lot of people had said before it's gonna increase traffic and the roads out here, they are country roads. There's no sidewalks. There's potholes everywhere. We love them, but they do need some attention as it is already. So adding more people out here is not really looking like a good idea at this time. And in addition, it just doesn't really fit the rural lifestyle that we have out here. I mean, some other people have mentioned that other areas of Durham are pretty jam-packed with people but out here, there aren't a whole lot of people and that's kind of how we like it out here. So anyway, those are just some of the reasons that I oppose this development and thank you for your time. And yes, thank you, have a good night. Thank you, you too. Next is Summer Wilder. Hi, yes, that was actually my husband just speaking and I'm also here at 2712 Little Rogers Road. And I just wanna really echo what David said. I mean, we just moved out here not too long ago and I came out to the country for peace and quiet and I'm finding that, as someone who grew up in the country, there are signs on every corner I mean, there are signs on every corner are out here in Eastern Durham County that are trying to be developed or in the process of being developed or underway. And I just saved a snapping turtle on Sunday crossing over 98, trying to get back toward Falls Lake that was coming right out of a subdivision actually. And so yeah, wildlife is gonna be impacted out here. There are a lot of hunters that hunt out here. And so I'm just really concerned about the wildlife and they're gonna be displaced and like what is gonna be done about that? I mean, there's really nothing that can be done. And it just seems like everywhere I turn there's a new subdivision coming in and that leads me into traffic and that's a major issue. We go up and down Carpenter and Farrell all the time because that's a cut through to 85. And it's already really highly trafficked from all the subdivisions that already exist on Carpenter Road and off of Cheek Road. And now they're talking about doing more subdivisions off of Cheek Road. So the traffic is already so crazy. People drive so fast and I just, I don't understand how the roads are just not gonna be able to handle another subdivision. And then of course, the well water and the aquifer is a concern and the flooding. So yeah, those are really my three main concerns I have about this development. And I hope that y'all will address them somehow. Thank you. The final three people who signed up, I'm gonna read the names. I don't see that they're with us but if you are, you can press star nine to raise your hand. Linda Duke, Taryn Kavanaugh and Andrea Sumner. That said, I do want to circle back to see if Diane Clements or Mary Wilkins are able to come off a mute. Diane, are you off a mute? Yes, I am. All right. Thank you very much. I had just signed on to attend the meeting in preparation for another meeting, I suppose will be held later about the development coming in out at Cheek Road and Redwood Road. But it was, you know, I could certainly echo the things that have been said and both of the proposals tonight as far as the concerns about development here. One I think that has been talked a lot about is the fire and burst responders. They will have difficulty getting to homes that they need to get to in a hurry. The other thing that I don't think it's been brought up during the meeting is the fact that a lot of folks have established their homes out here over the years. I know of three families in particular, one with a young child, one with a young adult and one gentleman that served in the Vietnam War because they have sensory issues and they chose to live away from stimuli, you know, all the things that come along with high density areas. And I just hope that we would keep that in mind as we consider all of these developments that there are people that have established lives and homes in the rural Durham County because they have a need to be away from all that. And this, just like we've talked about animals, it will uproot, potentially uproot these families because they will have to, I know the gentleman that served in the Vietnam War is post-traumatic syndrome that he deals with. So I just hope that we'll keep those folks in mind as well. Thank you, Ms. Clements. And Mary Wilkins, can we get you off of mute as well? All right, we'll respond. Okay, we'll sort of back one final time. I do wanna let the applicants know you did have a couple minutes left in your time, so I will circle back to you. If you have any final comments, I see a couple of you have your hands raised. Again, I'm gonna call in the additional folks who have not yet spoken who do have their hand raised. So I'm gonna start with Shane Price and then we've got a 919-9492043 number. We'll let you both speak. If anyone else wants to speak, press star nine to raise your hand, but we'll start with Shane Price. I think you're off mute, Shane Price. I think they're unmuted, but I'm not sure we're not hearing their audio. Okay, Shane Price, we can't hear you, so you may have to, if you're muted, or you may have to hang up and dial back in, but we're not able to hear it at the moment. Chris, can we go to the 919 number that's listed who has their hand raised? Yes, making sure also please press star six to unmute. Hi, so this is Andrea Sumner. I'm at 6106 Cancer Average Court. I actually spoke during the partial letter K section and I had intended signed up to speak about this one. So I won't repeat my issues about the school overcrowding and the roads, but again, I just really want you guys to consider all of these developments in the aggregate. A neighbor of mine a few minutes ago spoke about the development off of cheap roads. Honestly, if you're gonna do one or the other, this one is closer to the Walmart in the school than the cheap road one is, but I'm not advocating either one of them. So thanks for your time. Thank you. All right, Shane Price, we're gonna try this again. Are you able to speak? It's still not working, unfortunately. We've got Taryn Kavanaugh also with their hand raised and I know you were signed up and you may not have been with us, but when we ran through your name earlier, we'd love to hear what you have to say. Hi there, Taryn Kavanaugh, apologies. I had to jump off earlier because I had a work commitment and didn't realize that this was still going. So I really appreciate you all still being with us and hearing everyone's thoughts. I actually live in Cardinal Oaks right off of Cheek Road. The one that is closest would likely be the Griffith Griffin. I'm not opposed to development. I just am, again, reiterating what everyone else has said in terms of the roads as well as the school. And I think someone brought up earlier bus stops as well because I feel like the only close one near us is the one near Walmart and there are just not many sidewalks near there to accommodate people who are trying to walk from home. So appreciate being here and listening. Thanks for your comments. We just kept stalling until you got on. So we're glad you came. Finally, we have Shane Price. We're gonna give you one last time. Are we able to get you on the line? All right, I'm sorry, Shane, we just can't hear you. I'd like to give the applicants any additional time for any final comments. You had a couple of minutes left in your allocated time. Yeah, thank you, Chair Buzzi. And also if we need another minute or two, the developer, Fred Shekels, would like to speak also if that's possible. But I wanted to just address some of the neighbor's immediate concerns. There's a lot of talk about stormwater runoff and again, just to reiterate, when we design these ponds for the 100 year detention, we do have to take into account that they're developed, that they're paved parcels now and that's all factored in to the design. So we take into account the added impervious and runoff in those calculations and I can assure you that post development, you'll have less runoff in the 100 year event than you do now. That's just the way the ordinance is set up. I also want to mention, I thought Ms. Lewis asked a great question about when the TIA was prepared and then COVID and traffic count. I thought that was a great question. It was prepared before we submitted the application. So it's been two, two and a half years since it was prepared. So it should be pre and kind of COVID adjustment necessary. And also just want to mention that the TIA is cumulative like we mentioned on the other projects that the TIAs have to take into account the existing projects in the area, the plan projects and that's all factored into the background traffic data. But again, if you give us a couple of minutes, I'd like Fred to take some time if that's okay. Yeah, you've got a few more minutes and Mr. Shekels, we value hearing from you. Thanks, Chair Busby. Fred Shekels, 4027 Hess Road, Monkton, Maryland, 2111. Tenor's Realty is a developer for Ryan Homes. We developed for them in the state of Maryland and state of North Carolina, specifically the Triangle region. So they will be the builder here. And so there's been a lot of discussion tonight about affordable housing and we are not a capital A affordable housing developer. My experience with affordable housing, capital A is mostly subsidized and we're not that developer. That said, with where this location and the density and the purchase price and the product line that Ryan Homes is gonna offer, I'd argue that it's gonna be a little affordable. We put $220,000 as the entry price for townhouses on the application, but you know that. We just lost your audio, Mr. Shekels. You got me now? You're back. Oh, am I back? You're back, again. I'm here. All right, sorry, my ear pods finally gave out. I apologize for that. So what I was saying was, Ryan Homes with their simply Ryan product line, it is a very efficient design that allows, and it's a very efficient design, but what it does is unlike most builders who started 29999 and wanna sell you up $30 or $40 or $50,000, they don't have those options available. It is, here's the price. There might be a couple thousand dollars of options you can add on, but within that entry level price, you're buying something that is new and energy efficient. You get washer and dryer and all your appliances, you have no deferred maintenance of a 50 year old house. So their target is first time home buyers, it's workforce housing, it's firefighters and nurses and teachers, and they've been successful because what they do is they look, when they do their analysis, they look at what the apartments are running for, and their target is to have a purchase price, a mortgage price about the same as local apartment buildings. So you're achieving your dream of home ownership at the same price as a rental apartment. So that's, again, it's little affordable, but they really do target that first time home buyer. Just to give you an example, I'm looking at a demographic model, income range up to $50,000 at a 4% interest rate can afford $218,000. So that's, we're targeting incomes, $45,000 and up. The other thing I wanted to mention was the alignment of the Northern Durham Parkway. We had the alignment that Mr. Eden's talked about and how it really was the same for two years until just recently with the adjacent property. We had a coming of the minds, thanks to staff, had a meeting for us late last week. We took the alignment that Mr. Biker's engineer, Kimley Horne gave to us and said, hey, can you make this work? And we made it work, even though we lost three or four units, we wanna get to you and say we had an agreement and both neighbors were happy. So I'm not quite sure where the controversy is with the alignment, frankly. And then finally, I'd really like to thank your staff, your planning staff. It's been a tough year to do what they do remotely. They're really nice people. I work in a lot of different jurisdictions in a couple of different states and they've really been a pleasure to work with in an environment that hasn't been that easy to work in. Great, thank you, Mr. Shackles. We agree about the staff. They do tremendous work in really tough conditions. So thank you for recognizing that. You got it, thank you. Mr. Eden's, any final things and then we'll close the public hearing. Thank you, Chair. I guess I'll point out the ordinance requires sidewalks to be constructed along the frontage of all of these projects. So there may not be sidewalk along ferrule and gear in certain portions now, but the ordinance requires everywhere we front those roads to install public sidewalks. So that will be installed as part of the project. Great, thanks for mentioning that. That is important. I don't see anyone else looking to speak. And so I'm gonna close the public hearing and commissioners, I'm gonna start with Commissioner Miller and other commissioners, please raise your hand if you'd like to be recognized following Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Miller, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. So I have a question for Mr. Biker. Is this controversy, let me ask a few questions. It's my understanding that there is a site plan submitted for Griffin Place and that site plan shows the alignment as it shows on the developer plan. If that site plan gets approved, that kind of puts the developer of Griffin Place in the catbird seat because they're vested and you can't get them to move it. Can you make us understand why moving this alignment is so important to the developer of your developer client? Which if I'm not mistaken, plans to build two million square feet of, is that right? Is that right? One million, between one, approximately one million to 1.2 million. Oh, okay, once you get into millions, I have trouble with them. A million here, a million there. Pretty soon you're talking about a real building. Yeah, that's right. So it's a great big industrial project and my small experience. And so why is the alignment of the North Durham Parkway through Griffin Place so important to your property? Mainly Commissioner Miller, because there is a three acre jurisdictional wetland that is directly across from the alignment shown on their development plan. There are in addition other streams on the property that need to be crossed at as close to a 90 degree angle as possible. We certainly appreciate the efforts that the Griffin Place team has made, but we have not had any of these reviewed jointly by our team and NCDOT. And at the end of the day, NCDOT has to give this alignment in terms of the design speed, which was obviously an issue in the last case and is obviously an important issue with Northern Durham Parkway, as well as these important environmental features. These need to be reviewed and analyzed by NCDOT to make sure we have an alignment that works. Again, I do have a lot of personal experience with Eno Drive, I'm sorry, Northern Durham Parkway. And it was a very, very contentious issue for our community approximately 25, 30 years ago. And I'm gonna miss it, I did not say, we have got to get the intersection of Farrell Road, which is a thorough listed as a thoroughfare on the CTP and Northern Durham Parkway. We have to make sure that alignment is done correctly. Otherwise the permitting becomes either impossible or egregiously expensive. And we're talking about environmental features that need to be respected. And so we're asking for this, continuance in order to have our team meet with NCDOT, make sure it is all done correctly. And just for the record are, we do have Kimley-Horn working on the design and the environmental features. So we do have a first class and engineering team looking at this to make sure it's done right. Thank you, Mr. Butler. So if it's my understanding from the little bit I was able to learn yesterday that your preferred alignment across Griffin Place would shift the road to the East. And this is a four lane divided highway, is that correct? It's 110 foot right of way and we would actually be shifting it to the West. Excuse me, to the West it would shift about 165 feet. It could be, but again, I'd be remiss. What we say and what the Griffin Place people say is all well and good. And we may reach an agreement, but that doesn't mean NCDOT agrees with it. And they're the ones who have to make the final call on this important piece of infrastructure for Eastern Durham County. So let's assume that this gets approved with the right of way going where the development plan in Griffin Place shows it. That's going to run it across into your property right into the place where these jurisdictional streams come together in a pond, right? That's correct, but I do agree with the point that Assistant Director Smith made and I believe Jared Eden's made as well that if we're talking about a minor change in the location of an access point that's something that plan director Sarah Young can approve. I'm just nervous that we're talking about a much larger correction in order for NCDOT to approve the project to move forward in order to approve the alignment that works for everybody. Well, right, the point is this is the time to pause and to fix this, because right now we don't know whether we can fix it with a minor shift. Is that right? That's my perspective on it, yes, sir. And so I'm really worried. I mean, we've got two projects that are going to together make a big difference in this area of town on Junction Road. That in the corner of Junction and Farrell, two great big projects, a big residential project and a big industrial project, the biggest industrial project in my experience on the Plain Commission the last seven years. And they've got a parkway running through or a planned parkway. And your property, just like the Griffin Place townhome side is significantly impacted with environmental features that are protected. I think that we need to get this right. And it worries me and people who are watching are looking me, I'm looking at the development plan on the map here. I'm worried that we're going to have something that is to move, that might have to be moved in a way that cannot be characterized as an insignificant or an unsubstantial change to a development plan. How you've asked for 90 days, that seems like an awful lot of time. Is there a time less than 90 days during which you thank the two neighboring property owners and the city of Durham and the North Carolina Department of Transportation can all get together and fix this thing? We can live with 60 days, Commissioner Miller. And if by 60 days, NCDOT says we're still thinking about it, then we'll come back to you and say we need the additional 30 days. So I defer to the commission on that issue, but it is nonetheless a process that needs to be worked through. And I'm sure there are quite a few officials at NCDOT who need to review and analyze this particular issue. All right, thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I spent a lot of time on this because I think this is a first issue. Are we going to delay it or not? I have other issues with the Griffin Place project, but some of those relate to Northern Durham Parkway and I'm concerned that I don't see anything in the development plan that convinces me that the homes that will be on either side of that parkway will be organized in a way that if the parkway is built, because it's my understanding that this developer does not actually intend to build this section of the parkway through their property, but merely to reserve the right of way for future acquisition. I want to make, I would like the development plan to satisfy me that the homes that get built in close proximity to a four lane divided highway that evidently with a 45 mile an hour speed limit will be appropriately buffered and will, if the, if this parkway gets built at some point in the future that we will not, that it will not actually have a bad effect on the project that's up for approval tonight. You've heard me say it before, you will not hear me say it, I suppose much longer, but I believe every time we approve a new residential project, it needs to be a long, long range, desirable place to live for the people of Durham who live there, it's our obligation to them. And I hate to have to approve a plan that has ticking within it the seeds of its own downfall. And I would, I just think that a development plan like this and thank you, Mr. Cease for reminding me of the intense statement when I was new on the planning commission, I cited the intense statements all the time. We need to constantly go back to them because they're one of the few things in the UDO that I think are really good. PDRs are an opportunity, a tool to do really good design. And when we approve PDRs without actually achieving the goal of really good design, then we're misusing the tool and we're cheating everybody. So I'm in favor of the delay. I wanna get this right-of-way thing straightened out and then come back and talk about issues relating to design and the other sorts of things that really matter to me and all residential, especially these new suburban residential projects. Thanks, Commissioner Miller. So those are my comments right now tonight. Great, thank you. And Commissioner Miller, I just wanted to clarify, I know you reserve the right to speak on additional items but I do think you're wise to put that first question in front of all of us. So thank you for kind of keeping us on that first issue. I mean, again, commissioners, I wanna hear from you but I would still like to, I know we've already heard from them. I would like to hear again from Mr. Eden's and from staff just because this is highly unusual. This is just, I've not seen this kind of thing from one proponent of a case to a different proponent of the case. So I'd like to hear from Mr. Eden's and the staff just to give us additional guidance based on what you just heard and what can you clarify for us? Thank you, Chair Best. Can I speak now? Please. Yeah, so, yeah, I agree. There's issues with the Northern Durham Parkway Alarm their string crossings, there's wetlands and all those things, but all those issues are on the Southern side of Farrell Road. They're not on the Northern side of Farrell Road where our project is. And even if the alignment, even if we were to accept the initial alignment offered by Mr. Biker's group that shifted the our road connection over 160 feet, which is the max, we've already agreed to 90 feet with that same group. Planning staff has already said that a 90 foot to 160 foot shift in that location would not warrant coming back to the commissioner council. And regarding the site plan that's on file, it's true, we probably should be in the cat bird seat since we're two years ahead of the other project. But at the same time, while still being in the cat bird seat, we've already agreed to eliminate a handful of lots and make an adjustment based on what we were offered on Friday. So as of the end of the day, Friday, I didn't think it was an issue. I thought both sides had agreed and we were ready to go. So this is a surprise, but again, I don't think a deferral is warranted because whatever change that is necessary, that one to 200 foot shift is up to the discretion of Sarah Young and she's already, I mean, it would be allowed. So, you know, we're holding, trying to hold up one project while the other side works through all the stream crossing issues, but that's issues on the south side. And we've already seen even using their preferred approach to crossing those streams, that 160 foot shift falls within the range that planning staff is comfortable with. So I'm not certain what a deferral would do. Thank you. And then staff, any additional guidance and Commissioner Miller, it looks like you may have a follow up, but I'll come back to you in a second. Thank you, Chair Busby. Yes, we did have an internal discussion about this recently. And it was our determination that, and the planning director actually in the way to know this, that a modification of this can be actually approved by the planning director. So if it's within the general location, that a moderate shift can be approved by the planning director for the development plan. So without it having to be rezoned. So we felt like it would not be an issue to actually continue moving forward with the development plan as is. And also, I just want to point out, I'm sorry, but again, the only change that would impact our development plan is the very bottom portion of the parkway where it ties to Ferrell Road. So you have a slight shift, 100 feet here or there, but once you exit, come off of Ferrell, it's gonna tie in with the alignment that you see and 90% of what you see is unchanged. It's everything on the south side of Ferrell that has the issues, not the north side. Thanks, Mr. Regan. Commissioner Miller, you're recognized for follow-up. So Danny, I heard you when you made your presentation that the staff had discussed a shifting at 75 feet, but the folks at Sconell want a shift of 160 feet that would reach two thirds of the way up into the middle of Griffin Place. That's, nobody can call that an insignificant one. And I have find it, I just don't believe that if Sarah understood that that's what was under consideration, she would have said that that was a shift that she could approve as a minor shift. I'm gonna let Ms. Smith weigh in because I think she was in on the dialogue for all these meetings. So, sure, it may sound like a huge shift to be, to move to an access point, 100 feet, but looking at these development plans and how they're drawn, sometimes the arrow itself could equal 100 feet. I mean, we were looking at very, you know, very general locations of things. And this happens often with development plans once they get to site plan, especially if NCDOT comes back and tells the applicant, and it's already been an approved zone, and let's just say the site plan came a year later, if NCDOT comes back and says, yeah, I know it was approved like that, but it's gonna have to shift this way or that way as long as it stays on that same frontage. And you have to look at the frontage and the width of the frontage and then how much you're shifting. So there's several variables that the director would take into consideration when making that decision. So I think what we're just trying to say is what we've seen so far does not look like it would be something that could not be approved by the planning director. And I appreciate that, Grace. I just wanted to share that. But I'm looking at three alignments. The alignment of that is on the development plan and then there is a realignment, an alternate that would shift it over about 75 feet, 74 feet. But this canal preferred realignment shifts it over 165 feet and that shift actually starts almost up to gear street right down through the middle of the project. It's just not minor. And I think this needs to be aired a little bit because if I don't wanna drive a four lane highway on into the neighboring property right through the most environmentally sensitive part of it or require the developer there to essentially to make that four lane highway a curvy road through their property in order to avoid the environmental features. We have one chance to get this right. Can we not take 60 days and fix it and bring in all the parties who are necessary to fix it rather than to send this on for approval without even us knowing exactly where North Durham Parkway is gonna go through the property. I mean, our job is to advise the elected officials on the projects. I have a hard time making it advising the elected officials on a project that is the proposal for which is perhaps incomplete or subject to what I think is a pretty significant change, regardless of what the planning director might ultimately be able to do later at site plan. I mean, we're supposed to be settling a lot of this up front as early as we can. Just one last thing and I just bring to your attention that Erling Thomas does have her hand up and staff would just say that this is 100% the decision of the commission, whether or not you do a continuous or not. Staff is not in one way or the other trying to advise you on that. We're just trying to give you all of the information we can so you can make a decision. And I see Sarah is here, so that would be helpful too. Yes, I was gonna recognize since Sarah Young is young is with us. I don't know if she would like to offer any feedback. I also do wanna recognize Ms. Thomas. Ms. Thomas, why don't we start with you? You've got your hand raised and then Ms. Young, if you would like to speak, you're welcome to come off from you to raise your hand and we'd be happy to hear your thoughts. I thank you, Erling Thomas, transportation. I just wanted to share just with how projects are developed on the long range transportation plan. They are not final locations of ultimately what would be built since the detailed environmental analysis is not done at that stage. We do typically work with applicants at the site plan stage to develop the best alignment through their site. So the alignment that you see even on the CTP or on the development plan is illustrative that they're committing to do to either construct that improvement or reserve right-of-way forward. However, that typically is not the ultimate location of where that line ends up. So I just wanted to share that information with you. Thank you. Well, if I may. Yeah, Commissioner Mellon. Graphic representations on the development plan are committed. They're not merely illustrative. And while I appreciate that it may be necessary to make some minor shifts here and there, there's nothing minor about this. And Ms. Young, I see you're on video. If you'd like to speak, I'm happy to recognize you. Thank you. My ears were burning, so I thought I would join the meeting and just share a little bit about Ms. Smith. Try to explain that when we look at deviations since external access points are required to be shown in their general locations, what I would look at on a site like this, which I already have, is kind of to what extent would the shift occur? And so knowing what the maximum extent that one party would like, ideally, versus what was originally proposed by the other party, that is still generally located in the center of that frontage. That, to me, is not a significant change. So that, while hundreds of feet may sound like a lot on a frontage that has thousands of feet, it's not that much. This alignment is not going to shift all the way to one side or the other. It's gotta stay roughly in the center to work. So I am confident that both parties are going to come to an agreement. I know there is some concern on the part of one party that the other party may get ahead and preclude development to occur the way that it should on the Southern property, but I have talked to both sides and I feel certain that both sides will come to the table. I know that may not be much consolation to folks, but I do have faith that we are not going to let one party preclude the successful development of an industrial park in an area where we've been eyeing this type of development for quite some time. Okay, thanks Ms. Young. Good to know that we mentioned your name when you appear, that's pretty cool. Commissioner Sees. Thank you, just one procedural question and one I guess comment that I don't feel like has been, it was stated at the outset of this whole discussion but hasn't returned and maybe Ms. Thomas could comment on it. Maybe Ms. Young could and that is that we're talking about two parties here, but as Mr. Beiker noted, there's really a third party that's decisive and that's NCDOT. And I just wanna make sure we don't lose sight of the fact that we're not looking at this or the ultimate decision will not just boil down to a local one, but there is that third party involved. And there are some alignment issues with Farrell. The further you've moved west, so I suspect there's some pretty definitive technical opinions. And interpretations that could go along with NCDOT's decision. But the procedural question I had is with regards to the comments in the prior case and the document that was shown with essentially the bubble diagram with showing where single family mixed use, I'm sorry, single family and multifamily work to be located in the attachments here, we have the storm water, I'm sorry, the utility impact statement. And that has the site plan or a version of a site plan on it. So my question for staff is that's shown, the comment made in the prior case was anything that's shown is committed. What's the interpretation with regards to, accessory documents or attachments like that? And specifically what's the interpretation relative to that as part of a site plan that's shown? Clearly, I don't think that's the intent, but help us all understand how that works with the development plans. So the unified development ordinance specifically it's about when you present graphics, if an applicant were to present graphics at a meeting. And those graphics, I think that you're referring to, I'm gonna have to look a little closer, but it sounds like those were some staff attachments to the statement of utility impacts maybe. If that's the case, then that's not a graphic that the applicant presented. So I'm gonna take a look real quick and I'll be back in a moment. It's the attachment eight. Commissioner Seath, any additional questions or comments at this point? No. Okay, thank you. And as we wait on Ms. Smith, I do believe Ms. Smith is probably right. I think that was a staff document, not from the applicant, but let's wait and get official feedback. So commissioners, we're still just talking about the request from a proponent of a different project to this project. I agree with commissioner Miller that it's important to get it right, but I'm also at the moment inclined to be ready to move to the merits. The neighbors, all the citizens who spoke tonight asked us to vote against the plan. They did not ask us to defer it for 60 days. And Mr. Biker spoke pretty early. And so I think his concern is on behalf of his client, which is fair, but I am ready to debate the merits and to vote this evening on the case up or down, unless someone has a really good reason to convince me otherwise. That said, Ms. Smith, I see you're back and you got your hand raised. You may have an answer for us. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to double check the attachment. And it was actually an attachment that was included by the water management staff. So it's not the same. Thank you. Like Mr. Miller. Mr. Bosby, I'm interested in the merits of the case too, but I'll point out that if we voted on the merits of the case, it doesn't buy time for the parties to fix what I think is a big issue for both projects. If we delay it, then it can get fixed. And then I think we will have a case right for decision on the merits. Right now I don't think that we do. And while I appreciate what staff is saying, and they will acknowledge that for as long as I've been on the commission, I've expressed to them great discomfort with the idea is that after a development plan is reviewed, that our UDO purports to invest in the planning director remarkable discretion to allow for changes which are done without any public hearing or public input. I'm uncomfortable with that system. I realized that some adjustments are necessary, but I don't think even under the UDO, the way it's written that this can be characterized as an insubstantial shift. And I certainly would never agree with the interpretation that you can move a roadway connection up and down a road frontage 175 for 165 feet. 75 feet, I wouldn't fight about 160 feet, I would. And that's a fair point. And I can be convinced. So I'm gonna recognize commissioner Amandoli and hear what he's thinking. Thank you, chair. Yeah, I think it's helpful to zoom out of it and recognize there aren't just two parties in this case. We're talking about the development of an entire neighborhood. This is gonna be a space where it looks like we're about to have residential, commercial and industrial all within a few hundred feet of each other. And I think taking the time to make sure all the parties including the residents are on board with that and are in line is important. And I hope the 60 days wouldn't be just a conversation with NCDOT. I hope it would be an additional conversation with the neighbors who showed up in clear opposition tonight and who and emails to us refer to being ghosted by the applicant. I think there needs to be more intentional community engagement done, not just to get this specific issue right, but to make sure that we're building a good neighborhood. The way that this area is looking to develop, if it were to go this way, it would become an area that would increasingly see development and would become a bit of a cluster in itself. And so how we begin that cluster is an important consideration. So I'd be in favor of a 60 day deferral to get some of these, I should say, continuance to ensure that we have some of the initial details clear. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Armandolia. This is a great opportunity if any other commissioners would like to speak. You can raise your hand. If not, I mean, we have two commissioners who agree on an item. And so I'm gonna recognize Commissioner Lowe, but then you're welcome to make a motion Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Armandolia, but Commissioner Lowe, why don't you go ahead first. Thank you, Chair. I agree on the, that we need to adjust the merits of this case. But also I'm in agreement with Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Armandola for this 60 day extension. I think that's reasonable. I think that's something that we should consider. And I will go for that. Thank you. If I may, and Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this case to our regularly scheduled meeting. This is April. I guess it would be the June meeting. I don't know the date. Grace, what would that be? Can you help? I believe it's June 9th. Let me double check. Second. It's June the 8th actually, June 8th. There you go. June the 8th. So moved by Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Armandolia, did you second? Yes. We have a motion on the floor. If anyone wants to debate the motion, please raise your hand. And not seeing any hands raised, we'll move to vote on the motion. This is a 60 day continuance to bring this back at our June 8th meeting. Okay. Armandolia. Yes. Baker. Yes. Let's be. Yes. Sorry. Cut right? Yes. Durkin. Yes. Kenshin. Yes. Lowe. Yes. McIver. Yes. Miller. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. And Williams. Yes. Okay. Passes 12-0. Thank you everyone. We'll look forward to seeing this back on June 8th. We'll move to our next case. This is our final case of the evening. And then we do have some additional items after that. It's case Z2 quadruple 028, it's 1051 Olive Branch Road. And before we move to the staff report, I'm just gonna note, we got about a half hour before we're gonna have to take another 10 minute break. So I just wanna note that in advance, but let's get as far as we can. We're not gonna finish this in a half hour. So let's just know that that's the situation. But with that, we'll move to the staff report and Mr. Kultra. Yep, is that visible? Thank you, Danny Kultra again with the planning department. This is a case Z2-0-0-0-2-8. 1051 Olive Branch Road has been received from 10 Cybers of 4Vap Associates for one parcel located at 1051 Olive Branch, totaling 79.478 acres. The site is within the county's jurisdiction in the Suburban Development Tier and in the Falls Jordan Watershed Protection District B, FJB Overlay, and annexation petition BDG 20-0-0-0-1-6 is associated with a case must be approved prior to the rezoning approval. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from Rural Residential RR to Plan Development Residential 3.700 or PDR 3.7700 for up to 284 residential dwelling units consisting of a minimum of 15% of each single family and townhouse unit types. The future land use map or flume is designated very low density residential. If the zoning is approved, the recommended flume is proposed at low density residential. The aerial map shows the site in this configuration here it fronts off of Olive Branch Road to the north for reference, this parcel fronts off of Wake Forest Highway. So Wake Forest is just to the north. Site photos indicate the majority of the site is currently undeveloped with the mixture of mature pine and hardwood vegetation. Surrounding sites, wooded land, vacant land is to the north, south and east across Olive Branch Road to the west is construction is underway for a previously approved PDR development of approximately 600 plus dwelling units. So in the context map does indicate this site zone RR and you can see the PDR zoning to the left that was previously approved. And as noted, the flume is designated very low residential and would be proposed to go to low density residential. Development plan shows riparian buffers is a small area of flood plain up in the northwestern corner. Stream buffers here, there is a connector road that's shown to be proposed up in here shows access points on the development plan and potential stream crossings. Also the dotted area is the area of proposed development. There's some small areas of project boundary buffers and then the asterisked areas are in the street riparian buffers are where tree coverage would be located. The applicant also is showing on the development plan for maximum impervious surfaces of 50% where they can go up to 70% in the FTB watershed. Some key commitments on the development plan are a minimum of 50% of each, a 15%, excuse me of each unit type shall be provided within development. A minimum of 21% tree coverage in the air in the site will be provided. Minimum of 25% open space shall be provided in compliance to meet the Easter room open space plan a minimum of 50% of the committed open space will be located adjacent to stream buffers a minimum of two of the following elements shall be provided at the time of first site plan with structures dog park, top lot, disc golf, playfields, pocket park, community gardens, nature trail, pool and clubhouse. Also in order to promote variation home appearance no homes will be constructed with a front exterior valid elevation or a color palette identical to home sites on either side average block links shall not exceed 700 feet. Prior to certificate of occupancy one time $5,000 contribution to the Durham public schools prior to certificate of occupancy provide $28,400 contribution to the city of Durham dedicated housing fund. Also maximum 90 units may receive a certificate of occupancy prior to completion of a second point of access. And also there are many traffic commitments listed on the development plan and in the staff report that resulted from a TIA that must be completed with this development. There are 12 different comp plan policies proposed with this development and they're all being met except for the flu policy and that would be consistent provided that the digital anti-smap is adopted at time of the zoning map change. And staff is available for any questions. Thanks, Mr. Kulture and Mr. Kulture, thank you. You carried a big load tonight. You had all three of these big cases in front of us. Sometimes it works out that way. The fact that you smile when you say that is remarkable. No, well done. We're gonna move and open the public hearing. We have 10 individuals who signed up in advance, four who are proponents, six who've signed up in opposition. So we will start with the applicant and the proponents. We've got Tim Syvers, Jamie Schwedler, Baohang Wan and Jamie Davis. And so I'll turn it over to the applicant team and you'll have as usual a combination of 10 minutes between all of you to make your presentation. Thank you, Chair Busby. This is Jamie Schwedler with Parker Poe at 301 Fayetteville Street here on behalf of the applicant. The other members of the team are on the line to answer questions, but I'd like to cover the application presentation that we sent in, if that could be pulled up on the screen please. Just to orient the commission, this request is about half of the size and intensity and or intensity of the other two projects that were before you. And it's in the Searles Basin. And so it provides the needed homes at a density consistent with the surrounding development and in a manner appropriate for land use and infrastructure in that Searles Basin. Last fall, Sarah Young and staff did a, next slide please. Last fall, Sarah Young and staff did a fantastic presentation on land use and infrastructure planning in Eastern to accommodate the southeastern regional lift station. And we provided a link of that presentation recording before the meeting. If you were able to watch it, this $40 million city project was anticipated to be paid off over time with infrastructure fees and utility extensions paid by developers, building homes at low to moderate densities like before you tonight. The staff explained the type of development in this area can support due to its environmental limitations and explained that this density in development was anticipated when Searles was approved over four years ago. This request aligns with that expectation and is the most likely use of how this area will develop. This map on the screen is of the Eastern area and the Searles Basin area. The site is shown in the center and the blue on the screen and it's surrounded by approved site plans in purple, approved for your zoning and pink and close to several other proposed zoning in yellow. As you can see how this completes the continuous pattern of development. The infrastructure lines on this screen, note areas of utility extension planned to be funded by the city in green and red and then other utility extensions in orange anticipated to be funded by developers in connection with the development. Those extensions are needed to pay for the Searles investment and to offset the costs to the city. So in addition to making those extensions with this project, we are offering our share of utility and transportation improvements and commitments that Danny did a great job outlining tonight. These commitments go over the UDO requirements and exceed expectations based on our experience with the planning commission. Next slide please. The request involves a slight change in the future land use map from two units per acre and the hatched yellow to four units per acre and the solid yellow. And as you can see, it's consistent with the designations to our West and East. Next slide please. This helps us to provide continuous patterns of development consistent with the comprehensive plan. And in similar vein, the zoning change from rural residential in yellow to the PDR in blue is also consistent with those developments to our East and West. The annexation of this parcel would further fill the donut hole left by the surrounding improved developments, which have already been annexed into the city. Next slide please. Our rezoning includes a development plan and Danny did a great job laying out the existing stream buffers to be preserved in gray, the opportunities for tree-save areas with asterisks and points in sight of access. Next slide please. I'll focus on the key commitments that the request exceeds the UDO requirements and that we are committing to a mix of product with a minimum percentage of each. We are going above the preserved tree coverage area of 20% committing to 21%. We're going above the 16% open space requirement to 25%. And after discussions with staff, at least 50% of this open space area is adjacent to stream buffers consistent with the Durham East, the East Durham open space plan I'll talk about in a second. We're also providing an additional lane for bike lanes and contributions to both the housing fund and Durham public schools consistent with this 15 students generated by this change in zoning that we're requesting. Next slide please. We're also making significant design commitments. Again, these are also on the plan summarized here. They're in your packet report and were conceived from the outset knowing what the commission had given guidance on before. These include higher quality building materials, distinctive architectural features, again, distinguished from the earlier cases, amenity programming, home variation, block length and appearance of front facades and garage doors. Each of these help to distinguish these cases from the other two that before you tonight and provide more exceptional design than the other standards. Next slide please. The development plan is consistent with the East Durham open space plan. I think go to the next slide please. And it's shown on this screen to the left with our site in blue in the very center of that open space plan towards the bottom half of the screen. The plan's policy calls for preservation of wildlife habitat by using cluster development open space requirement and voluntary agreements. And I've just outlined how we're doing that with that increase to the open space commitment and then clustering that open space around the habitat. So increase the opportunities for wildlife to congregate and to use those natural corridors. These elements are also consistent with comp plan policies based on increased environmental protections. Next slide please. We talked a lot about traffic tonight. This slide shows the traffic commitments we are making at our site access points on olive branch which consists of additional turn lanes to maintain traffic flow and increased traffic flow. But we're also making not only improvements adjacent to our site but offsite into our north. Next slide please. This slide illustrates where those improvements are located. So what you see on your screen in the one and the two are the adjacent site access. So the additional turn lanes that allow for turning movements and through traffic, increasing the flow and on olive branch road and allowing for safe staging areas as folks try to turn in the site and can still pass cars that are waiting to make those turns. These are commitments on the development plan and should also be in your packet. Next slide please. This slide shows the offsite improvements I mentioned and they're significant. An additional turn lane on olive branch road at 98, the widening of highway 98 itself and installing a new traffic signal at 98 income. As staff noted in the East Durham work session presentation, these improvements are not funded by the city or NCDOT or on any timetable. So this development provides a means for completing these in the nearer term to ease the existing traffic congestion concerns we've heard about in other cases and mitigate new trips from this development. Per our TIA and the attached staff report, the improvements improve the level of service for each intersection at build out to a better level of service throughout. And we can discuss specific questions on that with Mr. Juan, who's also on the line. But because these road improvements are not funded by the city or state projects, the DOT reviews our TIA and request developers make the improvements based on their proportional impact on these roads. That is how we make the infrastructure sufficient. Not approving projects until infrastructure is here will just mean passing bonds for existing taxpayers to fund those improvements or waiting for DOT to get the funding. In the meantime, no improvements will be made and the continued lack of supply and housing will tend to increase prices of homes in Durham built due to the continued lower supply. Next slide, please. As noted on the first side, this site is in the heart of the Searles Basin area and development at this density is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and utility plans. The Department of Water Management has shared that utility extensions and the fees charged to offset those costs were based on the basin developing in low to moderate density, which is consistent with the request before you tonight. Planning director Young noted that it's actually better for the environment in long-term to have the public utilities that this development would provide instead of the existing septic, which was what would be developed by right, because the septic is more likely to fail over time and it cannot support non-residential uses. We've shown how the request would bring this development in line with the lane use patterns of the surrounding area and kind of accommodate the increase in density while offsetting any adverse impacts because we're making our proportional share of the traffic improvements. Next slide, please. The project is as consistent with the comprehensive plan and the low density designation is consistent with the PDR and the intent that was outlined earlier to have those commitments go above and beyond the baselines and have design commitments incorporated. All of this will provide more housing on smaller lots and result in more affordable supply than what has been developed across the line in Wake County. Next slide, please. Consistent with the expectation of growth in the suburban tier, this provides the correct amount of density to balance out where most of the growth isn't anticipated to happen in the comprehensive plan. Next slide, please. The request is also consistent with the policies of a continuous approval and adjacent parcels. This project commits to extension of water on Kemp Road and connecting to the surals, which is all consistent with the comprehensive plan. The transportation and bike lane improvements are all consistent as well. In sum, this request is consistent with the comp plan policies, UDA requirements and the land use and infrastructure that went into the surals planning, but it responds to the growing need for housing at an appropriate density. We consciously made commitments upfront that we know this commission cares about and we didn't wait to do it at the table. Waiting on plans for funds for the roads and land planning will likely result in plans aligned with what the planning director outlined last fall and what is before you tonight. It will only exacerbate the supply and costs of existing and proposed housing in the meantime. And so we respectfully request recommendation for approval and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Schwedler. We're gonna move to the other individuals who signed up to speak. These are folks who listed that they are opposed. We're gonna start with Stephen Mill and same as before, if you can give us your name, your mailing address and you can take two minutes or so to share your feedback. Stephen Mill, 1021 Restoration Drive in the Courtyards of Andrews Chapel. Seems like there's a lot of discussion tonight about the aggregate about the future of Southeast Durham. So far in Olive Branch and all this since October of 2019, four developments have been approved about 1,400 homes. Besides this one, there's another one sitting in front of council. One thing that's not been clear on this is that they're showing that residents on Olive Branch will go to Doc Nichols. They'll also come south to Carpenter Pond and Leesville. When they go to Doc Nichols, they're gonna dump into Leesville, which we've already shown. And the last discussion is close to maximum road capacity or they may come down Andrew Chapel Road. Just if they're gonna be going to 540 or Briar Creek, they're not going the opposite direction to get to that. I actually spoke at the March 15th city council meeting where they talked about the other Olive Branch development and I asked them to do a moratorium on all building and development approval in Southeast Durham until the small area study is complete. And there was a lot of discussion about that. One thing that was kind of telling to me is that Bill Judge says that we won't see any new roads for three to five years because NC Dot has no money. And with more discussion, Mayor Schultz said, well, sorry, but Durham needs the housing and they couldn't stop approving these developments. And I kind of go back a bit to Commissioner Baker talking about these cookie cutter developments without retail, without transportation, without anything. And why are we continuing to look at the same old, same old when we should be looking to the future? And just my last comment is that in a previous discussion about an Olive Branch development that the council approved, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked and she was somewhat facetious but actually straight ahead, she said, so why can't we get a bodega built right in the middle of this road here, this street so that people can walk and get a gallon of milk? We need something close to these people. Just having more communities where people are driving distances is not really gonna be the future of Durham. So my point here is that it's gonna add more traffic to Leesville again by dumping cars onto dock nickels and onto Leesville versus Carpenter Pond. There's no money for roads at this point and we're gonna have a period of two to three years of a nightmare of roads and then two to three years of road construction if they even approach it, approach doing it. So thanks for the time. Thanks, Mr. Nell. We've got a few other folks who've signed up. I think they have now left the meeting given the late hour, but I'm gonna read their names just in case Shauna, Glassby, Monica, Zabo, Nieste, Charles Huber DeVoe, Diane Clements, who is with us, and Andrea Sumner, who was with us until just a moment ago, but Ms. Clements, why don't we have you go ahead and share your comments since you're still with us? Oh, I already spoke, thank you very much. Okay, thank you. If there is anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please press star nine to raise your hand and we'll give you the opportunity to speak. Okay, I don't see anyone else so we're gonna close the public hearing. As I mentioned before, we are due to take another break by 9.40 and so commissioners, we could start for 10 minutes or we could break now. I'm inclined to take a break right now before we get into things and we'll take 10 minutes and we'll come back and we'll pick this up and we'll finish the rest of the evening, hopefully before we need to take another break. So we'll see you in 10. All right, welcome back. It looks like we've got most commissioners here. If you can come back on video and we've finished the public hearing so this will be opportunity for commissioners to ask questions or make comments. So if you wanna just raise your hand, I'll recognize you and we'll go from there. Commissioner Morgan. Just trying to unmute there. Thank you, thank you, Chair. Again, this is kind of a concern of mine from a traffic perspective. While a lot of the proffers have been moved towards going north to 98, there seems to be more of a desire with the traffic going south into into Wake County and to the city of Raleigh. My concern is, is that there is sort of a plan that the city of Raleigh has for New Leesville Road. There's a right-of-way that goes to Carpenter Pond and again, it comes back to infrastructure commitments for this area. I live in the Delweb community. I see a lot of the traffic I travel on this road. And before COVID, the intersection of Olive Branch and Leesville Road narrows very quickly. There's a lot of, it's a four-way stop and it does back up quite a bit during the rush hour going into Shady Grove Road, which is the four-way stop and then it continues into Wake County. My concern is just what are we doing to the south? I know we're putting a traffic light on Andrews Church from another thing and another development that's going on. There is another development that is on the enclave right there on Leesville that's gonna start to open up. It's in staff report for another 149 units. The big concern is really just, you know, again, getting the infrastructure in place to do it. I understand the funding and the need to say, well, let the developers pay for some of it, but I think we still do need a plan and it seems like the plan's been developed without a lot of citizen input. And so that's my big concern is, is that I am familiar with it with given living in the area that I am knowing the community around us that they do have a wanna input into, you know, what is really going on and where can we actually improve the area, especially getting to grocery shopping and other things. There's just not a lot of options other than driving in your car and getting to the Briar Creek for going north to 98. And most of the cases, most of the community is going south into Briar Creek or onto Leesville Road and going in towards 540 rather than going north. So I appreciate the proffers along 98 and some of the improvements that have been made. I know we approved another community that was gonna be putting stop lights along 98 as well. I think that's a great opportunity to certainly improve that infrastructure, but we're really stuck with all these new homes going in and automobiles going on these country roads. So that's my concern and my, you know, my take on it. And I do think I kind of agree with one of our, you know, Mr. Nell's concern of putting a moratorium until we can get the small area plan together and get some feedback from the community and then see if we can actually build out some kind of plan for our area, much like we've done with other areas in our city and then maybe put together some kind of design as far as this community and how this is gonna grow rather than just sprawling out into new neighborhoods, new roads and unsure where we're gonna go with all that. I know there's some connector roads that are being planned. It would be good to have the bigger picture rather than each individual application that's coming before us. So I don't fault the developers, they're doing what they're needing to do, but what I also think is we need to take a bigger picture, a bigger picture view of the thing. That's my comments. Thanks, Commissioner Morgan. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it's Ms. Schwedler, there she is. Jamie, did I hear you say that the development plan for higher quality building materials? In terms of, correct. We have, we have text commitments limiting or committing to a pallet of materials and having a series that Mr. Kulcher read off. You've got every material on there, but weather. It doesn't, it looks to me like you can build these buildings out of anything. I don't see, I don't, you used a comparative higher than the previous projects. The previous projects have the same list you do. Well, I misspoke there. I was trying to compare to the lack of architectural commitments and some of the earlier projects and the comments that were made on that. I'm sorry, I drew the wrong comparison. Thank you. And then, so one of the things that disturbs me about this project and I see it as being different is almost all of it is in the national heritage area. And the only commitment that we have that that recognizes that is a commitment to use half of the 25% open space and to cluster that up around the stream buffers well, given the way that this property is affected by stream buffers, I think it would be very difficult not to do that anyway. It doesn't seem like much of a commitment. And then, so one of the things that I would like to go over for all the commission members is when we talk about a project like this and we talk about the various kinds of open space, what are we talking about? What are the base requirements? What are, what are the kinds of open space and what kind of space on the map can do double or triple duty as open space? In other words, can stream buffers also be open space and those kinds of things. And I'd like to have access of staff earlier this week and I'd like to go over it again in front of the whole commission if we can so that we all understand what we're talking about because we have, you know, there are project boundary buffers and all these kinds of things when we're talking about this 25% open space, what in fact are we talking about? What will be open? Commissioner Miller, is that a question for me? It's for the staff. Oh, I apologize. I wasn't quite catching that. Yes, well, open space is required for all of these residential type developments. If they're proffering 25% of the site in open space at least one third of that would have to be recreational. The rest can be in anything and it could be more. Anything like what? It can be vegetative, which means some of their open space could be in their tree coverage. It could be, and it could be located within the riparian buffers. It could be in the flood plain. It could be into any of those areas. Now, if they're proffering to have 50% of that open space outside of those riparian buffers, then it's gonna be upstream of that, those riparian buffers. So at minimum, they're gonna have 50% of that 25% or in other words, 12 and a half percent of their proffered open space is going to be upstream of those riparian buffers. So, but I read the, so I read the actual text of the proffer is is that it will be clustered adjacent to. So I'm just, I'm having a hard time understanding or visualizing how much open space we're actually talking about that isn't already compelled in the form of riparian buffers or tree save or wetlands or something like that. Well, they haven't identified the actual open space upon the plan. I know, but help me conceptually. Maybe in other words, what does this really mean, this 50%? What is it not then? It means that 12 and a half percent of that 25% open space would be adjacent to those riparian buffers. But could it also be tree save? If they're, well, no, they've identified their tree save within the riparian buffers. Let me look at the development plan to be sure. It is, you're right. And except for one place outside where there is whatever that dotted area is that's outside the riparian buffers up in that corner where there is a potential utility crossing. And I'm not, what does the legend say? Building and parking envelopes. So that's, no, that's not what that is. I'm not sure what that dotted space is. It doesn't appear to be a legend for it. Yeah, I'm happy to have the applicant team answer. Are there any of these questions if you like? Maybe that would be better. I'd like Tim Cyvers to be unmuted and speak in riparian buffers. Yes, this is Tim Cyvers. Good evening, Commissioner Miller. Thank you for the question. So to clarify that, yes. So the intent of the 50% of the open space being outside or adjacent to that stream buffer is to be able to referring back to the Durham Eastern open space. I know what it says. I just want to know. What I'm trying to just get a handle on is how many acres that are not already required to be open space by some other provision in some code somewhere, are we talking about here? So our 25% requirement is a minimum of 20 acres. So at least, I guess if maybe, and I'm not sure if this answers your question fully, but the commitment would state that at least 10 acres that are outside of that stream buffer area, riparian buffer area. Does that help quantify your answer? Out, but outside of it, but adjacent to it. Because the- That's correct. And the point of that is to refer back to the Durham Eastern open space plan that says to cluster your homes away from those stream buffer areas for the Durham Eastern open space plan. So that commitment was tried to emphasize that we're meeting that cluster request of the Durham Eastern Durham open space plan. Right. And so, I mean, but I look at your building envelope and it's big, it covers pretty much the whole property outside the buffers. What is the dotted area up in the northeast corner where so many things come together? The proposed site access for the public street across the northern part of the property and then the potential utilities crossing and you've got tree save up there. That's a complicated corner on the map that I'm looking at. And you've got a dotted area in there. What is that? Are you referring to the northwest corner, the top left of the- I'm sorry, northwest corner. Okay. I've had my eastern west mixed up all- No problem, sir. So that area is into the floodplain and wetland area. That hatch is identifying some wetlands. So would that area also be part of that 50%? It could, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. That's what I was driving at. And then, is there any reason why this access points of that heavy dotted line going across the property does it have to be there in order to line up with similar heavy dotted lines on already approved projects nearby? Yes, sir, it does. Okay. I thought so. Thank you. And then I'm very concerned about the cemetery. You've got a small cemetery. I don't know where it is because you did not show it on the existing conditions map and there are recommendations from the State Historic Preservation Office about its preservation and buffering. And you've got no commitments about that. And if I understand the cemetery correctly, it's the Shaw Cemetery and it is Mr. William Henry Shaw and his family and maybe other people are buried there. The state recommended that there be a pedestrian survey by an archeologist. And as far as I know, that hasn't happened. So tell me what you plan to do with regard to that cemetery. That's for you, Mr. Saunders. Sorry about that. I was waiting for Jamie to answer. So we're in the process of going through that now. We do understand the process and working with professionals and doing the full research to determine if that cemetery truly is there. And we'll go through similar process that we've talked to recently about in other projects as well. I don't know what that means. You got to protect the cemetery, you got to move. Undetermined at this time. Most likely the cemetery will probably need to be relocated. The location, approximate location is in the really the very southern corner. If you will, that is close to... How close is it to Olive Branch? It's pretty close, sir. And it's pretty close to the southern property line. My understanding of the general location is that it nearly aligns with the current access point with the access... One second, go in my plan. Access point number one, which has to remain in that location because it is the fourth leg of the intersection for across the street from the Mungo Homes development. So it's with that alignment that's being required, and of course, which makes more sense to make the fourth leg of that intersection, it is potentially possible that that location of the cemetery will have to move to create that access point in alignment with the Mungo Homes development. I mean, I'm assuming you saw the report of the folks you hired that found the cemetery and took pictures of it? Yes. Okay, because I thought I heard you to say that you weren't sure it was actually there. So we're still going through that research and working through that report, yes. All right, so I encourage you to save the cemetery and guard it. This notion of moving cemeteries is, in my opinion, damaging to our public history and shared history, certainly was not the expectation of the family when they buried their loved ones there. I do not like to see cemeteries removed. I have not heard good reports about the firms who take this on as a job. I've already got complaints from people concerning the cemetery on the property next door. So, anyway, I encourage you and I would like to, I would prefer to see on this development plan some sort of commitments with regard to the preservation of the cemetery. It appears to be a very, very small one. And the State Historic Preservation Office made recommendations that did not to be particularly onerous given the size of this property. And then finally, with regard to the design of these units, do you have a builder for this project? Yes, Pultee Homes is anticipated to build this and we do have Jamie Davis with Pultee who is available tonight. And are these going to be garage dominated facades? So one of our tax commitments, as you've seen on recent plans is for the town homes to provide a certain number and off the top of my head, I can't remember the percentage of single car garages to help minimize that. We've also provided some tax commitments with Gable features to help provide that architectural variance within the development and the commitment of not having any home that's exactly the same directly next to each other to providing vertical, horizontal, different materials and colors that help provide variation through the development. And I appreciate all of that, but you can still dominate the facade of the residential property with a single garage bay. And I believe that our comprehensive plan does not favor that. And I know I don't favor it. I do not believe it makes for a project with a long life in the marketplace or in essentially kind of good social engineering, which all good land use planning is. So Mr. Chair, I note that we as a planning commission have turned a lot of these projects down and the city council votes for them anyway. I guess they have their reasons. And I suppose you could say, well, since they have pretty much approved everything out here anyway, we might as well go ahead and approve this. That isn't the way I see this. The city council has its reasons for making the decisions it makes. That doesn't mean I believe that the decisions that we make and the reasons for them are wrong. I have misgivings about this property. It has a very tiny connection with a real public street. It is in almost entirely within the national heritage area. And I don't think the 50% of their required open space requirement is much of a response to that situation. And although I would agree with Ms. Schwedler, there are design commitments for these units and materials commitments for these units. I don't think they're as meaningful as they could be, but I do appreciate the effort. So it's obvious that this team has been paying attention. I will listen to what the rest of my planning commission colleagues say before I vote, but I find all of this a little disappointing, kind of dismal actually. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Cabrera. Thank you, Chair. You know, as I listened to Jamie's presentation, it struck me that you did a very good job of sort of outlining where your plan aligned with both UDO and the comprehensive plan in a lot of areas. But what's striking or what hit me is that it's a dated comp plan and UDO. And so we're sort of operating, even if you're aligning to these things, we're not operating for the future. You know, there's, I think in today's age, there are ways to get really creative and commit to some of the things that we've been asking for. Specifically, I'll address affordable housing. And so I'll put the question out there and say, have you thought about incorporating some affordable, truly affordable housing into this development? There's a lot of units here. Have you thought about that? If so, why, that's, I don't think it's really worth discussing the $28,000 commitment to, I think it was 28,000 commitment to affordable. But I mean, true affordable housing in terms of some significant percentages and getting creative, whether it's financing acquisition costs, I understand math, but I think there are ways to get there. So I don't know if you can speak to that and reasons why you don't have that, understanding that that's something that's important. It's been important for a long time, but we're just not seeing the commitment. Thanks. And that's for either Mr. Cybers or Ms. Shwendo. I'll take that. This is Jamie. I mean, I think we always consider each of the aspects that are important to the commission and the council. And of course, we're aware of affordable housing being one of them. I think like many projects, it's difficult to factor that in and make that work with the rising costs of land in Durham and the pressures to incorporate many different things into the development that we have. And so instead, we've proffered the Affordable Housing Fund and we've looked at price points that can make this affordable to folks, even if it's not a committed percentage of AMI or a certain number percentage of AMI. Any follow-up commission recovery? No, I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Commissioner Lowell. Yes, thank you. This is to the applicant, Ms. Jamie, looking at the development plan. I believe I said that the assets on the development plan symbolizes reserve tree coverage area. You tell me what's the total of these assets? I really can't make it out on my copy all because my eyes are not that good, but it looked like I'm looking at five assets here that represents for reserve tree coverage area. And I think I'm looking at the total five assets what's the total land or acreage with the total five assets? This is Tim Syvers. I'll answer that, Commissioner Lowell. Our minimum commitment is the 21%. At site plan stage, we can always go above that, but we'll have at least the 21%, which is 16.7 acres. And we were talking about a little over 79 acres, I believe, is that correct? Yeah, okay. Ask me that, thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Lowell. Commissioner Durkin. We can't hear your audio, Commissioner Durkin. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to echo, shockingly, I'm going to echo the concerns raised about affordable housing in this project. And I understand that this project is smaller and scaled in the prior to, but it's still almost 80 acres, which is a lot of land with an anticipated number of units of 284. That's also a lot of units. I also appreciate the difference between having rental in the project, the K Street project, or parcel K. It's different to provide affordable rental housing, which then it is affordable home ownership. But I think developers need to figure out on a creative solution, because we are bringing this up with every case that comes before us. And I think it can be done, but it's on the developers right now to figure out a way to make that happen. And we're happy to brainstorm, but I think we're all demanding more now. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Armandoli. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to return to this idea of a moratorium on development in this area. I think that's something we should be pursuing every time that we, or every time that the council makes a choice to approve one of these cases on Olive Branch Road, they're making a choice to approve to build out suburbia and Durham. And I do not think that is the Durham that most folks want. And I know it's the one that I don't support. So I'll be voting no in this case tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, if anyone else would like to speak, please raise your hand. Commissioner Cease. Just one quick question, perhaps for the applicant, perhaps for staff. There was a reference or a question earlier regarding the location of the future collector street that's indicated on the development plan. And I'm trying to find any approved plans off to the northeastern parcel that's adjacent to the site. I don't see any indicated on that particular parcel. And I'm wondering if there is one. This is Tim Cyvers, if it's okay if I could answer that. Sure. So there's approved plans to the west, the parcel that connects the future collector road directly to the east. There is no approved plan on that. That location and connection location follows the transportation maps that have been the regional transportation maps. Thank you for that answer. I think that's one of those instances where the scenario that Erling Thomas described to us earlier with regards to that level of planning with those early stage transportation planning maps doesn't delve as deeply into specific site or environmental characteristics as one would do in looking at a particular development plan. And so I would just express a concern regarding showing a collector road slicing across a stream buffer which are considered with great care from a regulatory perspective and otherwise in Durham when it could be shifted a bit further south and have zero impact as far as I could tell even looking at the topo maps of development to the east in the future. So that's just one observation. Just a quick question, why the 15% commitments relative to townhome versus single family? That seems pretty lenient in terms of a proposed mix. That's not a judgment, it's just a question. It's a commitment to confirm that both uses will be provided with just making a statement that this would be single family and townhomes without putting a minimum percentage on that. You could have one. So we want to provide a minimum commitment that states both items, single family and townhomes will both be included with the development. I guess I can understand that answer. It just strikes me in terms of portraying a project to the public that there's a lot of uncertainty associated with what will ultimately get built. That's just an observation. That's all I have at this point. Thank you, Commissioner Sees. I don't see anyone else raising their hand, so I think this is an appropriate time for a motion. Mr. Chairman, then if I may, please. With regard to, I apologize. With regard to case Z2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 8, concerning the property located at 1051 Olive Branch Road, I move that we send this forward to the, is it the city council? Yes, it's city council with a favorable recommendation. Seconded. Thank you. So Commissioner Miller, I think I heard Commissioner Morgan, is that you? Yeah, I know. One of the roll call vote, please. Edmondoia? No. Baker? No. Bussby? No. Cutwright? Jerkin? No. Kinchin? No. Low? No. McIver? Nope. Miller? No. Morgan? No. Cease? No. And Williams? Is Commissioner Williams still on the call? I see Commissioner Williams. Yes, I'm here. Okay. I'm sorry, I thought I was talking, I was on mute. Okay, no worries. What was your vote? Yes. Yes? Yes. Okay. All right, it fails one to 11. Thank you. We're gonna move to our final two items under new business. And the first is the FY22 planning department work program. Neither of these are public hearing items, but we have staff reports and offer feedback. Good evening commissioners. I know it's late, so I will be brief. As you all know, we are required, the planning department is required by virtue of the interlocal agreement that creates the Joint City County Department to submit an annual work program to both governing bodies every year. And before it gets there, it gets to come to you all and be shared with you all for your comment and input. This year is much like last year's kind of a hold even work program. As you know, most of our discretionary time as staff is devoted to work on the comprehensive plan. In addition, there are a few smaller projects that were put on the work program. Last year, pertaining mostly to text amendments that will continue to roll over, but there is not staff capacity to take on substantial projects outside of the comprehensive plan. There is one very small addition to the work program, which is a inspection for bus shelters that are being built in the right of way. We have an engineer on staff that has a little bit of capacity to take that on. And it's a relatively small workload that needed to be accomplished in cooperation with transportation and GoTriangle. So we agreed to take that on under existing staff capacity. But having said all that, I am happy to entertain any questions. Like I said, it's really a no change year for us on the work program. Thank you. Commissioner, is there any questions or feedback? Commissioner Miller. So I have to observe, I just have to, my disappointment with the work plan. And I realized that the planning director and the planning staff probably do not have a whole lot of leeway in the way this is presented. But my goodness, we have talked for a long time about a lot of things over the years about affordable housing and about community engagement and about gentrification and displacement and all the things that the community are crying out for us to address. And we have a work plan in front of us that is essentially a development services work plan where almost all of the energy and effort and resources are devoted to the things that the staff has to do. And a lot of what the staff has to do, I mean a whole lot of what the staff has to do is to tend to development submissions initiated by the development community. And that's where energy goes. And we have got to figure out a way to change that. And I note that we have in Durham created and probably in every other city in North Carolina as far as I know, but in Durham we have created a situation where we fund the department to some significant measure by the fees the development community pays. And when we ask the planning staff to take on and do work for which there's no fee revenue stream, it's difficult. And I think that as a body politic, Durham has got to break out of this mold. I really believe this. There has to be a fair chunk of our energy and resources and people that work on these other issues. I read all the way through the development plan and I never saw anything in it that addresses the concerns that I know big aspects of the community are struggling with. I'm talking about Braggtown and I'm talking about Waltown and Northgate. We've got to carve out of our resources some way of putting some portion of the driving hand in planning in the hands of people who are not developers. The ordinary people of this community cannot just sit back and wait for cases. They do not initiate and respond to them. That cannot be their only role. And if it's not going to be their only role, then the entire political apparatus of the city needs to change and insist on change. And I'm not looking to the planning department necessarily to start this or to be responsible for it. They have a list of things they have to do and they've barely been given the resources to do just those things. And that's why we see a same as last year kind of hold our own work plan. And I take as a member of the Planning Commission and as a member of the community, I take my full share of responsibility for letting things just continue on the way they have been going. It's got to be different. There have got to be ways for ordinary people. And when I say this, I'm not running anybody down. I know some people object to my use of the word ordinary, but I'm referring to people whose interest in this entire process is where they live. The home they've purchased, the home they rent and the surroundings and the environment they build for themselves to live their lives, to raise their children, to grow old in. And to me, that's the most important consideration of the work that all of us do together. And I don't see it getting the attention that I think it deserves. And so this is the last time I'll comment as a Planning Commission member on a work plan and so I'm going to express disappointment and I hope keep everyone awake to the fact that we have got to do this better. Thank you very much. Commissioner Baker. Yeah, I thought that those were really thoughtful comments provided by Commissioner Miller and I think that I agree with them. Just two things that I wanted to bring up. One is that I did want to see, was hoping to see something about Braggtown, historically black community that has been fighting for equity and fighting for justice and Waltown who is a small community that's sort of battling a major developer on the Northgate side. So I really wanted to see those communities and some acknowledgement of institutional support for the work that they're doing and the work that they want to be able to accomplish. And the other thing that I wanted to address was the actual document itself. And this is the, I think the third time that I've seen the work program as Commissioner Miller mentioned, the work program as it is now is a long list of things that we see the same thing sort of every year when we get it, it's a long list of things that the city does, permits, all those things. And we've talked a lot on this commission about making planning and zoning and development much more accessible to the community. And part of that is making these documents a little bit more user friendly, a little bit more accessible and not just for the community but for us as well. And I think part of that would be making this document or maybe making a similar type of document that speaks to a work program more accessible. For example, having a sheet that on the y-axis has a list of the projects that the city is working on and on the x-axis has time. And when is, can we expect engagement? Maybe it has to be a dynamic spreadsheet and changes over time. When can we expect things to go to public hearing? What's the timeframe for the different projects that are happening? And just making it much more visual and much more accessible to the community. So yeah, those are my two comments. One more on the content and one little bit more on the actual document and framework itself. Ms. Young, I see you've got your hand raised. Yeah, I just wanted to take a minute and address. First of all, Commissioner Baker, I really like the idea of making the document more visual and more accessible. And so hopefully that'll be something we can work on that I think would definitely do a lot for transparency of the document and also just having it be something that's more understandable to everyone. On the point of some of these particular neighborhoods that have development pressures that they have been really struggling with. We have said time and time again that we are going to work with those as part of the comprehensive plan focus area approach. So we're currently working with Braggtown to develop the scope for their focus area. We have been meeting a little bit with Walltown but our goal is to work with as many groups as we can through the comprehensive plan process. And then obviously as part of that, we expect there to be a whole series of follow-up projects with specific communities and specific geographies that we will undertake as well. So they're not forgotten. I wanted to make that clear but I do think that some of this gets buried when you roll it up into the work program. So I appreciate you bringing that up. Great, thank you. Any additional comments or feedback? Great. And just to be clear, this is not an item that requires our vote this evening. Is that correct? This is an item where you typically will recommend approval. Okay. I believe it's a recommendation goes with it. Well, thank you. This would then be the appropriate time for a motion for recommendation. Mr. Chair, I move that we send the fiscal year 2022. Is that correct Sarah? Fiscal year 2022 work plan forward to the elected officials with, that's the city and the county with a favorable recommendation. Chair, I think I would second, but I think Commissioner Amandola had his hand raised. I don't know if he's had a question before that you may have missed him. I'm sorry. Thank you. Let's take your second and Commissioner Amandola, first of all, sorry I totally missed that. If you do have a comment, let's have it as part of the debate before we vote on the motion. Sure, I just had a brief question. I'm aware that this year is kind of a tight fiscal year and I was curious if there were things that were like wish list items for the department work plan that we're not able to make it. I will say that I have a long list of wish list items and we are, I will say this, there is always a little bit of staff capacity available. We tend to not want to over commit, but you will notice that there are many small projects that get done throughout the year because we have a very dedicated staff that finds time for things. We're not able to bite off huge things through that method, but there are, and one of the things the next item is that you'll hear after this is one of those projects. So we do, I think the staff can attest that I have a long laundry list of wish things and that may be something that, I'd be happy to share with you all at some point if you're interested. We can have a, maybe at one of your retreat sessions where we talk a little more informally about kind of what we want the city and the county to be in terms of a planning vision for the future. I would love to engage with you all in that conversation now that I'm in a different role than I was before, but yes, to answer your question, there is a long list of the staff. I would say one of my biggest things is looking at our processes and particularly our regulations through a racial equity lens. There are a lot of things in our ordinance that really have a lot of negative impacts on folks. And we really need to prioritize getting to that even while we're in the middle of a comp plan. We know what those things are. They've been there for years. We're not kidding anybody. So that's one of the things that's high on my priority list just by way of example. Thank you. And as I'm sure many folks on this call are already aware and maybe folks will watch the speculator and see this but we are in the budget cycle right now. Both the city council and county commissioners are in the process of developing in a budget. Their proposals out there and O'Bragtown is pushing for the city to fund staff dedicated time for them to have their focus area. The racial equity task force has called for a racial equity fund which part of that work could be looking at the ordinances of that come through the planning department through a racial equity lens. These conversations are happening right now. And oftentimes the reason things don't get done in Durham that we wish could get done is because we don't have the budget dedicated to them. This is something that I'm sure will be referenced when we discuss the new comprehensive plan later this month. But I know that one thing that I have been noticing is how limited we are in our resources for a city in the county that exudes this idea of progressivism. We need more funding to fund our planning practices and all the other things our city needs to do. We need to frankly raise taxes and provide assistance to those who cannot afford their property taxes so that the people are paying their fair share and are able to provide the services that we need to have a good and equitable city. Thank you, Chair, those are my comments. Thank you. Commissioner Morgan, I'm gonna recognize you as well and then we'll have the vote on the motion. Thank you. I'll just be real brief. Sarah, I really do welcome your wish list and your interest there. I think anything that we can do to help advocate for some of the items that you have on your list would be most helpful. So if you're willing to certainly share that laundry list of everything and maybe prioritize what you would like us to advocate for, I'd like to be part of that and be able to help you. Sounds good to me. Great. And I also like your recommendation of being able to have a longer free flowing discussion at the next, our next retreat, virtual retreat, but we can work to start to set that up because it's probably about time to do that once we get through the backlog of these twice a month marathons we're having. Okay, with that said, we had a motion by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Cutrate. And this is the recommendation of the FY2022 Planning Department Work Program and we'll have the roll call vote. Amondolia. Yes. Baker. Yes. B. Yes. Cutrate. Yes. Durkins. Yes. Inchin. Yes. Lowe. MacIver. Yes. Miller. No. Morgan. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. And Williams. No. Okay. It passes 10-2 with a recommendation for approval. Great. Thank you. So under our final item, this is the land use engagement initiative. This is information item. I got to see this at the Joint City County Planning Committee meeting a week or two ago. It's cool and it's exciting. So I'm looking forward to seeing it again and hearing from all of you. So I'll hand it off to staff to walk us through this. Great. Good evening, Chair Busby, Vice Chair Kinshine. Honorable commissioners, Alexander Cahill with the Planning Department and along with my fellow department colleague, Chris Peterson, who you all know very well, we're excited to provide information on this information item. Thank you for staying up late with us. I will try to move expeditiously through this item, but I will make sure it gets the thought and the intention that it deserves as we go through this. So planning staff have been listening to the feedback that y'all have been providing. City Council members have provided county commissioners, advisory boards, partner departments, community members and those involved in the engaged term process about things that we need to do to improve the outcomes for land use cases and the process by which we get to these cases. We even heard tonight that we need to break out of the mold, that we need to ensure that we don't continue to do things as business as usual. And under Director Young's direction, we have come up with a land use engagement initiative that hopes to start centering some of these ideas that you're talking about. In multiple mediums, venues and formats, we have heard concerns from community members, especially at public hearings, at planning commission and City Council, and each and every time have taken them to heart. We've taken this feedback and we've created what we believe is a vision and initiative that captures the array and richness of the voices that we have heard so far and then also maintains some spaces for the voices that we have not yet heard. As we've seen tonight, great transparency and the information that we provide to our community is imperative and really helps get a development proposal to a project that can work for everyone. What you're gonna hear tonight is a land use engagement strategy that is adaptable and responsive to the changing nature of the current pandemic environment and really hopes to help vision for what the post-pandemic environment could and should look like. We may not have all the answers tonight and we shouldn't, but we do hope and anticipate that today we'll begin to change the narrative around development in Durham by adding richer, deeper and harder to reach voices to these proposals of development that come into land use and move us towards more proactive land use planning. So I'm just gonna quickly go over our agenda for tonight. It's a nice short one and it's gonna be a little interactive to get our juices flow right before we go to bed. We're gonna talk about the initiative goals and guiding values. We're gonna talk about the phase of this project proposal. We're gonna talk about the land use landing site and then we are going to play with my screen. And then we're gonna ask for feedback from y'all. So as you've heard in past sessions from the conference of plan team and the goals and objectives for the conference of plan, we wanna make sure that we're centering community input into this process. So what this process for land use engagement is gonna do is we're gonna use the guiding values of the conference of plan to make sure that we have a gut check on everything that we do moving forward. Is the work we're doing in land use equitable? Is it accountable? Is it accessible? And does it enhance the wellbeing of the people at impacts? These goals have been shared with you in draft version by the policy and urban design team. And the two goals that we're especially gonna focus on making sure we adhere to our informed and involved community engagement process and then intentional planning and decision-making. This will allow us to help center community voices in the process as we move forward. So we've been thinking about what this first phase of this land use engagement would look like, what it feels like, what it sounds like. And we're starting with some surveys to residents and surveys to applicants. Find out what do they know? What are things we can do better? What are we missing the mark on? What are we nailing that we need to enhance or expand? We are going to focus on pre-submitted meetings that discuss community engagement at the pre-submitted meeting. In the past, we may have talked about all the technical aspects of the UDO that apply to a case. And now we've moved towards centering a collective determination about what's the best way to engage the community in these conversations at the pre-submitted stage. We know that once an application is already submitted, it's already in a stronger, more permanent form than it is than when it's in a pre-submitted session. And then this first phase will also have an educational strategy where we want to understand our community, what they need, and then help them learn about what we do so they can become more involved members of this process. We're looking at ways to make our neighborhood meetings more robust and engaging, moving them and pivoting them away from being Q&A sessions about a project to really finding ways to engage the community in them. We are unrolling a record of community engagement to provide transparency to residents about how a project or development plan has changed since a project has gone through the review cycle. And then one of the most exciting things is what you'll see tonight is the social pinpoint interactive mapping and input tool that along with Chris Peterson, we've worked hard to hope center and provide transparency in these land use processes. And then of course, on-going is we're always gonna be doing stakeholder interviews. Anytime we get a chance to talk to someone in the community, we do take that feedback. We're pretty good in documenting it and we're gonna keep doing that and having those conversations because we know that this process is not going to have an endpoint. So one of the cool things that we've done is start a land use engagement initiative site. And this is a site that came out of the comprehensive plan process. It was procured for the comprehensive plan to help engage residents. And we decided that as an implementation tool of the comprehensive plan, we could use the site to reach our residents. It is a vision to be a one-stop shop for where the community can find resources on a project. They can answer questions and surveys. They can find out answers to FAQs, which we will adapt and change as we move forward. And they can stay engaged in land use in general. With that, the most exciting thing that I wanna talk about today and then I will soon turn it over to my colleague, Chris Peterson, is we have a new tool that we launched that essentially hopefully answers all the questions that y'all have been bringing up and they've been absolutely great questions about transparency, accountability, how do we incorporate community voices into the process before they come to Planning Commission and City Council? And so we've worked really hard to develop a tool as you were direct to young say, often in our quote-unquote spare time or after work whenever we can, because we know how important this work is to centering our community's voices in these projects. So with that, I'm gonna actually turn it over to my colleague, Chris Peterson, and he's gonna walk you through an interactive demonstration of how this new land use tool works. Thank you, Alexander, and welcome, everybody. And my name is Chris Peterson with the Planning Department. It's a pleasure to present to you. Normally I'm the voice behind the Zoom meeting, so now it's a pleasure to be in front again. So this is our new interactive tool as Alexander has mentioned. It's a wonderful mapping tool that we've developed with the help of social pinpoint to kind of, once again, engage the public. When you first open the map from the land use page, and I can put these in the chat in a moment, you first enter the map, the website. Sorry, my mouse keeps moving. I'm gonna have to stop control for a second. Okay, so when you first enter the website, you are welcomed with this. I'm sorry, my mouse is going really crazy right now. Bear with me one second. I'm gonna stop and reshare again. Okay, I apologize about that. You're welcome to do the website with given instructions. And then you see the map of Durham with various orange parcels scattered around the county and city. You can navigate to the various parcels in three ways to find your case. As many of us know with maps, you can just kind of scroll around and navigate to where you need to go and maybe click on the case that you're interested in. If you know relatively geographically how to get there. You can go, if you know the case name or the case number, you can scroll through the list of cases on the left and find the case you need. Or the third option is to just search for a case. So maybe I don't remember where exactly I saw that zoning notification sign. I don't know the case number, but I know where my address is and I know it was really close to my house. I can use the search function and I can search for address. So this case, I'm gonna use a school that's close to a few of our cases. So the spring value elementary school. I can zoom out a little bit and, aha, there's the case I'm looking for. And then I can see there's other cases around here too. So I'm gonna click this one case that's really close to spring value elementary. And so you can see that it changes a little bit. So this allows me to indicate that I'm on this case and I'm looking at the various elements of here. What pops up on the left is the current description of the case, the various steps of where we're at in the process. So we have an application that's submitted. It's under review and the data that's going to plan and condition when it's made and then also to the council. And below it are supplemental information. So your application, your development plan, the public interest statement and the link to the online zoning GIS. We link to our Durham Maps page because as good as this tool is, we can't put all of our files and all of our shapefiles on here yet. We are working with the developer to or the vendor of this application to try to have a direct link but we can't put zoning on here yet but we are working on that. You also see there's a few other waypoints that popped up. So when I look on this particular case, we have a few waypoints here. Those waypoints are drop pins that individuals can use to comment on this case. So for instance, I'm in this neighborhood and I'm really intrigued about this, maybe a neighborhood coming in here. And I see a school. I can drop a general comment here and I can say, let me move this out. I can say, will there be any trails to the school? And I have to put in my email address so that I can't just answer anonymously. Or at least when I say anonymously, I'm not going to facility to the staff. So there is a record of comments. And so that way it prevents us getting like spammed and getting just other comments that aren't necessary to the case. I had a comment and it's on there. So now what other people can do is they can click on my case and they can see my discussion and they can like dislike just like you put on the most social media you can share on social media, Facebook, Twitter or I can add more discussion to this comment. And I can say, I hope so as well. So there's lots of the various options with the comments. You can also add photos to comments. For example, for this over here, I dropped a transportation-related drop-in. And here, I say, well, this would be in the intersection of this case like this photo right here. Photos do get approved by staff. So when someone does upload a photo, we have to look at first. But then once we approve it, then it's online. So that what others can comment as well. Another option for engagement with this is filling out the survey. So below every case with all the additional information, you'll find survey bits where you can select the case that you're on. For example, here we're on case Z08. You can set your stand sign for or against or I'm not decided yet. Do I live near the project area? Do I agree? Tell me why I agree. Do you disagree? Tell me why you disagree. And then arrange different elements of this case that are important to you in chronological order. So or hierarchy for you. And any other additional comments. So once again, like the drop-ins, we need you to submit your emails. That way we can follow up with you or if there's any other questions or concerns. This website does allow for translations. So it does have Google automatic translations and it does it in almost all the languages here if there's another language last no, but there's about 50 of them right there. And we will continue to keep cases on here. So as we zoom out, we'll see that there's one case in gray located below. And that indicates a closed case and we will put the decisions by the various governing bodies on that case. So here we have an approved 13 to zero for their planning commission as well as the seven zero city council. We, that kind of quick wrap up. I know it's kind of late so we don't want to take up too much of your time but we can come back to this during our discussion if you want to see other tools. I'll kick it back off to Alexander. Great, thanks Chris. I appreciate that. And we will come back at the end if there's any questions. I just had a few more slides. I know one question you're probably gonna have is how far back are we gonna go with cases when we upload them? We just started with 2021 cases as an example but we have made a decision to go back and add any case that has not yet been to planning commission. So as you can imagine, that's quite a few cases that we are working on in the background but I'm pretty confident between the people that are working on this project can get that done in the next couple of weeks here. So we'll be able to look forward to that. So one of the things is that how are different stakeholders gonna use this tool or how can they use this tool? So one of the things that this could do for elected and appointed officials such as yourself is it can really help keep you apprised of one new cases that are coming. Sometimes you're hearing about a case and you send us an email, what's going on with this case? We haven't heard anything about it, we haven't seen it. And you might be able to just go to this site and see, okay, where is it at? What have they submitted? And then you can look and see what are people saying about it? What's the narrative that's going on? Now we get that this is just one narrative. We have a lot of barriers that we need to remove to get people to participate. But as a starting point, we at least are able to see what is missing in this conversation. There is some future functionality with this tool as well where we may be able to have you respond as a planning commissioner and be able to have each of you jump in and help each other and support each other in those responses. So there's just some things that may help y'all. For the community, they'll be able to respond to cases that they care about, cases that have meaning to them, cases that they just wanna know more about. They'll be able to, from application submittal to adoption or denial, they'll be able to stay engaged with that case. And that is something that we know has been missing, we've been hearing has been missing. So there is an opportunity for someone now to be involved in a case from start to finish. Should they so choose? They'll also be able to use this hopefully as a way to stay engaged. So by the time we get to a public hearing, hopefully a public hearing then is a final overall policy discussion or decision or how are we taking everything we heard in making a final decision. One of the things that we don't wanna do is have to make applicants or the community members stay up all night talking about this along with y'all. So we're hoping that's one of the benefits in a way that the community can use this as well. And then one of the ways that applicants can use this is they'll be able to look at the comments and they'll be able to see what's going on in the area. They'll be able to look up past cases. So if they have a case adjacent to a privately approved case or deny case, they'll be able to look up the narrative around that case and see what were people saying back then and start thinking about how to incorporate that into their development proposal. And then staff are able to use this in so many ways. Really the tools for us are limitless, which is super exciting for us. I'm a little overwhelming sometimes, but we'll be able to gauge community concerns, identify community input and expertise that maybe we don't necessarily have access to now. We'll be able to use this to inform the project and apprise the development or the applicant of this. At each round of review, what our intent is is to look at the social pinpoint narrative, pull any comments or concerns or feedback that we've gotten around a project and use that to provide advisory comments to the applicant for them to address based on the community reactions and concerns. Now we know that we can't require them to do something with these, but we think if we start changing the narrative around this that along with the work that y'all are doing and changing that narrative, that they will start accommodating some of these requests, listening to the community. And if they're not able to provide something, really providing a clear and transparent reason why they can't. And the other thing staff will be able to do is see geographic development trends and those pressures in kind of live time. Right now, we know that if something comes in that olive branch, there's so many cases in olive branch, right? We just kind of have that background knowledge, but we'll be able to do is see it in a geographic illustrative form and see that, oh, North Durham has a ton more cases coming in or maybe Braggtown has several cases coming in. And we need to get with our Braggtown community and our friends and start working with them to talk about this development pressure that's coming. So this is a tool that can really help us help alert vulnerable communities and figure out what to do next. And then as I talked about earlier, there's a new record of community engagement that we will roll out. We will ask applicants to track changes on their projects when it changed from each level review to the next, whether that was based on staff feedback or community feedback. And then we didn't wanna go through and design the whole project or process changes yet. We really wanted to hear from people before we do that. But as this process of improvement unfolds, we will see our toolkit expand and we'll keep y'all apprised of it. And then just a quick reminder or maybe a new information for some of y'all, some of the things that we've already done and tried to improve land use cases is we've moved to an implementation of an online scheduling system. We've really worked to change staff reports. So when we hear feedback from y'all, such as you wanna see comparative home or rental prices, we are working to incorporate things like that into the staff report where feasible. We are doing the process improvement surveys which we have rolled out and we'll be doing a messaging push on those soon. We'll be attaching neighborhood meeting information to the planning commission agenda item. So we've already been doing that with minutes but we'll start providing even more robust commentary. We have been using the public interest statement which is essentially the interim goals and objectives of the COMP plan in our staff review. And we've really focused on the process of community engagement with applicants at pre-submitted meetings. And so next steps, we could get some great feedback from our elected officials at JCCPC which we've already tried to work to incorporate and will continue to incorporate. Asking y'all for feedback as well. We will definitely send up a follow-up email to y'all. So if you're eager to get out tonight, you'll be able to respond to that email and provide feedback on what you've seen, you've heard what it sounds like, right track, wrong track. And then we'll also send a link to this information. So one, we can help you get signed up for an account if you're interested. And two, at least have the link to the website you can see, you can share with constituents. And then we are going to share this out via multiple mediums and platforms with the community. The COMP plan has a very robust community communications plan that we are using and following to make sure that we reach the communities identified as having barriers to participation and communities that maybe don't necessarily always receive messages that they should be hearing. So those are our next steps. Like I said, we'll send up a follow-up email, but at this point, of course, if y'all want to provide whether this is right track, wrong track, or you have any guidance, feel free to let us know. Or if you want Chris to pull the tool back up and just play with it, we can do that too. We both love getting in there. So thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate you staying up with us. Thanks for both of you. Again, a really great tool, very excited commissioners. Welcome your thoughts or feedback. And Commissioner Williams, you've got your hand up so we can start with you. Yes, I'm extremely brief on this one. I absolutely love the way this is presented. I know that it's going to change the way that people get their information, how they interact. They're gonna feel way more informed. They're gonna feel like their input is live. It's not that I send an email, I gotta wait five to seven days for somebody to send me an email back. And it's going to encourage community engagement on a lot of different levels in which I'm not gonna say it's gonna eliminate the fact that they're saying that they can't reach community, or we mailed out a letter and no one responded, but it's definitely gonna make the process between the planning commission, city planning department, permitting department, developers in the community a lot more fluid. And that is essential to actually creating an environment that is welcoming to the community to make them feel as though how they feel can be easily addressed. And I honestly cannot wait to play with this tool on multiple levels. So thank you so much for the time that you put into developing this. Great, thanks Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Miller. So thanks a lot. I'd like the idea of being able to get so much of this so handily as somebody who is not particularly technically skilled being able to have a map and see things highlighted and hover over them. But I do have some questions. So when we talk about cases, what kind of cases are we talking about? Resonings? That is a great question. Yeah, for now it will be any tier changes, zoning map changes or annexation petitions. Okay, and so one of the things that I wanted to ask you about, maybe not so much about this tool, I've been concerned for a very long time about what happens at neighborhood meetings. I've attended a lot of them, frequently have to run out of the room with my hair on fire. That's why I don't have very much. How can we make those? I see that there's, I mean, it's clearly you're thinking about better neighborhood meetings. How can neighborhood meetings be better? Because right now they're developer run. And I've seen, it just seems odd to me that a neighborhood meeting is actually being hosted and managed by the group that the neighborhood is suspicious of. And they frequently are not happy occasions, not that I expect them to be, but how can we make them better? And there are frequently times when I wish a staff member was there to say, wait a minute, that's not right. Cause I hear that all the, I hear developers get it wrong or bend it wrong. Yeah, that's an absolutely great question. I can provide a little context. So as you heard from Director Young, we do have limited resources, but along with you, I've audited a few of these neighborhood meetings. Sometimes applicants invite me to attend or the community invites me to attend. And of course it's all, we don't have a lot of time. So it's hard to attend more than one month, but I've observed the same sort of things and we have, and we kind of know the concerns in the department. That's something we're gonna think about. We're gonna work to address. We've talked about different ways to do that, ways to create education elements for applicants if there's a different role staff can play. But I think for now, the direction received from JCCPC is to focus on the community centered part, which is this tool. And then once we've really flushed out some of this work, then we would come back and maybe find a way to partner with applicants or partner with people that are in neighborhood meetings to make them more robust. And I think at that point, we'd love some feedback on that. And if you have ideas, feel free to email them to us so we can start working on. Yeah, and if I may, one more thing, Mr. Busby. And I note that while I see all of this is really good and it is still casts the community. It still is based upon the assumption that the intersection between the community and planning is cases. And it casts the community in a responding role. The developers initiate and the community responds. And is there a way in, as we talk about community engagement to figure out vehicles where the staff routinely is working with community groups outside the context that this cases kind of thing. I would love to get to the point where the zoning notice that comes in the mail is the worst thing that happens in anybody's week because they know a little, there's no panic associated with it. I would love to have, I've been active in the Interneberg Council for years and it's had successes and it hasn't had successes, it has no resources, it's all volunteers. I mean, there are all kinds of weak points about the Interneberg Council. But I think that an Interneberg Council that was staff supported could be a fabulous thing that meant regularly and you could build this big cadre of people who were versant and conversant in the whole process. And I believe if the staff supported it, there would be huge participation. So I just throw that out there as an idea. And again, maybe it's not the best idea, but it's based upon my experience and what I know. So those are some of my comments. I look forward to a day when community engagement isn't related to cases and when the players aren't already precast in their roles. I hate the idea that the people of Durham are responders to planning in their own community, just responders. And thank you, it's late. And if I would talk about this all night long, I probably would not be very good company. I'm not good company now. Thanks, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Emondolle. Thank you, Chair. I have a quick question. So the memo we received has like a phase one and a phase two aspect of it. And based on the, I guess response to Commissioner Miller's question, sounds like focus right now is more on phase one and phase two is kind of a down the line consideration. So I'm just curious, first off, are you seeking comments on phase two tonight or those things you'd prefer? Like, will we hear more about that phase at a later date? That is an absolutely great question. Thank you, Commissioner Emondolle. We did get some feedback from JCCPC that we should focus on phase one and Senator Community Voices, which we absolutely agree with and work to, as Commissioner Miller was saying, work to build relationships first. So we are gonna go that route that does not mean that we can't start visioning and thinking about what phase two looks like. We think that we do have some good ideas around applicant certification, applicant training, but a way to do it where it's not applicant driven to Mr. Miller's point, where it's really community-driven. So maybe the community is the trainers or the leaders in it or maybe there's a way to stipend them. Maybe there's a way to engage volunteers in the work. We've seen that comment come up over and over again enlist volunteers in the development process. So we won't be focusing on that for a little bit, but definitely welcome ideas. The more concretized it is before we get to it, the easier it is to implement. Sure. Great, thank you. I was just gonna say, Sarah, that's how you popped up, did you wanna? Yeah, I just wanted to share that another, of the millions of ideas that are kind of floating around, I'll take you back to the original concept behind our planning academy program was to teach folks about planning and what that means and how to be engaged and to be able to send these folks back to the community to build capacity that we could kind of call these folks back to help us with small area planning or the comprehensive plan or particular engagement reaching groups. I think that that's an untapped resource. That part of the original plan behind the planning academy has not yet been realized. So I think there's potential there for those folks as Alexander was alluding to maybe training, developers or being kind of the conduit to neighborhoods for developers with proposals come through, just really trying to get more resources into the community and power the community, both with information and process and opportunity. Yeah, and just like reading over phase two, it excited me as well. And so I look forward to hopefully hearing more about that in the future. And I just wanted to say briefly, I also am excited about this tool. You would be able to tell if it was like, 9 p.m. and not 11 p.m. But I've been anticipating it for a while too because you all have been alluding to it. I'm really happy to see it here. And I just want to thank all the staff time you all have put in. It sounds like you're already thinking through this but I just want to emphasize the importance of having a good rollout system on this and using all resources possible. I have too frequently seen amazing tools come out of the city and the county to just be somewhere on the website but nobody can ever find where and eventually they seem to disappear. So I appreciate, else force that on that and hope to see it executed well. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Baker. Yeah, I'll be brief. First, I just want to give kudos to Chris and Alexander. I think you guys did great work on this. So good job and continue to do good work on this. And I have a lot of faith in your abilities to make this even better. I think this is a great tool. I think it makes the development process a lot more accessible to members of the community. I think that for me, sort of observing what happened in Ragtown and what's happened in a few other communities, I would be interested in thinking a little bit more, Commissioner Miller touched on this, kind of thinking about at what point does the development become so large and so impactful to a community, a special community with limited resources that it does require some intervention on the part of the city using the city's resources to play a mediating role in that process. You go to buy a car and the car dealer's gonna have a leg up on you. It's gonna be able to make you spend more on the car than you should be. If you have someone with you who can help you in that process, then you can get a better outcome. So I think that's sort of an analogy that could apply here. Also, just again, to go back to one of Commissioner Miller's comments and this is sort of inside, but I don't want us to confuse this with actual, a long range planning, community engagement, community planning. This is reactionary to development proposals brought forward by developers. A separate component, and I think an even more important component that's not part of this would be developing a system where communities are empowered to actually envision the future and not just react to a developer's vision for the future. So, and that could take many forms. I personally think that we need to focus much more on small area planning. So that's all I have. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Morgan. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of real quick things. I clicked on the links. I played around with it a little bit. I'd like to learn more about it and how to use it. I think it's easy to use. Certainly, I think it's encouraging that you can visually see where information is that is. I know Scott also gave me a link for the Southeast Durham small area plan and there was ideas floating around as well and some of the community members are engaged there. So I do think just very quickly, just get on, use it. I've already bookmarked the links that were in the chat area and I'll provide comments as I play around with it further. Great, thank you. Any additional comments? All right, well, in summary again, I just want to echo everyone who particularly who are thanking the staff for doing really great work and I'm excited to have this tool available for us for the electeds and particularly for the community to just be able to get good information and to be able to begin to understand what's happening and to have that information early. So this is really great looking forward to the rollout. Alexander or Chris, any final comments? Brian, Carmen's hands up. I think it was up from earlier, but Carmen, are you still looking to speak? No, I'm delinquent in lowering my hands, sorry. It's late. Now I'll just reiterate that we will send out a follow-up email. So if y'all have, I'm hearing some great ideas and I've been trying to capture them, but if you have additional thoughts, make sure you respond to that email and provide them to us at any point. This is an iterative process. I don't feel like you have a timeframe, you have to do it. Just as you play with it, as you see cases in it, as you hear community feedback, feel free to keep that line of communication open with us. Excellent, thank you again. That's it for tonight. I'm sure you're happy to hear just for staff. I don't know if there's anything we need to know. I know two weeks from tonight is the special meeting on the comprehensive plan. So that's on the 27th, but Grace, anything else that we need to know before we adjourn? So we will be, we should have everything posted. We're aiming to have everything posted for that, the meeting on the 27th tomorrow. And the links will go out to you tomorrow. Hopefully that's our goal. So borrowing their technology, break down our meltdown. We should have that done tomorrow. Tell us about the staff changes, please. So I guess you're referring to the email I sent today. Yes. So since I've transitioned into the assistant director's role, we've backfilled the planning manager position with Mr. Stock, Mike Stock, who you're very familiar with. And he is moving over from the policy and urban design group to the land use group. And he will leave that team and we'll still be processing the same applications that we do now in the land use group, which is annexations, future land use map amendments, zoning map changes. And he will also bring the text amendment application process with him and hire someone to backfill his position to manage those cases. So is that a promotion for Mike or did he do something wrong? Well, yeah, I'm not sure if it's congratulations or condolences, but it was a promotion, but yes, we're very excited about the changes and there's lots of good work and positive vibes right now on the team getting a lot done. So. And are there changes in the who will be doing the actual casework? Not for right now. Danny Kulture and Alexander Cahill will continue to do the heavy lifting right now on the casework. We have a new planner, a case planner as well, Leah Larkins and Leah just joined us in the last, you know, five, six weeks. And she, she's just... She worked in Texas. She worked in Texas, is that right? She did work in Texas. She's a North Carolina native and has worked in California and Texas, but she's just getting up to speed on things. She may see her some in the future. And then of course the new planner that we backfill my exposition. All right, very good. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Great. Thanks, Grace. All right, thanks everyone. Appreciate the staff in particular for hanging in for another long evening. And we will see you on the 27th. The meeting's adjourned. Have a good night, everyone. Thank you. Good night.