 Grace, thanks for your correspondence today. What a lot of stuff all happened at once. We're one minute to air. That fence thing is very strange. Very seconds to air. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Planning Commission have been appointed by the city council and the Board of County Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials will have the final vote on any of the issues that are before us this evening. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom meeting platform. In this virtual meeting, the participants do not have the ability from the public to speak or be seen on the video by default, and to main decorum and a discernible record of the meeting the chat function has been disabled. Each of the items before us this evening will have a public hearing and individuals have the ability to speak. Some of you have signed up in advance. We will call you in the order that you signed up, and then if you have joined us and you would like to speak, we'll give you the opportunity to identify yourself and we'll call on you and you'll be able to speak as well. You can call into tonight's meeting by dialing 1-301-715-8592. Again, during the public hearing, we'll call out your names and we'll ask you, if you haven't been called on yet, but you'd like to speak, you may raise your hand. You can do that digitally by pressing star nine on your phone, and then when you're recognized, we'll ask you to give your name and your address and then you can make your public comments. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative, so if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is not favorable. May we have the roll call please? Yes. Commissioner Anandoya. Here. Commissioner Baker. Here. Here, BuzzFeed. Here. Commissioner Cameron. Here. Commissioner Cutwright. Here. Commissioner Durkin. Here. Vice Chair Keichen. Here. Commissioner Landfreet. Here. Commissioner Lowe. Here. Commissioner McIver. Here. Commissioner Miller. Here. Commissioner Morgan. Here. And Commissioner Williams. Here. Just for reference for the rest of the evening, I will probably just call last names to save time. That sounds good, thank you. We will move to the approval of the minutes and consistency statement from our January 12th meeting. And if there are any changes folks would like to make, you may make those now. If not, we can move to a motion for approval. Move to approve, Mr. Chairman. Seconded. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Morgan. And we'll have a roll call vote please. Anandoya. Yes. Baker. Yes. BuzzFeed. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cutwright. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Kenchin. Yes. Lanefried. Yes. Lowe. Here. McIver. Yes. I'm sorry, I meant to. Oh, he's there. I was going to tell you that he might be running late, but it seems he's with us, so. Miller. Here. Oh, yes, sorry. Morgan. Yes. And Williams. Yes. OK, thank you. And Ms. Smith, any adjustments to the agenda this evening? Staff does not have any adjustments that we would like to request. We would like to state for the record that all of the notice and requirements were met regarding state and local law notice requirements, I apologize, something just fell off my table. All of the notice requirements were met in accordance with state and local law and those affidavits are on file in the department. Mr. Miller did reach out to me today regarding a sign posting for the Selby Avenue case. We did go out and verify that the sign that was posted on Little Road is still there. And we will make sure that there is a sign replaced in the cul-de-sac. Our sign's going to be missing sometimes, but we did verify that just to make sure. So I appreciate Commissioner Miller reaching out. Thank you. We will move to our first case, and that is case Z2 quadruple 018. That's the Selby Avenue homes case. And before we go to the staff report, I will recognize Commissioner MacIver. Yes, commissioner, thanks. I would just like to accuse myself from the case due to a conflict of interest with my employer. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I move that we excuse Mr. MacIver from the hearing in the Selby Avenue case. Second. We've got a motion and a second. I missed who made the second. Emondoya. Emondoya, great. Thank you. Roll call vote please. Emondoya. Yes. Baker. Yes. Lesby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Kenshin. Yes. Lanefreid. Yes. Lowe. Yes. Miller. Yes. Yes. Yes. And Williams. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner MacIver, we'll see you at the next case, and we will start with the staff report please. Let me just one moment, I'll pull that up. There we go. Can everybody see that now? Good evening, Danny Colstrell of the Planning Department. The request for zoning map change is Z200018, Selby Avenue Homes received from Katie Hamilton of Stewart for one parcel of land located at 1518 Riddle Road, totaling 3.15 acres. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from residential suburban 20, RS20, residential urban five, RU5, to residential urban five with a development plan, RU5D, for up to 26 family, a single family attached or detached dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking to change the current development tier from suburban to urban. The future land use map or flume is designated as low density residential, which is four dwelling units or less, or four dwelling units or acre or less. If the zoning and tier boundary changes are approved, the recommended flume proposed is medium density residential at six to 12 dwelling units or an acre. The aerial map indicates the location of the site on the eastern side of Riddle Road, which is just south of the intersection of Riddle and Highway 55 and just north of the intersection of Riddle Road and Fayetteville Street. Salvy Avenue also dead ends into the eastern side of the site and the majority of the site also borders the American tobacco trail along Riddle Road. Site photos, the site is currently undeveloped. It's got a mixture of a mature pine hardwood vegetation. There's a small clearing on the north western portion of the site for a single family dwelling once stood but has previously been demolished. Area photos indicate single family development and also a place of worship across Riddle Road. Also, there's a single family development on adjacent to other portions of the site. Context map indicates, again, the site is owned RS-20 and RU-5 and being requested for RU-5D. Additionally, this shows the tier boundary change is being proposed with the blue line on it, shows the tier boundary change and the shift from suburban to urban. The flume is designated low density residential. Again, the request is to go to medium density residential as is a lot of the land on the western side of Riddle Road. The plan indicates the proposed access points, tree coverage, the building parking envelope areas required project boundary buffers and also list the maximum density and required open space on the site. There are some key committed elements. Those include that the site only be developed for residential purposes with all primary structures being no more than 4,500 square feet of habitable square footage. Residents shall be one of or a combination of two housing types, single family detached houses or detached houses. There shall be no more than 26 primary units. Development shall provide a public shared multi-use connection to the American tobacco trail that it's at least 10 feet in width and subject to a determination by Durham and Go Triangle on the need for transit related improvements at the time of site plan in the middle. The applicant shall construct a bus pull out and concrete pad bus shelter to go Durham and go Triangle specs along the site at Riddle Road adjacent to the site prior to issues of certificate of occupancy. There are 11 plan policies after the proposed development all are being met except for the flum policy and then staff determines though that if the proposed tier boundary and flum changes are approved that this request is consistent with the comp plan and all actual policies and ordinances. And staff is available for any questions. Great, thanks for that report. We will open the public hearing. We have two individuals who are signed up both as proponents, Jason Clayman and Alden West. So the floor is yours. I'll let you determine which order and at maximum you have 10 minutes total. This is Katie Hamilton. I'm sorry, I think for some reason my name did not pop up on your screen but I will actually be presenting to you first tonight. As Danny mentioned, I am the applicant for this zoning proposal. My name is Katie Hamilton. I work with Stewart as a landscape architect and I'm representing Jason Clayman for the Selby Avenue zoning. I'd like to thank all the commissioners for taking the time to hear our case tonight. And I think it's a pretty straightforward case. We'd like to take the split zoned parcel and make it a single zoning district while also placing a development plan on this zoning to limit the use and building sizes. This proposed development plan is more in keeping with the development patterns that we see coming into Selby Avenue to the south of Riddle Road. As I believe you may know, the existing developments along the existing parcels along Selby Avenue range in size from 6,000 square feet to the 20,000 square feet size that RS20 that is currently taking up part of the zoning would require. But the vast majority of the development that this lot is served by are actually in the 10,000 square foot range. So we think this is more in keeping with those development patterns. And we think this will be a great opportunity for Enfield within the Durham urban area and have access to the trail network. And we're happy to provide those additional access points to the American Tobacco Trail. And with that, if Jason Clayman or Alden have anything to add, I welcome them to speak now and then we'll reserve time as well to respond if there's any questions from commissioners. Thank you. So can you hear me? This is Jason. Yeah, I'm Jason Clayman. I am the owner of the subject parcel. I am a small developer based in Orange County experienced with development in Durham. I want to thank you all for your time and consideration on this matter. And I'll defer my time, but I'm certainly available for any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. And Alden, West, you're welcome to speak as well if you would like. Yeah, hi, I'm Alden West. I'm a civil engineer with Stewart and I'm representing Jason and I don't have anything else to add beyond what's already been said. Thank you. Thanks to all of you. That's it for individuals who signed up in advance. As always, I want to give anyone else the opportunity to speak in this particular case. So again, if you would like to speak on this case, you can digitally raise your hand by pressing star nine and then we can call on you. I don't see anyone else looking to speak on this item. So we will close the public hearing and commissioners. We'll move to you. Commissioner Williams, we'll start with you. Thank you, Chair Busby. As always, I have massive concerns about the amount of traffic that will be generated on Riddle Road, even though this parcel is available. And I'm pretty sure that there are other things that could be done on this site, but in all fairness, Riddle Road is a two lane road from 55 to Ellis to Fayetteville. And once you cross over Highway 55, this neighborhood will pretty much sit right before or right after a four-way stop. The drop off from Riddle Road, from on Riddle Road from Highway 55 to that four-way stop is pretty dramatic. There's a church right there. I think there's a gathering house. I don't know if it's a, not a monastery. Please forgive me. There's a house that sits over there on the corner, it's a meeting house. And I don't know if it's still active, but the drop off is about 10 to 15 feet below grade on the right side of that road and the traffic there because just the four-way stop is tremendous. It hasn't been as bad due to COVID and the amount of travel, but I know that we're going to be building in a new neighborhood in this area and the traffic impact will be grossly, I guess, impact. And I just have concerns about this neighborhood being placed there. And I'm sure that infield is important in Durham as it is everywhere to this given time, but I just don't believe that this area can handle more residential traffic since there were approximately three major subdivisions that were just built off Ellis Road where Riddle Road did and there's no traffic like there. There's only a stop sign with flowing traffic on Ellis and then you would turn onto Riddle Road in either direction to make a four-way stop as Riddle Road intersects with South Austin Avenue and then the next traffic light you get to is NC Highway 55 at Riddle and there's only road improvement at the end of Riddle Road as you approach Fairville Road. I don't believe that just by adding a bus stop in this area which will further impact traffic because there is no drop-off lane, there's no pull-over lane where the bus to pull over to pick up passengers is going to help. You're going to further congest this area with traffic both to and from this residential area and there's relatively fast access to Highway 147 if you were to take Ellis Road to 147 but then there's another set of congestion that you're going to run into that aspect and I think that this is just thoroughly compact of the problem like it's adding to it and I know that you're capable of doing it but I don't know that it should be done in this area and I know that another developer even with the development plan may come in but I'm going to have the same concerns because there are major road improvements that need to occur in this area to handle the traffic that's already present not to mention the amount of traffic that is going to be generated by putting yet another residential subdivision in this area for already existing neighborhoods. Thank you, Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Miller. Thank you. So I share some of Commissioner Williams' concerns but my biggest concern about this, well, let me begin by saying even if I were interested in this rezoning, which I'm not I would start by noting that the design commitments for this project especially in such a constrained area with one access point in and out in my opinion are wholly inadequate just as a matter of development plan and rezoning but that's not why I'm voting against this project I'm voting against this project because I object to changing the tier boundary. This project is a suburban tier project. The only way into and out of it is through the suburban tier. It has no connection or communication with the urban tier except for that you can walk to it. I believe that the tier boundary where it is now makes sense. I would feel differently if you could get from Riddle Road in a car to this project but you can and I'm not proposing that we change things so that you can. This property is in the suburban tier should be in the suburban tier. I think we can talk about whether or not how it's a zone in the suburban tier is correct but changing it to the urban tier when in fact has no communication with the suburban tier in my opinion is the wrong way to go. I mean, I'd like to see infill development here and I think there's lots of things we can do with inside the zones that are available in the suburban tier. If we were going to move the tier boundary I wouldn't move it a notch or a little tooth at a time. I would try to find a new suburban urban tier boundary somewhere else so that it makes sense. But essentially if we approve this rezoning we're essentially pulling out a little piece of the urban tier and plunking it down in the suburban tier. I don't think it's consistent with what our tier philosophy is as it's expressed in the comprehensive plan and I don't think it promotes a consistent or smooth transition of uses. So for that reason I'm voting against this. I just don't think this is fixable as long as a tier boundary changes required. I mean, if you look at the map the only way in and out of this is Selby. And to get to Selby, which is in the suburban tier you have to drive around through the urban tier on a couple of other streets to get there. So I just don't, I think that we have a sensible urban suburban tier boundary and we ought to leave it alone. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Miller. Mr. Armando. Thank you, Chair. I agree with a lot of comments said already tonight driving past this property yesterday. I thought this is an odd place to consider adding to the urban tier and further. I don't know that I would say this proposal meets the comprehensive plan policy 2.2.3A. To me, it doesn't have proximity of uses apart from the tobacco trailer itself, which granted is good, but I don't see a lot of walkability to commercial uses or other necessities for folks that are living here will still be driving significant distances to get to those things because of this I will be voting no on this proposal. Thanks. Thank you. While I wait to see if any other commissioners would like to speak or ask questions, I did have one question for the applicant team. I was just curious if there was a neighborhood meeting either was one required or what did one take place? And then I'm curious to hear about any additional feedback that you received from the neighbors. Yes, thank you very much for your question. We did have multiple neighborhood meetings. The first one was not extremely well attended and the first meeting did not result in very many concerns. The second meeting we had was with actually the neighborhood to the Southwest of us. They had not been informed of the meeting to the extent necessary, so Emery Woods or we met city standards as far as necessary notifications, but Emery Woods contacted us and asked to have a separate meeting with them, so we had a secondary meeting. The concerns that they brought up were downstream flooding, which we spoke to them about the fact that we are installing a stormwater detention device to help mitigate those issues. We understand that a chunk of their neighborhood is actually in the flood plain as currently developed, but we have assured them that we will not be contributing to that and our civil engineering team is available if you have questions regarding that. And then the other concerns they had actually were that the American Tobacco Trail currently they do not feel is safe. They have a lot of safety concerns there. We reached out to the city of Durham in multiple departments to determine what we could do to help make the Tobacco Trail feel safer. We were informed that currently it meets city standards for maintenance and there is no fund that we can pay into for the city to maintain the trail to a higher standard than what is the city standard. They just don't have a mechanism for us doing that and it would set a precedent that would require that level of maintenance everywhere. So there's no real mechanism for us to contribute to trail maintenance at this time through the zoning. Commitments. We can do it as a separate matter with a private nonprofit but it cannot be included in the zoning. And then the traffic speaking to Commissioner Williams concerns, traffic was brought up. We did note that we really above and beyond what is currently allowed by the RU-5, RS-28 zoning we're not significantly increasing the allowable number of units as it is currently RU-5. We could do the north side of the proposed cul-de-sac can be what we are gonna propose for the entire development. We're just trying to make it all be consistent within that extension of Selly Avenue into proposed cul-de-sac and we were hopeful that because we're not adding another intersection or using the existing Kirby Street intersection that there won't be another slowdown point on middle road for the increasing congestion here. So those were the main concerns that were brought up and how we address them. Yeah, I appreciate the background on all of that. I know you did send us an email the other day which was also helpful but it's good to get a summary on the record. Commissioner Landfrey. Thank you. Yeah, in response to the concerns about traffic I share a concern that Brittle Road is just a two lane road and it doesn't have sidewalks in this particular area but I also think it's important to note that the proximity to the American Tobacco Trail and the connection to that trail would actually make this one of the most bikeable and walkable living situations in this part of Durham. A person could access food line and central downtown also go south on the Tobacco Trail for that reason because I think it's critically important that Durham invest in housing where you can access things not in a car. For me, this clears that bar despite some of the valid concerns you and my fellow commissioners have raised. So I do plan to vote in favor of this development. Thank you. Thank you. Any Commissioner Williams, I see your hand raised again. I just wanna make sure other commissioners can speak if they haven't so far. Commissioner Cupray. Thanks, Chair Busby. I had a question about the development side if you don't have approval to change it to the suburban tier, what's your unit count in that case? I assume you've planned that out. So what's your unit count in that case that you don't have the zoning change? Yes, so let me verify 100% but I believe it was between 18 and 20 units as well we end up with without the zoning change. Okay, thank you. And so we're talking this gets you an incremental five units or so on this plan. The other question I had is about cost of these homes. It looks like you were going to do about, it says about something less than 4,500 square feet. I mean, that's a massive house obviously. What's, if you can talk to me a little bit about what size homes you'd be building, affordability. If you can price it on a price per square foot base, it's gonna be helpful as opposed to absolute price. You can talk to me a little bit about that, that'd be helpful. So I'll defer to Jason on the pricing but as far as the 4,500 square foot, that is for the attached units. So that would be two houses. That would total 4,500 square feet. We would not have single units that were that large. And that was just trying to keep the commitment to not be, to ensure that the neighbors were aware we weren't building ginormous complexes out here because that was another concern. Jason, did you want to speak to the pricing? Any additional questions? Commissioner cut rate? Okay, thank you. Sorry. Commissioner Kenshin? Thank you. I think I read in the packet that it was $250,000 per unit. But I think you declined to speak to affordability. Is that not what was in the packet? And the reason I'm asking is because, I mean, I agree with Commissioner Lanford. This is, I mean, we can get that price point, that missing middle of what we need in Durham so desperately. And pretty soon it was to be no affordability at all if we don't do something about the missing middle. And that kind of access to the trail would make it ideal. So that too, I mean, I agree with Commissioner Williams about the traffic and the issues there and that stretch of Durham. But the trade off was going to be if we can get some affordable housing there with ideal access to the trail. So I'm just kind of confirm that I made a mistake. I thought I read the price point of 250 in the reading. Thank you, Commissioner Kenshin. I believe Mr. Clayton was trying to speak earlier and I'm sorry, I think I cut you off inadvertently. So it's no problem. Yeah, before George answered that question. Yeah, so correct, Mr. Kitchen. So as a single family attached structure, excuse me, we would be looking at a starting price in or around that $250,000 per side amount, which would provide for some relatively affordable housing. On the other side of the road, which is so for single family homes, those homes would be in the threes. So just by nature of pricing, one's going to be more affordable than the other. And the single family attached, which is part of expanding housing choices in that initiative would allow for incrementally more units of housing and below 300,000, starting in that $250,000 range. And it's a one-car garage townhouse style unit at 1,800 square feet with three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms. I don't know if you're familiar with South Point Station, which is on Barbie Road. That's a development I completed recently. It's north of 40 and 54. And this unit is slightly larger than our small unit area, which was 1,650 square feet, which is a might be a very livable unit. And to your point, it is significantly less expensive than a single family house, which would be in the threes. And it would likely be 24 to 2,800 square feet, though I haven't really decided on exactly what that house would be, but that would have a two-car garage would be for a larger family, but would be in probably the 325 to 350 range. Any follow-up questions, Commissioner Kenshin? Great, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clayton. Commissioner Baker. Just a couple of quick questions for the applicant. My first question is whether the applicant is planning on using green building practices or any energy efficient practices in their development? I do as a matter of course. I believe strongly in energy efficiency and housing. So there are a lot of features that tend not to be marketed fully to the end user, but we do as it relates to the tie down below using resilient materials in the building construction to reflect heat off the roofing systems, obviously meaning the codes as it relates to our values using an energy efficient window and energy efficient appliances. Past that to be fully, you know, frankly because it's very, very expensive and that tends to not really align with housing that can be relatively affordable, but there's a lot you can do in the building envelope to make it very efficient, either by code or by choice and when I build I do a mixture. Great, thanks. And as always, you know, I think I'm not just speaking for myself when I say that we would like to see more energy efficiency and green building practices. The other thing relates to design and I think, you know, I think Commissioner Miller brought up and made some comments that I agree with about design commitments. But just out of curiosity, a question to the applicant is are these units, are they gonna be, are they gonna have garages on the front sort of snout nose houses or are we looking at front porches with garages in the rear? They're gonna be front-loaded garages. It's frankly the only way this, you know, in an attached product in this zoning which tends to be relatively small lots in order to get a garage into the structure. So yes, they'll look fairly similar to a significant amount of the town homes that are built in the triangle. It's specifically in Durham on 55 or along the 54 corridor, the Barbie Road corridor. Okay, that's too bad. One thing I'll say on the urban suburban tier thing is I have never seen in any other city this system of the urban suburban tier. So for me, that's not a huge issue. I understand that it's an issue for other commissioners. I also think that this site shows the challenges and difficulties of the mistakes of the past, the mistakes that were made in the adult environment of the past and the lack of multiple uses in the area, the lack of housing variety in the area, the lack of street connectivity in the area but that there are some assets, you know, commissioner, land-free commission pension pointed out about being adjacent to the bikeway. So I'm on the fence on this one. I think that there are some reasonable things and some of the things that are too bad. Thanks. Thanks, commissioner Baker. I don't see anyone with their hand raised commissioners who haven't spoken yet. So we'll circle back to the commissioners who would like to speak a second time and then we'll move to a motion for a vote. We will start with commissioner Miller and then commissioner Williams and then commissioner Mandolin. Actually, Mr. Chair, I believe that commission member Williams was the first of us to put her hand back up. Okay, great. Thank you. I was gonna say I missed who did it in the order. So we'll start with commissioner Williams. Thanks, Chair Busby. I appreciate that. So my concerns are definitely with the residents that live in this area as far as providing security or upgrading issues with the American Tobacco Trail. I don't think anyone on this planning commission actually travels on that American Tobacco Trail because I live in this area and I run on that American Tobacco Trail but I no longer do because this portion of the American Tobacco Trail goes behind Shepherd into a dark wooded area that abuts a creek. One end of it dumps out at the base of Hillside High School parking lot and then continues across Ritter Road. And if you go down far enough, you'll pick up South Point. The other portion of this splits off and it picks up on Fairville Road by the chicken hut right beside the food line and goes behind the projects in the lower income apartments that are on actually East pilot street and Cornwallis Project. So though it may be convenient for somebody to bike it's definitely not safe for you to travel on this particular area. That's the reason why crime is so high on the American Tobacco Trail because people can disappear in this area and they have failed to get caught. People are constantly being robbed and there's really nothing anyone can do. So the trade-off for a traffic on in a car for safety and driving is to put yourself in jeopardy to travel on the American Tobacco Trail by foot. That's the reason why you don't see many people on bikes in this area even though we've reduced Fairville Road and Fairville Street down from two lanes to just one to provide travel for people on bikes. My second concern for this area and what Commissioner Miller was saying is the fact that it doesn't make sense. And I really am not impressed at all about what other cities are doing. I'm not impressed about Charlotte, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Indianapolis. I'm not concerned about anywhere else but Durham because that's where I reside and those are the residents that I choose to serve and protect. And I say serve and protect because there are entities that are at stake here. These people may have children by providing constant road connectivity. You not only digress in terms of children's ability to play because the lot sizes are already so small. Kirby Street is a cul-de-sac. It doesn't make sense to add entryway to another neighborhood over there. It does make sense in certain instances where you're in an already saturated environment to cut some neighborhoods off to provide a certain amount of security for the people who are moving into this area. Traffic concerns, that's up to the DOT but as far as the residents that will be moving into this area, it has to make sense. And we can't keep piggybacking off of the need for density when density isn't always a consideration because density that's being provided is being provided at what you're a resident and people who want to move there cannot afford. It's not affordable housing density. It's not affordable density. It's just density. Not knocking the developer, I'm pretty sure you'll put out a fabulous project. I for one as a designer, I could care less where the garage is. I don't have a garage, I don't care. But the functionality of the neighborhood, the stability of the neighborhood like Commissioner Baker said, green building and design, it is extremely expensive. We know that. So you pay for it on the front end but it pays for itself on the back end. And if you can get people to buy into that, as you're developing your project, you're gonna have a very successful project and it's a conversation that we need to have well beyond the initial development point because we're seeing things that are happening because of what we're doing to the environment but overloading and saturating in a particular area is going to cause more harm than good regardless of the price point. Because you may be able to afford this on the 30 year mortgage but the longevity of this, of these concerns are going to have repercussions. And I think that we have to be as fluid in our conversations about what we're doing for the potential members of your community as well as what we're going to be doing to the existing members of this community. A lot of the homes in this area are actually owned by people who are older and they're leaving. So there's other homes in this area that are becoming more saturated by younger people who are looking for single family homes that meet their budget and their needs. That's the reason why the trains in Durham are at a price point of affordability below $250,000. But by building more in these areas, price points and tax values are going up. In the last two years alone, my property tax values have gone up $75,000. There's nothing I can do about that. But I still have to pay my taxes because if not, I will lose my home to the city and then someone else will come in and buy the property and develop it and rent it out. And the characteristics of what has always made Durham great will vastly change because some neighborhoods lose their characteristics along the way. And we have to be as diligent about what we're inviting into these communities as we are about developing sensible and sustainable homes. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. So I just wanted to point out to the commissioners that when we talk about pricing and when we talk about green building and these kinds of things, these are not committed things. And when we vote, we need to keep that in mind. Over and over again, developers tell us that their townhouse units are going to be $250,000. My observation, which is extremely limited because many of these projects have not come along, they are not $250,000 when they hit the market. They may not be much more than that, but I was wondering, we ask for this information, we get it, the staff is now anticipating their wants and including it in the reports, it's very useful, but I have to caution everybody. You can't have commitments as to unit prices unless you go through the affordable housing incentive program, which nobody does. And so you have to be careful about voting based upon uncommitted information. The other thing has to do with green building. I heard the discussion, I appreciate Nate Baker bringing it up, but essentially what I heard is, is that we're going to comply with code, which is good, but that's a minimum expectation. And so back to the design commitments, I do think good design matters. I want the neighborhoods that I vote for and that we approve to be neighborhoods that can function within themselves and in the larger community for 100 years. And I'm serious about that. I think too much of what we're building in Durham today is ill planned, ill thought out, it's opportunistic and we're not making places that people are really going to want 100 years from now. And is that far-fetched? Well, no, I live in a neighborhood that is more than 100 years old and people really want to be in it. As a matter of fact, sometimes I don't understand it. But, I just want to thank you all for your time. I certainly appreciate both your comments and some of your concerns. I don't really understand as it relates to my ability to answer any of these concerns after this meeting, but to the extent that I can, I'd more than make myself available to speak to any of you, to continue to talk it through. I'm a former resident of Woodcroft community that I know was, in the 80s was one that was both groundbreaking and was opposed to a community that is also a very sought actor. And as a runner and a member of the Bull City Track Club, I've done a lot of time running up and down the tobacco trail. I certainly do understand that this part of the trail is a little less travel than the area south of the mall. But I will say that the more people that have access to the trail, the more they'll get used, the more the constituency will grow for the trail and the better the trail would be for everyone. And it certainly is a benefit to this community that I'm envisioning to have access to something that I'm very excited for. So once again, I want to thank you for your time. Thank you. And before I accept a motion for the approval, my thoughts on this, this has been a really good discussion. And I hear the concerns that some of my fellow commissioners are raising when I read the packet, I was thinking along the same lines as commissioner Landfree to begin with and what she and commissioner Kenshin have said, continue to resonate with me. I think this makes sense. It may not be the most logical development, but at the same time, we are gonna have infill development. It works with the area. I don't think it's a huge increase, but it is very, very challenging to commissioner Williams point. I was really interested to see, did any of the neighbors come tonight? And that was why I wanted to hear about the neighborhood meeting and no one is here. And that doesn't mean I vote for something if no one shows up, but this will be an example where if there were significant issues, in my opinion of the actual neighbors that are now gonna have their cul-de-sac extended with additional homes and then access to the trail, I would, we all know that we hear from folks when they have concerns. So I'm gonna plan to vote for this. I do hope the applicant continues to work with the neighbors and ideally you can address the issue around some funding as they've asked for through the Durham Parks Foundation. I know you can't make that commitment, but that seems like something that's worth continuing to work with the neighbors and to really ensure that the trail and the access to the trail becomes a neighborhood amenity that everyone believes is safe and is something that they're comfortable using. So, but with that, I do plan to vote for it and I will accept a motion for approval. So Mr. Chairman, then with regard to case, I'll just throw out, while I was on Selby today, I spoke with neighbors. I didn't find anybody that was aware that this rezoning was happening. With regard to case Z2000018 Selby Avenue Homes, I move that we send this forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Mayor, interrupt, I'm so sorry. Commissioner Miller, would you add to your motion that that includes the tier change proposal as well? Certainly, do you want, those cases, do they start with a, that's an A case, right? We don't necessarily need the A case number, but because we've consolidated it into the zoning case, but if you would just mention that in your motion. Okay, so my motion is to move this zoning case with its attendant tier boundary change forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Amandole with the second and we'll have the roll call vote, please. Amandole, yeah. No. Baker? No. Busby? Yes. Cameron? No. Cut right? Yes. Thurkin? Yes. Kenshin? Yes. Landfreak? Yes. Low? Yes. MacGyver, oh, I'm sorry, MacGyver for keys, I apologize. Miller? No. Morgan? Yes. And Williams? No. It passes seven to five. Thank you. We will move to the next case. It is case Z2 quadruple zero one zero and it's the Chandler run case. We'll welcome Commissioner MacGyver back and we will start with the staff report. Great, good evening. Thank you, Chair Busby, Vice Chair Kenshin. Alexander Cahill here with the Planning Department. We received an application for a zoning map change from Tony Whitaker of Civil Consultants. This is for the area located between Chandler Run and Clayton Road. If you remember, this case came to the Planning Commission initially in November and was continued for two months and then in the January Planning Commission, staff asked for one more month to continue working out the remainder outstanding items on the development plan. This project is for 24.79 acres in the suburban tier. This is currently zoned RS8, RS10 and PDR 8.5 and the rezoning request is to consolidate these assembled parcels into the plan development residential 3.118. The current flume designation is low density residential and no change is being requested to this flume. This zoning is consistent. The proposal is up to 66 single family detached units. Just as a refresher for this case because it has been a little bit for the commissioners. This is the aerial map of the case with Chandler Run to the west here. Some area photos show the existing single family homes that are adjacent to the property and the heavily treed and vegetative site that these assembled parcels are. For the zoning context, just a reminder, there are three different zoning designations that currently exist on these assembled parcels and this PDR would work to consolidate those three into the one PDR 3.118 zoning designation which is a much reduced density from what is currently exist. Again, there's no future land use map change. This is consistent with the low density residential character of the future land use map. So since meeting with the planning commission in November the applicant did engage with the community. They did host a neighborhood in meeting. If you remember, they weren't required to submit one at the time this came in before the neighborhood meeting requirement. They went back and host a neighborhood meeting and began to engage with neighborhood residents. Some of the things that came out of that that were commissioner feedback, staff feedback and resident feedback were these commitments such as limiting it to 66 single family residential dwelling units. And these are single family detached residential homes. They added design commitments that include front entries that are rubed and lighted. They added unit that all units will have a deck patty or a screened porch. And then they also added four acres of undisturbed space which will be provided in addition to the existing open space requirements. If you remember the tree save for this was requirement is 20% and the applicant is committing to that percentage through the preservation of existing tree coverage and replacement. And then just to break down the open space and undisturbed area, the required open space for this project is 16%. The proposed additional undisturbed area which is not required, but the applicant is proffered as a commitment will be four acres which brings the total open space undisturbed areas to about eight acres of the entire site around 32%. So staff took with the applicant workshop with the community to heard the commissioner's feedback and staff's feedback. And we've determined that this is consistent with comprehensive plan policies as you can see in the staff report, the public interest. And some of these considerations were key factors that were determined because of the committed elements on this project, the consistency of the rezoning being consistent with the flum, the PDR district really creating a more cohesive and similar intensity of uses in that area and maintaining the area's current context due to the availability of existing city services and infrastructure that exists in this area. And then of course, because the applicant did listen to us and spent some time workshopping this development plan, trying to make their commitments as robust as possible even with the smaller size of this project. And at this time, staff is available for questions. Thank you, Mr. Cahill. We will move forward and open the public hearing. And for tonight's case, we have four individuals who have signed up. All of them are part of the applicant team or proponents. And so we will have 10 minutes for those individuals to speak. We have Randy Herman, S. Morrison, Tony Whitaker and Deborah Mangum. And so we can go in that order if the applicants have the desired order. Please let us know and we can go from there. Thank you, Chair Busby and members of the commission. This is Randy Herman. I'm an attorney with law firm of BA Folk. Tony Whitaker, the engineer and Craig Morrison, the representing property owner are also available if they are needed to answer questions. But otherwise, I don't believe they intend to speak specifically. I want to thank Alexander for the presentation that he gave. And I'll try not to retread any of it. I don't want to take up too much time. Just wanted to point out, again, that the specific design commitments and text commitments that we have made in response to the first meeting, which was in November, we have taken that feedback and added additional details to the design commitments, which hopefully give the commissioners confidence as to what the project is going to look like. I wanted to point out specifically, we have clarified that this project is going to be 466, single family detached houses. So only detached houses, no townhomes, no duplexes. The other thing I wanted to point out is that we can now clarify, I guess there was a question before, the project we built by Simron Homes. Simron, many of you may know, is a Durham-based builder that builds all over the triangle. If you want to look at a project that might be similar to this, they built quite a few homes in Staggville at Trayburn and are still building homes up there. That might be a similar design, but I can't say 100% that it'll be identical to that. The other item I wanted to point out is that we are also, although it's not listed in the text commitment to making a proffer for affordable housing, a lot of the time it's done as per unit or per lot. This is a blanket proffer of $5,000 for affordable housing. Not making a proffer for schools because the previous zoning for the property would actually have greater impact on the school, so the reduction in density that we are asking for is actually gonna somewhat lighten the burden on the schools in this area. But overall, we think this project is similar in density and in style to the neighborhoods that are adjacent to it, both to the north and the south. The existing infrastructure is sufficient to meet the kind of minimal traffic that'll come from 66 new homes in this area. And we expect these detached homes to be selling in the mid-200s, creating an additional source of kind of workforce, mid-range housing in this area, which is on 98 between 70 and kind of the eastern end of the city there. That's all I have for now. Happy to answer any questions. Again, Tony Whitaker and Craig Morrison are with the development team, and I believe there's one additional speaker who is not part of our group. Great, thank you, Mr. Herman. And I do see Deborah Mangum is with us, and Ms. Mangum, you are welcome to speak as well on this case. Okay, thank you. I'm actually representing my mother who lives at 335 Chandler Road. I think I spoke at the first meeting, and I appreciate you allowing me to have a chat with you. So we did meet with Randy Herman on December the third, the neighborhood met, I forgot how many attendants were there. He was very gracious and answered a lot of our questions and was patient with us as some of us didn't understand all of the legal jargon. But he did answer everything that we asked, so we appreciate that. And so from my perspective and my mom's perspective, if we don't have any concerns of the project, I'm glad to hear, I didn't realize that they were opening an additional acreage to 7.97 acres, so that's really nice to hear. And I also read the staff report where the bike lane is no longer justified. And I agree with that approach as well. We have no concerns. And we just look forward to working with the builder as he progresses, if this is approved. So thank you. Thank you. Thanks for staying involved in the process and advocating on behalf of your mother as well. So we really appreciate your comments. No one else has signed up to speak, but again, we'll just pause for a moment. If there's anyone who would like to speak on this case, please, you can digitally raise your hand and press star nine on your phone, and then we'll call on you. No one else has indicated their interest to speak on this case. We'll close the public hearing. And commissioners, Commissioner Miller will start with you. So I think this project's a lot better this time and I'm going to vote for it. And I'm grateful to the developer for listening to what you heard from a lot of different people, a lot of just different sources. This is a very difficult piece of property. And the way it is zoned right now doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. And so I think that what we have now makes much more sense. I will say this then. And although the design commitments for this are not written with a lot of words, they do actually touch on things that matter to me. I would have liked to, I do care where the garages go, but I think with a project like this, there's room for avoiding this now house design. But I do want to say that at 24 acres, this project is right at the cut point where we're at any bigger, I would like to see some variety within the project of housing types. But I'm giving this one a pass on that simply because so much of the land included in this development, it's just not usable. 24 acres with eight acres dropped out of it for one reason or another, usually because of the difficult terrain and environmental features. It's really not a 24 acre project. It's a much smaller project. I think that's what's being proposed today fits in with the neighborhood better. And I think it really matters in a case like this because this project doesn't have a big frontage on a major road. You have to drive down behind existing development to get to it. So I think compatibility is an issue that really matters. I do not vote for projects because Craig Morrison is involved in them, but when I vote for projects for other reasons and Craig Morrison is involved, it makes me feel a little bit better because I think he does a really good residential problem. So I'm voting for this one. And I know it's taking some time and I appreciate everybody's patience. Thanks, Commissioner Miller. I'm sorry, give me a moment. I jumped over. I don't see any other commissioners with their hands raised. I just wanted to echo Commissioner Miller's statement. I plan to vote for this, Mr. Herman. Thank you for working with all of us. The staff, the planning commission, particularly the neighbors. This is why it's important, I think, for getting it right and taking the time to get the input and to listen and to make adjustments. So really appreciate that. And I plan to vote for it as well. Any other commissioners who'd like to speak on this item? Chair Busby, I just want to, if I could make, I just want to repeat back to make sure that we're correct that the applicant is proffering $5,000 for the dedicated housing fund. And we'll add that as a text commitment to the development plan. Can we just confirm that, Mr. Herman? Yes, that's correct. Great, thank you. With that, this is the appropriate time for a motion for approval. Mr. Chair, with regard to case Z2000010, the Chandler Run Project, can we move that we send this forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation? Second. And the second. Thank you, Commissioner Armandolia. So moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Armandolia, and we'll have the roll call vote, please. And Mandolia? Yes. Baker? Yes. Busby? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Cutrai? Yes. Jerkin? Yes. Kinchin? Yes. Lanefreet? Yes. Lowe? Yes. MacGyver? Yes. Miller? Yes. Morgan? Yes. And Williams? Yes. unanimous 13-0. Thank you. Thank you. Case is case Z2000020, the 2301 South Miami Boulevard, and we'll start with the staff report. All right, thank you, Chair Busby, Vice-Chair Kinchin, good evening. I'm Alexander Cahill again here with the Planning Department. Thank you for your time. We did receive an application from Mark LeCendol from Good Work Architects on behalf for a rezoning request for the 2301 South Miami Boulevard. This is currently in the city jurisdiction already. And this is for a .899, about .98 per site. It is currently in the suburban tier and is existing zoning is commercial neighborhood. The applicant is proposing a rezoning request to commercial general and the current fund designation of commercial will not need to change. It will be a consistent zoning. As you saw in the staff report for the proposal, they are rezoning to bring this current non-conforming use, which is an existing auto sales and service business into conformity, and then allow for the future expansion of business and other uses in the CG in the future. As you saw in the staff report, there's a wide range of uses that are allowed in the CG that would facilitate this rezoning. Some of the photos for the site, you can see on the left-hand side is the business itself. In the middle, you can see the open space behind it. And then the church that is in the background. And then to the south of the site is the single family residence that is separated right now by a chain link fence. So the current zoning context you can see is commercial neighborhood. There is commercial neighborhood all up and down this corridor and they're proposing to change it to CG. You can see in the aerial map, it's a little hard to see, but at the corner here at the intersection of South Miami, Boulevard and Ambassador Drive here is where the project site sits. And then again, the future land use map would be consistent. There'd be no changes commercial now and that designation would remain the same. Some of the dimensional requirements would change. Of course, if it's moving from rezoning from CN to CG, this means the minimum lot area would change. There's some change in lot width and the side yard as well. So some things to think about that would all be reviewed and addressed at the site plan stage. There is no development plan for this case because it is just a straight rezoning. Again, I know some of the things that we're worried about is probably buffers and when we get to the site plan stage, these will be addressed, but the current zoning district would not require a buffer because next to the CN, but it would require it next to the RS20 property. As you can see, the rezoning would actually make the buffer requirements more stringent. A staff did review this against comprehensive plan policies and without a development plan, sometimes it does make it a little trickier, but with this specific case, it was relatively easy to review against the policies and we found them to be consistent. And staff is proposing recommending approval for this. The proposed zoning provides an opportunity for additional commercial general uses to support the needs of nearby residential and really enhance the South Miami Boulevard corridor. The buildings are supposed to be residential in their proportions and backing up to all of this property are residential zones. And I mean, the only place where you've really got a big exception is across the street where it's office institutional. I have to say I do not like this planning for Miami Boulevard. I do not like stripping out when I say that have thoroughfares that are aligned to their entire length with a mishmash of businesses. I prefer to have commercial areas concentrated into nodes that are reasonably separated so that you just don't have just endless sign pollution. You don't have endless curb cuts of people coming and going from businesses. I think we can do better. But this is the pattern here. And I note that residential properties backup to this. This is a non-conforming use. There are two ways to fix non-conforming uses. One way is to rezone them so that they conform. But I think you should not rezone under those circumstances just to fix the use. It's got to make sense when you've done it. The other way to fix a non-conforming use is to change the use so that it conforms. In this instance, there's a non-conforming use. And the great thing about a non-conforming use is that you get to keep using it that way. One of the non-conformities for this use is that there's no buffer. And if we rezone it, although the required buffer would be bigger because it's non-conforming, it doesn't have to have a buffer. And right behind this is the two-family residence in a neighborhood that, although it's sparsely developed now, is envisioned to be more heavily developed and the streets are cut in and the lots are there. I hate setting up situations where in the future, we try to ask people to live next to properties that are available for use for a wide range of commercial uses. And in this instance, CG, in my opinion, should never be backed up directly to a small residential parcel. CN, okay, especially if you buffer it correctly. That's why we have the CN zone a step down. But in this instance, there's no development plan. There is nothing to say that this property in the future could not be used for a whole host of things that I think would be a very bad neighbor for residential properties. Now, had there been a developer plan here that could have limited this down to a fairly innocuous use and to cut out some of the things in the CG zone that I think could make future uses there a bad residential neighbor, I could have voted for this. But there's no development plan. You know, you could have a 50-foot building on this piece of property. You could have a building that had uses that ran way into the night. You could have a much bigger building on this piece of property with generating a lot more traffic. I just think that without something to cut back those parts of CG that make it an undesirable residential neighbor and get it closer to CN that I can't support this. It's inconsistent with the development pattern that we've established on the map. Although I wish that pattern were better. I don't think this will make it better. And I just think that if it should stay CN and I'll note that the great thing about a nonconforming use we're not telling the owner of this property that he has to just continue to use. He has an advantage over his CN neighbors because he has a permissible nonconformity. But I don't see the fix for this is to rezone this so that it can be used for even more than the properties around it. Thanks, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Cupray. Thanks, Chair Busby. I think it was well stated by Commissioner Miller. I tend to agree 100% with his assessment. My biggest concern is that there is not a development plan. If you look at the use table for CG some of the things that are allowable in CG as opposed to CN, they just don't bode well for that particular area. And so rezoning it for the sake of rezoning it seems odd to me. And so for that reason, I will bode against it. Thank you. Any other commissioners who'd like to speak on this item? Commissioner Lowe. Thank you, Chair Busby. Just one question about the developer. Was there a community meeting about this? Can you hear me? Yeah, Commissioner Lowe, you cut out, but I believe you asked if there were any neighborhood meetings associated with this. Is that correct? Okay. That's correct. And so the applicant, you're welcome to answer Commissioner Lowe's question. I do not believe so. I believe this was submitted prior to that requirement. That's a requirement that was not in place at the time of application. Staff can correct you if I'm wrong. Follow up, Commissioner Lowe. That is correct. The application was submitted before the neighborhood meeting requirement was in place. And if it's okay, I just want to clarify one thing as well. At site plan stage, a buffer would be required between that existing single family residents and any expansion of the business. We just want to make sure that's clear. It gets a little confusing sometimes, but I want to make sure that's called out. And then the other thing is Commissioner Cutright brought up some really good points. And a lot of the uses that are allowed in the CG are allowed in the CN as well, just in a more expansive way, but they do require, you know, especially use permits for many of them. Thank you, Mr. Cahill. Commissioner Lowe, any follow up questions or comments? No, thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Baker. Yeah, sorry, just a, and you've probably already touched on this. And I don't know if this is a question for Alex or for the applicant, but just so I'm clear, this is a non-conforming use and it can continue to exist and function. And the applicant wishes to change the zoning so that they are conforming under the new uses that are permitted under the new zoning district and so that they can expand their business. Is that a correct understanding? That's correct. Okay. That's all. Thank you. I'm just looking, any other commissioners, any questions or comments? I don't see anyone else so we can move forward with a, I'll accept a motion for approval at this point. Mr. Chair, with regard to case Z2000020, the property at 2301 South Miami Boulevard. I move that we send this forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. I don't, then there's no corresponding change to the future land use map. Is that correct? That is correct. Second. And we'll have the roll call vote. Just wanna clarify, that was Mr. Morgan, the second? Yes. Just wanted to make sure. Okay. Amondoya? No. Baker? Yes. Busbee? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Cut right, Durkin? Yes. Kinchin? No. Landfreet? Yes. Lowe? MacGyver? No. Miller? No. Morgan? Yes. And Williams? No. Six, one, two, three. It fails seven, six, seven. Thank you. Again, for everyone listening, that will still move forward to the governing body for their review and their vote as well. We will move to our final case this evening. This is case Z2 quadruple zero two one, Harriet's Place, and we will start with the staff report. Mr. Chair, if I may, before we start with the staff report, I did want to follow up on my promise to at least the public that's watching and those who are attending the meeting. This is a case that is important for a lot of reasons, but I think it's necessary for you me to disclose that I am president of Preservation Durham, which is a nonprofit organization that promotes historic preservation in Durham, and that Preservation Durham supports this rezoning and the executive director of the organization will make a brief comment in favor of the rezoning tonight. I have discussed this with staff because I do not live within the notice radius of this property and because I don't have any direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome, I cannot be disqualified under our rules, but I do think it's only fair for you to know that how I speak and how I vote in this case should be measured and weighed based upon the fact that I am a president of an organization that supports the rezoning. And I'm available for questions if you have any. Thank you, Commissioner Miller, and I appreciate your transparency on this case before us. With that, we will move to the staff report. Thank you, Chair Busby. Commissioner Members, Danny Colter again for the planning department. This is a case Z20-00021, Harriet's Place. The item was received by from Howard Partner with Howard A. Partner of Landscape Architecture. For two parcels of land located at 312 East Sunset Street and 1206 Dawkins Street, totaling just slightly over seven tenths of an acre. The sites located within the urban development here, the applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from a residential urban 5-2 to residential urban multifamily with a development plan or RUMD for a maximum of 17 unit congregate living facility and or affordable apartment units within an existing building. Future land use map or flume is designated as medium high density residential, but eight to 20 dwelling units an acre. There's no change to propose flume. The aerial map indicates the site located on the south side of Umstead Street, just west of the intersection of Umstead and Fayetteville Road, Fayetteville Street, excuse me. And it's also on the west side of Dawkins Street between intersections of Dawkins and Umstead and Dawkins and Living with Abany. The north portion of the site contains the structure which was previously utilized as the Herriot Tubman YMCA facility and also contains existing vegetation. The southeastern portion of the site is vacant and has been previously cleared. And also that's the southwestern portion of the site from Avery Street, the area context. There's adjacent single family and duplex development and also undeveloped parcels of land across from the site and around the site. This is showing single family duplex parcels and also adjacent single family parcels. Context map indicates that the RU-52 zoning destination for everything around the area and again the request is to rezone to RUMD. And the future land use map again shows everything is high to medium density residential in the area. The development plan indicates the proposed parking and building envelopes, existing building to remain, parking envelope, existing driveways or proposed driveway, require project boundary buffers, tree coverage locations, the list also lists the uses, the maximum unit counts of building heights, building size, building location, proposed in previous services. The use table in the UDO paragraph 512 requires that currently living facilities proposed within residential districts receive a minor special use permit in order to allow the use within the district. However, UDO paragraph 356D10 for development plan eliminates the use requirement, the permit requirement when the zoning is approved with a development plan. So these features have all been identified on the development plan if they pursue a kind of living facility. The commitments for the development plan shall consist of affordable apartment units or kind of living facility units, singly or in combination, not to exceed a total of 17 units. Lots A and B will be recombined prior to the issuance of the building permit, public sidewalk will be constructed on the Dawkins Street site frontage of parcel 118300 prior to issuance of a certificate I could see. All site buffer easements as shown in the development plan, sheet three must be obtained prior to site plan approval. If all site buffer easements cannot be obtained or where onsite buffer standards can't met variances must be approved prior to site plan approval. There are, the site has been analyzed for the comp plan policies, all comp plan policies that are applicable to this site have been determined to be consistent. And so staff has determined the consistency for all the policies and staff is available for any comments or questions. Thank you, Mr. Culture. We have a number of individuals who've signed up for the public hearing. So we'll open the public hearing. I'll read the individuals. Most have indicated they are in support. There are one or two who didn't indicate where they stood, but we know that as part of the applicant team, we have Jarvis Martin, Howard partner, Peter Schiller who's with reinvestment partners as is Blake Strayhorn. We have April Johnson and then Elizabeth McKennedy and Amber Harris. And so again, the applicant team may have an order that you'd like to have your team speak in. So I'm going to open it up to you and let you start and then we can call on the other. Hi, this is Peter Schiller and I'm executive director of reinvestment partners. We're a single member owner of Harriet's Place LLC. The agency is a nonprofit community development corporation. Our mission is to foster healthy and just communities by working with people, places and policy. So as an example, we're a counseling agency. We provide free tax preparation. We run a statewide healthy food assistance program. We also do financial justice and healthcare advocacy. And on the place side, we do commercial and affordable housing redevelopment. And so as an example, we redeveloped 1208 Fayetteville Street, the historic national historic registered Burnett Place. This property was built in 1954 as the Harriet Tubman YWCA. It provided 12 dorm rooms for student nurses at Lincoln Hospital while they were in training. It also provided a key community center for the African-American community and was site of some of the key historic civil rights organizing. The property was sold to Fisher Memorial Church. It was then transferred to the White family and over a period of time fell into disrepair until it was condemned by the city of Durham and demolition had begun. Due to a variety of different legal proceedings, we were able to purchase the property through a tax foreclosure and with the commitment that we would redevelop the property as affordable housing. So our intent as the development plan shows, we've worked through a very variety of different scenarios. And currently the plan we're moving forward with 17 studio efficiency apartments with a congregate kitchen that can be in addition to the individual units. And we'll have some room for community meeting areas as well in offices. Our intent is to preserve the building from the exterior and as well as to document inside the kind of important history of the building. We have received a preliminary conditional commitment of funding from the city of Durham for affordable housing, which also comes in addition to the request for affordable housing zoning here, 30 year use restrictions for that purpose. So we're in that process and I'll be glad to answer any questions as it relates to the agency project or our future plans. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Mr. Schillin, are there other members of your team that would like to speak on this item or are they just available to answer questions? I believe Howard partner might like to say a couple of things and then Blake Strayhorn was not on the call. Okay. Mr. partner, you're welcome to speak. Okay, thank you. I'm Howard partner and I am the applicant for this rezoning request. I just want to speak very briefly and mention that in essence, this rezoning will allow the use of the building to be very similar to its original use. And so we're taking a derelict building and restoring it to a positive use. And I should mention that the area that the building is located in has suffered from quite a bit of neglect and not much in terms of positive restoration. And so our hope is that by restoring this building, we will also be encouraging renewal of other properties in the area. The restoration will maintain the original look of the building and I'm sure others will speak to that effect in a sense of the look of the building will be somewhat similar to the Witted Elementary School which is a block away and has a similar brick facade. I'll just be glad to answer any questions that come up. And that's all I have to say right now. Thank you. And Jarvis Martin, I know you've signed up with you. Are you interested in speaking as well? Yes, I just want to indicate that I'm in support of the development. I own a property within the mailing district and have owned it for the past four or five years. This development would help to bring the neighborhood back to a positive situation. There's a lot of negative things currently go on over on Umstead Street. And by having this development, it would just help to reunite that area as well as a hopes for other interests for other people to fix up properties there. So I'm in favor of it and hope that the planning commission will vote yes on this request. Thank you, Mr. Martin. We'll move to April Johnson. Ms. Johnson, I see you're with us. Are you able to speak? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, welcome. Thank you. Yes, I'm April Johnson, executive director of preservation. And I just want to speak in support of you voting for favorable recommendation to city council on this rezoning. And around 2018, I found out that the city had was, the building was slated for demolition. So of course, resolution Durham went straight to the city manager's office and neighborhood improvement services to ask, they hold back and give us an opportunity to see if there are any other developers out there who would like to adaptively reuse the building. I heard complaints from some of the parents at the Widditt School down the street about the folks hanging around, but they keep building at the time. I was able to convince them to give us some time to look into finding a developer who would preserve the building rather than demolish it. And thankfully they were able to do that. But about finding affordable housing for people that have been lost in the shuffle over here and been forgotten by many other programs. So we would be super excited as members who have been a part of that community for four years and have a lot of relationships to figure out ways that this could both serve the community large with some needed redevelopment in life and breath, while also meeting some of the real serious needs that I'm saying in Dawkins. Anyone who's been over there, a very parent over there, let's say that. Thank you, Mr. Crystal. And we've got one final hand that went up, Joe Novak and we'll take you, get your mic on and you'll be able to speak as well. Hello, do you hear me? Yes. I am in the next block in Fisher Place. And in that area, those of you who know, it's all duplexes and they are, everyone living there is either low income African-American or low income Hispanic. And so when we heard about this in our neighborhood, we became very happy that finally someone is doing something in East Amstead. And so we are in general supporting that. However, when then we started reading and we realized it says 17 unit congregated living just like assumed some sort of boarding, like a boarding house, the quality. And that makes us worried that you are hoping that they redevelop here and maybe families, the small families from here, but again, 17 units. It is moved to the right direction, but we were hoping that it turns into a place that the families can live here. So we are all families and we are all, as those of you who know, we are dealing with, every weekend we have to go to our backyard, collect the needles, all of our houses have been, we have broken into our houses. So we were just hoping for the developer to consider maybe include affordable housing in this area, if possible. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Novak. We don't have anyone else who signed up to speak during the public hearing, but I do see the applicants have raised their hands and they did have an extra minute or two. So either Mr. Schiller or Mr. Martin, if you'd like to make any final comments before we close the public comment period, you're welcome to do so. Hi, this is Peter Schiller. And I just want to affirm the comments that the other people made. We're, that's the reason why we're in this neighborhood is to help make it better, safer. It's, for those of you who don't know in the planning commission, this is really the center for opioid use at the corner of Dawkins and Umstead. And David Crispell and his brother, Pete, have been at the forefront of really providing service to the community with love and really living with that. And so we're, of course, glad to work with them to continue finding better services for folks. I think to the point about affordable housing, I just want to say that we concluded congregate as a means of increasing our flexibility, but these will be studio apartments. I think the second component of that is as a nonprofit, we are invested in providing supportive services and quality management. And so this will be a facility that serve individual needs and do so in a responsible fashion for the broader community. So it will not be a ruling house. So I hope that will initially address those concerns, but we are very glad to continue working with everyone who spoke, Jarvis Martin and Amber Harris as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Martin, your hands raised as well. So I don't know if you have any final comments or if Mr. Skilling covered those, just let us know. I do not if it's raised as an error. Okay. Thank you all. No one else has indicated their interest in speaking. So we're going to close the public comment period and commissioners will come to you and Commissioner Williams, you've had your hand up. We'll let you go first. Yes. So please be sure to my fellow commissioners to write this down because it is extremely rare that I am elated about a project. And I am not more, I cannot be more overwhelmed by the amount of support that I have for this project. I, as an active Durham resident, I drive through this area at my own risk on a regular basis. My home church is Mount Vernon Baptist Church on South Roxburgh. And this area is dear to my heart. My parents went to Widdie and my mom grew up on Linwood. And she, they used to walk to WD Hill for parties on Friday nights. This is just, just lets you know a little bit of the scope of how far down this hill this area has gone because it is very rich in history and culture for the city of Durham. Even that massive house that's right there next to WD Hill, the large white house that has the columns on it that just recently got a facelift, that's the Scarborough home. So this area needs all the help that it can get. And to be honest with you, 17 units is phenomenal. The fact that you're preserving this building, if I got to get out there on my Saturday mornings and scrape and paint and build or whatever the case may be, count me in because it's needed. And I knew something was coming because the amount of police presence in this area has been phenomenal. It has increased. The foot traffic in this area has decreased. The amount of, I don't know if, you know, there's slum lords or whatever the case may be, but I really was about to put in a petition to have the houses in this area torn down because there's no way that these are habitable homes and people are using them for other purposes besides living. So the fact that this area is being done something extremely productive and I know the quality of life of the residents in this area will improve. You will be able to go outside of your homes and truly enjoy what you're paying for and where you live. So again, market down February the 9th. At 7.24 p.m., I am elated about a project and I could not get behind a project more than anything that has been presented since I've been on this time. I am almost cheerfully overjoyed by this presentation and I 100% supported it. And matter of fact, I didn't even mean to raise my hand as early as I did. I looked at this screen and saw my hand was up and I left it in. That's how excited I am. Thank you so much. Thank you, Commissioner Williams. Those of us that have served with you for a long time, we have waited a long time to hear you say the word elated. It's a big moment. Commissioner Cameron. Good evening, everyone. Thank you. I just wanna express my support. I think many of us joined this commission to hope further affordable housing and we have a true affordable housing project before us. It kinda cracks me up when I hear 240, anything that's not under 200K be deemed as affordable, which is not. I just wanted to ask Mr. Skilling, are you gonna use any long-term housing tax credits or historic tax credits as sources for this project besides the City of Durham funding? And then also, are you gonna have a partner for supportive services for the residents of the facility? Ma'am, we will not be using low-income tax credits or historic tax credits. The project is too small for LIHTEC and it's not, while it is historic and very important, it's not on the registry. It really kinda doesn't meet those qualifications. The other funding sources in addition to the city, we are applying for a $500,000 0% interest loan from the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency and we are applying for a Federal Home Loan Bank grant, but we do still have a significant funding gap and that's one of our challenges is to kind of, as you tell it, the market would have you tear down this property and just use the vacant land in the future to speculate. This deal does not make financial sense on the cash flow basis or investment. This is a mission-based project and so we're gonna have to find other mission-based funders to make that gap up. As far as the supportive housing component, we currently provide some of those services and we have partnerships with other non-profits who do. So I would say that probably will be a combination of in-house and partnerships with others. Thank you. Thanks Commissioner Cameron. Commissioner Dirk. I have a couple of questions. I'm also excited about the survivor. I am elated to see the use of the affordable housing density bonus finally. It's very exciting. And to kind of go off of Commissioner Cameron's questions, I also wanted to know more about the financing. I know you just spoke to it, but can you speak to the use restriction that come with the FHLD money and the HFA grant? Sure, both, but all three funding sources that I've mentioned, if it's subsidized financing, it means it's going to have an income restriction on it and that those will be enforced through annual compliance reviews by all three agencies. And so, I mean, I don't know if that essentially answers your question. The mix of incomes will be at least four units that are at 30% of area median income and the rest can go up to 60% of area median income. Most likely, most of them will be much lower than 60% of pay in line. But that's great. That's also good to hear. It's hard to have projects, to find projects with those lower income bands. Yeah. One thing that someone, an advocate had mentioned was request for priority for area residents. Do you have any plans for having priorities for neighborhood residents that are under housed or... All right. It'd be difficult to offer that as a commitment, though it's a shared goal. Yeah. Yeah. It wasn't ever a request for properties. I'm just more of a request to know what your plan is, what your, if you thought about having those kind of priority bands. Yeah. You know, to be honest, I haven't thought about Lisa. I'm still at the zoning stage. Glad to take that into consideration and work with David Crispell. I know he's got some clients coming through his jubilee housing that might qualify for that. And a question on the com-get living. So can you just explain a little bit more? I mean, I know com-get living, you would have a shared sort of kitchen spaces and living spaces. But what kind of population are you looking at and what duration would the residency that the com-get living facility, would it also be kind of on one year leases like you would typically have? Or a differential property? So again, I want to say we are not doing com-get facility. We will be doing studio apartments. But let me explain why we included that in the proposal. Our initial design was to use the dorm rooms almost as is. And they had com-get bathrooms. And they also had a com-get kitchen downstairs. And that is great because you reduce the cost of having everyone have their own bathroom. So now, you know, you have three bathrooms on each floor versus 17. And when the pandemic hit, we realized that com-get shared facilities no longer works. That's just not viable. And so that's the reason why we did a redesign and added quite a bit of money to the project to give everyone their own studio apartment. So that's the original idea and then what we've evolved to. That's helpful. Thank you for that. I have one point just for the staff. On the analysis of affordable housing impacts that we were all happy to see. It was recently added to our reports. I would just like to advocate for an analysis of rentals because affordable housing rental properties are really important. And I understand you don't have redfin to look to for numbers as easily as for sale properties. But to kind of dismiss it is, I think we're missing an opportunity to understand the impact that affordable rental housing has in the neighborhood and for people as affordable housing in Durham as a whole. And the need for that, that affordable ownership is really not what's gonna help our situation. Thank you. Thank you. Great day. Can I respond to that? Well, no, thank you, Commissioner Durkin. We just don't have those resources to be able to find those numbers. I think on the sales market, we were fortunate to have redfin to be able to give us those numbers. If we can find those numbers in the future, that would be a great tool for us to be able to offer. Thanks, Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Miller. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, on the planning commission, go to the place in your notes where you wrote Williams elated and right underneath it, Miller has nothing to add. Thank you. Again, I've been on this commission a long time. That has never happened. Any other commissioners who would like to speak? And Commissioner, I'm sorry, Commissioner Lowe, I did say something earlier. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Leslie. And thank Commissioner Durkin for her question because I was one of those commissioners, maybe the only one that wasn't quite clear what we meant about congregate teaching, congregate living. I'm glad you made that clear. But just to do a listening check, that means that each studio apartment has their private bath and their private kitchen, not shared, is that correct? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Lowe. Commissioner Armandolia. Sure. I just want to ask a quick question about the intended length of affordability. There's a set timeframe on that. Both on the financing and land use restriction, it's 30 years. Great, thanks. I am also excited about this. Frankly, like driving past this person in a dorm when I first moved here is what inspired me to get into planning in the first place. Seeing the level of unequal development taking place here, it's what drove me to do this work. I would love to see this be permanently affordable. I understand it's not always feasible, but I do think this area is right for development over the next 30 years. So I do have a question about what happens in 30 years. That's not going to change my vote, but that's something to consider for the future. I'm looking forward to voting us for this. Thank you. Any Commissioner Williams, I see your hand up, I'm going to get back to you. I just want to see if anyone else who has not spoken yet would like to speak. I don't see anyone else. I just want to say I'm going to vote for this as well. Really appreciate reinvestment partners and the leadership in this work and taking the time to meet with Preservation Durham. I was thinking that when the two of you came together and worked out the details, it was a win-win, but I actually really prefer Miss Johnson's phrase double blessing. And so looking forward to voting for this. I do see some hands up. So I will call on Commissioner Morgan and then Commissioner Baker. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to make a comment. I was looking at the property owners that are close to the facility. And I just wanted to make a comment is a lot of them are not residents of the area. And I would think that the community, the comment about community involvement is important to do this. So I could see this as a great opportunity to bring the community together and probably get some interest of people that want to move into that area. I think clearly it looks like if something could develop, we want to preserve the affordability of that area. And so I would definitely ask the applicant to consider that as far as continuing to keep the community involved and to help sort of guide how this area would develop moving forward. Yes. Go ahead. I have a feeling that we're probably one of the only developers who come to the table with a community organizer on staff and a commitment to community involvement. So we look forward to building off of this conversation, many other conversations we've had in the neighborhood about moving forward. That would be great. Thanks. Thanks, Peter. Yes, sir. Thanks, Commissioner Norgman. Commissioner Baker. Yeah. You know, I think for me, a lot of the cases that we see can be fairly soul crushing. And I can think of in the over two years that have been on the Planning Commission, one other case that I thought this is good. And so this is now the second one. And so just to kind of second Carmen and everyone else who's spoken, this is pretty exciting. But the reason I wanted to speak up was just because I'm curious, I want to follow up on Commissioner Mondolia's question. So what exactly does happen in 30 years from the time of this? Break for the closed captioner. But we've been told we can go a few more minutes without breaking and they will hang in there with us. So we asked for two meetings in March. We are still planning to have the two meetings in March. I will share with you briefly that we have a fairly loaded, a loaded itinerary for both meetings. More so on the ninth than the 25th, but we have at least one, two, three zonings on the ninth, the comp plan info item and the omnibus 16 text amendment. And then on the 25th, we have three other zoning related cases. If you want specific information about those cases, I'll be happy to send those to you in an email later in the week. We are still finalizing the agenda at the moment, but that's kind of what you're looking at for March. And sent out another email that said that we had mentioned this during the retreat last fall and the timing of it was just kind of not so great. We're going to need an extra meeting in April as well. We did not plan that. It's just our comp plan is ready. We're ready to have a special meeting to hold the first public hearing with the goals and objectives for the comp plan, which you'll hear about in March. So, and then the public hearing will be in April. So I'll be working with you all to poll you the members and find out when a good time would be to have that additional meeting that will be only for the comp plan hearing. We will not have any of the land use cases on that agenda with the comp plan public hearing. So I wanted to share all of that and let you know too that we did have our new member join. However, he will be actually joining the meeting as and voting starting in March. We weren't able to make it happen fast enough for today. So any questions? Thank you, Grace. And seeing no questions, the meeting is adjourned. I hope you all have a good night and we'll see you next month. Thanks everybody. Good night. Night. Thank you.