 And we are live. Good morning and welcome to the meeting when I'll come to order of the February 23rd, 2021 meeting of the Durham Board of Adjustments. My name is Jacob Rogers. I'm the chair of the board. I'd like to start by acknowledging that we are conducting this meeting using a remote electronic platform as permitted by session law 2020-3. The Board of Adjustments is a quasi-judicial body that is governed by the North Carolina General Statutes and the city's unified development ordinance. The board typically conducts evidentiary hearings on requests for variances, special use permits, among other requests. Today's meeting will proceed much like an in-person meeting of the board. On the screen, you'll see members of the board of adjustment, additionally, planning staff and representatives from the city and county's attorneys offices are attending in the remote meeting. Applicants, proponents, and opponents were required to register in advance and are also attended in the remote meeting. When a case is called for, its hearings speakers will be promoted within the platform so their video can be seen. The chair will swear in, applicants and witnesses at the beginning of each case. Staff will present each case and applicants will then provide their evidence. Control of the presentation and screen sharing will remain with planning staff. Today's meeting is being broadcast live on the city's YouTube site and the link to this broadcast is on the website for the Board of Adjustment. Before we begin the evidentiary hearings on today's agenda, I would like to provide some important information about the steps taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed in this remote platform. Each applicant on today's agenda was notified that this meeting would be conducting using a remote electronic platform. During registration, every applicant on today's agenda consented to the board conducting the evidentiary hearing using this remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the evidentiary hearing consent to the matter of proceeding in the platform. If there is any objection to a matter for sitting in this platform, the case will be continued. Notice of today's meeting was provided by publishing notice in the newspaper mailed to property owners within 600 feet of the subject properties, posting a sign at the property and posting on the city's website. The newspaper website and mailed notices for today's meeting contained information how the public can access the remote meeting as it occurs. These notices also contained information about the registrar, all individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit or other material that they wish to submit at the hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted on the Board of Adjustment website as part of the agenda. No new documents will be submitted during today's meeting. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the Durham Superior Court. Anyone in the audience, other than the applicant who wishes to receive a copy of the formal order issued by this board on a particular case must submit a written request for a copy of the order. So I would at this time, I'd like for Madam Clerk to call roll. Jacob Rogers. Here. Dad Meadows. Here. Regina DeLacy. Regina DeLacy. Here. Sorry. Okay. Micah Jeter. Here. Ian Kip. Here. Michael Regulus. Here. Tisha Weymour. Here. Jessica Major. Here. Michael Tarrant. Here. Natalie Bouchin. Present. Thank you. It's good to see all of you here. It's looks like we've got everybody in attendance this morning. It's great to see. Is there a motion for the approval of the minutes from the last meeting, from the January 26th meeting? Meadows, move approval. All right. Meadows, is there a second? One more second. One more second. Susan. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. DeLacy. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Motion carries, right? Yes. All right. The first case for today, I'm gonna step, excuse me, since I was absent at the last meeting, Chad Meadows was vice chair, or will chair the first case and then I will take over the rest. Chad, I'm gonna turn it over to you for this case, the continuance. Sir, big shoes to fill. Let me tell you, but thanks. Okay. Quick refresher to everybody. You may recall, this is case B2000051. It's a, goodness, it is a 1800 student school, 4622 North Roxbro on 76 acres. We continued the hearing pending receipt of additional information from staff regarding transportation related issues. Also, I wanna clarify that we did, in fact, close the public hearing portion of the case. And so, pending receipt of information from staff or an update on the purpose for the continuance, I think it's appropriate for us to go into deliberation. Madam attorney, Christa, is that accurate? Am I speaking about that properly? Is that correct procedure, I guess, is the question. Christa Cougar, city attorney's office. Mr. Chair, I believe it would be appropriate to have the clerk call the case that she typically does. And then, I believe that to hear from staff on any update on the information that was requested at the last meeting. Great, thank you. And thanks for your patience as I try to fill Jacob's shoes. So anyway, Madam clerk, would you call the case please? Case B2000051. A request for minor special use permit for a school in a residential zoning district. The subject site is located at 4622 and 4804 North Rocks Burst Street, is zoned residential suburban and in the suburban tier. And the seating for this case will be Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Weymour, and Ms. Jeter. Or no, okay. No, I'm not sure that's right. Christa Cougar, city attorney's office. Because this is a continuance, it needs to be the same seating as last time. And the minute reflect, well, you have the minutes in front of you. So I'll let you name the seating. I do not have the minutes in front of me. Does someone have those pulled up? You? Maybe. I do. Clerk, the seating for the case last time was Delacy, Kip, Meadows, Weymour, Jeter, Tarrant, and Bushing. Thank you. Okay. All right. So we've called the case. We've got the seating, I guess staff, do you have information for us? Good, yes. Good morning, everyone. I was speaking with the planning department. Thank you, Mr. Meadows for that summary of last month's case. Before I start, planning staff request that the, any reporting of some today as well as any materials, but for one otherwise submitted to the public hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. So noted. Thank you. So as Mr. Meadows just briefly, briefly let us know this case was continued due to a concern about the state law and its potential effect on the site plan. Staff's concerns have been addressed and it has been clarified that there is no impact of the state law on the site plan and the site plan rule remain as is. Staff does not have an additional report in addition to what was already said last month. No, are there any new documents or information for staff to present other than that? And staff is available as always for any questions. Throughout this time. Any questions for the staff? I have a question. Yes, Mr. Kip. Can we just get a summary of where we are? It's a little hazy. Obviously there was a lot of sort of folks there. And so if you would, Eliza. Yes. Sure thing. So to completely summarize, Case B2000051 is a request for minor special use permit for a school to be located in a residential zoning district. As the clerk mentioned, the case is located at 4622 North Roxborough Street and 4804 North Roxborough Street. The schools are permitted within a residential zoning district if a minor special use permit's administered and if they meet the limited use standards within section 5.3.3K. There is a site plan that also came before the board last month, Case D2000059, that is currently under review as well and has been deemed substantially clear of comments. Last month's hearing was over the course of a couple of hours. We talked about several different components. The findings and review factors that are required to be addressed sometimes require a couple of team members. So the applicants had several persons to speak to those findings and review factors, which included but were not limited to property value, environmental protection, noise, traffic, pollution, all of those different things. So that was just of what the length of the testimony was. The testimony from those applicants as well as testimony and perspective from neighboring property owners. And from there, we deliberated. There was a state law that was brought up by staff during that time and we wanted to ensure that that state law was either, at that time, we want to ensure that the state law was being what we consider addressed. However, it was clarified that there is no impact of that state law onto the site plan and therefore the site plan will remain as is in staff's concerns that were brought up last meeting has been addressed. I hope that was a good summarization of five hours into about five minutes. However, if I missed anything, please let me know. Thanks, Eliza. I would ask, is it possible to bring the site plan up so that we can see it while we deliberate? Is that a possibility just to help refresh people's memory? Yes, that is a possibility. And I've been opening up that in the background so just give me one moment and I'll have that shared out. I do see, and I don't know if everyone else can see that there's a couple of raised hands for the individuals that have their hands raised. If it's a panelist, please go ahead and speak. I see Mr. Tarrant, but for the attendees, we will get to you in a moment once we've had time to set our bearings for this case. Regina can't hear. Regina can't. Mr. Lacey, you cannot hear us. I saw, I see you wouldn't unmute it for a second there. Can you hear us now, Mr. Lacey? I'm sensing from her quietness that she can't. I'm sorry, I can't hear anybody. You can't hear anybody. Is your computer audio on? I might ask Mr. Peterson if he's got a quick second to maybe assist Mr. Lacey. Mr. Lacey, this is Chris Peterson. I will email you instructions to use the call-in function. I'm just back on, thanks. I just got, oh, my internet connection is now unstable. I may have to do the call-in. Okay, thanks. Yes, we would ask that you please call-in. Chris Peterson will be emailing the call-in instructions so that you're able to call-in and we can hear you. That's what you just said recently was going in and out. I'm assuming because of internet connection. Okay, so staff will now be sharing. If there's no one else that has, oh, Mr. Tarrant, I see your hand still raised, my apologies. That's all right. So I believe last month there were several board members that had concerns with the height of the athletic fencing along the soccer field along Rocksboro Street. And I, if I recall correctly, Ms. Monroe, you indicated that would require an additional fence height or additional height would require a special use permit. Is that something that can be added to this case as a condition of approval or will that require a separate special use permit process altogether? Gotcha. So to clarify about fence height section, video section 9.9 mentions heights that are permitted by right as well as heights that are, would require a minor special use permit. If the fencing is not located within the street frontage, then it's permitted to be, I believe it's eight feet tall. I'm pulling up that section at this moment right now. If it's not within what's considered street frontage, the street frontage is within 50 feet from a right of way. So they're permitted to have eight feet tall fencing by right. If there is fencing that is, if it's within what's considered a street frontage, I believe that by right height then would be four feet. And the applicant, we, within our code, if they are meeting our code, we don't necessarily force them to have higher fencing. That could be something, Krista, I'll have to double check if that's within the purview of the board to require potentially higher fencing. But that would trigger another minor special use permit because they would not be meeting the UDOs requirement of what's allowed by right for a fence. At this time, we would not be able to couple that together. That would, we might have to come back for another hearing. We can't just add that as a component for the board to review today. A report has to be created for that as well. So I hope that answers your question a little bit, Mr. Tarrant, about what's allowed and what exactly is not allowed by right and how that can trigger a minor special use permit. Addose, thank you. Thank you, okay. I think we've reached a point. My computer is still uploading the site plan. This was a larger site plan, so I apologize. I also seem to be having a little bit of technical difficulties, but we're gonna make it work. So let's, it's not something to fret over. In the meantime, any other questions besides Mr. Tarrant, your hand still raised. Can I lower your hand, Mr. Tarrant, if you know one that have any questions? Thank you. And for the board members, as well as members of the public, if you would like to pull up the site plan for your own review, it is attached on the previous agenda, which is from January. So it is due soon and it will be over here shortly. My apologies for the technological difficulties. While we wait for it, it's, since this is a minor special use permit, is there a recommendation from staff? Staff would like to hear all evidence. And after the, we tend to wait till the end of the hearing, that's what we say in the staff report, the staff will make a recommendation after all evidence has been presented. If it has been deemed that all evidence has been presented, then staff will then make it. There are a couple of raised hands within the attendees from both the applicant's attorney as well as an opponent. So I don't think at this time, staff can make a recommendation. I do believe we'll have to give those, at least the applicant the opportunity to add some insight here. I'm gonna ask Krista to weigh in on that. We did close the public hearing. So I, that hearing was closed, pending receipt of additional information to staff, which I think has come in. So Krista guide us here, please. Thanks, Shed. Krista Kugro city attorney's office. As Chad mentioned, this case was continued for the sole purpose of getting information, clarity on a factual issue that the city raises a concern, the effect of a general statute regarding redway improvements made by schools, excuse me. And staff has relayed that this issue has been resolved. There's no impact to the site plan. So there's no additional consideration that the board needs to give to that issue. It's been resolved to the city satisfaction. So it's my recommendation that the board move into deliberation and vote on this case. I do understand that some individuals have registered, the applicant is registered and there are opponents who registered, many of whom provided testimony at the last meeting during the public hearing. Like Chad said, the public hearing was closed and registrants on both sides were informed of that status. And with the hearing closed, additional testimony and evidence would not be presented unless the public hearing was reopened. The January meeting was properly noticed and open. The board held a hearing that was three hours and 15 minutes. The appellants and opposition had an opportunity to be heard. So the city's position is that there's no basis to reopen the public hearing. So again, it would be appropriate to move into deliberation and a vote. I'm happy to answer any questions about that. Thank you. Questions from the board for the city attorney? No? Thank you for weighing in on that, Krista. And my computer says it's got like about five seconds left on it. So I apologize again for the delay. It was a slightly larger site plan. So it seems to not be agreeing with me this morning. For Ms. Krista, could you turn your office? Could you possibly recommend whether or not Mrs. Smith needs to be given the floor at all? I see the hands raised. I'm just lowering them in the meantime. Or how would you like to proceed with such? Since we're going straight to or it's been your opinion, advice opinion that we should go into deliberation. Sure, I mean, I think it's, I think it's typical for in the sort of the process of deliberation, sometimes questions come up that the board has. Sometimes those are answered by applicants. I don't think it would be appropriate necessarily for the applicant to provide any input on its own at this point. So that's my opinion. Okay, thank you. Let's do this. Let's have some discussion. And if it's necessary or a question comes up, we may avail ourselves of the applicant for responses. Does that sound acceptable to you? Krista, procedurally appropriate, I guess I should say. Krista Cucco, City Attorney's Office, yes. Thank you. Okay, gotcha. Apologies for the delay everyone. The site plan is now on the screen. And please let me know of any pages that you would like me to reference or pull up. If you could go, Eliza, to the summary sheet, I'm not sure what number it is. It might be the second or third page. I'm not really sure. It's the one that shows sort of the overall site plan. I think that's it. Yep, it's gonna take a couple of seconds to load all the layers, but it's getting there. Okay, all right. So I, it's appropriate for us to have some discussion. We did not have an opportunity to talk too much about this case last time. As you recall, we heard from the applicant who had something on the order of eight or nine experts provide a variety of information to us about, you know, their position on whether or not this application meets the requirements in the UDO. We also heard from nine opponents, several from the neighborhood to the North, though there are some property owners, I think to the East as well, who commented. So we did have, gosh, a couple hours of testimony and evidence presented to us. I realized that it's been kind of, it's been a month and that it's maybe not, not directly in your mind, but hopefully having the site plan up will help jar any questions that you may have. I wanted to walk us through the findings that we need to make with respect to section 398 and 398B, but before I do that, does anybody have any general questions after now having seen the site plan? Does anything come to mind that you wanted to raise as a question before I lead us through this discussion on the findings? No, okay. The Lacey has heard me raise. But before I, I just mentioned to you guys, if you have a question or something, please unmute yourself and mention it. It is exceedingly difficult to see the site plan and all of the faces in the gallery. So if I failed to call on you, it's not because I'm trying to ignore you or it's because I don't see you. So just know that and know that if you have a question or a comment, feel free to mention it. We need to stay within the rules of order, of course, but I'm not trying to ignore you. It's that I'm looking at the site plan and you all spaces are so tiny and I can't see you. So I just wanted to be sure about that. Please, Mr. Lacey. Mr. Lacey, you have to unmute yourself. We cannot hear you. I can see your mouth moving though. Your unmuted, your Christmas Lacey is calling in because she's unmuted, but I still cannot see her or hear her. Yeah, you can't hear me now? Oh, I can hear you now. Yes. Okay, I'm talking through my cell phone as the zoom drops in and out repeatedly. One of the concerns I had that was not addressed in so far as gave me satisfaction was the plan to have the school buses enter and exit through a small local road. I appreciate the amount of infrastructure work done on the main road, but the parade of buses living near Jordan, I know about the parade of just buses and how it can affect even a big road like Garrett, but to have the bus route go through this little narrow street is something that I felt was not appropriately addressed. And perhaps it was addressed after I had to leave the meeting after three hours instead of three and a half hours. But that's a major concern I have. I agree. It's also a concern that was raised by the residents. I'm paraphrasing what was said, and I might get it wrong, staff, attorneys office, if I get it wrong, please correct me. But as I recall, that question was posed to the applicant, I believe it was Mr. Davis who was speaking on behalf of the school board when he said that that decision to route the buses down that street was made for purposes of traffic separation, that it's commonplace for the school to attempt to separate student vehicular traffic from bus traffic, and that there were some gates and so forth internal to the site that would control how vehicles moved in the site, but that the standard sort of operating procedure of the school as discussed with the city and DOT was that this other street, the street through the neighborhood would be used for buses. And that was really the extent of the extent of the rationalization provided. Is that square? Does everybody's recollection square with that? Lacey, I disagree. Mr. Davis was talking about solely about separating student pedestrian traffic from bus traffic within the site. He made no substantive comments about what happens as soon as the buses leave the site. And I found that totally inadequately addressed with regard to traffic and safety. With regard, I think it was a great job within the proposed school complex, but addresses nothing about once the buses leave the property. He made no representation that they were discussing anything outside of the proposed school property. Gotcha. I have an observation that I'd like to share that relates to the buses. And it's also something that I don't believe was treated adequately. One of the members of opposition is a research toxicologist for several decades for EPA and raised the point about diesel emissions from the buses and the impact on health to the residents in the neighborhood. Certainly one of the general findings we have to make is whether or not the development will or will not adversely affect health or safety. I think that the applicant probably did carry its burden with respect to traffic safety for vehicles on the site and on Roxboro. I'm not sure that it adequately addressed the question about emissions. And I don't think that the applicant contested to that person's ability to be expertise on bus emissions, but as a 30-some-year research toxicologist for EPA, I felt that he was incredible in at least raising it. And I'm not sure that that was well addressed by the applicant's presentation. So that's my kind of two cents on the bus issue. Does anybody else have any questions or comments or discussion about this proposal? Remember, I can barely see you guys. Yeah, don't hesitate. It's Mike Terrence. I just, you know, I feel that generally I shared Mr. Meadows and Mr. Lacey's concerns with the bus and the transportation. I think, you know, generally, if I recall, there were sort of three primary issues that were concerned that were raised. One was the transportation. You know, I think that, you know, we have an approval process, a development process and so forth. And I think through those processes, working with city staff, state staff, et cetera, we have to rely that, you know, all the applicable codes and ordinances are being enforced and to minimize those impacts as much as possible. Still concerned, to some extent, the limitation of the study area for the TIA, it felt like it probably should have extended further north. But again, I do appreciate the efforts that these folks put in. The other concern I think was the lighting for the athletic fields as it relates to the JFK towers. And looking at that in a little more detail, it looks like the mounting height of those fixtures on the north side of the property there are relatively roughly 70 and 80 feet, which is about the same height as a seven-story building. So I do have some concerns that even though that the lighting may meet the ordinance requirements as far as light levels of the property line, there is still this sort of like glow that comes with an athletic event. But there's also a significant stand of trees along that property line that is equal in height to the building, if not taller. So I feel like there is some protection there from a glare standpoint. And it looks like those poles will be approximately 200 feet from the tower. So I feel that, given the city's ordinances for operating hours that is appropriate and I think is really only an issue because these fields are affiliated with the school in a residential zoning district. I think the other concern that jumped out of me was related to environmental, primarily stormwater runoff, flooding, et cetera. I feel the expert testimony that was provided in that regard is sufficient. And I feel that generally across the board, the testimony that was provided by the entire applicant team does, in fact, meet the findings of fact and supplemental review factors with the exception of the bus route that was raised earlier. My final comment just generally, as it relates particularly to transportation, schools and residential zoning districts, I feel it absolutely is appropriate for schools to be located in suburban tiers where you can encourage alternative forms of transportation, bicycling, walking, carpooling, et cetera. And I feel that in and of itself by providing a convenient location to the vast majority of the student body and population does in some aspects reduce traffic. So I think those are just a few points I wanted to make at this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Tisha. My hand was raised, but I think Mr. Taren did a really good encapsulation of kind of my thoughts and Mr. Lacey's summary as well of the safety concerns that she brought up are what I'd like to echo as well for the residents of that neighborhood in particular. I don't believe that they were adequately addressed by the applicant. However, the tremendous traffic study that they have done has been very good. And I believe that they did an adequate job of that. However, the neighborhood and the transportation within that neighborhood, the traffic within that neighborhood and increased by the buses is still a concern for me, the safety of the residents living there. Okay. Thank you. Other discussion? No? Okay. So we're charged with making four general findings. UDO section 398 says to approve a minor special use permit. There are four general findings that we have to make as part of the process. And so I'm going to run through those four very quickly. And maybe that will spur some additional discussion, maybe not, but let's go ahead and run through them. I'm going to take them out of order because I think there are some that clearly we would all agree have been adequately addressed. Maybe there's some that still have some questions about, but generally speaking, there's a few that are probably well satisfied. And the first of those is that the proposals in conformance with all special requirements. And I take that to mean the standards, the limited use standards that would apply to a high school in that district. And I think that's in section 5.3.3.k of the UDO staff tell me if I'm wrong. And I believe that they've met all those standards. Is that, so staff, is that the right reference? Eliza Monroe, staff speaking, that is the correct reference. And at the bottom of the staff report, there is a brief analysis from staff with relation to those limited use standards as well. Okay. So, I mean, from my standpoint, I feel like the applicant met their test, their burden with respect to that leg of this four legged chair that we've got to deal with. I think that they did meet all the special requirements. Is there anybody who doesn't think they met those? Okay. Another of the four legs, in addition to the special requirements, is that the proposed use is not substantially injurious to the value of the property. And the applicant produced an expert who had an appraisal and found that, in fact, according to his expertise and expert analysis, that the proposed use would not have an injurious impact on surrounding properties. There was a member of the neighborhood, I believe a business owner and resident in the neighborhood who felt that it might have some negative impact, but that person we couldn't tender as an expert. So, for the basis of our decision making, we have evidence and expert testimony that in fact, this proposed use is not substantially injurious. And I mean, I agree with Mr. Tarrant that it's appropriate for a school to be in a suburban residential neighborhood. I think that that's just accepted part of good planning practice. I think it's consistent with the adopted policy guidance that's in place. Does anybody have any feelings about that leg of the stool, this substantially injurious question? Do you feel like the applicant has not met their burden there? Nope, okay. Okay, so two more to go. The third is we'll adequately address the review factors and that's the circulation and parking and service entrance and so forth, lighting, compatibility, consistency with policy, et cetera. There's 13 of them. I think that, certainly the applicant went through those methodically, addressed each one in order via testimony from people that we recognized as experts. And I think their ultimate conclusion was that the project does address all of the applicable review factors. I think that that was echoed in the staff's report. Maybe people had some issues about some of these, such as lighting or environmental protection. Does anybody have any thoughts on whether or not they had adequately addressed all the review factors that we need to take into consideration? No, okay. Mr. Meadows. Please. Like Taryn, I think from the review factors, I think there's, at least I personally still have a concern about the safety, relates to health safety and welfare with the only a six foot tall fence along Roxburgh Street, it's only 25 feet from the right of way. I think that's still a concern. And as it relates to circulation, I still feel like there's a question on the table here with the board as far as the bus circulation, that's, it's challenging, right? It's development, and if it's not this site, it's another site and it's gonna be, it's always going to be an issue with buses at certain times of the day. And, but that doesn't change the fact that I think there's still some concerns amongst the board here as it relates to the bus traffic circulating, particularly to the northern part of the, the northern neighborhood. I agree with you, Mr. Taryn, absolutely. In fact, one of the review findings that we're supposed to make is that this proposed use will not adversely affect the health or safety of the public. It's not a finding that's buried down in a review factor. It's one of the four basic findings that we're supposed to make in order to approve this proposal. And if we find that this application does not address that, that standing, that, that criteria, that it's not going to affect the health or safety of the public in an adverse way, you know, then that's, that's definitely something that we need to talk about. And it certainly grounds for denying the application. So, you know, I think we've sort of talked about the fence height along Roxburgh maybe being a little bit low. We've talked a little bit about the bus traffic in the neighborhood, and that's sort of a source of concern for pedestrian safety, vehicular safety. And we've talked about the emissions issue. So those I think are three areas that, you know, I feel like we still need to discuss. Let me dispose of the last major finding and we can kind of focus in on this health and safety. The last sort of major finding is that this proposed use is in harmony with the area. That's a toughie. If you go out and search for a definition of harmony, there's not a lot of guidance about what harmony is with respect to land use. Certainly if you look at the current Northern High School site, it's a site of perhaps comparable size. It's certainly proximate to residential neighborhoods just like this proposal. There's another high school nearby Riverside, which is also adjacent to residential neighborhoods. I don't know if anybody has an opinion that they wanna share about whether or not this is a harmonious use or this proposal's harmonious with the surroundings. Does anybody have any thoughts about that? Lacy? Please. That's a really busy street. And I think almost everybody I know has known somebody who's been in an accident up and down that street already. And even changing the width of the road to the length of the proposed school is without sufficient additional traffic calming methods traffic lights and whatnot. I still think this is a dangerous place to put the school. Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any idea about harmony, whether or not this is harmonious with the area? So this is Jeter. I think if we've said that the other answers to the previous questions have been yes. And the evidence that we heard last time from who we agreed were experts, we accept as I'm having a hard time not finding this site to be in harmony. I understand that the roads are, maybe it's for whatever reason folks are still getting hurt on the street. But I don't know that we can hold up a project based on driving habits or other things that are outside of the scope of the UDO and things that we're able to. But I just feel like we're stretching a little bit in adding things that we wish we could address or have purview to that we don't. So from my perspective, just based on what I understand, I think that this meets the requirements. Okay. So Lacey? Please. Accepting expert testimony blindly is not what we're supposed to do. If we find fault with, for example, an appraiser trying to put forth expert testimony and there's flaws in this math, it's our job to call them on it. And there was not adequate expert testimony given with regard to the bus route out on the local street. We asked them to talk about it. They said, oh, we have to talk about transportation and no further testimony was offered today. So I think there's a big hole in the expert testimony. Right, right. I appreciate that. And the reason that I went through this is I'm trying to focus our discussion. We've got these four different legs of the stool we have to deal with and these 13 review factors. And it seems to me that we keep coming down to the core of the issue that needs to be further understood is health and safety. That specifically this proposed use will not adversely affect the health or safety of the public. I think from, I don't wanna put words in anybody's mouth, but I think from my standpoint, the other findings, harmony, injurious to value, in conformance with the requirements, I think they probably got there. The question on the table is did they get there with respect to adversely affecting health and safety? And I'm hearing that maybe there's still lingering concern about whether or not all of our questions got answered or whether or not we agree that the proposal as configured, meets that test. Does anybody have any thoughts or feedback on that summary? Am I on target or am I searching here? I guess is the question. I'd say you're on target, Chad. I mean, the 800 pound gorilla is that location, the insane traffic. I think one of the site where there's the most traffic accidents in Durham is that gas station, Monk Road, teeing into Roxboro. So I mean, my personal opinions of a forest being decimated is completely irrelevant, but the traffic thing is a big deal and it may be injurious, so I'll just leave it there. Okay, so we talked about, so the things that are still on the table for us are the fence height along Roxboro and whether that's tall enough. I think that's appropriate to let the applicant answer that question. We know that if the fence is over a certain height, they're gonna have to come back and get an additional approval for that. So there's that issue. I think Mr. Tarrant, you said the TIA study boundary was concerning, but that you would go quietly on that, same with the lighting impacts that perhaps this met the standard and therefore maybe that's enough or that there's some trees in between the lights and the adjacent multi-family structure and maybe that's sufficient. The environmental stormwater issues are real, but I don't know that, I mean, we really do have to rely, I think on the stated experts, the people from the state and federal government who understand this stuff, it's incredibly complicated. I believe the site passes muster, it couldn't get approved if it doesn't. So I mean, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I feel like from a health and safety standpoint, that environmental stormwater runoff was not necessarily an issue for you. It came down to this bus issue, the fence height. And so that's the realm that we need to kind of get resolved. Fence height, buses in the neighborhood, maybe the traffic, maybe the emissions. Is that it? Does that cover everything? I believe so. Yeah, I think so. All right, so here's the question on the table. We can discuss this or we can decide that we have a question for the applicant and we can pose that question. Do people have a feeling about that? I can actually, I remember that in the last hearing we were raising these questions as we went along with the applicant and the continued answer was we feel like we've met the requirements, we've met the minimum requirements. So I'm not sure that anything is to be gleaned there. Understood. Okay. Mr. Meadows, could I just circle back to the traffic issue quickly. Just looking at the TIA that was submitted in the application materials. I understand the concern. Everybody knows this corridor is not a great one but it does look like with these improvements the recommendations or the required improvements for this site plan are to install additional traffic signals and so forth. And I feel in that respect it will be alleviating some of the existing issues if you will that are on this particular part of this roadway today. So I feel if those are being implemented then they are addressing some of the concerns that have been raised here. Okay. Natalie and Krista both have their hands raised as well. Thank you. I have in my notes that we were going to continue to allow DOT to be present and was everything satisfied with what DOT was presenting as far as the roadway and I think who was going to pay for the roadways? I think that was a major question. Alizma knows staff speaking, I'll respond to that. So the state law was that I mentioned earlier in the beginning was with regards to who would be financially responsible for the improvements. That portion has been addressed and staff no longer has any concerns with regards to that. In regards to NCDOT and traffic the TIA report that Mr. Tarrant previously mentioned was reviewed by both the transportation department here within the city and NCDOT. NCDOT also additionally provided what's called an NTSA report which is municipal and school transportation assistance. And that's in which they looked at the stacking that was being provided as well as the two entryways and the separation of traffic. So NCDOT and the transportation department have reviewed this site plan in order for it to come before you all today had to be deemed substantially clear of comments which means that they have no additional comments about what is being shown on the plan. I hope that answers your question Natalie. And Krista still has her hand raised. Mr. Chair, may I speak? Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Please. That's not for me to do another three hour thing. Yeah. Krista Kukro City Attorney's office. I just wanted to add to this. I think to remember why Moore's point, I think that this discussion and deliberation has really distilled down as you were saying the points that the board really has questions about. And I think it would be appropriate given the amount of time that we spent in the last hearing and that sometime has lapsed to allow the applicant to respond to those questions if the board would like. I think that that would be appropriate. Okay. Anybody else have any feeling about whether or not we ask the applicant to answer the questions that we've raised? And by that, I mean focusing on fence height, traffic, buses. That's it. Does anybody have feelings? I would say let's allow that. Tisha, unless you just can convince me otherwise. No, it's fine. I actually just was bringing that up in terms of if we wanted to have more discussion, not in terms of not letting the applicant speak. I understand. Okay, so I guess we have a question for, I guess this will be Mrs. Smith. I assume she's with us. I can't see her on my screen, but the questions are the fence height issue along Roxborough Road, the buses in the neighborhood. I would like some answers about the questions raised about emissions. And then finally, I guess just traffic in general. Is that, yes, generally? Okay. How do we make that happen, Eliza? Eliza, I know a staff here who's actually about to just say that. I'm going to now elevate Lindsey Smart, who is kind of in running the show over there. And then from there, we will see which additional attendees Lindsey would like to elevate as a panelist and we'll go from there. So there's a little bit of a lag in bringing her over, but once she comes over, we can get some directive because there are quite a few. They did have their original team sign back up and I don't know if we need all of those persons. So Lindsey, whether you can hear me, just let me know who you would like to be brought over as a panelist. Hi, Eliza, and good morning, board. Thank you for your discussion and for allowing us to present additional comments to your questions. I think, Eliza, I believe we have to keep downing on and we also have, let's see. I'm just trying to think about who would be the best to answer to respond to these questions. I think we should probably go ahead and promote keep downing Frederick. And just to remind the board, keep downing spoke with you in the last meeting. He is the landscape architect that is on the design team. Frederick Davis is the director of designing construction for Durham Public Schools. And then I believe Joshua Rinky is also with us. He was the, is the individual ring camp who has done the TIA, the traffic impact analysis. And I am not sure if Lucas Allen is with us as well. I do not see a Mr. Helm. There are two key downings. So maybe I'm going to elevate both of those individuals and then maybe one of them might be Mr. Helms. And there's a little bit of a lag as we're bringing everyone over. So I know Frederick is coming in. So as you come in, everyone, as you can hear us, if no one else is talking, feel free to do a mic and camera check. I do see Josh and Frederick have made it over and both of the Keefs are coming this way at this time too. And then Lindsay, if we need to add other individuals, just let us know that right now we have Josh, Frederick and Keef. And Keef, is that second one your audio? You're muted still so I can't hear you. Yeah, there you go. I don't know. I tried to get in this morning and it did something funny. So I don't know why there's two of them, but I'm here. Okay. I'm gonna just move that other one back since I can see and hear you from that one. Thank you. So just before, I just wanna make sure and make sure that my notes are accurate. What the board would like for us to address are the concerns potentially about the fence height, the lighting impact potentially, and the TIA study boundaries and or buses in the neighborhood. And then I also heard a concern about the emissions as well. Is that accurate? You're on mute. So I also think, Eliza, I think- My apologies. I'm sorry, Lindsay. I didn't realize I was muted. Yes to fence height, yes to TIA, yes to buses, yes to emissions. I don't think we need to hear about lighting. Does anybody, unless somebody wants to hear about lighting, I don't believe we need to. Okay. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. So I guess I'm gonna ask, with respect to fence height, can you talk a little bit more about the sort of standards that are in place for the fence height? Yeah, as staff has mentioned, we're restricted by the UDO of what fence height we can put along Rocksboro Road there. I think the school system and ourselves would totally be in favor of raising the fence height in that area for loose balls and circulation and safety in all of those concerns. To Mr. Terrence effect, it would be wonderful if we could add it as a condition of approval to the special use permit that way we would not have to spend time and resources and make application to come back just, to simply raise the fence height, which everyone I believe is in favor of, but we're strictly prohibited by UDO for this particular topic. And can I ask a clarifying question? And maybe this is actually of the board. Is there, what is the recommender or maybe Keith, you may have this better than I have, but what is the fence height right now that is part of the design? So the plan currently shows a six foot height. We would definitely rent recommend eight foot. We could go to 10, but 12 would be a little unsightly and probably excessive. Does the board have any other questions about the fence height or any other comments that Mr. Downing can give us? Mr. Terrence, do you have, I know that we talked about this, this came up and it's the, I guess it's the soccer field and the discus area. I think, I'm not sure, but I think there were a couple of facilities that were next to Rocksboro. Is that, am I thinking about that correctly, what? Mr. Meadows, I'm sorry, this is Bo Shane, I'm sorry. The, I know they currently use the lacrosse field and soccer field as one, but I'm not sure if the lacrosse will play at soccer field or go to the football field. So that was one of my concerns about lacrosse balls versus soccer balls. I think lacrosse balls are a little bit harder and it would do a lot more damage to cars. Is Mr. Downing saying that they could go ahead and increase the height of the fence to eight feet without a problem? Is that what I'm understanding? I think he is. I think that they're willing to do that. I think they would like to do that as part of this proposal, but I don't think staff is going to go for that. Eliza, no, staff speaking, didn't mean to cut you off, Mr. Meadows. However, I did want to chime in about that. So in looking at UDO section 9.9.1, a.2, the fence can be taller if associated with a recreational field facility, such as a tennis court. So limiting to that area, we could go taller than the six feet. I believe we could go to eight feet. And speaking with other staff members right now, there doesn't appear to be a limit in relation to recreational facility fencing. Okay. So Eliza, would staff be amenable to us attaching, let's say this were to be approved. Would staff be amenable to attaching a condition that the fence for the recreational activities proximate to Roxboro Road be at least eight feet and height, is that acceptable? Or can you give us a little bit more guidance? Staff, that would be acceptable. That could be a condition in which you all can place at the end, there are already conditions so we can add that towards the end. And the site plan would just have to be revised as such to reflect that. And I think Christa also has something to add with relation to fencing. Mr. Chair, I'm the board, Christia Cagro City Attorney's office. As you know, there was a recent change in state law that requires conditions to be consented to by the applicants. I believe that I heard sort of a general level of agreement, but I think it would be helpful to have kind of a full-thirtied acknowledgement of that consent. And then typically I think that that's signed off on the order as well that staff can clarify. Elizmond Rowe, that is correct. There is a space in which prior to the chair signing the order, the applicant is asked to sign stating that they consent to the conditions as they are proposed. So there is one verbally here today at the hearing as well as that written consent that's also done on the final order. So it sounds like as far as the fence goes from our side of the house, if the applicant is willing and able to mention in the affirmative that they are okay with that condition, then I think we can dispense with that issue and move on. And yes, based on what the conversation that we've had, I think that I can represent for the Durham Public Schools that they are comfortable with that particular conditioning. Okay. All right, then. Sorry to do this clarifying question for Krista. Lindsay, I understand you are their attorney. I just wanna make sure that I have it correct on the application, Lindsay's name is not mentioned. So the way that it works is we send that final order to the applicant, which in this case is Mr. Downing. So Krista, is that okay for Lindsay as their attorney to make that, even though technically it'd be Mr. Downing that's signing the final order? Mr. Cougar City Attorney's office. Yes, I believe that that's appropriate. Okay, thanks. Boy, okay, great. A couple more topics, please Ms. Smith. The TIA, the buses and the emissions. Okay, so I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I think Josh Franky who has been the sort of TIA guru for our design team is willing to address some of those. Again, I do wanna put a little pin in the emissions. I am not entirely sure that Mr. Ranky can address the emissions so that he can at least talk about the TIA and the scoping for the TIA and potentially the extent to which there was consideration of traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you. All right, Josh Ranky here. I perform the traffic impact analysis and the addendum to the traffic impact analysis for this work with city staff as well as NCDOT. And Ms. Smith is correct. I will not be talking about emissions at all but I can cover the traffic components. So to kind of cover a few things that came up, I know Mr. Tarrant mentioned the study area, the original TIA didn't even go as far north as the addendum did. But the addendum did kind of cover as there was thoughts of connecting and sending buses up through there, looking at Roxborough further up to see where would that traffic come out? That's where we didn't see a lot of capacity issues as you tie in further to the north there. And you are correct. It does not go further north than that. I think when the DOT and the city staff are scoping probably the logic there is with the existing high school further north, there's already sort of that traffic on the roadways and we didn't do any sort of reduction for the existing high school. We just added in the new school sites traffic. So there is some overlap there in terms of how we were doing traffic projections. And I think they thought as you get further and closer to the existing school, that traffic's kind of already on the road. So we were looking more immediately in these study areas for school just due to the nature of the traffic. A lot of parents sort of dropping off students on their way to work and stuff. It is a little more concentrated in that the traffic's already on a lot of the roads just sort of does different movements as it gets close to the school. So Mr. Tarrant did mention the signals that are being provided as part of the school project. There will be two new signals along Roxboro. And then also I know Monk Road has come into play. That is something that in the study we saw some deficiencies there. It is my understanding NCDOT has a spot safety study that they're looking at Roxboro and Monk Road and they're looking for funding right now for a signal there. So once again, I work with DOT. I'm not a part of DOT. So I don't know the timing on that but I know it is something that they are aware of. Some of the safety concerns and capacity issues there. It is something that was brought up in our traffic impact analysis. And I think a lot of that has to do with the funding source of where the funds for spot safety versus school studies comes from is they are aware of that. It is on their radar. It is nothing where there's a lot of traffic due to this site that's expected to come out there but we do have some through volumes and some turning movements there. It is something they're aware of. So in terms of the buses going through the neighborhood once again, I'm not here to speak on emissions, more capacity. It is something that there wouldn't be capacity issues if there is concerns about the width of the roads or whatever, I believe those are city roads. So they would be to whatever city standards. And once again, likely designed and I'm not gonna get into the design. I'm more of a, like I said, traffic study capacity. They should meet the design standards that would allow for the buses there. So it's sort of at its pinch point where it's at its worst and you've got Roxboro and where that neighborhood would tie in there. There is the capacity there where the addition of buses shouldn't create a significant decrease in the capacity or delay times or anything like that. So that is why the addendum was produced. It was to look at some additional scenarios as well as expand that study area a little further north because it wasn't originally required when the tie-in wasn't there. Thank you. Mr. Lacey, do you still have questions? Am I, is she gone? No, she's, okay. I see, I hope you're still on the phone, Regina. My sense was that you were asking about neighborhood safety in terms of bus traffic. Is that accurate? Does Mr. Renke's response, does that cover your questions or are there still questions about safety from buses in the neighborhood? We have, Eliza Monroe, staff speaking. It looks as though we have completely lost Mr. Lacey, both her phone as well as, wait, no, I see her but it looks as though she may not be able to see us or hear us. If you're still on me on your phone, press star six. Thank you. I can see and hear you. I just keep dropping out. I apologize. I have a question for our former speaker about traffic and safety. And he said it's on the radar to have traffic lights. What kind of timing? I know that in my own neighborhood in Hope Valley Farms, it took seven years to get a traffic light in after they determined it was necessary. And I lost the call again. Okay. So I'd like that question answered. And I guess we're referring to me as maybe I was choppy. There's something that the two signals along Rocksboro at Argonne and Wellington, they are associated with the school. So they would be going in before the school opens at Monk Road. That's an NCDOT and I've indicated, I don't feel comfortable speaking to that. I'm not with NCDOT. I have worked with them. It is something in the traffic impact analysis that we said whether our school comes in or not, we have concerns at that intersection. This school is tied to two additional signals that would be going in at that time. So that's not something that we're looking seven years out or anything. That is something that is part of this school project, along with the appropriate laneage with those signals. So two of the signals that are known are part of this school development. They will be going in with the school. And then the third intersection is the one that I indicated at Rocksboro and Monk Road. There are deficiencies out there now. And once again, it's something that the NCDOT indicated that they are considering that as part of a spot safety study. I'm not sure at this moment whether they've gotten the funding. I know at the time we were conducting the TIA, they were looking into that because it was something that was already on their radar but was brought front and center again when we did our TIA. So two of the signals are part of this school project. I hope that kind of answers it. Okay, other questions from anyone? Any more discussion? You mentioned a pinch point. Yes, Sarah, is it like more to the question? It's at Seven Oaks Road in Rocksboro. That was the additional intersection in the addendum that we looked at as that would be where if the buses do go through the neighborhood, they'd come out. So that is one that we added that in the addendum as a study area intersection to see if there were any capacity issues or any additional laneage that would be out there to kind of mitigate the traffic. Once again, the buses, I understand the concerns if people are walking in the road and there's new traffic that all of a sudden is there, that's always a concern for people in terms of sort of the worst case where it comes out at Rocksboro and you typically would see the capacity issues, it's not expected to have a significant increase just due to the low number of buses compared to what's there already. And with signal timing adjustments, which they'd, NCDOT would be looking at as they add new signals to the system. We said it could be operating better than it currently is essentially is if you coordinate these new signals that are being provided with that signal, things could be operating at an even better level of service and less delay times and such. So within the neighborhood, we didn't look individually at implementing any sort of traffic calming measures or anything. It is just the school bus traffic, which once again, it's a very concentrated period of time it comes during and it's not a significant volume, I do understand the concerns. The reason that we weren't looking at any sort of traffic calming is NCDOT, city staff didn't anticipate this being a significant safety concern from a traffic standpoint. Once again, I'm not commenting on emissions, that's not my area of specialty, but in terms of that number of buses and them being buses and typically, kind of on those roadways that, the residential neighborhoods are typically designed so that you could handle the buses, buses would go through there to pick up students and such anyway. So we didn't particularly look at that. I'd be, if it's something that there would be concerns about traffic calming, it is something that could be looked at. It's not, off the table, we have many developments that come to us and say, look at traffic calming. See if it meets NCDOT standards to put in anything or in this case, it's a city street. It's something that could be considered at some point in the future, if it is an issue. You know, I'm just not sure with that volume, whether that would be the concern as much as if there are people walking along the roads or anything like that. Ash, can I ask you a quick question? And I just wanna go back to what you said. You worked with both NCDOT and city transportation in developing the TIA and developing this plan for the transportation. Is that right? Correct. Okay. And so at any point during that time, and I know that the, particularly the streets in the neighborhood, those are city streets. Is that right? That is correct. Okay. And so I just wanna make sure I'm clear about what you just said. At no point did the city and city transportation ever raise any concerns that there might need to be traffic calming measures as part of this plan to address the flow of buses within the neighborhood. Is that right? No, they did not. It was, I believe, NCDOT that had us work on the addendum to expand the study area to where it tied into Roxboro, obviously Roxboro and Seven Oaks. Now you're touching DOT roads. So that is something that they had us expand the study area to see what the traffic would look like there with the addition of the buses and such. Thank you. And I don't want to overstep any questions that the board may have, but I did wanna bring in Mr. Davis on this. Frederick, I had a question for you and I don't know, and this may be something that may be of interest to the board, but can you speak to the amount that the potential volume of buses that would be going down those right now that Joshua mentioned that we don't anticipate a significant volume of buses here. It's obviously gonna be during concentrated times, but could you speak it to maybe more specifically about what that volume might look like? Yeah, so approximately 20, can you hear me? Yes. 28 buses and I'm not expert in admissions, but I do know one bus is equal to 30 cars. So you could say if you do the math that we're reducing the amount of traffic that potentially come to that area by using bus transportation. Also in the neighborhood, we do have buses that already come to pick up students at various grade levels. So just want to make sure that we're not necessarily doing something that's not already being done. And I do want to ask a couple of questions about admissions, but I don't want to move on to that if the board has questions, continued questions about the potential traffic impacts of the buses within the neighborhood. Eliza and our staff, Natalie as well as Mike had their hands on this, I'm not sure if it was in relation to traffic Lindsay or if it was admissions, but they did have their hand raised during Mr. Davis's testimony. This is Bo Shane. My question was answered. Thank you. This is Terent. I just, for the board's consideration, it doesn't pertains to traffic calming. It does appear that there are already speed humps existing on seven Oaks. So I think that does help alleviate some of the concern of the speed of the buses leaving the site. Okay. I think that's it on the traffic side, Ms. Smith, unless anybody else has anything. And you wanted to talk about admissions for a second. And just briefly. One second. I just want to just bring up one more concern I have about the traffic. And there are speed humps along seven Oaks, but there are no sidewalks anywhere along that bus route. And I just wanted to bring that up as a concern of mine. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments on the traffic related elements on seven Oaks or in the neighborhood? So, Mr. Meadows, if I may, with respect to admissions, can I ask you a couple of questions about the process that you all have gone through to develop the site plan? You can certainly ask me questions. I am not involved in the site plan process, but you can ask away. No, Mr. Meadows, I was actually referring to Keith. I want to ask Keith a couple of questions. Please. Keith, just in terms of, in your knowledge in developing the site plan and in going through the process of meeting the applicable requirements by the UDO, were there any requirements that you had to meet regarding potential, like the emissions of potential traffic impacts that you are aware of? I'm not aware of any emissions discussion or requirements from the UDO for that. Okay, and Josh, just, and I know that again, you drafted the TIA, but in your drafting the TIA, were there any requirements or processes that the city or the North Carolina DOT asked you to look into regarding emissions with respect to potential traffic increases? No, there are not. Okay, I just wanted to make sure, just for the record, that whether these were potential requirements that were necessary as the site plan was developed, I don't know that we have folks that can talk to emissions. As far as I know, there has not been an emissions study that has been developed. I do realize that we did have a community member speak last, at the last meeting that had some expertise in emissions, but as far as I know, the testimony that was presented was speculative and not necessarily a study of potential buses. So I am not aware that there has been a study done of emissions. And so I'm sure that the folks that are here would be happy to talk about that at this point, although I don't know that they necessarily have the expertise to speak to emissions at this point. Thank you. I just wanted to, for the record, get it in there so that people knew that this came up. Yes, it's probably not a UDO requirement, whether or not it should be a question for others, but certainly seemed to be an issue of import to the neighborhood. So I didn't wanna ignore it or disregard it. Certainly, and of course, again, if there are other questions that the board has, I think folks here would be happy to address them if they can. I think we're done. Are we done, board? Are we done with questions? Seeing thumbs, thank you, Ms. Smith. Yeah, I'm done. I'm ready for a motion if anybody's ready to make one. Staff would like to make a recommendation. Well, that would be great. And now I would appreciate it if staff could make a recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Staff would like to make a recommendation that the minor special use permit case number B20, bunch of zeros, five, one, be approved such that the improvements shall be consistent what was submitted with the application, as well as the improvements made by the conditions mentioned here and consistent with what is shown on the site plan case number D20, 000189. Thank you. Now I'm ready for a motion if there is one. Do we have any more discussion? Are we ready to make a motion? As a reminder, motions are at the bottom of the staff report and the additional proposed condition that was mentioned during the hearing has been placed in the chat for all panelists. Terrin, I'll make a motion. Please, sir. Hereby make a motion that application number B20, 00051, an application for minor special use permit on property located at 4622 and 4804 North Roxborough Street has successfully met the applicable requirements and unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the site plan case D20, 00059, and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. Two, the educational facility shall serve as at the high school level. Three, the enrollment of the school shall be a maximum of 1,800 students. Four, a transportation management plan be published and shared on the school's website and with staff and parents per a MTSA report recommendation. And five, the minimum fence height along Roxborough Street for athletic facilities shall be eight feet. Can I make a friendly amendment to your last condition? Absolutely. I would like for that statement to be reworded to the following. For the recreational facilities along the Roxborough Road frontage, the fence height shall be eight feet tall as permitted by UDO section 9.9.1A.2 if that's acceptable to you, sir. It is. Okay, got a motion. Is there a second? Eliza member of staff. I would like to just recommend the recommendation I made. I said the wrong case number. I said the case number that is for this later on today. So the correct case number is, as Mr. Tarrant said, D-2000-259, my apologies. Thank you. It's a motion and a second. Madam Clerk. Yes. Please. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Lacey. No. Miss Weymour. No. Miss Jeter. Yes. Mr. Tarrant. Yes. Miss Boshane. Yes. Motion carries five to two. All right. Thank you very much. Your minor special use permit has been approved. I believe there's the requirement that you sign off on the order for the fifth condition. And thank you very much. At this point, I think it's appropriate to give the chairmanship back over to Jacob. Gosh, I hope so. Thank you, sir. Staff just want to make one correction to Mr. Meadows' statement. Lindsay, the order will actually have to be voted upon next meeting. It will not be voted upon at the end of this meeting. Thank you. All right. Anybody want to take a five minute break or at 10 o'clock? All right, we'll return at, let's do seven minutes at 10.05. Good morning, Chairman Rogers. Good to see you. Or about to see you, I guess, Mr. Biker. Very good. Thank you, sir. Mr. Biker, I see Jessica Harsie also registered for this case. Is she in attendance with you? Yes. Yeah. Do you mind if I get the camera logged in or do you not have the camera for people like us? Mr. Biker, you should be able to turn on your camera. Okay. I've just made a request for you to turn it on, sir. Got it. All right. Susan, would you like to call the next case and clarify seating? Yes. Case two, B two, zero, zero, zero, five, zero. Zero, five, zero. A request for variances from the unified development ordinance, build, zone and frontage percentage requirements. The subject site is located at 3613 Weatherspoon Boulevard and 5203 and 5211 McFarland Drive. Is zoned compact suburban design core and compact suburban design support one and is in the Patterson Place compact neighborhood tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. The seating for this case will be Ms. Delacy, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Wymore and Ms. Jeter. All right, and let's go ahead and do the swearing in. Well, do we have camera for everyone who is going to be speaking on this one? I see Mr. Biker. Yes, sir. We're both here. Okay. If you'll raise your right hand, you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes, we do. Cole, do you have this one? I do. I'll turn it over to you. All right. Good morning. I'm Colburn Egger from the Planning Department. Planning staff requested all staff for and all materials submitted the public hearing to be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. You got it, it's noted. So one of the corrections I would like to make is originally when this application was submitted, there was a variance for bill two zone and front-end percent requirements. That is not the case right now. The case is rear yard setbacks and front-end percentage requirements. So that has been changed. We'll talk about that more as I go on. The case area, sorry. I skipped this slide. Request variances from the Unified Development Ordinance rear yard setback and front-end percentage requirements. The applicant is Jesse Hardasey, representing John R. McAdams Co. Incorporated and is in the City of Jurisdiction's, City of Durham Jurisdiction. The case area is highlighted in red. I would like to say that this map for design districts, especially this one, the design district here is CSD. Core and CSD S1. Our map currently does not have those colors associated on our legend. So this is why it is appearing like the map does not have technically its own designation. But it is CSD and CSD-1. S1, so keep that in mind. The site is currently vacant, as you can see by the red highlighted area. Jesse Hardasey with John R. McAdams Co. Incorporated and is on behalf of LRCV, sorry, LRC7. LSE submits a percentage request for variances from the Unified Development Ordinance, the rear yard setback and front-end percentage requirements. The subject site is owned Compact Suburban Design Core and Compact Suburban Design Support 1 and is located in the Patterson Place Compact Neighborhood Tier and within the I-40 Major Transportation Corridor. Per UDO section 16.2.1, all fringe types require 80% of the built-in bin shall be occupied by the built-in podium along with width, beat street, front-end and the development site. The development site is configured in a peculiar shape that leaves a small strip of land extending to the west. The Salisbury land makes it difficult. This results in 80% of land to built-in zone front-end requirements not being met because no building will be able to place there. Open space will be placed here. In addition, per UDO section 16.2.1, when no building front-end type is being utilized, there's a 10-foot required yard setback. I would like to state that that variance, that part would actually not have to be approved for this development to happen because since there is no building, regardless of the setback there or not, it wouldn't affect this case. So just keep that in mind. Staff will be available for any questions. So I'll open the 40 of you guys. All right. Any questions for Cole before we move here from the applicant? I'm just going to scroll through here. I don't see any. Oh, Mr. Meadows. I'm sorry. Thank you. I have a quick question. I'm just having a hard time understanding the frontage of this lot is actually the portion that is, it's not on, let me get back to my map. Sorry, apologize. I want to get back to my map here so I can ask the right question. The front of this site is actually on McFarland, not on Watkins. So the rear yard setback is what we're looking for from the Watkins Road area, the one to the right of the screen. So the one in this red area, this is the area they're referencing. This property ends here. So the rear yard setback could be from this part of the property, not this side. Because these are all frontage types. These are all street frontages. These three are right here. But in relation to rear yard property line, this property goes like this up. That makes sense. So there is no rear property over here because these are all, I mean, this is technically rear frontage yard, but as far as here, it goes all the way up to right here. This is the rear considering from this side. So, but this application involves the area in the red square and the rest of it or just this one piece of property right here inside the red square. So it's just a long McFarland drive is what this variance is referring to. Because the frontage requirements is that 80% of each frontage has to be occupied by building, but this area on this frontage is not. So that's what the variance is for. Wow. Okay. I thought that I would be able to get this question answered easily, but I'm sorry. I'm feeling obtuse. Let me see if I can pull up a better example, but you're welcome to keep talking. It looked like you had circled with the red marker. This thing that sort of look like in backwards L and that was the whole site, but I'm not clear. Is that the whole site or is it just the small segment of land along McFarland? Okay. So the site, the site, the part that's highlighted is the part that the variance is for, but that is the whole site. As you can see, the small strip on the aerial map towards the south is the strip they were referring to. So, and the reason the variance is, that's the same parcel as what circled in the red, but because the building that's shown here does not extend for 80% of the linear distance along McFarland, that's what we need the variance for? Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for Cole? I don't see any. All right. Mr. Biker, would you like to. Yes. Good morning, chairman Rogers members of the board. I'm Patrick biker with Morningstar law group. I'm here today representing SR real estate partners. Can everybody hear us and see us? Okay. Okay. Is my hair all right? I know I know it's not really zoomed in. So I just want to make sure that we've got this under control. Our office address is 112 West Main Street. Second floor. That's where Jesse Hardesty and I are sitting right now. So at this time chairman Rogers, we'd like to have my resume and the resume for Jesse Hardesty. She's a planner with McAdams and a duly qualified expert. We'd like to have those admitted into evidence as exhibits A and B to be a part of this record for this proceeding. If that's all right with you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Members of the board exhibit a list my experience and qualifications. I'll go through those very briefly because I think most of you are familiar with that. Okay. So I'm going to start with you. Back in 1992. I graduated from the university of North Carolina. At Chapel Hill school of law. And then in 1994, I graduated from the university of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Department of city and regional planning with a master's in city planning. I've been working in. Development. For about 25, 26 years now. I also have the certification of a lead. A P. Professional. And so I have, that's been my privilege to appear for this board. Many times looking forward to this discussion today. I do realize you have a long agenda. So Ms. Hardesty and I will try to get through our evidence as quickly as possible. I'm going to go through my way of background on this particular case in preparing to testify this morning. I reviewed all the submitted materials, including the application, the site plan, the staff report, and all the attachments for this development. I have actually lived in this section of Durham, Southwest Durham for over 25 years. And I'm very familiar with the Patterson place compact suburban design. Ordinance and the Patterson place. The site that we're looking at today as a, on the whole contains 4.3. Two acres. It's located east of Mount Moriah road. And it's just north of bed, bath and beyond. If that can get everybody on the board. Familiar with this location. In terms of our presentation, I will address findings number one and number four. And Jesse Hardesty will provide competent material, substantial evidence on findings two and three. After we address those four findings, I'll provide a brief summary and demonstrate that we've read through met the required findings for this variance. Cole, if you'd be so kind, would you please go back to the site that shows the, the page shows the overall site. Perfect. Thank you, sir. Just by way of background and give you a reason for this variance request, SR real estate partners seeks to construct a new multifamily development. It's in compliance with the permitted uses for the Patterson place compact suburban design zoning district. Due to the requirements relating to the percentage of building placement along the street frontage and also second, the required yards imposed on this project. It's not possible to construct a project meeting these compact suburban design district requirements. Given the odd shape of this parcel that you're looking at right now, as you can see, and as you've, as we've discussed already, the parcel is a reverse L shape. It is the leg of the L that juts out to the West back towards Mount Mariah Road. That creates the need for this hearing before the board today. For the following reasons, I think these variances are justified in accordance with the four UDO findings. I will now address finding number one. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It is, it shall not be necessary to demonstrate that in absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. Again, strict application of the ordinance given this rather odd reverse L shaped parcel would require an L shaped building. That in turn would be an unnecessary hardship for development of this 4.32 acre site. The percentage placement requirement again would require a building along 80% of the frontage along McFarland. Call if you could please change back to the zoom in on the, on the leg of the L. Thank you, sir. Do this requirement in the compact suburban design district buildings must be within 15 or 25, 15 to 25 feet from the back of curb. Again, as I stated before, the ordinance requires 80% of that street frontage to be occupied by a building. So you can see that, that red diagonal striped area within this leg of the L is where the UDO dictates a building to be located. The width of this section that we're looking at right here is only about 60 feet. Various could be a little more could be shade less. In addition to the aforementioned build to zone and that 80% placement requirement, UDO section 16.2.1 also poses a 10 yard, a 10 foot rear yard setback, which means the building here got to be somewhere between 23 and 30 feet deep. Additionally, if you look at the top of the page, you can see the storm drainage easement, which is another encumbrance and obstacle in this property. And so it does not take an architect to see that this is an unnecessary hardship to have to construct an L shaped building on this parcel. I would even add that's an unreasonable hardship. As a community, we started working on the Patterson Place Design District about five or six years ago. And while the exercise in planning has been very successful, I think on the whole, it's clear that these requirements, they really presuppose a rectangular shaped parcel. And this type of odd shape was not accommodated in those planning efforts. And so accordingly, strict application of the UDO based on a somewhat arbitrary requirement that does not account for certain parcel shaped characteristics is an unnecessary hardship. It fails to recognize that really the best use of this parcel is public open space. And Jesse Hardesty will describe that and the benefits it brings the entire neighborhood. So if there aren't, if there are not any questions that wraps up my testimony for finding number one, I do, I do want to, by way of background, I'll say it's been my pleasure to work with Jesse Hardesty for over a year now. I told her you're all a very nice group of people and you're going to be nice to her because this is her first time ever testifying before the board of adjustment anywhere. And I said, Durham's got by far the nicest board of adjustment. And it's my pleasure to turn it over to Jesse Hardesty for findings two and three. Thank you. First of all, any questions for Mr. Biker before we hear from. All right. Well, hope we live up to it. Jesse, take it over. All right. Good morning. My name is Jesse Hardesty. I'm a planner with McAdams at 2905 Meridian Parkway, Durham, North Carolina. Exhibit B lists my experience and qualifications, which I'll go through briefly. I received my planning degree from Virginia Tech in 2018 and have been working in the planning field ever since. Specifically with McAdams have worked on a number of Durham projects, including resummonings, annexations, and site plans such as this one. I was brought on to this project to prepare site due diligence research for our engineering team and prepare the business variance application that we submitted to the planning department on behalf of SL realistic partners. And preparing to testify for this public hearing. I have reviewed also many materials, including the application site plan staff report and its attachments for the development of this multi-family development within the Patterson Place Design District. I'll now address the second finding required in the UDO section 314-8 that the hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to this property. First to amplify what Patrick said, it is a peculiar condition to have this odd L shaped parcel. Therefore, both the size and shape of the parcel are hardships that are peculiar to this property. Approximately .3 acres are within this leg or section of the property. That's only about 60 feet wide here along the Carlin Drive. So as you can see in the exhibit that's on the screen right now, once you take into account build two zones and yards, it really does not make sense to build on this .3 acres section. While I don't have many years of experience, I can say that I have not had to deal with an oddly shaped parcel like this before specifically in the design district where a percent placement is a requirement. Accordingly, at its location in the Patterson Place Design District and the size due to its rather than each shape, this drives the hardship due to conditions peculiar to this specific parcel. I'll now move on to the third finding, which is that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant for the property owner. As stated in our variance application, the creation of this L shaped log occurred before SR real estate partners submitted a site plan for the multi-family project. Therefore, the zoning conditions did not result from any actions taken by the applicant. This concludes my testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, I'll turn it back over to Mr. Biker to address finding number four, including the presentation. Any questions for Ms. Hardesty? Mr. Biker, any other? Yes, Chairman Rodgers, Patrick Biker again for the applicant, attorney for the applicant want to briefly address the fourth finding that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit purpose and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured, substantial justice is achieved. For this finding, in regard to the intent of the ordinance, this development, I believe is in accordance with the host of requirements in the Patterson Place compact suburban design district. The proposed development certainly isn't keeping with the spirit of the ordinance since it's creating a relatively high density residential near where our community wants to establish a well-defined transit corridor in the future. We adopted the Patterson Place compact suburban design district to stimulate mixed use, higher residential density development in order to support transit usage between Duke University and UNC hospital, our region's two largest employers. In regards to public safety, this is maybe a little bit of a stretch and I don't want to go down a rabbit hole, but I think you have to admit that if you had to build an L shaped building on this parcel, it would not allow for clear sight lines that are shown with the site plan that's before the board today. This is in keeping with the crime prevention through environmental design, CEPTED, which is a long accepted principle in city planning. Just by way of background, it sort of started with the idea of building a public open space. I think it's a great example of that book by Jane Jacobs, the life and death of great American cities. What we need to do is have more eyes on the street and more open spaces. That's exactly what this proposal before the board today is doing. Rather than have an oddly shaped building, we'll have public open space that will be an amenity to the area. Lastly, their substantial justice is a very important part of the project. We have a public safety certificate for this neighborhood, and that, of course, was one of the main reasons for adopting the Patterson Place design district. For all these reasons, public safety is secured. Substantial justice is achieved by granting these variances. In conclusion, I think Ms. Hardesty and I have provided the board with competent material, substantial evidence on the four areas of public safety. We have a very long agenda today. We would like to wrap up our presentation and ask if there are any questions that we can answer. We very much appreciate your time today. Thank you for this time. Thank you, Mr. Biker. Can you stop sharing so we can see everyone on your screen? Any questions for Mr. Biker or his team? Any discussion? Thoughts? On this particular case. This is Chad. I would like to know who approved that subdivision. That seemed, obviously, it was a difficult site. There was no way to comply with the district requirements. I don't know if the subdivision predated the development or not. I think that used to be a rose place, a rose garden place. We approved that about a year ago. I remember when it was a rose place. I mean, there's not much you can do with that. I assume that when we say public open space, this will just be a field. I think there's some trees there now. I'm not entirely sure. I don't know that that has any relevance to the variance. I don't have any problems supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. Mr. Rich was. Yes, thanks, Mr. Biker and Jesse. I think this is well done today. And I'm definitely in support. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? I appreciate your brevity. We aim to please. Thank you, honey. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. As opposed to the truth. And we had the previous case. That's right. Any other thoughts or this is a variant. So we will not receive a staff recommendation. So if anybody wants to offer a motion or more thoughts. Now's the time. This is Meadows. I will offer a motion if I can find it. Just give me one second here. There it is. I have zero. An application for a request for variances from the unified development ordinance. Build to zone and frontage percentage requirements on property located at 3616 witherspoon boulevard and 5203 and 5211 McFarland drive. Sorry to interrupt. Sorry. I'm not entirely sure the motion has changed because of the staff report change. Understood. Right. Instead of bill two zone, it is rear yard setback and frontage percentage. However, however, the rear yard setback will not have to be approved for this development. So it's just a frontage percentage requirement. Correct. Okay. Mr. Chair, I'd like to amend my motion if I could. Please do. I hereby make a motion that application B2000050 an application for a request for variances from the unified development ordinance for frontage percentage requirements on property located at 3616 witherspoon boulevard and 5203 and 5211 McFarland drive have successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions that improvement shall be substantially consistent with all the plans and information submitted to the board as part of the application. Lacey seconds. All right. We've got a motion by Mr. Meadows a second by Mr. Lacey. Who is it? Mr. Kepp. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes, Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Jeeter. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Motion carries 7-0. 7-0, your variance request has been appreciate you coming before the BOA this morning. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Take care folks. You guys have a good day. Mark, will you call the next case? Yes, Case B210001, a request for a variance from the 10 foot no-build setback and the street yard setback infill development standards in order to construct the single-family dwelling structure. The subject site is located at 1034 Chalmers Street is zoned residential urban and in the urban tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and the property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and the letter millings are on file and the seating for this case will be Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kipp, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Waimour and Ms. Jeter. All right, so I think we've got the applicant, Eliza? I was going to say we do have the applicant, Mr. Higa. Okay. Mr. Higa, anyone who is going to give a testimony, would you please raise your right hand for the oath? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? You're on mute. I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. Alrighty. Eliza, is this on yours? Yes, it is. Please take it over. Sure thing. Good morning, everybody. Eliza, I'm representing the planning department, planning staff does request that the staff report and all materials submitted at the public hearing to be made part of public record with any necessary corrections noted. Thank you. So case B-2-0-1-0-0-0-1 is a request for variance from the 10-foot no-build setback and the street yard setback infill development standards in order to construct a single family structure. The applicant and property owner is Peter Hito and the subject site is located at 1034 Traumer Street. Can you all see that? It says I'm out of memory. I'm not sure what that means. So give me one second. I'm going to try again and see if they'll let me present. Oh, I have a complete black screen. Can anyone see anything on that side? A blank sheet on our end or mine. Okay. So I'm out of memory. So I'm not sure what that means. So we're going to see if I can open it in another space. Chris, do you have ever seen that before? Sorry to put you on the spot, Chris. Yeah, that's not good. Yes, I'm going to try to see if I can share the presentation for you, Bear with me one second. I'm concerned your computer is about to crash. It has been acting differently this morning. So I wasn't trying to downplay it earlier at all. Well, I will continue on. The site is currently vacant. So if you are able to review the staff report on your individual computers board and work with us during this time, the site is currently vacant. The case area is highlighted on red on both the attachment one and two that you can see within the staff report. The site is zone residential urban five or are you five and is in the urban tier per UDO section per section seven point one point two is the unified development ordinance. The required street yard setback for a single family structure. Excuse me. I'm going to close out the stop share. The required you set back for a street yard for a single family structure in the RE five zoning district is 20 feet. The location of this lot within the urban tier requires that it meet the street yard infill standards and those standards are applicable to any lot or any residential zone lot that's less than four acres. The infill development standards as we've talked about before create a context area for which is used to determine the required yards as well as the building height of the subject lot. The intent there is that there's some uniformity when you have a vacant lot already in an established neighborhood. There's some uniformity and new development. The new development on the lot will then be subject to those infill standards and the street yard would have to be in a range of the existing street yard. The existing street yard shown on the on this block face of traumas. So Chris if you'll go to the next document I'll kind of walk you through it. So we're talking about it have to be in line with all of the other street yards that are along traumas. So you'll notice that there's properties that are a little bit closer to traumas. There's some that are a little bit further back as you go around the curve. The infill standards would require that this be in between that range. Chris if you'll now scroll down almost almost all the way to the bottom to the next to the last page. The applicant is requesting a variance from this infill development standards. One more up to the survey format. Thank you. The applicant is requesting a variance from those infill development standards to place the home behind the prescribed street yard due to the 50 foot riparian buffer that you can see on the survey in front of you. This cuts across the front of the property therefore to meet the infill standard would result in construction directly within the outer 20 and the inner 30 of the 50 foot riparian buffer. Additionally per UDO section 8.5.9c buildings and other features that require gradient construction shall be set back at least 10 foot from the edge of the riparian buffer. Chris if you'll scroll down just one more to that last sheet. This is referred to as the 10 foot no build setback and the applicant is requesting a variance to permit the proposed structure to encroach about 98 square feet into that 10 foot no build setback as you can see on the screen in front of you. The UDO section 3.14.8 establishes the four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant a variance. These findings require approval, identify the staff report and the applicant's responses to these findings are available are identified in the application both of which are within the packet that's a part of the agenda. Staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process. If you all have any I do see that Mr. Meadows has his hand raised Mr. Chair since you can't see him. Yeah so Mr. Meadows you got a question for Eliza? Just one very very quick one and that is what is the rear setback in this district? The rear yard setback is 25 feet and as you can see in the on the screen currently which I just realized Chris gave me permission to utilize. Thank you Chris that they are meeting that 28 the 25 feet requirement. Thank you. Sure thing. Any other questions for Eliza? Not seeing any raised hands at this time. All right would the applicant like to come forward? I do. Hi how are you guys? Good to see you. Good to see you. This is Peter Jitto. I am we'll get it one day Ms. Monroe. Yeah I know you saw my face. So we are trying to build a single family house here in 1034 Chalmers street. If you can scroll up just a little bit so I can have the survey in front of me please on the screen. Okay perfect thank you. So there is a drain right by where his mouse is that dumps out from the street and that's what the Department of Environmental Natural Resources is calling a stream from the storm water system. That sanitary sewer easement is going to be a ban and into a storm water easement because there's sewer easement there and then we found out that obviously we have the 50 foot riparian buffer on top of that so we set the house back as far back as it can go and if you see the high low setbacks those are set out to where we're requesting the variance from. Obviously you see with the high low setbacks that it's impossible to fit a house on this site. You just wouldn't be able to build on this site and there actually is buildable space in the back left corner of the site. And then we are requesting the 98 square feet if you scroll down just a little bit please for me to the second survey. Yep we're requesting the 98 square feet of impact into the 10 foot no build zone so that way we can actually fit the house in there. We'll be staying out of the riparian buffer out of the 20 foot and the 30 foot and that is my goal to be able to fit the house and only impact into that 10 foot no build zone right there. And then we record a new plat when we if you scroll back up as well please real quick when we if we do get the from you guys we will record a new plat that shows the riparian buffer and the no setback on there and it will record the new stormwater easement instead of the existing sewer easement which the city is not using and so they want a stormwater easement. I want to I've spent months on this project getting it ready for the this meeting and if you have any questions I'd be more than glad to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Brigadier? Staff isn't seeing any raised hands if I'm missing someone as always. I have a question. I have a question. Mr. Kip. Is this house currently built? No it's a vacant lot right now and I'm proposing to build a house there there that is that is the proposed dwelling if you see the words right in the middle of the actual box next to AC. Okay so I see the property appears to be listed in the multiple listing service. It's sold already yeah those are pictures of a house that I built before I built it at 1015 and 1017 Chalmers Street. Okay thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Eliza would you mind or Chris stops sharing so we can see everyone for a moment? Alrighty. Any discussion? This is Meadows I'd like to make a motion. Go ahead please sir. I hereby make a motion that application number B2100001 a request for variance from the 10 foot no-build setback in the street yard setback infill development standards in order to construct a single family dwelling structure on property located at 1034 Chalmers Street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've got a motion by Mr. Meadows is there a second? Delacy. Mr. Lacey is second. Madam clerk. Ms. Jeter. Yeah. One moment. Is there any opposition to this case? Thank you Mr. Chair for asking that so there were so many individuals that signed up I'm not seeing their names well they did not join via a computer there is a caller who has been called in this entire time and I think at the beginning Mr. Peterson tried to figure it out so if the caller could press star nine to raise their hand and we can just make sure that they're not one of the opposition persons that signed up but at this time I don't think so unless we can hear from this caller. All right. Press star nine caller you can press star nine I believe and you'll be able to hear you or is it star six Chris? Star six to unmute and that's caller with the phone number ending in nine three seven two. Thank you Chris. All right caller would you like to identify yourself and phone number ending nine three seven two again it's star six to unmute. I'm not getting a response from them. Okay well we will shall move forward then. I'll start over. Please do I apologize for interrupting. That's okay. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Mr. Retzlis. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. All right by a vote of seven to zero your variance request has been approved you'll get a written order in soon. Appreciate you coming before the BOA this morning. Thank you. All right Madam Perkins would you like to call the next case? Yes. Case B2100002 a request for a variance from the 15 foot maximum street yard requirement the subject site is located at 2814 Hillsborough Road is owned residential urban and commercial general and in the Irwin Road compact neighborhood this case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file and the seating for this case is Ms. Jeter. Ms. Weymour. Mr. Retzlis. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Meadows. Mr. Kip. And Mr. Lacey. All right. Thank you Susan. Have we got everyone from all the applicants or all everyone who plans to speak? Okay. If you plan on giving testimony this morning please turn your computer on and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but. I do. We'll have to hear everyone. Ms. Brooks. I do. All righty. And do you each consent to the remote meeting platform? I do. Rob and Tammy I didn't hear y'all that last time. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much. Eliza. Yes. Taking over and I'll have to apologize everyone. I'm going to be sharing from my browser so it won't look the way that it usually looks. I cannot get Adobe to work today and we're just not going to let my computer crash. So let's get it going. Good morning. Once again, Eliza representing the planning department staff request of the staff report and all materials submitted at the public hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. Thank you. And so noted. Thank you. Case B2100002 is a request for a variance from the 15 foot maximum street yard requirement. The applicant is Emerson land planning PLLC and the subject site is located at 2814 Philsboro Road. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is split zoned as you'll see into residential urban 5-2 which is going to be in this back portion and commercial general or CG and is located in the Irwin Road compact neighborhood development tier. I'll note that all construction that all proposed construction will be located in this front hot pink area which is zoned CG or commercial general. The site is currently the location of a real estate office which is also owned by the property owner in question here and I'm going to scroll down here per section 6.10.1d.3 of the unified development ordinance. The maximum street yard setback for a non-residential structure in the compact neighborhood tier and the CG zoning district is 15 feet. This section also requires that the longest building facade of a primary structure is parallel to and within the maximum street yard or the street-facing building facade occupies at least 60% of the total street frontage for the development which is per video section 6.10.1d.3a1 and 2 respectfully. I will note there is an existing structure which you can see on the screen here that has been located there since 1900 according to the Durham County tax records. This structure obviously predates the ordinance and is considered a legal non-conforming structure according to UDO section 14.4.1. The applicant is actually requesting a variance from the section of the 6.10.1d for the structure that is proposed towards the rear and I'm going to go to this next slide and if my computer agrees with me well don't do anything there okay. The applicant is requesting a variance for this proposed two-story frame building. As I mentioned previously a primary structure would have to be located within that maximum street yard as well as have up to 60% of the total street frontage maintained by that building. Given that this structure is going to be taller than the existing structure it would not be able to be considered what we call an accessory structure. Accessory in nature means that it's subservient to the primary structure so this would be considered a second primary structure. So the applicant is requesting a variance from those aforementioned sections that would require the new structure to be located within that maximum street yard. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant their variance. These findings are barring approval identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to these findings are identified in the application both of which are within your packet and I'll reiterate that the structure that we're talking about is going to be this back one but two-story one which is considered a second primary structure given the fact that it cannot be deemed as accessory. And staff is available for any questions as needed throughout this hearing process. Thank you Eliza. Any questions for Eliza before we hear from the applicant? Scroll through here real quick. I'm not seeing anyone. I see some heads shaking no. I'm a speaker you are unmuted so I'm assuming you might have something to uh no okay just kidding. All right uh would the applicant like to come forward? Hi good morning my name is Rob Emerson can everybody hear me okay? I'm the owner of Emerson land planning. I'm at 1202 North Gregson Street in Durham. I've been doing this sort of work in Durham since 1997 and I'm here representing my client from Inhabit Real Estate. I think do I need to give you a formal request that the staff report and all of our submittals are included? There is that already? Thank you for doing that. Okay and again I won't uh I won't read this the uh the application to you or or belabor the the findings I think the the application stands on its own. I would however with your permission like to give you just sort of a brief uh higher level uh explanation of of why we're here today if that's okay. Absolutely. So my clients acquired this building several years ago uh renovated it for you says their office uh what permitted use in the CG zoning district and uh have rapidly outgrown it. This is a about a 1,100 square foot bungalow that dates to 1900. It's become sort of an icon for their real estate company and they want to preserve it. They want to stay on this site. We started looking at ways that we could add on to the building and modify it to make it work for their uses and due to the configuration and actually the the northern part of the existing building is um it's an old addition that's not particularly well built and adding on to the building uh quickly became uh we realized that that was not uh probably the best approach. So the solution that we came up with was to build a standalone office annex behind the existing bungalow and then you can see there's sort of a shared deck with an accessible ramp that will connect the two structures. This does a number of things for this site. It allows us to keep the bungalow. It allows us to keep the existing parking court and it allows us to keep two huge oak trees on this site without disturbing the drip lines of those trees. Um so the again the nature of the variance is that because we're in a compact neighborhood tier there is a maximum street yard rather than a minimum street yard. So in order to meet the letter of the ordinance we would either have to demolish the bungalow or we would have to build in the parking lot on the adjacent parcel which is under the same common ownership um and then we would have to replace that parking elsewhere on site which quickly gets into the the drip line of the oak trees and into the required project boundary buffer along the north property line. So one point that I would just like to make if you look at the the previous slide and compare it to this one the proposed building is no closer to the Old West Durham neighborhood than the existing garage building is. We are actually a couple feet farther from from a few of those lots. So we think we found a good solution and we're here today to ask for your approval of this variance and it can answer any questions you might have. I believe our architect and our owner are also here. All right thank you Mr. Emerson. I think we've got a question by Chad. Chad. Thank you Mr. Chair and and I agree that this is a I think this is a great proposal. Um I just had a very minor question. I'm looking at a photograph of the site and it appears that there's a driveway that goes back to the existing structure which I guess is a garage. I understand that existing structure is going to go away. Will that driveway remain or will that go away once the garage is uh I guess it's labeled existing outbuilding. Will it go away as well? Are you asking about the the gravel driveway that curves around behind the house or the driveway that's on the east side? I am. I'm asking about the gravel driveway that curves around behind the house. It looks like it's it looks like there's a garage door on the garage but I'm just curious about that driveway. That will go away as a vehicular drive if you look at the sort of admittedly vague plan that we've provided there for the proposed condition you can see that the new building is going to be a little bit it's going to come a little bit closer to the rear of the existing building than that garage does so that portion of the driveway gets replaced with some sort of a deck and possibly a patio but it won't be possible to drive through there any longer and I should also clarify this is the first step in this process for us should the variance be approved we do need to go through the Durham site plan process so we'll have to meet all the technical requirements with respect to storm drainage runoff and lighting and project boundary buffers etc. We'll kick that off tomorrow assuming that the next couple of minutes goes well. Thank you. And staff just wants to mention that that is permissible that an applicant come before the board first to get a variance to determine the feasibility of their project that you don't have to have a site plan in order to come before you all. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Emerson does any of your other does anyone else from your team want to provide any information? I will let them answer that question. Tammy or Andy did you did I leave anything out? I think Rob did a fantastic job. Okay staff will stop sharing then Mr. Chair so you can see everybody. Thank you. All right already then. Well any questions for the applicant or owner from the board? Points of clarification. All right is there anyone to hear opposed to this application? Do we have any opposition? Mr. Chair there were some original registrants however they are not in attendance today. All right. Okay for any discussion on the board with thoughts what you like if you don't like Chad likes it thumbs up. I think the proposal looks good. I mean it's keeping a 120 year old structure on the planet and then obviously allowing for the real estate office to expand so in my urbanism book that is good. Thanks. Thank you Mr. Kipp. Well said. I agree. Well said. And Regulus yes I agree. I think this is a great outcome of the way you planned it and I'm definitely for it. All right I have to agree as well. Does anybody want to offer a motion? As a reminder motions are at the bottom of the staff report. Yeah I was going to share the love unless nobody wants it. Take it over Mr. Meadows. All right I will do so. I hereby make a motion that application number B2100002 a request for a variance from the 15 foot maximum street yard requirement on property located at 2814 Hillsborough Road has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've got a motion by Mr. Meadows for approval. Is there a second? Mr. Kipp. Everybody by unanimous second. Motion by Meadows second by Kipp. Susan. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Kipp. Yes. Mr. Retchless. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. I vote of seven to zero. Your variance request has been approved. We appreciate you coming forth BOA this morning and have a great day. Thank you all. Have a good one. Thank you all. Um, Susan, would you like to come in next case? We're moving around. Case B2100006 a request for variance from the vehicular use area landscaping requirements. The subject site is located at 2152 and 2362 Soha Drive and 224 Northeast Creek Parkway is zoned Science Research Park and in the suburban tier. The case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Ms. Delacey, Mr. Kipp, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Weymour, and Ms. Jinger. All right. Thank you, Susan. Would anyone who plans on giving testimony for this case will need your camera on to administer the oath? And stop speaking here. Joshua, I know Mr. Winky, I know you might be speaking more for the next one since it's the parking reduction. However, we have you grouped since the applications are both the same. So you don't have to swear now if you're not speaking towards the landscaping variance. Okay. All right. So anyone given testimony for this one, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Catherine McPherson and William aren't don't have aren't I'm not probably not saying that correctly. Do you not have your cameras on? Gary, are they speaking live? The Catherine is in the room with me here. And okay. Sorry about that. And then William, thank you for turning your camera on. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Good to go. William, are you are you going to give testimony today? I will answer some questions if they're directed to me. So we'll need you to do the oath as well. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I did. And I'll need an answer for the next question from all three of you. Do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes. Yes. William? Yes. Eliza, is this one yours? Yes, it is. I'll take it away. And once again, coming to you all from the browser. So please excuse any issues. So morning, Liesman Drive Plain Department planning staff request that staff report on all materials submitted at the public hearing be made part of the public record with the necessary corrections as noted. Thank you. And so noted. My goal is to get that under six seconds. Case B2100006 is a request for a variance from the vehicular use area landscaping requirements. The applicant is ARCO. And the subject site is a little bit different, which I'll explain with these maps. The subject site is located at what is currently 2242 Northeast Parkway 2152 Soha Drive and 2362 Soha Drive. And overall 59 More Drive, this new address of the parcels that's combined is currently pending, which is why the maps look a little bit different. So this is a map from the tax records. Our GIS maps are not yet updated with that new overall parcel. Just to give some insight there. The case area is highlighted on the screen in red. The site is zoned at Science Research Park, or SRP, and within the server and development tier, it is within the county's jurisdiction. The site, as you can see, is currently under construction. The applicant is coming before you all today for a variance in the midst of the site plan process and review. And that will also be mentioned with the next case, which is also for this applicant. And my computer is loading the documents, as you can see in the thumbnails on the side. So we'll take a second, but I'll keep going. Vehicular use area is defined as areas used for vehicle service, parking, including structure parking, parking lot drive ills, and business transactions, such as areas adjacent to gasoline pumps, and areas for drive up for service. Section 9.8 of the unified development ordinance provides the standards of the quality, quantity, and location of vehicle use area landscaping, like trees and shrubs. UDO section 9.8.1C, 0.1D, requires that all shrubs and trees shall be located at least three feet from either the back of the curb of the vehicle use area or the back of wheel stops in order to be credited. UDO section 9.8.3 states that the required quantity of shrubs and trees and their location within the use area for areas exceeding 3,000 square feet. So the applicant is requesting, looking like it's loading, the applicant is requesting a variance from the required landscaping within the vehicle use area as it relates to the parking lot located to the rear of the rear building. So we're going to be looking at this area here. There are plans that are kind of loading a little bit slowly, but they are coming as my computer sees. And I may have Chris take over. He can get this to pull up a little bit quicker without my computer going to sleep on me. But the applicant is requesting a variance from the required landscaping within that specific area towards the rear for reasons that Bill mentioned during their testimony. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes the four findings and the applicant must make an order for the board to grant a variance. These findings require approval identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application, both of which are within your packet and staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process. Thank you, Eliza. Any questions for Eliza? I don't see any. All right, with the applicant. Sure. First, I would like to start off by thanking everyone for being part of this board hearing and Eliza for getting everything put together. Real quick, I just wanted to make we have someone else who jumped on late. Eliza, are they able to jump in and take an oath now? Michael Patton? Did they jump on? Let me see if I can elevate them. Apologies, they were running a little behind to miss the switch over to this case. That is okay. We're going to promote them. Mr. Patton is a panelist. There is a little bit of a lie in which when we promote someone, so as soon as he's visible, we'll have to have him turn on his camera and then he can administer. Michael, I can hear you. I just can't see you yet. I have activated the video. Looks like it might just be taking a couple seconds. Thank you guys and I apologize for this delay. Okay, as long as we can get them up and running. Yeah, still a dark screen on this side. Can we just have him stipulate that he's holding up his hand if he can't get a video? Because we've had people call in and without video. Well, his video just turned on and turned off. Yeah, I just changed cameras and for some reason it obviously worked on the back, not the front. All right. Well, Mr. Patton, we could take your testimony. If you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. Alrighty. Thank you, sir. Yeah, I'm going to then pass up to Catherine to kind of give a summary of the project as she did landscape architect in her office and as much more experience on this matter. Hi. Good morning, Catherine McPherson. I'm a professional landscape architect with Boller and I'm here to present our case to you. Is there a way to bring up the site plan of that back area? I have been trying. Chris, I may ask that you take over. I'm getting it up right now. Thank you. No, that's okay. And so Catherine, you're asking about like the exhibit that you submitted with regards to this variant. Yeah, this kind of the overall would be helpful. Sure thing. As soon as Chris is able to pull it up. And thank you, Chris, for stepping in and helping out. They work makes the dream work. It does. Couldn't have asked for a better team. And let me know if I'm on the right page or not. So we need to go to B21 bunch of zero six. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Stand by. Okay. Thank you all for bearing with us. Okay. He'll be coming up in just a second. I apologize. Everyone, I put up the wrong one. Thanks, Chris. And we'll pull up that overall in a couple of seconds. I think it's around page 10 or 11 of the document. I was trying to get it up on my end, but it was not doing so. If we can't get it up, could you just talk like vamp till ready? Or is it important to have the exhibit? Yeah, well, I mean, it just helps clarify things. But so this site is going to be a pharmacological facility that manufactures medications. And as such, they have pretty stringent requirements for cleanliness, dust-free contaminants from their dock areas. And so we are asking to not plant material at the rear of the site near the loading docks along the various truck routes to, let's see. One page before this. One page before. Yeah. There we go. So, you know, all the front is all landscaped. The parking lot is all landscaped. But what we're asking for is a variance to allow us to not plant along the truck route drives and the loading dock areas at the rear of the site. There is a small parking lot. They're kind of located in the center of the site that does have plantings associated with it to meet code. And this plan does show an additional parking lot there at the lower left rear of the site near the stormwater facility. That is a future parking lot that would be associated with a future building development and is just shown as reference for the stormwater pond and the reason why the stormwater pond was sized in that capacity. And that lot does not show any landscaping because that lot is a future lot and will be fully landscaped at the time that that would come in before the city for site plan review. The other issue at the back is that there is the perimeter of the site is surrounded by a security fence and line of sight for security purposes to that fence line is important for maintaining a secure facility there. The entire perimeter of the site is there's a lot of tree save existing tree save and then stream buffers off site and there's no real neighbors or properties that would be affected by this lack of trees or shrubs along these long access drives for the truck circulation. I think we've got a question by Mr. Meadows and I have one as well so chat a few of them first. I do thank you Mr. Chair. I confess that I saw the future parking lot in the I guess southwest corner of the site and thought that was the one that you were seeking the variance for but I understand that's not what you're seeking the variance for and so the reduction in the required landscaping material is proposed for the parking spaces in front of the building is that correct? No we have full landscaping that meets the code requirements at the front and for the small parking lot that's just I wish I could point but. Middle of the site to the north side kind of left of the big building. You can see a little bit of darkness in the middle of the site kind of there that's the plantings built up. Chris is there any way that we could zoom in on this perhaps to to see the folks at home as well if it's more trouble? Eliza and other staff here the document is not it's without issues flattening it so when we change the perspective or scale of it it's what kind of knocks us off a little bit. However we can zoom a little bit I think Chris is trying to do so right now as close as we can get it but once we get it there we might have to keep it there Mr. Chair that's why I mentioned that once we zoom we might have to just keep it on this sheet going for. There we go. So right where your cursor is just go to the left a little bit with your hand not go up and now go right just up north just a little bit okay. So you kind of see a parking spot in the middle of the screen there. Yeah. Catherine would it help if I just give a real quick summary of the way the plant is laid out and the function of buildings? I don't know if we need to go through the function of the buildings. Okay just trying to show the the parking area is. Yeah that that small parking area is for the maintenance shop and the recycling building only it's a very very small staff all of the rest of the employee parking is on the east side. But that parking lot is fully planted to meet code as per code requires. What we don't have planted are those long access drives that the trucks would circulate through to reach the various loading docks either bringing materials to the site or taking product off-site for shipment. I think what so Chad and I both share the same issue here is that we're not sure what the variance is for. I don't on this picture I'm trying to figure out I know you can't point it out but can you show us where this parking lot that you prefer or you're talking about and then what vegetation is or is not going to be there. So so the big thing is the VUA includes all the access drives and all the areas where truck maintenance will also like warehouse docks and stuff are. So as you can see on this screen there's a warehouse dock right in the middle to the north there and on the left side there's a big warehouse dock as well. Those areas need to be kept clean from that so that's part of the VUA area so we have to technically plan shrubberies for those areas. We don't meet the VUA for those areas it's just the loading dock areas all parking lots where there actually will be parked cars for employees all our VUA and have their proper planning. Does that help clarify? Okay. Glad to note staff here staff has the and I can utilize annotations if you all want to denote a speaker and can see my cursor staff can then highlight and or circle the spaces in which you're questioning a variance so that everyone can be clear. So I don't know if Michael or Gary wants to take charge of that but if you see my cursor. I can do that. Okay here. So where can I so I just need to tell you where to go? Yep if you can see my cursor moving just tell me to go up right left behind. Are you at? Oh right there. So see that right to the right where you are? That to the right. And down a little bit that like that like big uh I think we went too far sorry um like see the little like hash area that looks like concrete in the middle um kind of a little bit north where you are and there's like a pipe leaving that area right to the right a tiny bit but right a little bit more. There yep that area there is a loading dock. So we have no plantings on the right side there along the curve line as well as that like turnaround area and things like that so that whole area there has no VUA shrubs there um or VUA plantings on that are obviously part of the VUA area because they're part of a loading dock which is considered part of this from my understand um as well as to the left kind of where it says CL 106 um and to the right a little bit there if you go to the right that's a big loading dock to the right right there and then all the way north to where you kind of hit the curve line again um that's a little bit too far to the right you're kind of in the building um but just pull to the right there. That area as well has no plantings or shrubberies because it's within the loading dock area that needs to be a clean area. And from my understanding VUA also includes access drives around to lead to these parking areas obviously the access drive to the north and to the south don't have plantings along them and that's for security purposes with the sight lines to the fencing. So the access drives that loop around to the north and to the south don't have plantings along them. Everything in the front of site that is visible to the public as well as where all the employees will be parking as well as that small little parking lot in the middle and some of the screen that will also have a couple employees is planned to VUA. So it's just those couple of other areas kind of auxiliary to where an actual parking will take place but part of the VUA summary. Okay uh Chad does this answer your question? It does thank you yes very you know I think going forward if we have a site plan where we can flag the portion of the VUA that is missing the the landscaping we could could have dispensed with the five or ten minutes of who's on first but yes I think I think I'm on board now thank you. Yeah all right any other questions for the applicant? Not a question for the applicant staff I'd just like to make a clarifying point I mentioned in some of the testimony VUA standards as mentioned in the staff report some of them do involve the built aesthetic like you know adding an aesthetic view and presence to built area other parts of it are relate to the heat island so I do want to make a clarifying point that the sole purpose of the visual aesthetic is not the only requirement for VUA there are several requirements as a total so I just wanted to clarify that on the record. Gary do we have anybody else or Chad do you have a question for me? I just have one more question Mr. Chair very quickly I understand that they are seeking to not include landscaping material in designated locations of the site my question is have they considered locating the material that would have otherwise been required in this area elsewhere on site? We have we actually if you look to the front of site foundation planings all around the front of site to once again where it's more visually and where we have around the building if you add in all those shrubberies which once again are greater than three feet away from a VUA because they're all on the front of the building if you count all those in addition to what we already have proposed on site it does meet the VUA requirements for all the VUA area. Okay staff here yes I was going to say as Gary was mentioning that cannot be used as credit at area so even if they they can provide in excess of VUA requirements anywhere on the site however it has to be within a specific location in a specific range in order for it to be credited as VUA for that drive or access area. Understood I was going my question was to the spirit thank you. Gotcha yeah unfortunately the ordinance spirit is the intent of course is great however the ordinance would not allow that to be considered as credit. Gotcha. All right Gary do you have anyone else providing testimony that you'd like? Not unless there's any questions that pertain to anything else that the staff or neighborhoods have. Understood. Eliza can we stop sharing for a moment so we I can see everyone. All right any questions for the applicant or their team clarification? All right is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this case? Eliza my staff there is not anyone that signed up to speak in opposition if they speak 2-1-0-0-0-6. Thank you Eliza. All right well let's have some any discussion and any thoughts? Likes dislikes? Clarification? Kenny Rogers. I'm just curious as to given the standards for a variance if there was any information that was presented on hardship what created the hardship what makes this piece of property peculiar such that they would need a variance so I was just wondering about that. Well uh Mr. Wardell you actually we're gonna something it's an issue that I had to I was wondering what the hardship is um Cameron would y'all like to address that? The the farmer uh ecological use of the site kind of the uniqueness that this site has to maintain stringent you know quality controls for contaminants um precludes us from being able to have plant material that would there there's various pests there's pollen you know even non-flowering plants produce pollen uh insects rodents and all of that would possibly create hazards for the clean production of their product. All right Mr. Retchless. Thank you Mr. Wardell. Retchless here made a good point that most hardships are peculiar to the property and not from the property owner. These are personal circumstances I believe from the farm pharmaceutical company and don't warrant a variance. Brian do you have any other thoughts or? Good point. I do um I would just suggest that that the board just review the necessary findings under 3.14.8 and see if there's been any evidence really on unnecessary hardship which would result from a strict application of the ordinance. I'm not sure that I'm not sure what the evidence shows in that regard and then uh that the hardship results from conditions that are particular and peculiar to the property such as the location size topography um and then the hardship did not result from any actions taken by the applicant or the property owner um and then you know would this be consistent with the spirit the purpose and intent of the ordinance. So you know if there's any of those questions you have problem with uh I think the applicant would need would need more evidence on that on that point. Thank you sir and I think Micah did you speak up and said a good point? I don't want to make sure. That was to Lacey. Okay Regina. I was not it's particular to the industry but it's not peculiar to the property and it's not peculiar to uh anything else that they have uh indicated. They just said they want it clean. I understand that. I worked in pharmaceuticals but that has nothing to do with a variance for our standards. Micah did you have some thoughts? I was just I was shaking my head profusely agreement with all of Lacey's points but you may have thought that's why I thought I said the point because I was expecting that with my head motion. All right um Gary Catherine there's a couple things we can do. We call for a vote. I'm going to ask for a motion if there is one or uh we can continue this case to next month and you can provide better more evidence if you'd like. Do you have a preference? Give us one second. Give us one second. Yeah. Right so just for clarification the choices that he doesn't make sure I'm everything down the path um we have to provide more evidence at like a next month hearing regarding the hardships um and anything that would be associated with the use of the building would not be considered part of that hardship would have to be related to the property in itself as well as a topography in the area. Is that correct? Brian you want to confirm that? Yes the the standards uh are set out in the UDO uh so 3.14.8 uh will sort of give you some guidance as to as to what the applicant has to show you have to show uh that there's an unnecessary hardship that would result from the strict application of the ordinance um then the hardship is the result of conditions that are peculiar to the property so there has to be something about the property itself such as location the size the topography um I don't know if there's anything I haven't heard anything presented with regard to why the way this property is shaped or you know there's something about the property itself that would prevent you from developing um your plan as you need to develop it uh and then the hardship would not result from any action that was taken by the applicant um so you know it seems to me that it's it's it's what the applicant does that creates uh the hardship and not the land or the property itself um but I could be wrong you know you may have evidence that that shows otherwise so those so those are the findings that you you know that the board would have to make so you'd have to present evidence on that that's a 3.14.8 of the um of the UDO and then also for variance you may you might want to be aware that for a county variance you've got to have a four fifth majority of the board which means you've had to have six out of seven people on the board that would vote for it um so it's a fairly high standard um so those are all the things that you would need to know and make your decision as to whether you want to come back or you know maybe revamp your plan yeah thank you mr. Wardale so uh you don't have six out of seven votes right now so uh I can continue it to next month if you would like to or if you have this evidence ready at this moment we can move forward now I don't think we have anything prepared evidence-wise to relation to property right now to give you the correct sway of the minds of people who are voting in non-favor this okay all right so um well um uh Brian don't need a vote to to continue this or can I absolutely okay you would need you need a majority vote all right does somebody want to offer a motion on the board? Delacy? Delacy I I moved that we uh continue this case till the state's certain of next month march whatever the date it is 24 23rd 23rd March 23rd okay to the 23rd of 2021 motion to continue until March 23rd by Mr. Lacey is there a second right for a second Mr. Lacey is there a second uh Luzan would you call everybody? uh Miss Jeter? Yes. Miss Wymore? Yes. Mr. Retchless? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Meadows? Yes. Mr. Kip? Yes. Mr. Lacey? Yeah. Motion carries sevens zero. All right uh so Gary, Catherine, we'll chat with you guys next month uh and we'll have you on the agenda then. I appreciate you coming. Thank you so much. Appreciate everything you guys have. Susan would you like to call uh next in final case? Yes. Case D21 0007 a request for a minor special use permit to allow a parking reduction greater than 20 20 percent the subject site is located at 21 52 and 23 62 Soha Drive and 224 northeast creek parkway is zoned science research park and is in the suburban tier this case has been advertised for the proc required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file and the seating for this case will be Mr. Jeter, Miss Wymore, Mr. Retchless, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Kip and Mr. Lacey. All right uh Chris can you stop sharing the screen for moments so I can see everyone to do uh I guess the oath is going to be oh has everyone taken it and then my next question has everyone taken the oath? Everyone has taken the oath at some point today but not for this exact hearing so Chris said would they need to do it again? I think they would need to do it or Brian excuse me Brian would they need to do it again? It's all right uh you gotta take the oath for each case that's right all right um so is everyone on the screen who plans to speak okay uh would you raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth I need a verbal yes from everyone yes I do yes all right and I'll need uh an answer from each one of you on this do you consent to this remote meeting platform um yes yes thank you um Eliza looking for yes it is myself yep um and thank you once again Chris for sharing and um allowing me to have control of your screen so first of all before you start Eliza I've got a question um this is the same property I mean was the variance dependent on this minor special use permit or are they tied together? Yep staff will make a note about that okay um the variance is for landscaping for the vehicular use area the minor special use permit is for a parking reduction those two are not determined of each other um there might be to be a some staff might make some minor corrections because the site plan does come with the parking reduction so therefore if they did show the variance um if they showed the parking the excuse me the landscaping on the site plan is if the variance was approved then there would need to be some changes to the site plan um at this time and I'll ask uh Krista I believe we can still go forth um however the site plan would not be able to be approved unless they change over depending upon the board's decision next month excuse me not Krista Brian Brian my apologies uh Brian for the site plan technically it's linked the the site plan is linked um could we still go forth with hearing the minor special use permit for the parking reduction um would the condition be that it just has to match um depending upon however the board decides next month for the variance for the landscaping right so so your concern is that you're you're going to have a minor special use permit based on a site plan that may not be approved is that your concern that is correct so um just want to make sure we can hear this today and possibly to maybe put a condition and want to get your thoughts well well the condition is the condition is typically that everything is in compliance with the site plan uh as presented I want to jump in I apologize these the minor special use permit plan that we have shown here meets VUA landscaping requirements as done by the planning review we have no the plans shown landscaping plans shown on these plan sets are not in relation to the parking the landscape production um we just want to recap them as separate items in case one got denied the one didn't so the site plan is attached to these have all comments addressed except for the parking reduction per city comments in that case then staff does not have any concerns with moving forth um that that was the only question I had then uh I'll write them okay perfect um and Chris has given me control so I'm going to scroll a little bit here um cool uh good morning everyone Liza Monroe planning department uh planning requests that the staff report on material cemented the public hearing we made part of the public record will make necessary corrections as noted thank you and so noted thank you um case b2100007 is a request for a minor special use permit to allow a parking reduction greater than 20 percent the applicant is ARCO the subject site is located at 2242 northeast parkway 2152 so high drive and 2362 so high drive in by 59 more drive and all of those addresses are currently pending to be combined um all underneath 59 more drive however our GIS currently does not state that or um show that so that's why we're utilizing different maps than we typically do the case area is highlighted in red the site is zoned science research park srp and within the suburban tier and the county jurisdiction the site is currently under construction as shown on the screen above and I'm going to try and scroll down to the site plan just to get this to start loading however I'm going to keep talking in the background so if there's a black screen just notes because wanting things to get loaded up um ARCO the applicant for the property owner requests a minor special use permit to reduce the amount of parking by more than 20 percent a site plan which was attachment for um d20000189 is currently under review and proposes that 341 parking spaces be provided the total required parking spaces for the development would equal 554 spaces as required by the UDO the applicant is requesting a 36.4 percent reduction from the required amount I will note that the uses on site are not under review with this use permit and are permitted by right within the zoning district the use permit is solely for the parking reduction request per UDO section 10.3.1 b.10 reductions of more than 20 percent require more than 20 percent of the required motor vehicle parking shall require the approval of a minor special use permit staff would like to note that the UDO requirements have since changed um since the application was originally submitted um and today a minor special use permit would still be required as the reduction is greater than 30 percent UDO section 3.9.8a and b establishes four findings and 13 review factors the applicant must be in order for the board to grant a variance these findings and review factors are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings and review factors are identified in the application both of which are within your packet and staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process and I'm going to try and keep it uh it looks like it's loading pretty well however um once we'll pull up something I'm going to try and keep no one page so we can keep it loaded um and not have any lags. Any questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? I'm not seeing as a any as I scroll through the screen however if I miss anyone please feel free to jump on in. All right well Gary we'll turn it over to you. Appreciate that um so site you guys just looked at um so there's not really too much you don't know about the site now um while we're this site is uh you know pharmaceutical companies Eli Lilly's going to be the one in the user here um the front of the site is all gated it's a private site there's no vehicles allowed in through staff go through a security guard shack um it's for employees only um so it's a gated area the Lilly's anticipation because of this the way the zoning is written out it's by square footage of the warehouse um how much is manufacturing how much is office is the SRP breakdown um this is a state-of-the-art facility that is almost completely automated the only real people working in there are going to be in the front admin building um but per parking requirements for the zoning it soft square footage building um so they're really the requirements don't necessarily match the building that is actually being built here um they're pretty much just giant mechanical equipment being stored inside buildings um so the employees that are needed are way less um than the parking amount requirement and so we are our request is to reduce the parking to what is more in line with the actual employee count on site um there's obviously no hardship to the neighboring properties or anything like that where overflow parking will go into neighbors because once again it's a gated security area there's no it's not open for the public so it's only used by lily and lily only knows how many people they need um so that's where the reduction comes from and what the request is um the reduction is all happening on the front of the site and it's being reduced in a way that is making it so that the parking is offset more from the property line so we're not trying to reduce anywhere that is um it's really just helping the neighboring parcels and helping the view and the um look from the neighboring areas um so there's no hardships really on the neighboring parcels there's nothing that is hurting anyone else it's just pulling back the parking to be more in line with the actual use of this building um that's really the main summary of what we're proposing here um and as you can see on these plans the parking reduction is the parking used to go if you go back when Eliza apologies um the parking used to go farther out to the front of the site and we pulled it and you can see where the uh that dashed the LOD line is that's more in line with where the old parking used to be um we pulled it back probably about a whole row on both this side to the south here and to the north side um and those pullbacks is where we lost that parking reduction um that is the main summary I have if there's any questions I'd be more than willing to answer sure Chad you have a question I did I did and I think perhaps it got answered um I appreciate that that uh this user doesn't need those spaces my question was how difficult it would be to supplement the site with additional spaces should a new user come in at some point in the future and it sounded to me like that would be perhaps achievable uh by locating additional parking spaces um I guess in a eastward location from the current parking area is that is that accurate correct and per our grading plan that we have we literally are just removing the parking so that area will still be graded flat and so it's if in the future that does change hands or if in the future you know something happens where more parking is needed they will there is open areas that are all within our development that are easily buildable for parking um in addition we talked earlier on the site plan there's that rear area that has that future parking lot so that can always be a place that is built as well in the future and permitted separately if needed um so there are options we're not really constrained for parking they really just are trying to reduce the impervious on a site which I feel like is beneficial for everyone thank you any other questions for the applicant Delacy Miss Delacy is uh this going to be owned by lily or is this a leased property that is being built to suit um will or michael please correct me if i'm wrong but i believe this is being owned by lily it that is correct it is owned by lily yes thank you i was i was thinking more about the same the same things as chad would be like who's going to be the next tenant what will they what useful they have for the property so that was the reason for my question any other questions for the applicant all right uh mr gary do you have anyone else who who would like to give testimony on this um michael do you want to give a little um talk about how like some of these buildings are really just glorifying mechanical structures sure i'd be i'd be glad to move what we're trying to do here yeah be glad to otherwise if you might give back two sheets that will help michael a lot when he gives a little like the overall site plan to give a little description of the uh overall way it works maybe three sheets just the overall site plan there we go that's that's fair enough so on the east side you see the curved parking area that's the main employee entrance to the facility the first building that you encounter there is the laboratory and administrative buildings running through the middle of the site is a corridor that central corridor is where the distribution piping from the central utility plant at the far west end comes out and it feeds each of the facilities uh just to the west of the lab and admin building those two buildings are the the two areas where we have manufacturing are current on the north facility that's the peripheral building where they make small batch uh api and then to the south of that is building for which is the device assembly and packaging building those are the only two buildings that essentially have employees have a low number of employees because these are all closed pharmaceutical processes uh the employees there are really to um allow the process to proceed um and to control the the physical aspects of the equipment to the west we have on the south side we have a small annex and then we have what's called the asrs um it's the automated storage and retrieval system and that asrs building is really treated as a machine because we use automated guided vehicles that will carry raw materials in and take raw take finished product out um and also waste um and then the far building on the west end is the warehouse and agv is also taking material in and out of the warehouse so those three buildings on the south half are almost completely automated to the north of that is a small essential utility plant which requires only maintenance next to that building five and seven is the maintenance shop and the recycling center where we take all of the waste and it gets recycled um and that's where that truck loading and unloading areas that we spoke about earlier when we were talking about reducing landscaping so so there's two large buildings just to the west of the admin building are where all of the the business takes place that requires human intervention and then the things to the west are highly automated so that's a kind of the rundown and you you can see from the footprint that the the area dedicated to manufacturing is is really um probably significantly less than half of the entire facility so is that clear to everyone or anybody have any questions about that that's helpful mr patin any questions for mr patin all right yeah that was helpful for me as okay here you do you have anything anything else no that's all i have just any more questions for free to help and answer any other questions for for the applicant before we continue i'm not seeing any hands raised or any other making any notes so i can stop share so you can see everyone share options thank you so much uh why is it do you have a recommendation for this yes staff does have a recommendation staff recommends the approval of case d2100007 such that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the site plan case d2100189 and all information submitted to the board as a part of the application thank you is there anyone here to speak uh against this application there uh oh i can add what staff there was no one that was registered to speak in opposition for case b2100007 all right um okay well any deliberation here thoughts from board members mr retches i'm always open to less impervious surfaces so we can breathe better and uh i am for this thank you sir anyone else i'll have to share your sentiments as well um mr lacy i am delighted that we're finally having a parking reduction that doesn't include bicycle racks i know what you're talking about no we actually have car charging stations and bicycle racks plenty of them oh geez you just ruined my moment there buddy the bicycle racks are based off of the full parking so we're not actually reducing the part the bicycle racks even though we're doing less parking so that makes me feel better thank you dear no problem i just wanted to echo what what you both just said i think they did a great presentation in terms of what they're trying to achieve and the fact that they could if in the future need future parking they could achieve it and that's a noise for less impervious surface just like michelson i have to agree well but i agree uh anyone else does anyone want to offer a motion i would but i don't have it pulled up we'll give you some uh a quick minute well i would but i've just been offline for the last 10 minutes so well it's almost there it's slow coming up there is a lot of information uh uploading on this particular case so we're definitely a couple minutes out on on my computer unfortunately i'll do it i'll do it this is meadows um i hear my make a motion that application number b210007 an application for a minor special use permit on property located at 2242 northeast creek parkway and 2152 and 2362 so high drive soon to be 59 more drive has successfully met the applicable requirements the unified development ordinance is hereby granted subject to the following conditions that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the site plan case is this right aliza d20000189 and all information submitted to the board as part of the application yes i know that we're good okay thank you all right we've got a motion for approval by mr meadows is there a second wretch less second second by mr wretch less susan yes mr lacy yes mr kip yes mr meadows yes mr rogers yes mr wretch less yes miss walmore yes miss jeter yes motion carry seven to zero by a vote of seven to zero your minor special use permit has been approved though you'll get a written order soon and we appreciate you becoming before the b o a this one yep we thank you guys very much we very much good time yeah we'll see you next uh next month yes um any old business any new business see none on the agenda we've got a few orders to approve and for the first three that are on the agenda um i may need susan to clarify who can vote on these obviously i don't think i will be able to but i'll need a motion and a second in a and a vote for each one of these so the first uh b2000051 um uh mr chair leisner we will not be voting on that one today that one will be next time what about 52 are we voting on this yes we are um and uh and i'll have that one rogers and wretch less were absent okay so mike you and i can't vote so b2000052 is there a motion to approve uh leisner oh wait a minute who who voted against it's in i'm not sure which ones who voted against on so i'm leaving that to susan to keep us honest this one was the phase in appeal so i think that we were all i think that the board was all unanimously under the opinion that the appeal should be the decision of the uh zoning office should be upheld i don't think there's anyone that voted in opposition of upholding the zoning enforcement decision on this case thank you therefore i vote i i move some of i'm sorry go ahead on this verify who can vote i have um uh miss boshane was ceded mr tarant was ceded jeter why more meadows kip and delay c was those were the ones ceded all right so uh you'll call them uh so we got a motion to approve by mr lacy is there a second for this one meadows meadows so who made that second uh meadows okay um mr lacy i yes mr mr kip sorry yes mr meadows yes miss why more yes miss jeter yes mr tarant yes miss boshane yes motion carries seven to zero all right for uh and susan you'll clarify the seating for this one b two zero zero zero zero four eight okay give me just a second here should be the same people yes it is so the same visuals so the the seating for this case is mr lacy mr kip mr meadows miss why more miss jeter mr tarant and miss boshane uh rejina are you making a motion i'm motion jeter is motion for approval is there a second for this motion a second boshane um boshane second okay mr lacy yes mr kip yes mr meadows yes miss why more yes miss jeter yes your tarant yes miss boshane yes motion carries seven to zero all right the next couple actually we've got four we're going to vote on from today all of them were unanimous so b two zero i'm sorry who's it what what do we got is um are we voting 50 that was unanimous today are we not voting on that one today but did we have seven people at the meeting is my question i thought we were down to five at one point no this was wouldn't be seven oh this is today sorry um confusing all right uh b two zero zero zero zero five zero need a motion to approve in a second so move meadows meadows first who's the second second mr lacy yes mr kip yes mr meadows yes mr rogers yes mr rejla yes miss why more yes miss jeter yeah motion carries seven to zero all right and that's when b two one zero zero zero zero one need a motion in a second a motion we approve jeter jeter first who's this who wants a second rejla second rejla second okay miss jeter yeah miss why more yes mr rejla yes mr rogers yes mr meadows yes mr kip yes mr lacy yes yes motion carries seven to zero b two one zero zero zero zero two meadows move approval meadows who's the second second jeeter hey uh mr rogers yes mr rejla yes mr meadows yes mr kip yes mr lacy yeah miss jeter yes miss why more yes motion carries seven to zero all right and the next one number six we continued so b two one zero zero zero zero seven is there a motion to prove reckless reckless it is who's the second kip second kip all right okay uh mr rogers yes mr rejla yes mr meadows yes miss why more yes miss jeter yes mr kip yes yes mr lacy yes motion carries seven to zero all righty i think we're done with that uh our next meeting uh march 23rd at eight thirty um i think that's all is any staff you can have anything else before we adjourn i don't have anything else thanks so much everybody for your help these past two meetings but i don't have anything additional to add today all right so we'll need a motion to adjourn this is easy guys motion to adjourn kip all right need a second my more second all in favor hi hi guys have a great week see you good job see y'all later bye