 And a reminder to all commissioners to please enable your cameras and microphones. Thank you. We are now streaming for one minute away from broadcast and 30 seconds away from the technical sequence. I just went to play. We are now streaming and broadcasting. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the city council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final vote on any issue before us tonight. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom virtual meeting platform. In this virtual meeting platform, public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on video by default. To maintain meeting decorum and a discernible record of the meeting, the chat function has been disabled. Speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time in the meeting. If you have pre-registered, your name will be called for you to make your comments, just like in an in-person public hearing. If you called in before the meeting started and staff was able to get your information, your name will also be called to speak at the appropriate time as normal. You may also call in during the meeting tonight by dialing 1-301-715-18. 8592. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the specific public hearing you are interested in starts. After all of the pre-registered speakers have shared their comments, I will ask if there is anyone else wishing to speak. At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. And when recognized, state your name and address and make your public comments. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is not favorable. Thank you and may we have roll call. Chair Amandalia, before I begin, can I verify Commissioner Baker sending an email that's stating he would be absent and Commissioner Cease, I know about his absence. Are there others that you can share with me? Yes, I also received an email from commissioners Batista and Zuri Williams. And then I believe Michael received an email that he forwarded to me from Commissioner MacGyver. That's correct. Okay, thanks, Mike. Okay, so that's one, two, three, that's five. Okay, all right, so we'll start the roll call. Amandalia. Here. Busby. Here. Vice Chair Cameron. Commissioner Cutwright. Here. Commissioner Durkin. Here. Commissioner Herrod. Here. Commissioner Lowe. Here. Commissioner Morgan. Here. And Commissioner Carmen Williams. Okay, at this time, Chair, I count that we have seven members present. Is that what you have? I see Vice Chair Cameron has logged on as well. Okay. Okay. So Vice Chair Cameron, can I count you present? Yeah, you had just called my name and I didn't say it. Oh, perfect. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see you. I clicked audio too late, sorry. I'm glad you're here, thank you. You may have saved the day right when you joined. All right, thank you. Looks like we have a quorum, Chair Amandalia. Yes, thank you. So at this time, I would like to ask for an excused absence for commissioners Baker, Latista, MacGyver, Cease, and Zuri Williams. So moved. Seconded. Moved by Commissioner Lowe and seconded by Commissioner Morgan. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, may we have the roll call vote? Sorry, I was muted. Sure, Amandalia. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Herod. Yes. Lowe. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Let's see here, and that's it. Thank you. Okay, with that, we have no minutes to approve tonight. And Grace, I believe we have no adjustments to the agenda. I'm not aware of any. I will defer to Mr. Stock, and if he has any, but I'm not aware of any. I am not aware of any adjustments needed. Great. Thank you. So with that, we will go ahead and begin with our public hearings for the night. I do want to state before we begin, we have a lot of items on our agenda tonight. And so in order to ensure that we are able to get through our full agenda tonight, I'm going to reserve the right to reduce the amount of time that speakers have if it appears that we may not finish our agenda within a reasonable amount of time. But for now, we'll begin with our first public hearing, which is Case Z20-00016-1409.Nicolas Road, and we'll begin with the staff report. Thank you very much, Ken. Oh, I need to share. Hold on. There we go. Thank you. Can you all see that? We see your PowerPoint. Okay, great. Now we see your shared version, yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm going to make sure. Oops, sorry. There we go. Thank you. Michael Sock with the Planning Department. Before you is Case Z20-0016-1409.Nicolas Road is a privately initiated rezoning request with an associated annexation actually from Eden's land, Jared Eden's. The location is 1409.Nicolas Road, hence the title. It is located in the suburban development tier and it will be going forward with an associated annexation. It's currently in the county, but it's pending city. The site eight bridge is just over eight acres. The current zoning is RR or rural residential and the proposed zoning is plan development residential 7.245 or PDR 7.245. The existing future land use map designation is low density residential. And if the rezoning is approved, the recommended change to the flum designation would be low medium density residential. The site is in within the Falls Jordan protected area watershed or FJB. That would not change with this rezoning. That would maintain the same. And the proposal is up for 60 town-home units. And as you can see, it's all on the eastern side of Dot Nichols Road adjacent to a big blue area, which is currently PDR zoning. The yellow areas are what are currently RR zoning. This is the future land use map and you can see it's all generally low density residential. The change would go to low medium density residential. And as you can see on the aerial, this is an area that is experiencing development. New development, primarily residential. This is adjacent to Fendall farms to the south. There are approved developments to the north, as you can see that are currently under construction. And to the west, you can see development. And there are some zoning is actually just to the west off of Dot Nichols Road that are either pending public hearings or have already gone through public hearings for residential development. The development plan that's associated with this commits to town-home units. Does commit to donations to the Durham Public Schools and the Durham Housing Fund. Commits to donation of building pads for Habitat for Humanity. The location of pre-preservation and project boundary buffers are committed to building and parking envelopes are committed. The plan does commit to treating the 100-year storm event for it's a storm order control measures. Additional asphalt for a bike lane along Dot Nichols will be provided additional right of way and the turn lane along Dot Nichols will also be provided and there are minor architectural commitments. This is the existing site conditions. It's primarily wooded, although there is some clearing along the western part that fronts along Dot Nichols as you can see here. And there is a perennial stream that runs along the eastern boundary that will be buffered. Again, here's the buffering again of the perennial stream. There's no other, there's no floodplain located on the site. It indicates location of the buffers and tree preservation areas and the extent of the building and parking envelope pretty much matches the extent of the buffers and tree preservation areas and the stream buffers. There was a neighborhood meeting that was held. I believe eight community members were in attendance and your packet does include social pinpoint comments. And except for certain CGO objectives and the land use designation, the staff does determine it's consistent with all other adopted ordinances and policies. And again, if the request is approved, the flood designation shall be amended to maintain consistency. I believe the applicant is here to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. With that, we're going to open the public hearing. We'll begin with the applicant presentation. The applicant on this is Mr. Jared Edens. Jared, you'll have 10 minutes to provide your comments as usual and you may begin at this time. Good evening, thank you. And I appreciate your time, Jared Edens with Edens Investments. I also appreciate you guys making the extra time for the additional meeting. I know that we've got a big backlog and I appreciate you taking your personal time here to get this one in and showing up. So thank you for that. So I'll just, I'll be brief here, like you've got a long agenda. A project, as Mike said, it's roughly eight acres site on Dot Nichols Road. It's right in the middle of the Searls base. And as he mentioned, there's development all around. You've got Dellweb nearby. You've got the Egypt tract to the east. You've got Fendle Farms adjacent to us. Actually the town home portion of Fendle Farms is adjacent to us. So a lot of activity in the area, a lot of changes over the years. It was a fairly dormant area for a long time. And then when Dellweb came in, that sort of jump started everything, as you know. So we're proposing on the site, maximum 60 town home units at the density of a little over seven units in acre. A few of the highlights that Mike mentioned, you know, we're doing our hundred year storm detention, which we tried to standardize. We widened some buffers adjacent to a couple of neighbors. We had, we said two neighborhood meetings, the Southport mission one. I think we had one prior to that also, but we widened some buffers in response to some neighbor requests. And also I'm really glad that we're able to add an affordable housing component here. I've had some conversations over the past few weeks with Durham Habitat for Humanity and the city affordable housing people and trying to figure out ways on first sale projects to incorporate some affordable. So on this one, we took 5%, which I think is, you know, that's a reasonable number for what we're talking about here for a, you know, a small deal. So 5% is basically three finished town home pads. So what we and our builder have agreed to do is during construction, there'll be at some location in the project, there'll be three completed pads that will be deeded to Durham Habitat for Humanity at completion. You know, Habitat will have option at that point to, you know, go build three town homes themselves, which again, would have to comply with, you know, any zoning regulations that are on the plan or they may pay our builder to do it at a fee to build the units at a fee like cost plus basis to try to keep costs down. But, you know, it's, you know, finished, finished town home pads in this part of town are, you know, probably currently worth, you know, $100 to $110,000 a pad kind of thing for this location. So, you know, three of those, I think it's a sizable commitment to affordable housing and I think it's something that I'm hoping other people can follow us. So, yeah, and again, on the staff report, just looking at some of the infrastructure, you know, water and sewer is at the site, there's no offsite extensions needed. We've got capacity for that, we've got capacity for the schools. And even on traffic wise, I mean, just looking at the numbers, again, it's not my numbers, it's staff numbers, but, you know, the current ADT on Dot Nichols Road being about 750, and the current capacity being about 12,700. I've done a lot of these, I've not seen cases where you've got that much of a discrepancy between what's out there now and what that road can handle. I know there's other development on the way, but it's still, you know, less than, well less than 10%. So, to want to point that out. Yeah, but I appreciate your time this evening. Again, thanks for being here and I'm glad to answer any questions you have. Thank you. And Mr. Edens, with that we'll go to our registered speakers. We had three people registered to speak as opponents. Those individuals are Pam Williams, Carrie Steinbach and Rob Levinsky. We'll begin with Pam Williams and you'll have two minutes to provide comment. Please state your name and address at the beginning. Good afternoon, my name is Pam Williams. I live in Durham, 2130 Adventure Trail, right off the Leesville Road. My concern, I'm gonna just address right now my concerns with the traffic. I know Jared said the traffic volume is 750, but in 2015 it was 860 and that was before any development without their dental farms or any new development. So I think the 750 number is off and I just think we should check on that. Also, I was wondering, is this dot nickels considered a rural tier or a suburban tier for level service? And although the numbers are maybe smaller than the 10,000 biggest per day for capacity, Leesville Road is already over capacity. It's got over 16,080 T at the intersection of Leesville and US 7 and Highway 98 is all ready over capacity at Olive Branch plus with all the other developments coming in. So I was wondering how without a traffic impact study how was it determined that we're not exceeding the neighborhood street with this development and all. Also, I wanna address the issue about the neighborhood and the streetscape and everything. A lot of the townhomes I've been seeing going in in Durham, I don't know what he's proposed because I haven't seen layout, but like those sectional fennel farms that the landscaping will never grow enough to hide the homes and everything. It's, that's it. Okay. I just wanted to ask for increase in landscaping to preserve the character of dot nickels road. Thank you, Pam. Up next, we have Kerry Steinbach. Kerry Steinbach is not president of this movement. So we'll move forward to Rob Levinsky. Hi, can you hear me all right? Yes. All right, fine, thank you. Thanks for letting me participate here. If I can, I just like to speak briefly rather than I know we've been a former elected official myself that time is valuable and that you can get a lot of commentary. So I'll just say to you briefly that I'm gonna be speaking rather than make you listen to me each time again and again. This is for both this proposal and the other proposals you're discussing tonight. Seller Place, Leesville Road, Dark Nichols Road. My comments on all of them are the same. So let's not be redundant and just take my two minutes to discuss those. My opposition is simply that I think the most important thing that you can do in the planning commission is decide the direction of the city and the county and the quality of life for all the residents. Infill is a really appropriate, thoughtful and beneficial way of developing. I'm not anti-development just so you know I'm someone who's done a good bit of development in purchasing and selling real estate throughout my career as a financial advisor and money manager. I am certainly not against development but appropriate development within the city core within the urban core is totally different than tearing up open space in Jordan Lake in the watershed, changing zoning, damaging valuable and irreplaceable open spaces that protect our drinking water that create more traffic, more sprawl. This is exactly the way wrong way to go. You've done some development in this neighborhood now but it's still a viable reasonable neighborhood. To change zoning is a very big thing folks. I think you all know that and I'm frankly disappointed you all seem like I followed you and I try to participate in the city events. You seem like very reasonable, decent people and I'm just frankly hurt and saddened to see you just rubber stamping proposals that are going in the absolute opposite direction of what will benefit all of us. Think of yourselves, think of your children, your grandchildren and what their lives will be like if you turn a very beautiful, wonderful city into a collection of urban sprawl that's never worked anywhere in the country and we don't need it here. Thanks for your time. Thank you Rob. With that we'll turn to folks who have raised their hand and if there's anyone else who would like to speak on this topic please go ahead and put yourself in the queue by raising your hand and if you're on the phone reminder that you do so by pressing star nine and up next we'll go to Donna Steinbach. Donna you'll have two minutes. Please state your name and address and make your comments. I'm Donna Steinbach at 4825 at Jimmy Rogers Road Durham, North Carolina. And my concerns are similar to what Pam and the gentleman just the head just covered but also the fact that was stated that this is already a lot of development around that has occurred. That is not a good reason to put more stress on an already stressed infrastructure when we're already having problems with dark nickels as far as the red settlement problem and that's been covered with both the city, county, the state and we don't have any way to handle it. And so how is it gonna be handled with this development and general infrastructure issues I don't think have properly been addressed and I'll just, I know we've got to be short so I'm just making that general statement. Thank you Donna. Up next we'll go to Pamela Andrews. Pamela you'll have two minutes to make your comments. Good evening you guys. This is a weekly meeting for us but I want tonight to make sure first of all I hope that you all got my Dynomite Blasting video that I sent in last week because I wanted Mr. Lowe to address you ask about that and I wanted to make sure you saw firsthand what we're experiencing out here with these Dynomite Blasts that happen regularly with these sites. But I also do not want to address the tomato soup as we call it this red rich deep phosphorus nitrate runoff that's coming off these developments on dark nickels, olive branch, leaves for road and filter right into Lick Creek. I have some documents I got this week from a river keeper in the area and she said, she wants to remind us that Falls Lake is a state designated nutrient sensitive water source and water supply providing drinking water to over 600,000 Wake County residents. And yet we continue to let these nitrates and phosphates flow into this river every day. These creeks in the Falls Lake every day. Every time it rains it's heavy tomato soup. Also want to remind you that Lick Creek was listed as a biologically impaired by the NC Division of Water Quality on the 2006 NC3 or 3D list. The main causes are cited as E. coli and fecal contamination from sewage backflow, habitat destruction development and nutrient rich runoff also from failing septic systems coming off these developments. I ask you to please look at what you're doing out here as the other residents have spoken, the infrastructure is not supportive of all of this development. We need a traffic impact study that looks at everything, not just those small clumps of land, but everything. Please come out here. Please look at this area that we're talking about because these are real issues. You're talking over 5,000 new homes have already been approved out here that have not been built. 5,406 to be exact off the site today. Please come out and look at what's happening out here. Thank you. Thank you Pamela. Next we'll go to Paige Polk. Paige will have two minutes to make your comments. Please state your name, address and then make your comments. Hello, my name is Paige Polk and I'm at 1413 Dock Nichols Road. I have a few questions so I'll just run through. I first want to mirror the people who've come before about traffic, infrastructure and drinking water. These are essentials to living and life and they're already being dangerously affected by what's already coming up here and there's more that's in development now that hasn't even risen and produced the effects and the waste and the displacement and damage to our ecosystem that's coming. In addition, I had a question from the representative for the representative from Eden's land about the partnership with Habitat for Humanity with these three affordable housing blocks. Would these be available for ownership or rental for the people who are habitating or who are living in these spaces and are there any other affordable housing opportunities besides those three blocks that they're not even investing their own money and resources into building? My next question is about how I actually reached out to Eden's land earlier last week because I was interested in this particular development as I'm at 1413. I'm that little tiny speck between the old development that's already coming up now and what they're proposing at 1409. I reached out to the contact team through their email. I have not received a response from them since expressing my curiosity about their intentions behind building and their commitment to incorporating and incorporating and supporting the community that's already invested in this space. I am savvy and disappointed that they didn't consider it or I don't know why they didn't respond but I just don't know that I didn't receive one. But I would love to hear their response here if they haven't because when I think about these development plans impact I think about not only my life but those of my children and generations into the future. Seven generations into the future is what we should be thinking about when we're building these spaces for people to live not just go to work and come back not just buy things and come back but to be around each other. The cultural impacts are communities what we are trying to leave behind our legacy. That is what I want everyone in the Zoom room to think about when they're deciding about if they wanna be building more on a stressed infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you, Paige. Next we will turn to Thomas Freeman. Thomas please state your name and address and you'll have two minutes to make your comments. Yes, good evening everyone. My name is Thomas Freeman. I reside at 1818 South Europe Durham, North Carolina 27703. I've been here at this residence for 42 years. I'm a 69 year resident of Durham County. Been here, been around, seen a lot of different things. I'd like to tag team with what Pam Andrews was speaking about. More specifically the sediment loading into Lit Creek. As we already know, Lit Creek is a North Carolina designated impaired 303D on the 303D list of impaired waters. We know that but yet we keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. I failed to see any purpose in that. I'd like to ask the contractor to describe his grading plan. The percent of grade on the slope, the type of vegetation. Is it heavily vegetated, partially vegetated? Is it incremental grading or phase grading or a mass grading? One other point I'd like to bring up. The city and county has imposed a stormwater fee that now I'm expected to pay. I'm a legacy owner here in Durham County. Don't own a lot of land, we've got 10 acres. But we're doing things to improve the water quality. The rain that falls from heaven is being filtered through my trees, my ground, the vegetation on the ground. But yet I'm expected to pay for what developers and others do when it's running across their roads, their sidewalks, but I get the bill. Thank you very much. I'll wait for Mr. Eden's response. Thank you, Thomas. Next we're going to move to the phone number ending in 7351. Please state your name and address and you'll have two minutes to make comments. Hi, yes, this is Wanda Allen, 2111 Rudio Road in Durham and T. Yes, I'd like to just follow on and ask the commission or the management there to think about what has been brought up this evening about the red settlement. You guys have been the city officials, the state and now as well as the federal government has been put on alert that we have a major erosion problem in that area. I would consider that you guys do not do any more construction until we are development until we get this under control. And then the other item that I'd like to bring up is that you have put in your new comprehensive plan that we should be looking for taking areas that already exist and making them usable. We have a lot of strict models. We have a lot of areas that the developers could investigate to put the town home in. That's all I need to say. Thank you. Have a pleasant evening. Thank you, Wanda. Next we'll turn to Samantha Croft. Samantha, please state your name and address and you'll have two minutes. Hi there. Thank you so much for taking the time today. My name is Samantha Croft. I live on 1000 High Tower Street in Raleigh and I am working as the Noose River Keeper with Sound Rivers. And I originally was just going to listen in to the comments, but some of the things that folks said inspired me to raise my hand and just add some sense. I just wanted to appreciate the comments that were made first and foremost about the responsibility of the planning board being to kind of set the tone of the community and of the feature of the community. And I know that under each of these proposals, one of the things that we're thinking about is is this proposal, this rezoning proposal, reasonable and in the public interest? And so I just wanted to focus some comments on the water quality issues that have been raised and just note that this ongoing sedimentation issue in Lit Creek is one that not only has been observed by the locals, the folks who are commenting here but also is documented and some notices of violation were issued by Durham County sediment and erosion control. And the issue is ongoing in the area right now. And I think it would be a great thing to take the recommendations of those who suggested to go out and take a look at the area because after every rain event, there is a significant sediment load being delivered to that stream. And I think when we're thinking about each of these proposals, it's so important to think in terms of not only this proposal in isolation, but it's cumulative impacts. And certainly from a watershed perspective, the developments that are ongoing in the area are having significant cumulative impacts on Lit Creek. And that's just for sedimentation. And obviously that connects to Falls Lake and that's the drinking water source for lots of folks. So those are considerations that I'm thinking about. I went back and looked at the Lit Creek watershed restoration plan that was created. And sedimentation erosion recited as the number one concern because the soils are so sandy in that area. And the number one initiative that was laid out. I was just, you reached your two minutes. Okay. I was saying the number one initiative laid out was to manage for development and responsible development in the area. So I appreciate you taking the time and thank you for your work. Thank you, Samantha. Would anyone else like to speak on this case at this time? I see Katie Rose has raised their hand. Katie, you have two minutes to provide your comment. Please state your name and address. The response, I'm sure. Okay. Okay. I'm seeing no other individuals. Katie will give you one more chance if you're able to speak. Katie, it looks like you are unmuted, but I'm not hearing you. So I'm not sure if there's a technical difficulty issue on your hand on your end. Okay. We're going to move forward for now. And Katie, if you're able to get your technical issues resolved, I can, when it comes to my time to speak during the commissioner comments, I'll be sure to recognize you to allow you time to make comment. Mr. Edens, I believe you had at least five minutes of your time remaining if you would like a chance to respond to any of the comments you heard. Yeah. Thanks for the chance to answer some of these. And I appreciate the people in attendance. I recognize a lot of the names. We've talked to a lot of meetings in the past. So I just took a few notes and I'll try to hit some of the high points. Traffic counts, the data in that report is not my data. The traffic counts, the ADT on Dot Nichols Road, trips generated by the development, all those things are generated by staff. We have no input over that. So I feel like I've got to point that out a lot, but that is a city of Durham transportation generated data. So obviously it's not near enough density that would generate required TIA. You would need, I think three to four times the number of units to trigger a TIA out here. I do want to speak to, you know, runoff and nutrients. I mean, I mean, one thing Durham has gone forward on the environmental side, they have very strict nutrient phosphorus, nitrogen and phosphorus runoff requirements that they enforce. So you have to do that when you do your site plan and CDs regardless. Also, Ms. Polk, I don't know. The email I have was contact at demote.org. Responding to you at 10.04 this morning, I'd be glad to send it to you again, and I apologize for getting back to you the day of the meeting, but I get a lot of emails during the week. I also let myself on number with you earlier this morning to call me if you wanted to talk before the meeting. So not ignoring anyone out there, just sometimes emails cross through the air and we don't catch them. So anyways, I appreciate the chance to respond. I'm just gonna leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Edens. And I see one more individual has raised their hand to speak. Chandra Jackson. I'll have two minutes to provide any comments. Please state your name and address to begin. Chandra, are you able to unmute yourself? Let's get into response, Chair. Thank you. Okay, so with that, we're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and move on to commissioner questions and comments. Before I recognize other commissioners, I just, I wanna respond to something directly and just state for the record. This planning commission does not rubber stamp suburban sprawl. And you have to look no further than our record to see that that is the case. We consistently unanimously or nearly unanimously vote to recommend not to approve rezonings that are suburban sprawl and unsustainable. You can look just at our meeting last week, everything that could be categorized as sprawl was either unanimous or near unanimous against. And I would like to just take this moment to remind folks that we are an advisory board. We make recommendations. We do not ultimately decide if a rezoning happens or not that is up to the city council and the county board of commissioners. So I just wanna be very clear that when we're talking about who is rubber stamping suburban sprawl, it is not this planning commission. With that, I'm going to go ahead and recognize commissioner Cupwright. Appreciate it, Chair. Just a couple of quick questions. Well, let me start first by saying I appreciate the effort that's gone into trying to find a creative way to generate affordable housing on a four purchase basis. Like I know three pads isn't a lot. It doesn't do much of anything as it relates to the overall problem. But just in contrast, it's much better than coming up here and saying, we haven't thought about affordable housing. There's clearly been some thought put into it and a potential solution for the city to get something done. And that's more also than giving an arbitrary amount to the affordable housing fund. So hats off to that. I think that's a good start or at least a way to start to think about this in a creative manner. My two questions are around two things that have come up consistently from the neighborhood. One is on transportation. And I believe Ms. Earlene Thomas is on. And we hear this all the time, specifically regarding traffic counts and is it accounting for other projects? I think the answer has been no, but maybe we can confirm that as other projects are in the pipeline and we're looking at traffic volume, it could be interesting to see like a potential future traffic volume based on all the projects that are out there, something like that could be helpful in this context. The other statement, and maybe you can confirm this or not, was that a few years ago, traffic count was higher than what's listed at the 750. That's my first question. My other question relates to what I'm hearing about the red clay and what's happening there. Where's a responsibility lie for evaluating those types of things and the environmental impact in general? So I don't know if this has to occur with like a small area study or something like that, but just trying to understand where that responsibility lies and how these types of projects can be more informed on those types of things. So those are my two questions. Good evening, Erling Thomas, I'm transportation. I can certainly speak to the traffic volume question. So the traffic volumes come from NCDOT's historical traffic count database, which is publicly available on their website. And traffic counts do fluctuate between years. So I have pulled the traffic data and in 2015, traffic was 860 vehicles per day. NCDOT has some supplemental traffic data that was taken in 2020, which is the current volume that's shown in the staff report. Can you speak at all to thinking about other projects that are in the pipeline and incorporating that into what we're seeing? Yes, and we sort of talked about this at our last meeting on relatives in some of the other cases. Traffic from other developments are accounted for when a TIA, it's cumulative development in a TIA. Smaller studies that don't require a TIA, that level of analysis is not typically done. And as I shared before, we can certainly set a baseline date and look at all developments that have been approved in an attempt to capture sort of a projected traffic volume. There's some limitations with doing that and making assumptions on percentages and directions of travel from developments, as well as sort of a reservation, I guess, and I guess of capacity if a development isn't built. Thank you. I think that was good for some of the folks to hear just about how this process works. And I don't know if Michael is on or somebody can talk about the environmental and where the responsibility lies there. The red light right off. I think I was mentioned before is a sedimentation erosion control issue that's handled through the county. And I know Ryan Eaves of the county that they inspect and issue violations as warranted. I don't have anything to add to that at this time. Appreciate it, Michael. To one quick question, is that on an individual basis? And so as a developer is building something, if they're clearly in violation, right, they don't have the black fences set up, whatever they're supposed to be doing, that's where that comes from. But I don't think, and maybe we can dig into this later, there's a sort of more broad or general evaluation, again, sort of taking into account a lot of what's happening around the area. Yeah, you're exactly right. It's all these developments, file land disturbance plans and get erosion control permits. And they have to do exactly what you say, set up the preventive measures and such to obviously prevent the erosion. Obviously there's issues that are happening and I know sedimentation that departments dealing with them, I can't speak to anything beyond that at this point though. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Morgan. Thank you, Chair. I guess I wanted to say thanks for clarifying our role as an advisory committee with the public. I think certainly a just another comment I would make is if citizens, rather we vote for against this particular case itself, certainly we will make comments to the city council as far as our thoughts on it. And certainly as citizens, you have an opportunity to sign up when this does give you go before council, regardless of what we vote, the actual case itself does go before council and they are the final authority. So I have a question for Ms. Thomas as well. Are the numbers adjusted since there are a couple age restricted communities in the area? And I know there was sort of a, that they were actually considered as far as traffic study, have they been adjusted? Because I know we're no longer approving age restricted text commitments to any of these developments. And I'm just wondering has the numbers been adjusted to reflect potentially normal traffic? Because I think that doesn't make any difference. I know I'm older and I still drive a lot. So, and I live in one of those areas. Yes, early in Thomas transportation. So there only traffic is generated differently based on the unit type. And so only for the ones that have been approved this age restricted, are those trips generated in that manner? So any new development would be just standard single family or town home trip generation. But as far as Fendall Farms or Caroline Arbers, are you adjusting their number? Yeah, your initial numbers. I know some of the community folks are concerned about that. No, those are not adjusted because those were approved as age restricted developments. And as I understand it, that's within the covenants for those developments. Okay. Thank you for that. And I don't think I have anything else. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Morgan, the commissioner Durkin. Thank you. I'm also, I'm just echoing what commissioners had already said earlier about appreciating some thought and creativity in bringing affordable units to this project. I just wanted to clarify how this is going to be papered. And I want the applicant to make sure that they're what you're proposing and what your offering is actually going to be required in the future. So it's not just something that someone can kind of turn around and make big on later. And they're no longer affordable units for sale properties at all. So the tax commitment includes the term affordable housing units and that's defined in the UDO, but the UDO is not referenced. So Mike Scott, can you clarify what has written the commitment number nine? Yes, that's as far as enforceability in the future. Hold on for one second. Let me pull it up and get to the plan. Sorry, I thought I had it off, but I didn't. Let's see. The developers construct and dedicate. Although the wording he brought up, Commissioner Durkin, that the word dedicate could be more like donate. We're like donate. Which is fine, we can repay that. If there's three unit town home pad for habit and community for future construction of three affordable housing units. The affordable housing units in the UDO is defined at 80% AMI. So my understanding is that Habitat does provide in that range, I could be wrong, but my understanding is Habitat does work within that range. So I don't think that would be an issue if we do need to clarify that or if the applicant needs to clarify that, that can be done also. But, and I would ask the applicant that the intent is to mandate affordable housing units or was the intent just to dedicate the Habitat for Humanity and how they handle their units is how they handle the units. Joe, can you speak to that question? Yeah, I appreciate the question. I think it's good conversation because it's sort of the first one of these text amendments for us to walk through and vet and try to perfect a little bit. So yeah, like, I mean, if I wanted to make a dedication to Habitat for Humanity, I would just try to check the Habitat for Humanity, but I don't wanna do that, right? So I want real affordable units that are, you know, I wanna be permanent. You know, I've met with Habitat, you know, it is Durham Habitat for Humanity, right? I met with Habitat, you know, they have a list of qualified buyers who may not qualify for the market right home. Let's say, I mean, it could be, you know, let's say it's 375-400 for a market rate. They may have someone who qualifies for a $250,000 home. They will put those people, you know, in those homes, sell the home to them. My understanding, again, I talked to, you know, Habitat would have to confirm, but my understanding is, you know, Habitat takes a second mortgage out for the remainder of the value of the unit. This prevents the current owner from flipping the unit a year or two down the road and making, you know, a $50,000 profit on an affordable unit because it has a second mortgage attached to it. So, I mean, Habitat is obviously putting in precautions to ensure that they have control over the unit and that it remains affordable. But my intention, by purposely using the word affordable in there, and like Mike said, that it's clearly defined in the code with timeframes and whatnot. I have no problem, you know, on the rental side, we'll add a tax commitment that says, like, you know, at 1231 each year, you know, developer provides an accounting of the affordable units or whatnot. We could have a similar substatement if Mike and Sarah and then want that just says, you know, at the end of the 30th, you know, whenever we're required to do it, Habitat provides an accounting or whatever. I have no problem. That's what Planning Commission is for to me is to take stuff like this and try to improve it. So, I think it's a good idea to try to make it better. Just for everyone's edification, the definition of affordable units in the UDO does include compliance and procedure measures that are adopted from by the city. So that would kind of be built in if that is truly the intent to meet that definition and we can work with the applicant to refine and to be more explicit about the intent of that, which I believe is to meet the definition of affordable with the UDO. Is that correct, Jared? Yes, 100%. I mean, this is the best way I could find on a for sale side to do it. And I think they're a really good partner. So we can work with the applicant to just be more explicit about the definition of affordable housing unit. And we've done that in the past. Past text commitments, if you're aware, usually referenced as defined by in 17.3 of the UDO and adds additional language about compliance and procedure methods. Thank you, Michael. And it looks like we lost Commissioner Durkin. So I imagine she's having technical difficulties and when she's back on, we'll return to her. Commissioner Morgan, I see you have your hand raised. Is that from earlier? Did you have additional comments? Are there other comments? Actually, I have one other question. I noticed when we were talking about the Habitat for Humanity, I was looking at the text commitments. It was a question for the applicant. I've noticed there's a one-time payment for contributions to Durham Public Schools and another one-time payment of 30,000 for the City of Durham Dedicated Housing Fund. Is that, I just wanna make sure that's not a typo or so. It looks like you're doing both Habitat for Humanity and you're also donating to the dedicated housing fund. Yeah, that's correct. Because when we started the project, we didn't have the Habitat dedication or that's something we've worked at last month or two. So I didn't wanna take it off. We just left it on there. So we'll be doing both. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Morgan, Commissioner Herrod. Yes, thank you, Chair. One other thing in addition to affordable housing that the applicant has gone beyond the normal and designed the runoff for a hundred-year storm event. So I think that's commendable. And hopefully that'll play into some of the concerns that the neighbors had. And that celebration is controlled by Durham County Health Department. I forget exactly what the, I lost my information. But you can call down and make complaints. And I agree with you. They need to go out there and look at it. So the department had, well, the division manager's got a variety in stormwater and erosion control division. So, Commissioner Herrod. Yes, sir. Sorry, I actually need to interrupt you for a moment. Go ahead. Because I need to confirm that Commissioner Durkin is on the phone. I'm on the phone. My AT&T internet went down yet again. So I'm on the phone. Great. Sorry, we just needed to confirm so that we have eight commissioners and quorum. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Herrod, back to you. Yes, I appreciate that. Well, that was my comment on the soil erosion. I mean, it really sounds pretty bad. So I hope that y'all will get them out there specifically to look at it. I guess my only question to the applicant and I can't, I don't see anything in here about trails or open space or anything like that. Do you have anything planned? Well, that kind of thing. Yeah, I mean, not specifically, you know, the code requires a percentage of the open space to be active. So at site plan, we'll have to specify what goes in the active open space. I mean, we do a lot of dog parks lately and things like that. So I'd imagine dog part will have tot lot or something but haven't designed it all the way out yet. Okay. And at one point you had mixed type of housing and then you changed it to all townhouses. What was the rationale for that? Yeah, we have a rental product, a rental concept we've been developing and initially I was going to do it at this site but it's really not large enough for what we're trying to do with that concept. So we went to something a little bit more traditional. Okay, that's the extent of my question. Thank you, Commissioner Herrod. Commissioner Durkin, did you want to finish your comments and also just to, I guess, summarize what Michael was saying when you dropped off is they're going to work on the language to make sure it's explicit that it is referring to the UDO definition of affordable housing. Okay, and Michael, can you also remind me then how did that get enforced? Is there something recorded against the property or how is our future buyers going to know and their future lenders that those three units would be restricted for the UDO? You know, I don't know the specifications for that. It is something that is worked through with community development because they maintain the compliance and monitoring procedures and they do take into consideration the sales versus rental. So I honestly can't speak as an expert on that. But it is monitor, yeah. Okay, so I'll just put in my comments that hopefully it is something that's a record and easily found and suited for and to be knowledgeable of. So that's great. I'm happy that this is a more concrete provision then rather than just a nice offer, which I also appreciate that. I believe the applicant wanted something more concrete and I think having this tied to the UDO gets us there and so I really appreciate that. And again, I'm appreciative of having a creative solution to what we keep bringing up. So I hope to see more like this and including more units and offers of interesting stuff to come. So thank you. Thank you, commissioner Durkin. Are there other commissioners who would like to provide any comments or questions at this time? Okay, with that, I'm going to first, I said that I would come back to Katie Rose who is having some trouble with taking our turn to speak earlier. Katie, if you're still with us, I'd like to give you a couple of minutes to make the comments you wanted to provide earlier. And Katie, it looks like you're unmuted, but I cannot hear you. So I'm not sure if you're trying to speak to us at the moment or not. Katie, we're still not hearing you. I'm sorry that we're not able to get this technical issue sorted out. If you want to email your comments and we'll be happy to hear them. Okay, with that, I also see Thomas Freeman has their hand raised. Thomas, I'd like to just give you a moment to make a brief comment. If you'd like to add anything at this time. Yes, thank you, Austin. I opened, when I opened earlier, I posed several questions of the applicants and then made some comments. I'd like to just re-ask those questions to the applicant. And that was regarding the sediment loading of the impaired Lick Creek that's already on the 303D list. What is his grading plan? Just describe his grading plan of that size. I'll wait for the answer. And Thomas, if you'll ask all of your questions, I will then direct those to the applicant. Thank you, but that is the only question. That's pretty much the focus of my comment was for the applicant to describe in some detail the, his grading plan, how he seeks to clear and grade that site, but also be interested in the percent grade of that site as well. That's all, thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Mr. Edens, can you speak any to your grading plan? I know that that might be more of a site bubble thing, but if you kind of have a sense of what that might look like, could you share that? Yeah, and I'm sorry to address it before. There's just, there's so many comments. Maybe I cherry picked, I can do that from time to time. But yeah, so the grading, I mean, it's going to be masqueraded for sure. I mean, if you look at the zoom out and look at not just this part of Durham, but every part of Durham since 2005, it's masqueraded because lots are smaller, units are smaller. I mean, if you want to, a great way to increase housing costs across the board for the city, if they wanted to increase housing costs, they could eliminate masquerading. And that'd be a great way to make all the houses go up to 10, 15, 20% costs. So yeah, there's really no way around economically and you've got to control your storm drainage. So you have, you sort of have to masquerade to funnel your drainage to your pond. So yeah, it'll definitely be masqueraded that just like all the other projects that have been before in an area and just like all the other projects that will come after it in that area. And that's just modern construction practices. That's to keep costs down. That's a key to keeping costs down. And the topography of the site, it's actually, you know, fennel farms next to it has some terrible topography. It has like some 60 foot drops. We designed fennel farms. So I know the topography, we don't have near that kind of issues at 1409 dock. It's pretty gradual from front to back. I don't anticipate a lot of retaining walls or anything like that. So from a grading standpoint, it's pretty attractive for development. Thank you, Mr. Edens. And then I would, so I'm gonna come to Pamela Andrews, but I would like to note that the public hearing has been closed. So Pamela, if you have a question, I would be happy to hear that. And then I will direct that to the applicant or to staff. But I just would ask you to be brief and keep in mind that we've already had the public hearing. Pamela, you're recognized. Thank you. I just wanted to tell us to hear it very quickly that we have reached out to Ryan Eves. We've also spoke to Jonathan McNeil. We've had numerous conversations with him about this front ops. I just wanted to say and recognize that our new comprehensive plan does address mass grading in numerous objectives. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments or questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Busby. Thanks Chairman Dahlia. I just wanted to note that I mean, I appreciate the citizens who've come and spoken. I share a lot of the same concerns as well. And I think I heard a lot of you saying things that not only the one gentleman who's explicitly said, these, my testimony is really gonna look toward many of the cases in front of us tonight. I think the concerns I was hearing from many, if not all of you are relevant for all of the cases or many of them that are before us this evening. I just wanted to share that I see a big difference between this case of, you know, on eight acres compared to our next case, for example, which is 300 acres. This is a small site in an area that has been zoned for development. Many of those cases I did not vote for, but they have moved forward for various reasons. But this case, I am planning to vote for it for two major reasons. Number one, I do believe the affordable housing commitment with the discussion that we had and the strengthened language that makes sure that these are truly affordable housing. This is innovative and it's an important step forward. I'd like to see a lot more of it, but this is a start and I appreciate that. I also am very glad to see the 100 year stormwater commitment and I think that's really important. I've said it before, Mr. Eden's brings that regularly in his proposals. I think that should just be a bare minimum in our unified development ordinance moving forward. That's not the case right now. I know that doesn't solve all the problems, but I do believe that that should help with the stormwater runoff issues because those are very valid concerns. But I just wanted to share those comments, especially because so many citizens came tonight, took the time in this first case to share their concerns. I wanted to let you know, I hear those concerns. I will be voting on future cases, including others this evening, that back up those concerns as well. But I at least wanted to explain why on this very first case, I am planning to vote yes. So thank you, Chairman DeLay. I appreciate the opportunity to offer the comments. Thank you, Commissioner Busby. I'll say basically I would reiterate everything that Commissioner Busby just said for my own vote tonight. This is an eight acre site and the next few cases on our agenda are 280, 73 and 22 acres. They're all at least twice the size. Some are many multiples times the size of this parcel that we're looking at. And they do minimal to none to address affordable housing. And so this seems like a very different case in my mind. And I think particularly for me, I do appreciate the density here because it does create opportunity for nearby parcels to have more commercial and office interest as people move and are able to be in a tighter home. There's spot and there's actual opportunities to plan out walkable communities in these areas that are undergoing development. So to me, this is a step in the right direction and it does bring innovative ways to address affordable housing, which is something that I wanna see more of and I think should not go unnoticed. And just to reiterate the process moving forward, regardless of our vote tonight, this case will move forward to the city council and it would be ultimately their decision on what to do with this case and whether or not to allow it to happen. And so I encourage folks to stay involved through that process because there's still time for y'all to work with Mr. Edens to make improvements between now and city council. With that said, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we take case number Z2-0-000-16-1409-Doctinical Road with the provision subject to provision or changes for the, I guess the Habitat for Humanity clause or text commitment to be forward to the city council for the favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Vice Chair Cameron. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, maybe have the roll call vote. Sure, Amandoya. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Herod. Yes. Low. Yes. And Morgan. No. It passes seven to one. Thank you, staff. Thanks, Mr. Edens. And thanks to all the residents who showed up for this case. Yeah, thank you. And if I could quickly say thanks to Brian Busby for his time, I think we're bronze nearing the end. So I want to say thanks, Brian and you guys have a good evening and take care. Thank you, Mr. Edens. Yes. And for those who are not aware, tonight will be Commissioner Busby's and also Commissioner Lowe's last meeting on the planning commission. Commissioner Busby is term limited after this month and I believe Commissioner Lowe is reaching the end of his term as well. Okay, we're gonna take a recess for about, I'm gonna say we're gonna take a recess until 6.55. And then we will be back to move forward with our agenda at that time. Have you experienced changes in Durham that negatively affect your everyday life? Many in the community have. The City and County of Durham want to correct those issues and ensure the future changes work for the entire community. They're listening and want to hear your ideas for making Durham a place where everyone thrives. That's why the City and County of Durham are inviting all members of the Durham community to take part in the creation of the new comprehensive plan which will determine the vision for growing Durham over the next 30 years. This collaboration between the City and County of Durham and the Durham community is the result of the new Engaged Durham Initiative which seeks to ensure that all community stakeholders are involved in the shaping of City and County projects. Help build a Durham that works for everyone. There's no place like home. Home is where the heart is. Hey, can I help you? Oh, thank you. Thank you so much. It is our place of safety and warmth. Home is where love resides, memories are created, and laughter warms the heart. That's why the Durham Human Relations Division is committed to enforcing the Fair Housing Act which prohibits unlawful discrimination based on race, color, disability, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. We, the people. Nosotros, de gente. Woman, renmin. Mi adzuma, vio. Home sublogue. We, the people, hold these truths. To be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal and shall be afforded the inalienable right to fair housing. The City of Durham and HUD are committed to ensuring that everyone is treated equitably when searching for a place to call home. Here's some tips to ensure that your garbage and recycling gets picked up. One, your cart should be put out for collection before 6 a.m. on your collection day. Two, your cart should be at least three feet from all other objects, such as mailboxes, telephone poles, fire hydrants, trees, and other carts. Three, your cart should be no more than three feet from the curb. Four, no vehicles should be blocking your carts. The mechanical arms on our trucks need direct access to your carts and cannot reach around vehicles. To find more information about garbage and recycling pickups, go to this web address. Hi, everyone. I just want to announce that we're going to be extending our recess to 7 p.m. Thank you. No, Gosh, if you're on the call, could you please check your email and call the number listed in that email? Tara, I'm back on video. And if my internet goes out again, because this was the second or third time it's happened today, I'll just call on my phone. Thank you. Hi, everyone. We're going to be returning from our recess. Consumers, could please come on camera. Okay, so here's the situation. We are most likely going to lose quorum at about eight o'clock, which means that we will not be able to conduct business beyond that point. There, obviously we have a stacked agenda. When we originally scheduled this meeting, we had had 10 commissioners indicating they were able to attend and we had several cancellations within the last 12 to 24 hours. So because of that, there, I'm going to request first off an adjustment to the agenda because there are two cases that should be very quick, one of which is an affordable housing, has an affordable housing component that I want to prioritize. And then we're most likely going to need to continue three of the cases to our July and or August meetings. And so at this time, I'm going to request that we move Harriet's place. So case Z24 triple zero 14 Harriet's place two to be our next item on the agenda. And then to do case Z21 triple zero 22, 42 14 Fayetteville road after that case. Beyond then, I would propose we go through the agenda as ordered. Mr. Chair, I made that motion to adjust the agenda. Second. See moved by commissioner Morgan, seconded by commissioner cut, right? Can maybe have the roll call vote. Yes. Amandoya. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Herod. Yes. Low. Yes. And Morgan. Yes. Okay. So the adjustments to the agenda pass eight zero. Thank you. Okay. Very briefly. I want to acknowledge Mr. Neil Gauch. I'm the LSE you have your hand raised. I know this is impacting some of your cases. So I'm recognizing you have questions at this time. Well, actually, I think Mike's talk explained to me, but I was trying to communicate with clients. I just wanted to get an understanding of the motion that just was passed. I just didn't hear it. Yes. The motion that was just passed was to adjust the agenda to move around the order of our zoning map changes. And so we're going to do cases Z22 triple zero 14 Harriet's place next. And then we're going to do cases Z21 triple zero 22 42 14 Fayetteville road. And then we will proceed with the rest of our items for items B through D on the agenda. And most likely we are going to be opening public hearings and continuing all three of those items because it's unlikely we'll be able to make it through any of those. I don't disagree. I'm just wondering why don't you just open those hearings now and continue them. That's a fair question. Grace. I guess chair Mendoia, that's perfectly fine with staff. I think we were just making sure that we could get in touch with everyone. I think that that's an acceptable way to proceed. And we would just need to, we don't need to rearrange the agenda again. We could just go and open there's an order and that way everyone on the call understands what's going on. And that would probably be just as well or a better path to progress tonight. So thank you. Yeah. Thank you for that now. And I would just like for some insight baseball the reason that decision got made is because just the way we were processing this was which cases are quick and need to go tonight. And then we started thinking about what do we do with the other cases? And so our brains just went in order of like, let's solve this problem, then let's solve the other and I appreciate you helping us think through that. I had a real quick question. Can we go ahead and postpone those other three so that we don't hold people on the line or do we have to open up the public hearing to do that? We have to open up the public hearing to do that. Okay. Yeah, just a quick clarification because we advertised all these hearings. They have to be opened and then continued and they stay open until the next day. And we have some dates in mind for each of them. And Austin or Chair Amandoy will walk you through those as we get to those. We've been working behind the scenes to try to figure out what can go where based on. Yep, that's a good question. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all for that and for your flexibility. So based on Mr. Ghosh's idea and staff's support of that we're going to go through cases B through D and just go ahead and continue them. And I have the dates of mine. So first we're going to turn to case Z 20, triple zero, 40, Kemp Road subdivision. I'm going to open the public hearing and request a continuance for a 30 day cycle which would be our July 12th planning commission meeting. So moved. Second. Okay. Moved by Commissioner Morgan. Seconded by Vice Chair Cameron. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, maybe have the roll call vote. All right. So this is to continue Kemp Road to July 12th our next regular meeting and Amandoya. Yes. Leslie. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Herod. Yes. Low. Yes. Morgan. Yes. That passes eight zero. Thank you. Can we just reiterate for everyone on the call on one more time what the date is? Thank you, Chair. Yes. So just to like, yeah, once more reiterate the process. So when an item comes to the planning commission we have 90 days to take action on it. We may continue a case for 30, 60 or 90 days if we need more time for a multitude of reasons. So the vote we just had moves this case will continue this case to our July 12th meeting. And so we will have the public hearing and the discussion at that time. And that is when barring any further continuances we will make our recommendation and we'll follow a similar process for the next two cases. So next up we have case Z20 quadruple zero eight still of you. I'm going to open the public hearing and I would like to request that we continue this case to our first 60 day cycle to our August 9th planning commission meeting. So moved. Moved by commissioner Morgan seconded by commissioner Herod. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none that we have the roll call vote. Yes. Amondoya. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Herod. Yes. Low. Yes. Sorry, Morgan. Yes. Thank you. Passes eight zero. Thank you. And then next up we have case Z21 triple zero eight 18502 Leesville. I'm going to open the public hearing and request that we continue this case for a 60 day cycle to our August 9th planning commission meeting. So moved or moved? Okay. Moved by commissioner Morgan seconded by commissioner Lowe. Maybe have the roll call vote. Yes. Amondoya. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Herod. Yes. Low. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Okay. Passes eight zero. Thank you. Thank you staff. Thank you to the applicants for those three cases for your flexibility. I know it's not an ideal scenario for you all and it was unforeseen. Also just as a bring some levity to the situation I think we're going to break our record for the most yes votes since tonight's meeting. So next we're going to move to case Z21 triple zero 22 42 14 Fayetteville Road and we'll begin with the staff report. Sure. Just one moment chair. That's wrong. Awesome. Please let me know if you see the presentation. Fantastic. Thank you chair. Thank you commission. I'm Andy Lester planning department and I'm here to present before we did tonight as the 21 zero zero two two 42 14 Fayetteville Road. This site is a proposed rezoning to office and institutional with a development plan. Its existing zoning is residential suburban 20. It is located at 42 14 Fayetteville Road in the suburban tier. Site acreage is 0.97 acres. The existing flume is medium density residential. Should this be approved? Staff recommends a flume to office to accommodate the proposal. And what the proposal is, it's a restricted, it's a development plan with office civic and residential uses. As you can see the existing zoning is residential suburban 20. The site is surrounded by residential 20, residential suburban 20, office institutional residential suburban multifamily and industrial onto the east. The existing future land use designation is medium density residential. If approved, the proposed future land use destination for the entire development would be changed to office to accommodate the proposed rezoning. This arrow map shows the general location of the property. To the west of the site is Fayetteville Road, to the east of the site, I'm sorry, is Fayetteville Road and it's located south of Larchwood Drive. The applicant has included graphic and text commitments including a bus pullout and concrete pad bus shelter. Proposes to keep the existing structure and provides architectural standards for new development on the site. There are no streams on the site, pines are located in the property. Duke Power easement is indicated on the western side for the adjacent site to Fayetteville. Now the applicant has proposed the majority of the tree coverage area to the rear and side of the property line. When phase two is developed, which is the southern portion below the hatch line, the existing private driveway will be relocated further south along Fayetteville Street or Fayetteville Road and further away from the driveways the single family residence is to the north. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on April 21st, 2021. No social pinpoint comments were received. Except for the future land use destination, staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies. The request is approved, the flume destination shall be amended to maintain consistency. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. We're going to open the public hearing at this time. Since we are crunched for time, I am going to reduce the amount of time that speakers have. So I'm gonna reduce, I'm gonna allow for five minutes for the applicant to provide their presentation and comments. And for all speakers after that, you'll get one minute each. We'll begin with the applicant report and presentation and Kevin Fairfax, I believe you're the applicant on this case, you'll have five minutes to give your presentation. Okay. Dr. Shah was gonna be the one speaking today. So I appreciate your time and I don't know if Sean is available, is on the call. See Sean Snyder. Yes. Yes. Oh, see their hand raised. Yes, Sean, you may begin. No problem. Yeah, I was planning on presenting for Kevin. I mean, we can keep this short anyway. There's really not a whole lot there. The applicant wants to rezone so that they can use the existing home as a real estate office for the time being while reserving possible future development in the phase two portion. We've talked about a couple options for the phase two portions, possibly town homes, possibly more office, but that's something down the line that we haven't really, they're not really ready to design you out yet. And so we don't really have that solidified. But the bulk of the request here is to use this as a residential office. And that's the purpose of the rezoning. I don't think I have a whole lot more, but I can answer any questions that anybody would have. Thank you, Sean. I would that we'll turn first to our registered speakers and then if folks who would like to speak on this case, go ahead and raise your hand to get in the queue and so that we can move as efficiently as possible. The only registered speaker on this case is Rob Levinsky. Rob, you'll have a minute to provide your comments. Please say your name and address and give your one minute comments. Chair, I don't ask you Rob Levinsky on the list anymore. Okay. Are there any other attendees who would like to speak on this case? And if you are on the phone, please indicate that you would like to speak by pressing star nine. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and turn it over to commissioner comments and questions. Commissioner Cutwright. Thanks, chair. Just a quick question for staff. If you know off the top of your head, what's the difference in allowable density between RS 20 and OI for residential? I don't have to look that up unless Mike knows off the top of his head. This is one thing among many that I do not know off the top of my head. So I will also have to look that up. We try not to memorize these things sometimes because we can get into trouble if we do memory. But RS 20, you're looking at two units, generally per acre because there are 20,000 square foot locks. Andy, if you get to six, 10, two before I do. I can, if you want, I can say, looking at this as phase two only as possible, town homes, six would be the most units we could fit on it per the, you know, and that's over in the project information on the plan. It's possible we wouldn't even get that many just based on the space. I mean, this whole site is less than an acre. But again, we haven't really planned it out yet. Andy, remind me, is this in the urban tier or suburban tier? This is the suburban tier, which is why we got to have the tree protection area. So suburban tier would be a maximum of 11 units per acre. So naturally the reason for the question is, and Sean, I mean, we've got to look past what your sort of current use will be and into what the future phase will be because you don't have to come back in front of us for the phase two, once you get this rezoned. And so curious question, one understand what the potential is. And so from our perspective, clearly a change of views from a house to an office is sort of nominal or no impact, but building 11 units, which again, maybe not fit. You don't know what physically fits there, but that's a different proposal. And I think that's one that we should be considering here and entertaining as we change this from RS 20 to OI. So that's my thought. I think that's a real concern here. Absolutely, Gary, but I will say it's not gonna, according to planning staff, as they were reviewing this, it has to be six because they would only allow the actual acreage of phase two to be taken into account for the density. So when you take just phase two, which is 0.59 acres, six units is the most we could get. I mean, allowed by ordinance, not 11. That's correct. It would be the density for in a non-residential district is restricted to the area used for the residential. So if it's, the site itself is only an acre and I don't know what the acreage is for phase two. If the applicant can confirm, are you committing to only an office use in phase one? That is correct. And the acreage of phase two was 0.59. I'm looking at it right now. Yeah, thank you. That's fine, Mike. Yeah. Thanks, Commissioner Cartwright. Do other commissioners have questions and comments? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, I move that we take case number Z21-00022, 42-14 Fayetteville Road to be forwarded to the city council with favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Vice Chair Cameron. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, may we have the roll call vote? Sure. Amondoya. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cartwright. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Carrad. Yes. Lowe. Yes. And Morgan. Yes. Passes eight, zero. Thank you. Thanks to staff, thanks to the applicant and any residents that have been engaged in this process. Okay, we're going to move to our last public hearing of the night. This is case Z22-00014, Harriet's Place 2. We'll begin with the staff report. Thank you very much. Michael, stop with the planning department. Can you see the presentation? Yes. Okay, thank you. Z22-00014, Harriet's Place 2 is an amendment to a case the Planning Commission approved, I believe last year, the original Harriet's Place case, Z20-00021, it's located at 312 Olmsted and 1206 Dawkins Street in the urban tier located in the city and just under an acre of site acreage. The existing zoning is RUMD and that's what was approved under Z20-21. There's no change to this zoning district. The existing flum is medium, I'd say hue, medium high residential and there's no impact to that. I apologize for the typo. And the proposal is an amendment to the approved development plan, specifically for building envelope and impervious surface. There's the site location. Again, the zoning is RUMD if surrounded by the dark brown is RU-5. And there's the aerial site. It was a former, it's being converted into affordable housing units. The commission approved this plan unanimously, as did council. The two amendments that are outlined in your packet are to expand the building envelope to accommodate an elevator tower. And the applicant can explain that issue a little bit more, but it was an unanticipated increase in the building envelope. And they are also increasing their impervious surface, not that they necessarily, I believe need more impervious surface at this time, but to give themselves a little more breathing room in case there's other site development issues that arise. And again, this is the proposed conditions. I am circling this elevator tower area that was not in the original plan. And that original plan is in your packet. As you will see in your original packet, the building envelope basically ended with the existing building, but they do need to expand that. And they are also increasing their impervious surface by no more than 3%. There was a neighborhood meeting that was held by the applicant and two communities were in attendance. And the amendments maintained consistency with the CGO's community goals and objectives, the future land use map and other applicant plans. And I will stop there. And I believe the applicant is here to go into any more detail. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. We'll begin with the applicant presentation and comments. I have Peter Skillum and Howard Partner as the two individuals signed up as the applicant team. You all will have five minutes to provide any comments and presentations you all have. Okay, this is Howard Partner and I'm the landscape architect and applicant for the site. Peter Skillum from Reinvestment Partners is also here if you have any questions for him. So I just wanna give you a little bit of context on this site. This is the old Harriet Tubman segregated YWCA that was built in the early 1950s. The building has been abandoned for a number of years and Reinvestment Partners purchased the building and is converting it into small studio affordable apartments. What we started off with half of the building is three stories tall, the other half is one story tall. We originally were gonna have an elevator tower that would pierce the one story section of the building and sit adjacent to the three story part of the building. At the same time, we are trying to get the building registered with the National Register of Historic Places. And in doing so, the building was reviewed by the North Carolina State Office of Historic Preservation and they determined that they didn't wanna see an elevator tower, a modern elevator tower sitting in a 1950s style building because it would destroy the ambience of the original building. So we wound up needing to move the elevator to the back corner of the building. This elevator tower is about 10 feet by 13 feet in size and three stories high. When we did the original development plan, we added a little note that said that the proposed development would be within the existing footprint of the building. And that was our intention. And then low and behold, we found we needed to relocate the elevator tower and that put it outside of the existing footprint. So all we're doing is essentially negating that original note that said all development would be inside of the original footprint. We're adding on a small elevator tower at the back and that affects the amount of impervious surface and it alters the footprint of the development to include the elevator tower at the back. So in a nutshell, I think that's everything. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Thank you, Howard. With that, we will move to anyone else who would like to make comment on this case. The only person who had signed up and registered to speak on this case is Rob Levinsky and he is now on the call with us. So if anyone else would like to speak on this case, you have a minute and please raise your hand at this time to indicate you would like to speak. Seeing none, I'm going to move to close the public hearing and we'll turn it over to commissioner comments and questions. I am seeing none. If there are no comments and questions, I would accept a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we take case number Z22, triple zero, one, four, area's place to be forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by commissioner Morgan, seconded by vice chair Cameron. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, may we have the roll call vote? Sure. Amandoya. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Herod. Yes. Lowe. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Passes eight zero. Thank you. Thanks staff. Thanks to the applicant. And that concludes our agenda for tonight's evening. I was just, I'm going to state for the record that, yes, we have 30 minutes before we anticipate losing quorum. However, given the number of registrants signed up to speak on the other three cases we had, it basically would have been opening the public hearing, listening to people's comments, and then we would have been out of time. So I just wanted to assure there was no way we were going to get more cases done tonight based on the amount of time that we have right now. Grace, Michael, do y'all have any announcements or anything before we adjourn? I just want to say that this is my last meeting with you all for a while. There might be a case that comes before you, but I am moving to, and I think Grace sent out an email about me moving over to managing the Development Services Center, which is basically the public face interaction, everyday person kind of interaction with planning. And I'm excited about that opportunity. But I definitely enjoyed working with you all. It's been exciting and humbling and challenging and tiring and all sorts of stuff. Not tiring with you, but just tiring. Long nights happen, but I really appreciate it. And I'm going to definitely thank Commissioners Busby and Low for their service too. They've been a great, great part of this board and have contributed fantastically to it. So I want to say thank you to them and thank you to all of you. It's been an honor working with you. Thank you, Michael. And I would just extend that thank you back to you. Thanks for your service to the city and the county and to this commission. We could not have done the past year. Plus some without your service. So really appreciate the work that you've done and the work that you'll continue to do to help direct folks where they need to be. Even if you won't be, we won't be seeing your shining face on calls late at night, but you'll still be playing an important part in making sure that we have equitable systems throughout our city and our county. So I appreciate your service. Chair, if I could, I just wanted to say the same thing. It's bittersweet. I'm really happy for Mike in the department. I think Mike's going to do an excellent job in our development services center. He has a plethora of institutional knowledge and is excited to share that with everyone up front and everyone that walks through the door of the development services center. We will miss him. He's accomplished a lot over the last year and he certainly has shorted up the staffing and been an excellent asset to the commission and all of us. So also we'll miss former chair Busby, former vice chair Busby, all the hats that he wore and Commissioner Low. This is the second time I've worked with Commissioner Low. Commissioner Low also served on board of adjustment a few years back. And so it was nice to have a second chance at serving with Commissioner Low and staffing him on another board. So that was really nice and we will miss you both. I'm going to reserve my comments for Commissioner Busby and Commissioner Low to our July meeting where we will be recognizing the two of them for their service to the city and county of Durham. Apart from appreciate you both and have been happy to be on this journey. We'll be both hearing no more announcements for business to conduct. We are going to adjourn this meeting at 735 p.m. And we'll see you and on July 12th, probably not ending at 735. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.