 Mr. George Brian, do you have a question? I see your hand is raised. One minute, one minute till air. Chris, Mr. Brian has his mic. It's on now. You might want to check with him again. Mr. Brian, do you have a question? I see your hand raised. We're at 30 seconds to air. I'll come 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 any ability to talk or be seen on video by default. 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 at the appropriate time 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 using the phone number listed at the bottom of your screen for those of you watching live from home. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the particular public hearing you're 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. When recognize, state your name, address, and make your public comments. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. If a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. May I have the roll call please? Yes, Chair Hyman. Commissioner Alturk. Here. Commissioner Baker. Here. Commissioner Brine. Commissioner Brine. I see you. Sorry. Commissioner Busby. Here. Commissioner Durkin. Here. Chair Hyman. Present. Commissioner Johnson. Present. Commissioner Kanchin. Commissioner Lowe. Commissioner McIver. Present. Commissioner Miller. Present. Commissioner Morgan. Here. Commissioner Santiago. Present. Commissioner Williams. Chair Hyman, I have not received any communication from Commissioner Williams that she was requesting an excused absence. At this time, I'm not sure if she'll join us later or not. Thank you. The first item that we have on the agenda is adjustments to the agenda. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? Staff has no adjustments to the agenda, Chair Hyman, and commissioners. However, we would like to state for the record that all advertisements, notifications were done in accordance with state and local law. And affidavits for those are on file in the planning department. Thank you. We are ready to proceed to our first public hearing. I'd like to have the staff. Madam Chair, Tom Miller here with a procedural question. Yes, Commissioner Miller. Do I remember correctly from our meeting on the 28th of May that under the statute that specifically permits this sort of public hearing, a commission member who is not present doesn't have their vote counted? And it's not counted as yes as would obtain under our normal procedures. Is that correct? I'm going to defer that to staff because we did have that discussion. Hello, everyone. Yes, that is correct, Commissioner Miller. If a member is not present, they are not counted in the affirmative. And they also do not count for purposes of quorum if someone leaves early. Same thing. Thank you. That helps a lot. Let me ask one additional question. Since we have not heard from Commissioner Williams, will we be notified if she joined us later? Will that be considered a procedural? Is that a procedural issue if she joins us later? Because we do have commissioners who have shown up for meetings late. Correct. At the moment, she is absent until she arrives. And once she arrives, we'll make a note of that for the record. Thank you. We're ready to proceed to our first item. I need the staff report for Olive Branch Road, item number A190006. Sorry. I'll start over. Can you hear me now? Yes. OK. I apologize. This is Jamie Sanyak. I am with the planning department. I will be presenting the staff report for 1101 Olive Branch Road. Just a couple of technical revisions to the staff report before I get started with the presentation. On page 5, in the third sentence in section D, the reference should be very low residential, future land use designation, not low density residential. And the attachment 6, the header, should be corrected to refer to this case 1101 Olive Branch Road. Please advance to the first slide. The applicant, Tim Syvers, with Horvath Associates is requesting a rezoning and future land use map change for the site, which is located at 1101 Olive Branch Road. The site is approximately 178 acres, and there is a pending annexation petition associated with this request. The applicant proposes to change the future land use designation, which is currently very low density residential to low density residential. And there is no change to the recreation and open space designation. And the request also includes a change from the zoning from future rural residential to plan development residential 2.999, with an associated development plan that allows for up to 421 single family detached and townhouse units. Next slide. This slide shows the aerial map. The site is highlighted in red and at fronts on both Olive Branch Road and Virgil Road. Next slide. The next two slides provide photos depicted of the site and the surroundings. While much of the area surrounding the property is rural and undeveloped, there are a number of recently approved and pending development cases in close proximity to the site, directly west of Olive Branch Road, directly west on Olive Branch Road 11, I'm sorry, 1001 Olive Branch Road was recently rezoned for up to 616 single family townhouse units. The area west of that was recently rezoned as PDR for 2.903. And it's been approved for up to 1,200 single family lots. There's a conservation subdivision currently under review for up to 108 single family lots with an associated annexation petition for 434 Olive Branch Road. There is a pending zoning map change and future land use map amendment for 451 Olive Branch Road for 90 townhouse units and a pending zoning map change and future land use map amendment for Olive Branch Reserve. That's 1607 Olive Branch Road for 350 single family detached in townhouse units. This is a context map which shows the existing zoning on the left. The area is currently within the rural residential zoning district and the proposed zoning on the right highlighted in blue as planned development residential 2.999. It should be noted that the property just west on the opposite side of Olive Branch Road should also be in blue because that was recently rezoned to PDR 2.944. The property is located within the suburban tier and falls within the Falls Jordan district B watershed protection overlay district. Next slide. The future land use map designation is currently very low density residential. That's 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. And the applicant is seeking a change to low density residential, which is 4 or less dwelling units per acre. Next slide. This map show this is a copy of the development plan that has been included in the packet. This slide highlights access points, building and parking envelopes, the riparian buffers and no build areas, the tree coverage areas, project boundary buffers, stream crossings, and the 300 foot wildlife corridor buffers. The plan also identifies the density for the site as well as the unit number of the text commitments. There are a number of text commitments that have been included on the development plan. These include a highlight of them, restricting the units to be townhouse and single family residential units, dedicating additional right of way for a future bicycle lane, restricting the residential units to be not closer than 300 feet to the wildlife corridor, dedicating 100 foot wide greenway trail, easement, or 30 foot wide constructed trail. And then there's also a series of additional commitments associated with the traffic impact analysis. The staff has received a number of additional text commitments that have been reviewed and approved by staff. And I would like to read those into the record. A minimum of 100 units of each type of unit shall be provided within the development. A minimum of 21% preserved tree coverage is provided. This is an increase from the number that was included in your packet. A minimum of 30% townhouse units shall be a single car garage bay or less. Transparent windows and or hardware should be included on all garage doors. All units shall include a front-facing gable architectural feature. Further, in order to provide variation in home appearance, no home can be constructed with a front exterior elevation or front facade or color pallet that is identical to the home on either side or directly across the street from it. A minimum of 20% open space shall be provided. A minimum of three of the following items shall be provided at the time of site plan, dog park, taut lot, disc golf, play fields, pocket parks, community garden, nature trails, pool, and clubhouses. The average block length, I'm sorry, next slide. The average block length shall not exceed 700 feet. Block length shall be defined as the distance from intersection to intersection or project boundary measured along the center line of the street. Next slide. I'm sorry, go back one more. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, provide a one-time $14,500 contribution to the Durham Public Schools. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, provide a one-time $20,000 contribution to the city of Durham dedicated housing fund. Prior to the issuance of the 200th certificate of occupancy, provide a one-time $22,100 contribution to the Durham dedicated housing fund. In addition to the graphic commitments discussed earlier, the development provides design commitments to include a variety of housing types, a variety of exterior building materials, and architectural features. Next slide. The proposed zoning is not consistent with the future land use map designation of very low density residential. There's a typo on that slide. But the applicant is seeking a future land use map amendment to low density residential, which would be consistent with the rezoning request. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plans and policies, including all those listed on the screen, which are further detailed in the staff report. Next slide. The staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. And as always, staff is available for any questions that you might have. Thank you. I do have five individuals who have signed up to speak. All are listed as proponents. And so I'm going to go ahead and start with Jamie, all five of them. So, you know, basically two minutes each. So Jamie Swidler. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. This is Jamie Schrader with Parker Poe at 301 Fayetteville Street. I didn't think that the time restrictions would apply tonight, but in any event, the members are here to answer questions. And so I'll be kind of consolidating or yielding. They'll have the yielding time so I can do the presentation and then we can answer any questions as needed. Tim Syvers. May I ask one question? Yes, ma'am. So all five of the individuals are all, all of you are all together? Could you, if you could read me the names, I could confirm that. Yes, I know that Tim Syvers, Laura Goode and Bohan Wong and Jamie Davis. That's correct. Jamie Davis is a representative of Polti Homes here with us tonight. Bohan is the BHB, our traffic consultant, and Laura is with my office. Okay, I need to recognize Grace Smith with our staff. Thank you, Chair Hyman. I believe we had one late registrant. If I'm not mistaken, Willie Bracey, may have registered to speak on this item. Is that correct, Mr. Peterson? Based off of registration, that is correct. We have them listed for this case as well. So is this another individual who is speaking for? I'm not sure their position, Chair Hyman. Okay. So that was Willie Bracey. Correct. Thank you. I'm sorry, Jamie, we can go ahead and proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. We do have a PowerPoint presentation that we submitted and that can be brought up. Thank you. Jamie Sunyak did a great job in explaining this request. And so I'll skip over some of the introductory slides. The next slide. This, the request includes a maximum of 421 units mixed between the single family detached and town homes. And as Jamie noted, it makes significant commitments to environmental features, townhouse design, unit mix and variation in an attempt to avoid long monotonous blocks. It's also consistent with the residential density that is in the area. We can skip this slide. I think Jamie Sunyak covered that fairly well. But the next slide shows the existing and proposed future linear smack designations. And you can see there graphically the area where the open space designation of that 20 acres is to remain and the change is only to the 158 acres. Next slide. These slides that were included in the staff report show site access one along Olive Branch Road to the West. Next slide. And this is along site access three on Virgil Road to the East. We held a neighborhood meeting at the beginning of the process attended by about 12 neighbors. Mainly just curious about the plans and how we're handling the infrastructure. Next slide. This shows the development plan of proposed access point one with a solid arrow on Olive Branch Road to the West and access point three on Virgil to the East. There's six additional access points shown along the boundaries of the site and an optional second access on Olive Branch Road. Gray areas in the center show those riparian areas and the two white spaces in the center are beaver ponds. And I'll talk a little bit more about that wildlife corridor and future slide. This leaves three main pockets of land to be developed between the buffers that's shown in the hatch dots there. Next slide. Jamie did a great job in summarizing the text commitments that are shown in your packet. This was done mainly to promote a mix of uses and mix of actual product types. So in addition to the mix between the single family detached and the town homes, we've also added that additional proffer of a minimum amount of each. And note that in the single family detached we're planning for traditional single family as well as patio homes to provide a different price point and a maintenance for buyers. Again, we'll focus on that wildlife corridor in the next slide. So this green area shows the wildlife corridor that stretches north to south across the center of the site. And it's a 300 foot wildlife corridor but that's from either side of the stream running there. So it's actually 600 feet in dimension. And the text commitment that Jamie mentioned was that we will not have homes within that corridor. So it's a full 600 width of the wildlife corridor. That's in addition to the riparian buffers that you see along the streams that was required by your UDO stretching to the west and east there. In addition to that wildlife corridor we'll also be committing to the greenway easement. So there's a substantial amount of open space, tree preservation, wildlife corridor and riparian buffer on the site. Next slide, slide 10. Jamie noted there will be significant traffic commitments. We do have our traffic engineer with us but I've just listed them here. Additional turn lanes at site access one and site access three and an optional site access two with additional turn lanes. And these are in addition to offsite traffic commitments at 98 and Olive Branch Road. Slide 11. These are the traffic improvements shown in an aerial over the site. Each green pan is an access point and the blow bubbles show the actual laneage in black and the improvements that we would add in red. So you can see the actual movements that we would be improving at each access point. This has been approved in the TIA and reviewed by D. Next slide, please. But this slide shows the offsite traffic improvements that we're committing to, which includes widening 98 to provide additional lanes and installing a traffic signal 98 in Camp Road if warranted and approved by DOT. The vicinity map at the bottom right of the slide shows how far from the site those improvements are located. Slide 12. I'm sorry. But the improvements were noted as warranted because these areas are the direction of the traffic distribution in the TIA. Next slide. These are a summary of the townhouse design commitments that are already in your packet. So you can see we committed to architectural features for the townhomes, the hip gable or shed roofs, primary building materials, a minimum of one distinctive architectural feature that are listed there on the screen. Next slide. But following discussions with the planning commission members before this meeting and at the neighborhood meeting throughout the development of the site, we're also able to offer a significant amount of proffers tonight. I really appreciate Ms. Sinyak reading those into the record and I won't read them verbatim here, but I do think they bear repeating in terms of a theme and that we're committing to not only a mix of types, but a minimum mix of each type of product to promote diversity of housing offers in this area. We're exceeding the number of tree coverage that's required by your UDO. We committed to 20% of tree coverage before your UDO was increased to that amount and then once it was increased to 20, we've actually gone above and increased it to 21%. We've included a minimum amount of 20% open space. We've also added the commitment to describe what the programming of that open space will be and that's the next bullet point with the minimum of the three of the filing items to provide a variety of type of open space within the development. And then we've also added significant commitments to promote variation in home appearance so that the homes do not appear monotonous and have a front-facing gable architecture feature to activate the street. Next slide. This is the second slide of the new proffers. There are quite a few of them, but the reason with these were included was to make sure that the front facades would be attractive and have variation that they wouldn't have a series of monotonous garages going down the street and that's after discussions with the planning commission. So we really appreciate that feedback and have included those proffers here. We've also included the contribution to Durham Public Schools and the Dedicated Housing Fund simply broken up into two phases. Next slide. With these significant commitments and the offers here, the Future Land Use Amendment satisfies a criteria in your UDO in that the density is compatible with similar projects for approved or under review in the area, including the PDR just across the way to the west of 2.9 and the nearby projects that Missounyak mentioned of 616 single family homes and the 350 single family and town housing home mix. So it's a very similar in terms of the product, in terms of the density that is growing in that area. It's also compatible with infrastructure capacity policies and plans for this area. Those are detailed in the appendix six, including the extension of water on Camp Road and connecting the sewer to the southeast regional lift station when that station is complete. It's also noted that it's compatible with the level of service with the traffic commitments. I think the staff reported a nice job of noting that consistency that despite creating additional trips, the level of service won't suffer because of the traffic commitments we're making at the site areas and offsite. And then it would not create adverse impacts because of the extensive design and text commitments here supporting appropriate aesthetic for the houses and street layout. These commitments, as you know, far exceed what your UDO requires, especially focusing in the areas of open space programming and wildlife corridor, the architectural variations of that we've included, the attempts we've done to break up the block length and avoid monotony and committing to the tree-save and open space at areas that have exceeded the UDO requirements. And then we've increased again with the proffers that we're offering here at the table tonight and all of these go to support that future land use amendment requirements in your UDO. Next slide, please. Because of these commitments and the level of density and mix of homes, the rezoning also meets UDO 3.5.10 and it's consistent with the comprehensive plan policies that I just noted and Ms. Dunyak referred to in Appendix 6. It's compatible with the density and uses of the nearby property, both in terms of recently approved projects and projects that are slated to becoming online as that area develops and meets the demand for housing in Durham that has been prevalent and continues. We just covered the infrastructure is available and programmed to be sufficient to support the proposed development. And I think that's also adequately covered in your staff report. Next slide, please. These requests, these slides just highlight some of the comprehensive plan policies that note that this is consistent with continuous development. The residential density is appropriate in this area and especially for the suburban tier. Next slide. And finally, with the commitments to open space and the wildlife corridor, it's consistent with your policy on open space master plan and the transportation improvements make this consistent with your bike plan and commitments for bike paths. I think that's one commitment we didn't focus on but it's important to note that we're offering an additional five feet of asphalt for future bike lanes on both Virgil Road and Olive Branch Road. And so we've really attempted to bring this area forward with from the rural designation to a slightly higher density consistent with what you're seeing develop in this area and appropriate for this area of town as more infrastructure comes to this area with the sewer extension. And so with these significant text commitments and design commitments, both in your packet and what we're proffering here at the table, we appreciate staff's review of those commitments and quick feedback and that they have approved those for action here tonight. And based on that consistency, we would request your recommendation for approval given the significant amount of commitments and reaction to feedback we've heard throughout the process. I'm happy to answer any questions or make the team available for any technical questions as well. I want to make sure that I give any members of the team an opportunity to speak. So I'm going to go down the list of all that I have here since everybody's listed as a proponent and if until I get to somebody who's ready to speak. Tim Syvers. Yes ma'am, I'd like to just take 30 seconds and clarify one item when available. Okay, you can do that at this time. Okay, can you please go to slide nine? It was the slide with the 300 foot wildlife corridor, nine please. So in Ms. Sonyex analysis, I wanted to clarify this text commitment and we may need to make a simple adjustment to it. The text commitment that's in your packet reads residential units shall not be located within 300 foot wildlife within the 300 foot wildlife corridor as illustrated on sheet D100. So that is referencing this green area. That is the location that the residential unit shall not be located with. So I wanted to be clear that it was within the green hatched area and not outside of this corridor. If we need to adjust the text commitment with planning we can work on that, but I just wanted to clarify that item. Thank you very much. Thank you. Laura Goode. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I don't have any comments. Thank you. Thank you. Bohan Wang. Is there a Bohan Wang? Chair, I mean, I believe they have disconnected from the meeting. Okay, thank you. Jamie Davis. Yes, this is Jamie Davis with Polti Homes. Thank you guys and everybody for being here tonight. I don't have any other comments at this moment, but if I can answer any questions or anything like that, I'm here. So thank you. Thank you so much. And then Willie Bracey. Good evening. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the virtual meeting as I am out of state and haven't had opportunity to sit in the meetings that they've had prior to today. My question would be about buffers or protections for neighboring property owners in terms of separating people having access to neighboring lands from the development. What kind of protections are there? A buffers might there be, if anyone can answer. Thank you. Well, thank you for that comment. I think Tim Cybers, our engineer, might be in the best position to respond to that. Chair Hyman, is this a appropriate time to respond? Yes. Okay, just wanted to make sure I was following the rules, ma'am. Thank you. So this, the adjacent owner here, Willie Bracey, is to the south, I believe to the southeast along your property in specifically, there's actually a stream buffer. So there'll be a good buffer along your property. However, along all the adjacent properties due to the adjacent zoning, there are 0.2 opacity 10-foot buffers. Of course, if at the time of site plan, a different grading style is used, those buffers will have to be doubled to a 20-foot, but there are project boundary buffers along the entire project limits. Thank you. Thank you. And the reason I'm asking for my mom to her property is actually joining the project on the north. Thank you. I just realized, so you're speaking against this particular item or you are asking for clarification. Just asking for clarification. I deliberately didn't indicate proponent or opponent because I, like I said, I had not attended any of the prior meetings because I am out of state that since the virtual meeting came up, it was an opportunity for me to participate. So I'm not a proponent or opponent. I just had a question. Thank you. Thank you so much. I do not have any other individuals who have signed up to speak, but I'm going to check at this time to see if there are any individuals, any other individuals who would like to speak on this item. Chair Hyman, this is Chris Peterson. Bohang Wong is available if he wishes to speak. I apologize if he was missed over. Yes. Thanks a lot. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. Thank you, Chair Hyman. Thank you, council members. And my name is Bohang Wong. I'm a traffic engineer working with BHB. We studied the traffic study back in March, 2019, went through our calling to the project for the scoping and define the traffic study area and the study parameters. We completed the study in April, 2019 and then I'll be the traffic study in October, 2019 and a certain negotiation with the city and the NCDOT and in my opinion, we did a sufficient traffic commitment to address our sudden impact. So if you guys have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Thank you. Once again, I do not have any additional individuals who have signed up to speak. I'm going to check one additional time to see if there are other people who would like to speak to this issue. Chris, I see a telephone number. Is someone attempting to speak to us? I was trying to see if they were able. If anyone can use star nine to raise your hand if you wish to talk. I was un-meeting your phones and the chance that you wish to talk. I don't believe so. Thank you. I do not have any other individuals who have signed up to speak to this issue before us. Once again, the public hearing is for the Olive Branch Road, 1101 Olive Branch Road. If there are no additional individuals who have signed up to speak, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. So I will start with our commissioners to see if I see any hands raised. The chair recognizes Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chairwoman. This question is for the applicant, Jamie, maybe. I'm just curious if can you provide us some insight into the anticipated price points for the townhomes and the single-family residencies that will properties that will be part of the development? Thanks. Absolutely, Jamie Davis here. So for the townhomes, we are anticipating a 22 foot to 28 foot wide one car and or two car townhome and the base pricing in the probably $240 to $250,000 with hopefully that average sales price getting closer to that $275,000 point. Single family, which could include a 40 foot wide product, a 30 foot wide product and maybe a ranch, a master down product as well. So we want to really try to diversify and make sure that we're hitting a lot of different fire potential buyers. So that's gonna range anywhere base pricing from $275,000 all the way to about $340,000 with probably an average on the single family story in the 330s. And then the ranch homes probably closer to that 360, 365 price point. Thank you. Do I have other commissioners who would like to speak at this time? Madam Chair, it's Tom Miller. I'm sure I can't find the hand raised feature tonight for some reason, but I have questions when it's appropriate. The chair recognizes commissioner Miller. So my first question I think is for Tim or for Jamie Schwedler. Can you tell me how many acres the wildlife corridor is? This is Tim Sivers. Luckily with virtual meetings, give me a few minutes. I can pull it up on the computer and be able to answer that question. Okay, and while we are, I'll just go on Tim, you can chime in when you get that answer. And somebody from the development team. So we're calling it a corridor. What happens on either on the properties on either end of it? Does it continue? In other words, why is it a corridor? What does it connect to? This is Tim Sivers again. While my files are opening, I'll be able to answer that. The properties to the north and the south, this is a corridor that is part of the Durham and Open Space Trails Commission. This is something that's in their policies with not having control of the properties to the north and to the south or outside our project limits. It's really hard for me to say what those projects will do if and when developed in the future. But they're identified in our plans. That is correct. That is my understanding. Yes, sir. Thanks. That really helps. And so we talked about what the significance was of the edges of that green shaded area and that you can't build units inside it. What does happen inside it? What can you do? Will it be all natural? I'm just trying to understand what a wildlife corridor is. Yeah, this is Tim Sivers again. So it can be disturbed. It doesn't necessarily need to stay all natural as it sits today. Some of the, as you've seen in the aerial images, the site was forested probably within the five to seven years ago. So some tree growth is coming back through. But this wildlife corridor, again is more of a true wildlife corridor. It will stay open space if you will. So there's different items that can be used within open space and that are allowed within the open space requirements or allowances, but it's open space. So there won't be any homes or won't be any residents in any buildings like that within the space. We do have a road crossing and so the beaver ponds and everything, it's a natural corridor is what it is. And so I have some questions to help me understand some of the features. We have a 21% tree coverage and that will include trees in riparian buffers and trees I suppose that are in this wildlife corridor. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And then there's 20% planned open space. Will any of that space be reside inside the wildlife corridor? Yes, sir. The wildlife corridor is correct. I'm sorry. I didn't understand somebody bumped a mic or something. Yes. The wildlife corridor is an open space corridor. It will remain as open space. I know it's open space, but is it part of your planned open space for dog parks, et cetera? That is a possibility. Yes, at this time we haven't gotten to the real details of where those open space items will be. But yes, that is a possibility that it could include some of those items. So we could have overlapping commitments to space, wildlife corridor, planned open space and tree coverage could all be three layers. Could be. That is correct. And that is an allowance in the ordinance, open space and tree coverage always overlap. And open space and active open space or recreational open space, as it's known, also overlap. They are always, that is how the ordinance allows it. And staff may wanna be able to clarify that as well if necessary. And then ultimately, I guess I have a question for Ms. Bracey, if I may, or for the student. Can somebody show us a map and tell me where Ms. Bracey's land is? Point to it. Can we do that in this format? The neighboring property that she was interested in. Bring the present back up. I think we can do it from the development plans or staff can. I see that Jamie Saniak has raised her hand. Good evening. The map actually has been pulled up. So my understanding is that the properties in question from the caller are just south of the subject site where the hand is on the east side fronting on Virgil Road. Okay, Jamie, I'm sorry. I spoke with you on yesterday. So where the hand is? That's Gray's property, but my mom's property is the next one, where it says 22, whatever it is, that's my mom's property there. And my property is south of hers. It's joining hers. So it's the properties over there on the east side of that kind of dividing line that runs north from the E and the word development plan. It's in there where the hand is. Yes, that's my mom's property and joining her there is our property. And so, again, because the map is very small and I didn't get a copy of this in my packet, help me understand what is the width of the riparian buffer along that stream that's shown in there, is that a hundred footer or a 50 footer? This is Tim Cyvers. All the buffers are 100 foot on each side of the stream. So it's a total of 200 foot from. Effectively be a 200 foot buffer. That is correct. For between whatever is developed on the subject site and whatever might be developed on the neighboring property, is that right? That is correct. And I'm assuming that that little square that's kind of isolated by the stream down there, you don't show a crossing to that. So you currently do not plan to build anything in that? That is correct. So that area will remain natural. Okay. And did you get that acreage figure? Yes. And here is five. Yes, sir. Sorry, I'm playing with the mute button here. It is approximately 30 acres. 30 acres. Thank you very much. Those are my questions, Madam Chair. But I do want to close with a comment that I am gratified by some of the additional commitments, especially the design commitments. It is a much better project than when we talked about it, I guess, a week before last. Thank you. I do have, thank you. I do have Commissioner Baker has raised his hand and the chair recognizes Commissioner Baker at this time. Thank you, Chair. So I really appreciate the time that's been put into this project by Jamie and Tim and the conversations that you all have had with me and with many of the other commissioners here, the professionalism that you all have shown and the dedication that you all have made to meaningfully address a lot of the comments that we've had in this process. And so I think that you certainly deserve credit for that work that you have done. And I also think that some of the changes that you have made have improved the project, both improved it for I think the public good as well as, I think that you will have a better project and a better product from a marketing standpoint on your end. So I just wanna go over some of the good things about this project. I'm sure I'll be missing some. The average block length commitment is significant. That's a hole in our unified development ordinance that we do not have that as a standard and a regulation. And so that you've stepped up and provided that means a lot and makes the project better and it's also better for sustainability. The development plan shows, although I still don't think that it shows enough, it shows more access points than we typically see. That's again, you know, in consistent with the block length commitment that you all have made and that's very, very good. The wildlife corridor that's consistent with the plan is good. I don't know what other options there were, but I think that that's a very good commitment that you all have made. And some of the architectural features that you have made as commitments that Commissioner Miller spoke about, I also think are very important, again, both from a public good standpoint and in relation to what is good for pedestrian-oriented development as well as what is a profitable development and what makes a development better. I also think that there are some missed opportunities. And so I wanna talk about some of those as well. I would call this pretty much a textbook case of non-contiguous leapfrog development. And just because there are other cases surrounding this one of recently approved non-contiguous leapfrog development doesn't mean that this no longer is that, it very much is. I'm still very concerned about the amount of development that we are processing that lacks street trees between the sidewalk and the curb, which is just a fundamental best practice. Street tree infrastructure is absolutely essential to cities. And I find that just deeply concerning that we are building the future of our city without this critical infrastructure. We know that there are disparities between who gets to live in neighborhoods with street trees and who doesn't get to live in neighborhoods with street trees. We know that the value, both financial value and the value in terms of quality of life and health are substantially increased in neighborhoods that have street trees. And that specific location between the sidewalk and curb is it's a best practice for a reason and it's common throughout the country with the exception of Durham for a reason. I'm also disappointed that there was no commitment for an appropriate connectivity ratio of 1.7 that would better ensure the transportation accessibility and consistent with best practices. I also think that this is a huge property. Do not forget the scale of this property, absolutely huge property. And there really are very limited housing options that are being proposed here as part of the commitments. Frankly, I'm disappointed with a commitment for only two different types of single family housing, single family being attached housing and detached housing, but in both cases only two. I also am disappointed in the lack of neighborhood commercial and employment uses, especially at this scale of development. Really nothing intertwined in the neighborhood that people are able to walk to or access and using other means of transportation. And I'm also disappointed with the lack of commitment to ensure that buildings are fronting on to civic spaces that those are centralized spaces within the neighborhood and that they're accessible within a walking distance or a biking distance, so sort of a quarter mile pedestrian shed of homes. And I'm personally disappointed, although I don't think that it's completely necessary, but I would of course like to see alleys. So the lack of alleys, it doesn't help the application, it doesn't necessarily rule out my support for an application like this. And then also that we have no indication that this development is gonna incorporating any elements of sustainability, renewable energy, energy efficient materials and design, other green building elements, pedestrian oriented features that would assist a transition over time to green and walkable and transit oriented built environment. That alone is almost disqualifying for me. So I have to applaud some of the commitments that the development team has made. I can't deny that, I have to applaud those commitments. But to earn my support, this development proposal would need much more for a site of this scale. So those are my statements. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. I recognize Commissioner Durkin at this time. Hi, this is Erin Durkin. I just wanted to voice my opposition to this project. I think that there's a lot of development on this stretch of Durham. I'm concerned about the capacity, the roadway capacity, pedestrian safety and vehicle safety, passenger safety. I'm concerned about the development of this wetlands area. I'm concerned about the overlapping counting of wetlands and open space and tree save, even if that is permitted in the UDO, it seems a little misleading to me. So I'm sure it's sweet, but I'm gonna vote no on this one. Thank you, Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. I'll try to make mine short as well, my comments. I wanna echo what Commissioner Durkin just said and what Commissioner Baker also said in his comments. This is a property that is adjacent to one that we heard in October. If you all remember, I think it was 2001 or 2010, Olive Branch, and we voted against that one as a commission. For a number of reasons and I won't rehash that conversation. I think that we had a very good debate that night. But in my mind, a lot of the same things that we did not like about that development kind of is still the case here. I agree with Commissioner Baker that the application here is stronger. It includes some elements, some text commitments that we hadn't seen before in some cases. But I think overall, I'm still worried that we only, yeah, this is only just single family homes and town homes. I'm starting to worry that developers will kind of say, well, this is a mix of housing types when I think we're looking for something more than that. I would like to see affordable units on site rather than just a commitment to the fund because I think that's important. A real indication of connectivity. Again, Commissioner Baker knows about this more than I do. So he appreciates the shorter block lengths, but I'm still not sure. Overall, is this really a very well-connected development? Is it going to promote pedestrian walkability whenever this area does get built out? Will people still continue to rely on cars? I think they will unless we demand something different, something, and I'll just close with something else Commissioner Baker said. This is almost 200 acres. We can do something better, I think, with this much land. And to me, this sounds like relatively unaffordable units, not very dense, and it could be more dense in my mind, but again, with more housing types, more affordability, et cetera, so I'll just leave it there. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Alturk, Commissioner Santiago, followed by Commissioner Busby. Thank you, Chair Hyman. Again, not to rehash too much of what's been said already. Wanted to voice my opposition to this project. As mentioned, I don't really think this really does much in terms of the affordability issue. I think that's a little misleading. We have talked about in the past, and past means affordable versus accessible. I don't think that in terms of pricing, this is too accessible to many families still. In terms of location, it's not accessible either. There's no transit out there. It's very, very car-dependent, even more so for that area. And so, lower income people, middle income people who need a car can afford it. They won't be able to access jobs or even that housing right there. As Commissioner Baker said, I would like to see more incorporation of commercial use as well, I don't know, there's no post office out there. There's no stores out there. It's very, very car-dependent again. The closest thing there is probably like two miles. So, I'm just not really seeing, I'm not really seeing the support on my end on this project, that's all I wanna say. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Busby. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm gonna echo the comments as well. I appreciate that there are some promising commitments. Given the scale of this project, I just don't think the commitments meet the scale of this project. This is just a massive project. The other previous project that we saw as well, when you combine the two, I really fear that we're creating a satellite piece of Durham that is really not connected to the rest of our community. So, I'd also just echo what Commissioner Durkin said and Commissioner Miller's questions were questions that I had when you look at the numbers where the open space, where the wetland is that has to be protected and then you look at the overlapping numbers, the amount of open space and tree coverage actually isn't as good as it needs to be in my opinion. So, again, I appreciate the effort but I'm a no vote as well. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Busby. Commissioner Morgan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just trying to find a mute button. My only concern is really a lot of the traffic going to the south. A lot of the thought of the traffic study was going towards the north and the improvements being made but going to the south is really where there's a lot of traffic flow that may end up going into Wake County. So, I live close to that area and I know what it's like going south on these bill and Olive Branch and going into Wake County. So, there is quite a bit of traffic there and I'm not sure whether we're just not doing much in that area just only because it's bordering Wake County but there should be more study in the traffic flow going south because I would imagine a lot of the people purchasing property there would probably be going into Raleigh or going to the airport. Those are my comments. Thank you and Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to remind all the commission members that even if we approve all of this, it's still less than three units an acre. So, it's a big piece of property but it's hard to call this a massive project. It's actually kind of a small project in terms of its overall number of units. And I was glad though we did talk about, we got so busy talking about other things. We have a commitment for, if I'm understanding these commitments, $41,000 for the affordable housing fund and that's more money than I personally am contributing but if my math is right, that turns out to be $97.60 a unit for each unit that's built here. And so, and I realize there's nothing that compels developers to make any contribution at all but $97.60 is essentially a nice evening out for a couple that would buy one of these units and live in it. That's one shot deal. We'll get $41,000 and we can't build an affordable housing unit for that. I agree with the other commission members. It would be great if there was some sort of commitment that we could put in here for affordability. And I realized that a direct commitment for affordability based on what's happening in the courts might be difficult to enforce. But a commitment that was dimensionally limited like saying a certain number of the units will be smaller than this dimension would be enforceable and while it may not necessarily meet the idea of affordable affordability the way we define it, it means that we will have a more mixed community and that some of the units, I mean, I would love to see a project of this scale having a few units that were two bedroom, two baths that were under 1300, 1400 square feet so that there would always be some sort of entry level. Units and that we would sprinkle these through all new communities everywhere we build them. I would love to see those things and I probably should have mentioned it when we spoke to the developer, when I spoke to the developer and their representatives a couple of weeks ago because I have to say that a lot of the things I did talk about that they've been very responsive to and I'm grateful for that. So, Madam Chairman, is it, may I ask since we now have the gentleman from Polty Homes here and Jamie Shwedler, would it be possible to increase the amount of money that you would make that you would pay to the affordable housing fund so that it would be at least two nice evenings out? Is that out of the question? This is Tim Sivers, Commissioner Miller. So I do wanna note a few points and thank you to all the commissioners who have provided the comments to us and I appreciate everyone's input. The item I would do wanna note for the affordable housing is it's a maximum number of units with 421 so it's a $42,100 donation equating to exactly $100 per unit but what that number is based off of is the kind of quote unquote standard rate here that a lot of the developments have done but the item I do wanna note is that is approximately two times the amount of the bond referendum that was approved that made the city council and Mayor Schultz put out to the city that was approved by voters. Roughly, I believe that bond referendum was around 50 to $55 per 250 to $300,000 home so that number is based off of a higher amount based off that bond referendum that city council put forward so that's where that calculation is based off. And that's certainly a way to look at it and I appreciate that but I'm just trying to see if I can, I mean, I've listened to my fellow commission members and many of the commission members on whose side I usually vote and I was trying to see while we're sitting here, if there was a way perhaps to sweeten this pot a little bit before we vote and that seemed to me an empirical way that where movement could happen without having to have conference with staff and getting slide rules and things out and having to worry about azimuths and things like that. So I just threw it out there. I have to say that I have been pushing and pushing for years for so many of the things that this developer has added in the form of commitments and I feel obligated to reward that with a yes vote here but that's not to say that I'm not listening to what other folks are saying. Mr. Baker sent us a paper about 10 days ago which I have spent a lot of time looking at and quite frankly Googling some things trying to figure out what he was talking about and I hope there is a time when we can all talk about that outside the context of the case because I would like to develop my thinking and raise the plane of our discussion when new cases do come but I think it's important to talk about the things he has listed outside the context of the case. So I'm going to vote yes on this. I'm not going to argue with any commission member who votes another way. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Are there other commissioners who would like to speak at this time? I do not see any additional hands raised but I will check to see if there are other commissioners who would like to speak to this issue before I close the public hearing. Well, before I call for a vote. Madam Chair, this is Jamie Schwabler. I don't want to talk out of turn. I do have my hand raised to just answer a few of the questions that have been raised during the discussion whenever the time is appropriate. Okay, very good. Yes, as a matter of fact, you may go ahead and speak at this time and I do have one additional person who also has asked to speak as well. Thank you, Madam Chair. Jamie Schwabler, I just wanted to make sure that the commission was aware of several additional factors before the vote is taken and that with respect to the street tree request, there was an additional commitment that we offered to increase trees on end units. There was a discussion with staff about how that would be implemented and it was determined that the commitment should not be added at this time but it was in the commitments that we sent around to you to show that we were prepared to commit to that. And then the other comments I think about traffic to the south, the reason that the commitments were made to the north is because of our trip distribution and the TIA and NCDOT's observation of where more of the traffic would be generated from this particular intersection or this particular development. And because of some of the other approved developments in the area, you might see additional improvements being made to the south. It could be by different developers but just this particular trip distribution was to the north. And then with respect to the comments made about the changes we've made since our discussions with the commission, I really appreciate you recognizing that. Two pages or two slides of 14 additional conditions is significant. It's based on direct feedback. And as commissioner Baker, you know, you handed us a two-page list of requests of 20 different requests to make at least five and we did that. We responded to those requests and I can't say it's not disappointing for us having made those commitments to have a proffer and things that we consider very significant and still not be able to receive the support of the commission. So I hope that we can move forward tonight. I do believe that, you know, some of the discussions that are broader discussions as commissioner Miller mentioned, if there's desires of the commission to see a certain thing with every project or that the UDO calculate, you know not allow overlapping calculations and things that the appropriate way to do that is to change your code to change your UDO to require those things or incentivize those things in some way. But I don't, those things aren't in the code today and what we've offered you is far above what is in the code. And so I hope that you'll reconsider some of your votes. I hope that you'll reconsider the significance of the commitments and why we've made the changes that we have before you vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Durkin. I just wanted to clarify that comments or requests from one commissioner are not reflected as of the commission as a body and the requests that the proffers that you made on behalf of a request from one of us is not what we are projecting as a united commission. So I want to make that clear and that those additions do not sway my opinion of this project. The aesthetic kind of additions and proffers are not something that will move my vote on this. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. I see a hand raised for commissioner Miller, but if that's not. No, I lowered it. Okay. Should show lower. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and recognize, there isn't a, let me make sure, there is an attendee who has a hand raised. And I'm going to go ahead and recognize Bohan Juan. At this time. Thank you. Madam chairman. And just want to talk about traffic. I heard comments regarding traffic from several council members. Just want to talk about traffic and we have been scoped with the city with DOT to define the traffic parameters. The traffic distribution is distributed following the existing travel patterns. And as we know, in C98, it gets heavy traffic and we made a significant commitment to widen to add a second left turn on all the branch and do a second upgrade over there. And talk about the traffic going on south. Jamie already mentioned that there's some other developments and they are doing improvements along all the branch road and providing a northbound left turn line at Doc Nichols. Also providing a southbound right turn line at Copy the Pond road and install traffic signal. And also there's some other project going on. There are some negotiations regarding additional improvements at all the study intersections and with commitment from this project and from other background developments and then we, our level of service analysis and our capacity that's showing all the study intersection will meet as a DOT and a city standards. Thank you. Thank you. I will check once again with commissioners to see if there are other commissioners who have comments that they would like to make at this time. Okay, I do not see any additional hands raised. So I am going to entertain a motion for this item at this time. Madam Chair, if I may make a motion, it's Tom Miller. Mr. Miller, I need to remind you that each time because you're not on a video that you will need to say your name, Commissioner Miller. So yes, Commissioner Miller will be making the motion. In connection with case A-19 quadruple zero six, a move that we send this forward in the correct jurisdiction, your city, right? Right, Commissioner Miller. That we send this forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Commissioner Busby. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Miller and second by Commissioner Busby that we send item A-19, zero zero zero zero six, 1101 Olive Branch Road forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. All in favor of this motion, may we have a roll call vote please. Commissioner Morgan. No. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Brine. Commissioner Brine. I have to do a sign. I have to do a sign. I can hear him. Okay. You flashed the sign. Okay. Commissioner Darkin. No. Commissioner Alturk. Vice Chair Busby. No. Chair Hyman. No. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Kanchin. Commissioner Santiago. No. Commissioner Baker. No. Commissioner Lowe. Is that a yes? Yes. Thank you. Commissioner McGiver. Okay. The motion fails nine to three. Thank you. Now the- Nine to four. I apologize. Nine to four. Now I will entertain a motion for the zoning map changes and that's item number Z-19, zero zero zero one two. Commissioner Miller, Madam Chair. In connection with case Z-19 triple zero one two. Move that we send this forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Miller. Second by Commissioner Busby. That we send item number Z-19, zero zero zero one two 1101 Olive Branch Road forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. May we have a roll call vote please? Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Brine. I cannot see Commissioner Brine. Can someone tell me if you can see him or hear him? He's holding up a no. He's holding up a no. Yeah. Thank you. Commissioner Durkin. No. Commissioner Alturk. No. Commissioner, excuse me, Vice Chair Busby. No. Chair Hyman. No. Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Miller. Forgive me. Yes. Okay. It's okay, I can wait a minute. I know it takes a second. Commissioner Kenchin. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. No. Commissioner Baker. No. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. And Commissioner McIver. I'm saying the motion fills nine to four. Thank you. And Madam Chair, it's Commissioner Miller for Grace's benefit. Commissioner Brine has held up a sign a couple of times indicating his vote, but written on the top of that sign, he has also indicated that he is having Mike difficulties. So he is. I'm trying to adjust my view so I can see him. I haven't been able to see him, but I'm gonna. So if I may. George, when you hold your sign up, you need to hold it higher, a little bit higher than you've been holding it. There you go. Okay, I can see it now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brine. Okay. I saw it that time. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Thank you. We're ready for the next item, public hearing four. Item number A1900007. And this is 4115 Andrew Avenue. We're ready for the staff report. And it also is an amendment with a concurrent zoning map change as well. Thank you. Good evening. Emily Stothers for the planning department. I will now be presenting case Z1900014 and A190007 for 4115 Andrew Avenue. Next slide, please. The applicant, Nate Bueller with Cambridge Properties Incorporated and Robert Schunk with McAdams. The site is located at 4115 Andrew Avenue and includes three parcels totaling 20.35 acres. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from Commercial General to Residential Suburban 20 to Residential Suburban Multifamily with a development plan for a maximum of 115 townhouse units. This site is currently in the county but an annexation petition has been submitted. And staff would like to note that an issue has arisen regarding the sewer service for the site and whether it will be provided by the city or the county. This will need to be resolved before the case can be acted on by city council and references within the staff report to sewer connections and the summary utility development statement may need to be modified following the resolution of that issue. The aerial map on the next slide. The site is shown in red between Andrew Avenue and US 70 near South Miami Boulevard. Site photos illustrate the vegetated nature of the site and adjacency to the water tower. Area photos depict a mix of uses in the context area including industrial, commercial and residential uses. The site is located in the Suburban Development Tier. The portion of the site is adjacent to US 70 is currently zoned Commercial General and the remainder is zoned RS 20. The future land use map designation is currently commercial and the applicant is seeking a change to low median density residential for four to eight units. The development plan includes commitments such as access points, building and parking envelopes and project boundary buffers further detailed in the staff report. Key committed elements include a maximum of 115 townhouse units, transit related improvements and right of way dedications, reservations and a center turn lane. The proposed zoning is not consistent with the future land use map designation of commercial, but the applicant is seeking a form amendment to low, medium density residential which would be consistent with the zoning request. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies including those listed on the slide and on the next slide and further detailed in the staff report. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and staff is available for any questions. Thank you. Teri you're on you. I'm sorry. I have two individuals who have signed up to speak and the first is Robert Schunk and the second is Nate Bueller. Hi, good afternoon. Can everyone hear me? This is Robert Schunk. Yes. Okay. Good evening Madam Chair, fellow commissioners and thanks Emily for the report and I will attempt to repeat everything on this on the slide. If you could go ahead and pull up my slideshow that'd be helpful. Just as a precautionary item the internet where I'm at is on the fritz. I have a, I'm also on my cell phone so if that does cut off the 919-308 number that could be plugged in, that would be helpful. I can go to the next slide please. So this area, it's in the context area is there at Miami and 70. It is at some point when the DOT has their funding back in place that'll be going under a significant, some significant changes. We feel the site is a typical infill development of 20 acres. The developer, Nate Bueller has looked at this as being a site suitable for a single housing type as we're proposing 115 units max. The proposed townhomes is gonna be our sole choice in term, when we speak about alternative housing choices there are several other apartment communities in the area. Down in Miami Boulevard, Ellis Road as well. We are changing the flume from commercial to low density. So really the question really comes down to is the density range that we're choosing. The site will have direct access to Angier and we're making a stub to the north. Go to slide two please. This project started about a little over a year ago. The developer held two neighborhood meetings. The first neighborhood meeting, the developer had proposed 280 apartment units in the first neighborhood meeting where we're proposing about 14 units per acre. The residents nearby did not feel that provided an appropriate transition. From the commercial to the RS 20 homes along Angier. You know, they felt that there was a concern with the large scale of the apartment buildings in relationship to their homes. A lot of the concerns with traffic and also there were some other concerns as well. Cambridge properties reevaluated their approach. They reevaluated the market study they were doing. The market study showed that the site was probably better suited for town homes when they went back to the second neighborhood meeting in August, the reduced density, the for sale type of product was significantly better received and the density is just under five units an acre. Slide three please. Additionally, the developer worked closely with the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources on the site into the West as the is and was the Dewitt Bailey tenant farm. The resources did review and found several ruins to be on the site and found that the farm and the structures did lack significance to the agricultural property. And so no solid new impact on the, by removing nose and providing this development. There are several grave sites that were discovered on the site. They will be preserved in open space. Going on at the time of the site plan, there will be a, we do have a couple of stubs one to Bailey Street and also the Hensley Drive. At the time of site plan, we're going to look to remove that due to environmental conditions. And then the development, the land to the South was platted perhaps in the 1950s. It has 60 foot right away, it's 100 foot lots. So it's likely that that property would be developed for a different type of use. For this project, we are proposing to construct townhomes ranging from 1,600 to 2,200 square feet the 22 by 26 foot width. The block lengths, just by the nature of the site the narrow width and the narrow depth the block lengths will be very short. We measured that the longest block length would be less than 500 feet. Next slide. You know, planning department finds this staff consistent with the EDO and the COP plan. The neighborhoods also found that, you know our second proposed proposal with the townhomes is very, is a good fit for the neighborhood. We regarding the capacity, we do have appropriate capacity on the nearby roads, school, water and sewer and all other critical services for this infill site. And to speak to Emily's point on the uncertainty of sewer we were first sent a utility impact statement from the city saying that the city would provide all city water and sewer services. Earlier this year the county said that they would serve it but we would require to put a pump station in. And then about a few weeks ago this county said that we would need to serve the county portion by the county and the city portion of the sewer. So we've reached out to senior staff in the city to resolve those discrepancies with, you know some of the boundary line of this sewer basin study. So that will be solved one way or the other. We have no concern about that but we would, in closing, we would appreciate your positive recommendation city council. Thank you. That's gonna be the last slide. I have these extra slides up here, Grace, just in case we need them. Thank you. I also have Nate Bueller. Yes, Nate Bueller with Cambridge Properties speaking on behalf of the applicant. I appreciate your consideration of this project it's been a year and a half in the works as we kind of what we have to present to you today. I won't hash through what Robert spoke to in too much additional detail but long story short we began evaluating this site on the front end as a multifamily development about a year and eight months ago based on the planned improvements to US 70 which would allow for access to proximate employment centers in downtown Raleigh and downtown Durham. We felt it was a great opportunity for an infill residential project that would fit those qualifications as we went further down the line with our initial submittal including a meeting with the neighbors. The feedback on that initial proposal was overwhelmingly negative from the surrounding residents as Robert spoke to related to runner profile concerns, additional traffic based on the intensity of our proposal as well as the overall intensity of the project. That coupled with the market analysis that we completed just looking at surrounding rents the surrounding market for multifamily coupled with the neighborhood feedback caused us to reconsider our initial proposal come back, resubmit our zoning for a town home development that we thought would be a better fit based on both the neighborhood feedback and based on the marketplace. We held a second neighborhood meeting with the surrounding community. The overall mean feedback was much more positive based on reduced traffic impact due to a lower volume of unit count lower intensity of the development and overall change from a renter profile to a purchaser profile which we understood based on our meetings with the neighbors. From a pricing perspective our goals here to position these town homes in the 240,000 to $260,000 range which from our analysis of the market is a good starter position and one in which would allow a first-time home buyer to build equity in a home over time and eventually move up to a larger a larger home or town home or what have you. Again, we appreciate your consideration and would gladly speak to any additional questions as it relates to the plan. Thank you. Thank you. I do have a hand raised by staff, Emily Struthers. Thank you. I just real quick wanted to clarify that the things in, sorry, Robert Schunk's presentation regarding project information, unit size and block length. Those items are not committed elements and I just wanted to make that clarification for the record. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have other individuals who have signed up to speak but I'm going to check to see if there are any additional individuals who would like to speak to this item before I close the public hearing and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. Seeing no additional hands, I'm going to close the public hearing and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. I see commissioner Miller's hand. The chair recognizes commissioner Tom Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman, commission member Miller here. I make a contrast of this project to the one we just talked about. If it's my understanding and the developer or the applicant will correct me if I have it wrong that as of yet there is no end builder for this project identified and so this is one of those rezonings where a request for committed elements with regard to design and other features that the applicant feels reluctant to make those kind of commitments because it might affect their ability to find somebody ultimately to purchase the property and develop it. I've never been a fan of doing development plan zoning under these circumstances. And so unless my fellow commission members through their comments and questions convince me otherwise I will probably vote against this rezoning request. Thank you, commissioner Miller. Are there other commissioners who would like to speak to this issue? Commissioner Brian, did I see your hand? Okay, I see you. Are there other commissioners who would like to speak to this issue? Commissioner Al-Turk. Thank you, chair. I'll be brief. I do think that I agree with the applicant that this is a good location for residential development. So I'm okay with the change from commercial to low-medium density or sorry, to yeah, then in the flam and then to RSM with the development plan as the zoning designation. I would like to, I mean, I think the big concern for me here is that in particular because this is on a, I don't know, a busy road, it's on a bus line that goes to downtown, both to downtown and to Briar Creek. I think it would be good here to have again the things that we've talked about for other cases, which is a mix of housing types and to try to promote affordability on site. And so I will just, I will echo what commissioner Miller or his suggestion from the last case, which was the recommendation of limiting the square footage of the units. And I'll say that recognizing that I think if I'm correct in my memory, Robert Schunk was probably the first, he brought us the first case where we saw that kind of commitment. And so I'd be curious from the applicant if they would consider a commitment like that on this for this, because I think it's important to kind of promote if we're not going to have different housing types to have different as commissioner Miller pointed out last, the last case, different price points, different a mix of sizes. And so I'll leave it there and hope the applicant will respond. Thank you. So commissioner Alturk, are you directing your question to the applicant? Yes. To respond? Yes. Okay, and that- Nate, if you want to speak to that. Sure. Backing up just very briefly in reference to commissioner Miller's point, regarding the status of this project, we do have a builder that we are working with on this project. We are just not yet in a position to reveal the name of that specific builder. And as far as the related design commitments, I can speak to that in a little bit more detail if required based on our previous discussion. In regards to a commitment towards a max unit size with where we are in the design process, we have a rough idea of what that will be. I would ask that we be permitted to discuss that internally to make sure that we are within a square footage that is consistent with our future plans with our current builder partner before we are able to comment in direct regard to that. But I would like to say that we would be able to discuss that internally and then circle back with you on that specific point. Thank you. And that was a response to commissioner Alturk's question. Yes, can I respond to that very quickly? Well, yes, I want to make sure that because these are commissioner comments. And so we had an applicant to speak again and we really wants the public hearing is closed. It can only respond to questions from the commissioners. Just a reminder, so that particular recognition was in regards to your question. So, yes. I will wait to see if other commissioners have a similar concern or think that this would be a good idea before I, I guess, push the applicant for this specifically. So I'll wait to see what other commissioners have to say. Thank you. Okay, yes. The chair recognizes commissioner Johnson at this time, followed by commissioner Durkin. The chair want to say hi. And so just in response to your comments and inquiry commissioner Alturk, I too think that this is an opportunity given the context in which we do our work here on the commission in the sense that we can't demand or require any kind of profit regarding affordability or unit mix types or whatnot. We're hoping that that is something that's presented to us or that the applicant is willing to entertain as part of their application. The reality is that even a smaller unit size doesn't necessarily guarantee affordability, but when we look at the alternatives that we have, it's one of the more viable approaches to trying to ensure that there is some kind of mix of income that's a part of these developments that we're coming. That are coming on in a pipeline. The reality is that 240 to $260,000 is still a pretty good mortgage to try to go into a bank and get. Understanding that that may be accessible to a segment of the Durham residents here. We still are tasked with asking the question is what can we possibly do to address this in a way that makes the most sense given the parameters set out for us. I mean, $45,000 to the affordable housing unit, to the affordable housing fund is not really moving the needle, right? So you can double that and we're still having the same conversation. And so still understanding that the developer has a test in the center to make the project work for them from the number standpoint. The question for us is like, what can we do given again the parameters? And I think that this is something that I would be interested in seeing what the applicant comes can present us with in regards to is it doable or not? Otherwise, it's like we're still at our default level of still hoping that we can find a way to move forward, particularly on the workforce, affordable housing piece. We just, we have limited options. And so that's my feedback, particularly to that comment that you raised. Thank you. Yes, the chair recognizes commissioner Durkin. I wanted to echo those sentiments as well. I would be more inclined to vote for this project if it was multi-family meeting and apartment building and not attached to single-family development. And I would, I'm still waiting for someone to utilize affordable housing density bonus waiting and I'm waiting for it and it's not happening. And I understand that that response might be that it's not worth it. But I agree that a $40,000, there's not a profit here. I don't see it for anything to the dedicated housing fund. But I don't think that those deposits really do anything. If they do not create affordable housing, this incapacity can't build affordable housing for that amount of money. So again, I'm not in favor of this project given the fact that it doesn't contribute to the need for affordable housing, whether or not through the density bonus or through market courses of size and price. Thanks. Thank you. Are there other commissioners who would like to speak? I do not see any additional hands raised at this time. I'm going to double check once more than I would like to entertain a motion. I have an opportunity to speak one final point in regards to some of the questions that were raised prior to motion being taken. This is Nate Bueller with Cambridge Properties, the applicant. Unless one of the commissioners has an additional question, I cannot recognize you because I've closed the public hearing, but the commissioners are free to ask questions. So once again, I will check. I do have commissioner Johnson. I will recognize commissioner Johnson. Thank you again, Chair Powell. I will be interested in hearing any feedback that the applicant may have based on the most recent comments regarding the unit sizes and if so, would the applicant be willing to go circle back with his internal team and maybe come back to the commission with more information regarding, is that something possible that can be proper for this request? Thank you. This is Nate Bueller, Cambridge Properties, the applicant. In regards to the specific unit sizes, what we do know at this point in discussion with our partner on this project is that we could commit to 22 foot and 26 foot wide lot widths. The building floor plans that they have planned for this project, I cannot speak to the exact square footage of those at this point, but Robert Schunk's proposal and his presentation of 1,600 to 2,200 square feet is relatively consistent with what their end product would be. So not knowing at this point the exact square footage of the max, I would like to request that we were able to speak with them and confirm that what we could commit to at this point would be 22 foot wide and 26 foot wide max lot widths. And this is Robert. Hey, Cedric, I'd like to follow up on that. Excuse me. This has to be in response to a commissioner's question. Yeah, this is specific to the context of where there are other affordable housing units within this area, not just within a stone's throw of this. I think it'll help the context of this conversation. Just double checking commissioner Johnson, this is in response to your, the information or clarification you're seeking. If not, I'm going to recognize commissioner Al Turk. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I was muted. I'm sorry, I was, I hear nothing now. I think he's, his internet's locked up. Can you all hear me now? There is a, I can hear you. There's echo, something's happening. Let me recognize commissioner Al Turk who had the, the same question to see if then, to see if the applicant then can respond to his question. Thank you, chair. I guess I'll just, I'll ask the applicant a more direct question, a very specific question. Are you, you know, would you like some time to consider both, you know, kind of having a more specific square footage commitment? And, and I would echo what commissioner Durkin mentioned, which is, you know, kind of considering the, the inclusion here of multifamily homes or multifamily units, excuse me, in, on this site. So I, I guess I'll just, the, the, the very specific question is to the applicant, would they like, you know, one or two cycle delay or continuance to discuss this with the builder and to give it, and to think about a more specific, more specific commitments? This is Nate Bieler on behalf of the applicant. At this point, as, as we alluded to, we will be willing to commit to 22 foot and 26 foot wide lot widths. We cannot speak to the exact square footage of the unit, but that is what we're willing to commit to at this point regarding inclusion of multifamily housing at this site. Again, based on our analysis of the marketplace, the size of this site is a natural infill site and our opinion does not facilitate a multi-using, a multi-housing type development, including both townhomes and multifamily, our discussions with the marketplace and a year and a half of this site. We have tried to put forth with this proposal based on neighbors, based on the market, based on our analysis, what we feel like is the most appropriate use for the site based on those factors. So again, we are willing to commit to 22 foot wide and 26 foot wide lot widths, but we cannot commit to anything else at this point. Thank you. The staff has a hand raised. So I'm going to recognize MLA Struthers at this time. Thank you. I just want some clarification on commitments and whatnot that may be being thrown out there. I had heard some discussions previously, I think about affordable housing contributions and I don't believe any of those commitments have been propered. If that is not the case, please let me know. I'm currently checking with senior staff regarding the maximum lot width and if that's something we can accept at this meeting or if we need to further vet it, I'll get back to you on that one. And if you could please confirm that initial, any contribution or if that was just some side discussion on this. Thank you. There's no affordable housing proffermate at this time due to the uncertainty of the costs associated with the SOAR capacity. I'm not SOAR capacity, excuse me. The SOAR service ability, for instance, if we go to the county, we have to add a pump station. If the county insists that we drain to the county and the city, we might have to pay a significant basin fee to drain to the city. So it would be inappropriate at this time until the city works that out to make a profit at this time. Thank you. Thank you. I see additional hands raised. I'm going to double check with you, Commissioner Johnson, to see if your hand is still up. It's a lower. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. And then Commissioner Miller. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is Commission Member Miller. So I would like to be able to vote in favor of this project, but I can't until it has committed elements that bend the project towards the policy interest that certainly I'm interested in and that a great many of my fellow commission members are interested in. I know, though, that we've got a SOAR thing that's got to be worked out no matter what happens. And so that's going to burn time. I don't see the harm in giving this another 60 days. Then it can come back and we'll know what the sewer issue is and we'll know whether or not there is money for a contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund if they choose to make it. We will also, they will also have time to talk with their builder partners about the kind of commitments that they could make that would make me an enthusiastic supporter of this project. And as long as this sewer thing has got to be worked out, I'm inclined to just let this one ride. Why not? Those are my feelings and I'll make a motion to that effect if I'm called on to do that, Madam Chairman. Thank you. Yes, I still have two additional hands to double check with Commissioner Alturk. Have you raised your hand to speak? Thank you, Chair. Yes, I just wanted to note that I think Commissioner Kenchin has been trying to get our attention. I don't know if that's the case or not, but it seems like that's the case. And then I will support Commissioner Miller's motion of continuance. Thank you. Commissioner Kitchen, have you? Yes, Zoom feature. So I'm doing it the old fashioned way. Okay, thank you. I have a comment and a question. My comment is I do think, the single family works well there. I think on Miami Boulevard both ends have quite a number of pieces of multifamily, so does Andrew Avenue. So I think it could work there. I agree with Commissioner Miller. I want to vote yes, I think it's to be a good thing for Durham. My question to the applicant though is, you met with the residents the first time and then you went back to the drawing board and made changes. What was the result in the subsequent meeting that you have with the applicants? Sure, this is Nate Bueller, Cambridge Properties on behalf of the applicant. Our initial neighborhood meeting was held as we spoke for multifamily of 280 units. Based on feed night from the neighbors regarding the intensity of that project, traffic concerns, as well as the overall intensity of the development as a whole. The overwhelming feedback to that end was negative from the surrounding community members. Taking that into account, along with other market related factors, we went back to the drawing board and came back to the neighbors with the proposal that we felt would be more in line with their concerns, which is for 115 town-home units for sale product. That directly addressed in our meeting with them, their concerns related to traffic, related to the intensity of their project and related to their preference for a for sale versus a for rent product. And to that end, as we've worked through that process from the initial zoning submittal to the amended zoning submittal, we've been delayed 90 days, 120 days individually on each of those components. So we would also like to focus on, if possible, a vote this evening in regards to this project as it relates to our movement forward, just understanding the amount of delays we've already incurred over the last near two years on this project. Thank you. Staff had, I see a staff hand for Emily Struthers again at this time. Yes. Thank you. I was just checking back in about that proposed tax commitment. We are able to accept at this time a maximum lot with, I need a clarification. I believe I heard a maximum of 22, any maximum of 26. I'm not sure how the two maximums work here. I think I have some clarification on what the proposed tax commitment language is. Thank you. A maximum lot width of 26 feet. And that is Nate Bueller on behalf of the applicant. Thank you. So no reference to 22, just the maximum of 26. Thank you. I also, I see no other. Well, commissioner Miller has his hand raised. The chair recognizes commissioner Miller. Okay. Only for the purpose of madam chairman, commissioner member Miller, only for the purpose of making the motion to push this back to our regularly scheduled meeting in August, but I'm not going to do that unless there is a, some support among the commission members. Well, at this time, since I see no additional hands, I'm going to entertain a motion on this item. To your heart. Yes. I move that we send case A19 quadruple zero seven to the city with a favorable recommendation. Thank you. Motion by commissioner Al Turk, second by commissioner Busby, that we send item A19 triple zero, zero seven, a four five, four, one, one, five, and your avenue forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. I will entertain a roll call vote with this item please. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Brian. Okay. That's a no. Commissioner Durkin. No. Commissioner Al Turk. No. Vice chair Busby. No. Chair Hyman. No. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Kenshin. Commissioner Santiago. No. Commissioner Baker. No. Commissioner Lowe. Commissioner Lowe. Oh. No. No. Commissioner McIver. No. No. Is that it? No. Okay. I'm sorry, our motion fails 12 to one, excuse me, fails one to 12. I got that backwards last time too. Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion for the zoning map change, the concurrent part of this. John. I move that we send case Z19-00014 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Thank you. Motion by commissioner Al Turk. Second by commissioner Busby that we send item Z19-00014 or 115 Andrew Avenue forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. All in favor of this motion, may we have a roll call vote please. Commissioner Morgan. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Bryan. I copy that, that's a no. Commissioner Durkin. No. Commissioner Al Turk. No. Commissioner Busby. No. Chair Hyman. No. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Pinchin. Commissioner Santiago. No. Commissioner Baker. No. Commissioner Low. Commissioner Low. Oh, oh. Got you. Commissioner McIver. No. No. Okay. Motion fails one, two, 12. Thank you. And I'll put up very quickly, madam chair. I'd like to correct earlier when I read the motions for the first case, I said they failed nine to four, but they actually failed four to nine. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. Thank you. Our next public hearing item is A190008 Farrington Towns. We're ready for the staff report, please. And it also amendment as well as concurrent zoning map changes. So we, two items. Staff report, please. Good evening. Emily Struthers with the playing department now presenting case Z1900023 and A190008 Farrington Towns. This case was previously heard at the December 12th planning commission meeting. At that meeting, the applicant agreed to retain a larger, the larger of the two wetlands shown on the existing condition sheet and planning commission recommended approval at that meeting with a vote of 11 to one. The applicant has since modified the plan to remove both wetlands. While wetlands are regulated at the state and federal level, the significant modifications require that the case be referred back to the planning commission and here we are. The zoning context map here. As a reminder, this 3.87 acre site shown in red at the corner of Farrington and Old Chapel Hill Road is located in the suburban tier adjacent to the Parisian Place Compact neighborhood tier. And it's within the Falls Jordan District B watershed protection overlay. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from residential suburban 20 to residential suburban multifamily with a development plan for a maximum of 25 multifamily units. The proposed zoning is not consistent with the future line use map destination of low density residential, but the applicant is seeking a Flem amendment to low medium density residential, which would be consistent with the rezoning request. Staff analysis, the proposal's consistency with policies has not changed. More information can be found in the staff report and staff is available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I do have three individuals who have signed up to speak to this issue. Jared Edens, a little bit loud. Hello? Yes, there you are. Okay, good. Good evening, Jared Edens. Nice to see you guys. Yeah, the reason we're here this evening is that I really, I gave you some bad information at our last meeting. There's two pockets of wetlands on the property, both along the southern boundary. We were proposing to eliminate one and keep the other with the original development plan. And I'd actually, I believe I described that upper wetland pocket as a pond at our meeting, which was not good information. It's actually completely wooded. The entire property is wooded. It's a jurisdictional wetland, but even both added up together are well short of what we call individual permit through the core. This is the kind of impact that the core would permit in about 30 days with both impacts. So it just didn't make sense to save what turned out to be a wooded area and not a pond. So I went back before you tonight just to make that change. And I'll go ahead and answer your questions. Thank you. Thank you. Jim Anderson. Yes, I'm available to answer any questions. I've got to echo in there, so sorry about that. Okay, thank you. And Lauren Matas. This is Lauren. I don't have anything to add right now, but can answer any questions if needed. Thank you. I do not have any other individuals who have signed up to speak, but I'm going to check to see if there are any other individuals who would like to speak to this case. If not, I'm going to close the public hearing and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. So I will now check to see if there are commissioners who would like to speak to this issue. The chair recognizes Commissioner Busby. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll ask the obvious question for everybody. Can you hear me? Okay. Okay. I'll ask the obvious question for everybody. I mean, there's only one issue here. And Mr. Eden's, I'm confused because the existing conditions map says that this is an existing wetland. And I remember talking about it at the last meeting. And if I recall, I think Commissioner Johnson's comments from the meeting reminded me that the last time there was an inconsistency in the, between the report and the map. So the map said that this was going to be removed. And we asked about that. And you had noted that that was incorrect, that it was going to be saved, which is what the report had indicated. But so anyway, I've been kind of confused about this whole thing, but that was the key to my vote the last time. So explain to me, why is it listed as a large, the larger the two wetlands on the existing conditions map, but you're saying it's not a wetlands, it's a forest. I'm just confused about what's going on here. Now they're both wetland areas are identical. So with the last application, the commission approved impacting the lower wetlands, which looks identical to the upper wetlands. So oftentimes you can get an area that's delineated as a jurisdictional wetland, but it doesn't mean that they're standing water. It doesn't mean there's anything evident. Oftentimes it just looks like what it looks like today, which is a wooded area. So knowing that the core of engineers who, they govern this and they set the rules and they have always allowed anything under a one half acre impact to be approved. I mean, rather quickly, 30 days is a pretty quick permit. So in this case, it's just not a significant environmental feature in my opinion. If it was a pond, it would be different, but I don't know, I'd send a photo to Emily. I don't know if that's available, but I mean, it's completely wooded site. So I'm not sure what that would do. Well, I guess two follow up questions. One is you just said that they're the same size. To my eye, it looks twice as big as the other one, the upper one on the existing conditions map. So explain that to me. No, I said they have the exact same characteristics. Okay. They're both governed by the same rules. So if it's technically the impact in the lower one is the same as impacting the upper one. It's the same permit, same rules. Okay. We'll get back there. Yeah, sorry. That's helpful to get the picture. So while we look at the picture, the final question is when we saw this the last time in December, you were okay with having it preserved. So what changed me to explain what need, what changed from your end that you needed to come back and to make that clarification? It was a mistake on my part. I mean, the original application should have shown it to be removed. And it just was missed. So we're back today to direct it by that. We're not changing the unit count, not changing anything from the last approval, which was 11 to one. We're just proposing impacting an additional, I think nine or 10,000 square feet of area. Okay. I'm still confused. We talked about this and you specifically said that this would be preserved, but I understand why you're coming back. I'm not happy about it. I'll just leave it there. I'm a no vote. Yeah, I understand the preservation was the mistake. I mean, my commitment to that was the mistake. So I'm here direct by that. I will check to see if there are other commissioners who would like to speak to this issue. I do see a hand, commissioner Miller. Thank you, madam chairman. This is Tom Miller. So when I look at the aerial, both in our packet, which is unfortunately shaded over because it has to be, and also the aerial picture that you just showed us, which is from the oblique rather than directly over it. I mean, it is clear that this area where this wetlands that we're talking about is does not have the same tree cover as the rest of the property. That kind of dark place that you see there, that's the wetlands. And it also shows in the aerial in our picture. So it's, and while as a matter, as a regulatory matter, the core of engineers may treat it all the same. I do believe that as a feature in the landscape, this wetland is different. The other thing is too, and I may be mistaken and I'm kind of flipping through my sheets here. The other change that comes up in the application as we now have it is having something to do with a bike pad. Is that not right? Was there a commitment to about sidewalks or bike lanes and that's now changing? I'm not aware of, I don't know if I'm not aware of any changes other than this wetland issue. This doesn't have anything to do with wetlands. This has to do with, is there a change from when we first saw this? And I think it's important to note, this has come up, we voted on it, it did not go to, it has not been voted on by city council. So this is us looking at the same rezoning, in other words, a new rezoning of the same site, but the other rezoning was never resolved. The staff said substantial change so it's coming back to us just like it did the first time. So is there no change to anything with regard to bicycle and pedestrian, I'll ask staff about that. Thank you and I do have a raised hand by Emily Struthers. Thank you, our staff just wanted to confirm that there is no change beyond that one wetland revision. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. I appreciate that clarification. Maybe that was something I read in another case. Thank you, the chair recognizes commissioner Johnson. Thank you chairwoman, can you all hear me better now? Yes. Thank you. So I guess my question is for Jared. I did reach out to him just to the commission members. I reached out to him prior just to try to get an understanding of this seemingly so issue that we're being asked to focus on tonight. My question to Jared now is, I may be the two-fold question, but the first one is given that you're requesting that what we refer to when we initially considered it upon that it will go away or is the intent to make that develop that parcel, that section of the parcel develop and that was something go on that. Now that's possible for sure. I mean, it's just, in my opinion, I've been doing this a long time. This is not something worth designing around, especially when I haven't approved it from a last vote to impact the lower piece. And we got a good, we got 11 one vote last time. So I would hope that some of that would still be in play. And just a follow up question. So am I correct in from what I've heard you share and your comments to particularly our commissioner Busby's inquiries is that when you initially came, was it that, what was it? Now I'm thinking through our conversation back. Was it that you, it was agreed that you didn't have to, but you were willing to agree which you ultimately did to preserve it? Or was it that you were required to, which I don't think is the case, which is the form of the latter that led you to agree to keep that feature on the site? Yeah, I mean, there's no Army Corps of Engineer rule that would prohibit us from filling all of those wetlands. And again, they're the one, they're charged with determining what are significant and what is not. And I just never experienced, they're gonna allow this removal rather quickly. So were you agreeing to keep it on because you were thinking that you would be required to keep it through whatever process you are, you now realize that you can go through and not have to keep it. So was it you just basically been that you would have to keep it as part of why it was no problem for you to agree to keep the feature on the site when we initially considered this? No, I had a fair understanding of what was there. So I think I even used the word pawn. I know when I was talking with Brian, I know I used the word pawn and if it was a pawn, I don't think I would be back here this evening. I just, I had the wrong information. I described it incorrectly and I'm here to rectify that. But again, these are very minor features. Okay. So it seems, so what I've heard is that the applicant thought that there was a pawn feature on the site, which was raised. I remember pre-meeting before that first meeting with Jared and then I asked when we had the meeting. And so he agreed because if we had that conversation around like, how could we put a trail or something? And he was like, it's so close to the road, but he agreed to keep it. So now he's saying that his comments suggest that it's not necessarily a pawn. And so since it's not considered a pawn, it's not worth preserving on the site. And I guess the question is, I have to the commission is, is there any thoughts or reasons why if it's not a pawn feature that we should be pushing to keep the feature on the site? And if so, I'm just curious as to what would be the value add or the benefit of keeping that pawn, that feature on the site? And or if we're willing to accept this request, should we be asking questions to see what could potentially go on that part of the site that was not going to go there because we was going to keep this undeveloped feature on the site. Hope that makes sense, but if not, let me know and I'll try to clarify. Thanks, Chairwoman. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Chair recognizes Commissioner Miller at this time. Thank you, Madam Chair, Tom Miller. So speaking to the case altogether, I supported this case before and after having listened and gotten some clarification about why we're looking at it again, I've decided I support it now, looking at the overall picture. We have a corner site that has got a church to the south in RS 20. It's got single family homes on the other side of Farrington Road, south of Chapel Hill Road. There is a PDR of 3.620 to the west, and then across Old Chapel Hill Road, the property is owned support too for the Patterson Place Compact neighborhood, which would allow considerably more intense and varied development. So what's being asked for here is the ability to build 25 multifamily units on a corner site that in my opinion is a lousy place for single family homes on large lots. And while this is just a 3.9 acre tract, it's not even that big, in the area there is highly diverse housing of all types, all ages, and all sizes. It seems to me that the applicant's argument that this is a good transition from the significantly more intense development that is allowed on the north side of Old Chapel Hill Road to the mixture of residential development that appears on the south side and will actually add a component of housing, which is multifamily that doesn't exist there today. Under these circumstances, unless somebody can explain to me the environmental significance of this small wetland which could be removed, I'm inclined to vote for this again, even though it is a slightly different project, it seems to me it could place to build multifamily housing in the regulatory and built environment that surrounds it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Chair recognizes Commissioner Morgan followed by Commissioner Low. Commissioner Morgan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was actually had the benefit of actually just since we were doing the zoom and remote thing. I was looking at the Google Maps. I could see where the applicant could be confused where the map shows upon, but in the picture, I just see a forested area. So I just wanted to make a point of clarification and noticing that I can see where the misinterpretation might have been made because it shows up on one and not the other. Have you been looking through my computer? That's what happened. Yeah, I mean, that's what, on the GIS, it's a big blue blob on the GIS and underneath there's nothing there. So, yeah, over here. Thank you. Commissioner Low. Yes, just my own clarification. This is not upon and this is not wetland. Is that correct? It is a jurisdictional wetland. Yes, it is a jurisdictional wetland, which is governed by the court engineers. But sometimes that means there's a presence of- My next question is kind of a two-fold question. Okay, my next question is kind of a two-fold question. If you were to keep that wetland there, what's the best thing to come out of that? And then other part of my question is, if you did not keep it, what's the worst thing that could come out of that? I mean, I want to clarify, just because we're seeking permission to remove it doesn't necessarily mean that all of it will be removed because we still have a tree preservation requirement for the site. We still have an open space requirement for the site. This is an area where you have a draw running through. So, ideally, you wouldn't have too many structures around it. Where are the buildings are gonna be? They want the right to build anywhere on the site. But there's no guarantee we'll impact all of it. It's just, again, it's just insignificant in my opinion. Thank you. Does that complete your question? Commission, alone? Thank you. The chair recognizes commissioners, Al Turk, followed by commissioner Durkin. Thank you, chair. I think I mostly agree with or I agree with commissioner Miller that this is, you know, I voted in favor of this as well. And it seems to me it makes sense to have what's being proposed on this site. I do think though that the question that commissioner Johnson brought up is worth asking, which is, you know, is it worth it to preserve this wetland? And I guess I would not to put commissioner Busby on the spot, but I'm curious if you could elaborate more on your position. You don't, obviously you don't have to, but I just wanna be a little bit more clear about why, you know, we should try to preserve this wetland and vote against this tonight. Thank you. Commissioner Al Turk, that was directed to me. Yeah, okay. I mean, it's been helpful to hear the conversation. I remember personally, I just remember this conversation at the meeting and to me that was, that was for me personally, that was the moment when I decided I was on the fence. I decided that that conversation and that clarification, knowing that that's an area that all of Durham has a lot of flooding issues. We're heading into additional climate change. We're seeing lots of neighbors complain about flooding issues. You've got a school across the street. So that was the moment for me where I tipped into being a yes vote. So I'm not expecting any of you to vote no with me tonight, but I would ask you just to think about a case where there was one moment, one item that you thought, okay, on the whole, that last thing I heard is what is gonna lead me to a yes vote. That rarely happens. It's right back in front of us. But reading back through this, I was recalling, that was the moment where we clarified that that would be protected, that I thought on the whole, this seems like a case that I'm gonna vote yes for. So, but as Commissioner Miller said in a previous case, I won't hold it against any of you if you remain yes votes. There are a lot of compelling reasons why we need development in Durham. This is an area that makes sense to have development take place. And, but for me, that was the issue that pushed me to a yes vote. So we're taking it out. So I'm gonna vote no. Thank you. Now, Commissioner Durkin. I was not, I was absent in December, so I did not get to ask a couple of questions. One of them is, can you clarify, for the applicant, can you clarify what you mean by multi-family units? This would be townhomes. Okay, so, I think of those as attached single families. So that, I think, aids in my analysis of this. And I was curious, I couldn't, I just was looking on the website for the December agenda packet and I couldn't find it. But I'm curious what the development plan looks like in December. What did the building parking lot on the area look like? What's now, it's page DV2 of the plan. That go around the wetlands that would now be removed. It did, it did. So you could build the 25 units on the remainder of this parcel without disturbing the jurisdictional wildlands. It's possible for sure. But just as a designer in my experience and just knowing how many wetland impacts our plans have shown over the years that the commission has approved, I just don't think this is worth trying to design around in my opinion. So it's just an unnecessary restriction that I think we need to remove. So I honestly don't know what a jurisdictional wetlands is versus a wetlands without it being qualified as being jurisdictional. But given the conversation, I just, and I know you're saying that it's not environmentally significant, but it's not been proven to be environmentally insignificant. And I think the tree preservation area that's shown on page DV2 of the development of the site plan is very minimal and is really just relegated to a tiny little corner of the lot. So between that and what I'm assuming is the church parcel. So I'm also, if you're able to build 25 units on almost two acres is very, very, very little. And so I'm also inclined to say no on this one. We're able to preserve those jurisdictional wetlands and still build what you had been planning to or what your client had been planning to. Thank you. The chair recognizes commissioner. Well, I saw a hand and commissioner Melody, you have your hand up. I did, but I think we're circling around here. Thank you. I've had my say. Thank you. Are there any additional questions that, and I'm gonna ask this question only because this is unusual, but questions must come from the commissioners and the applicant has raised his hand. Are there any commissioners who have any additional questions from the applicant? Well, I guess I want to report commission. It drew his hand and I was a no. So my question is, if you have a response to my position then you're more than welcome to share it or you have, if you think that what I have said needs to be clarified then I'm fine with this. Thank you. Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to raise my hand if I did. One point I would make, I think the environmental significance is reflected by the fact that the core of engineers will let me remove it in 30 days. And when for significant features for an individual permit, it takes over a year. You have public hearings, that's where the core gets really involved. But I think the fact that the people who regulate it will allow me to remove it fairly easily is a reflection of its significance. Can I actually clarify that? Have you gotten approval to remove it or you just expect that you will? I completely expect that we will. It's a rubber stamp, a nationwide permit 30 days is just going through the process, honestly. I'm not comfortable enough especially not being an environmental engineer or a jurisdictional weapons expert of any shape or form to rely on your assumption that you'll receive it as a rubber stamp to change my vote. I understand, I'm just going on my experience. Thank you. The commissioner Miller has his hand raised. Right, so let me work this through. And Jared, would you tell me if I've got it wrong? With the development plan, the way it was submitted for our consideration last time, you were going to commit to preserving this wet land essentially taking whether it's saved or not saved out of the hands of the core of engineers because you were promising the city of Durham that you were going to save it. Is that right? Right. And now what you're saying is is what you want to do is withdraw that promise, take it out of the hands of the city of Durham and leave it entirely up to the Army Corps of Engineers who has its own jurisdiction over protecting identified wetlands according to rules and standards that govern its decision making, is that right? And while you anticipate that they will approve you being able to eliminate this wetland, it's not a clear thing and they might require you to save it. But whatever happens, it won't be a zoning question at that point. Correct. But one thing that we haven't talked about here and this may address what Mr. Busby was talking about that when you build on this property, you are going to have to provide some sort of stormwater mitigation here which may or may and also tree save, which may or may not use some or all of the portion of the land that is now designated wetlands. Correct. Thank you. Are there any additional commissioners who would like to ask questions at this time? Have you heard all of the clarification that you need from the applicant, even though one of the applicants, so Mr. James Anderson raised his hand, but only in response to if there's any additional clarification from commissioners. Hearing none, then I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move we send case, I just lost it, A19508 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Motion by commissioner Busby, second by commissioner Al Turk, that we send item A19-0008 Barrington towns forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation, all in favor of this motion, a roll call vote please. Commissioner. What was that again? Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Brian. Can you pull your son back a little bit? Okay, got you. It's a yes. Commissioner Durkin. No. Commissioner Al Turk. Yes. Commission, oh excuse me, Vice Chair Busby. No. Chair Hyman. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Miller. I was holding my son up. No. Strike that. Yes, I'm sorry. Okay. Yes, okay. Commissioner Miller, excuse me, Kenshin. Commissioner Santiago. No. Commissioner Baker. No. Was that a no? No. Okay. Commissioner Lowe. No. And Commissioner MacGyver. No. Okay, got you. Commissioner Lowe. Commissioner MacGyver. No. Okay. Oh, this is tight. Motion fails six, seven. Madam Chair, I would move, we move case Z19000234 to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Seconded. Raise your hand for that second to make sure I know who that was. Commissioner Morgan, I believe. Yes. Okay, thank you. Was that Lowe? It was Commissioner Morgan. Okay, sorry. All right. Motion by Commissioner Busby. Second by Commissioner Morgan that we send item Z1900023 Farrington Towns forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. All in favor of this motion, may we have a roll call vote please? Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Bryan. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. No. Commissioner Alchark. Yes. Vice Chair Busby. No. Chair Hyman. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. And Commissioner Kanchin. Commissioner Santiago. No. Commissioner Baker. No. Commissioner Lowe. Commissioner Lowe. No. I got that. No. Got you. Commissioner McGyver. No. It's the same. This one fails six to seven. Thank you. I have no other items listed and I will, without any further business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. I'd make that, but I'm afraid it would fail. Just say so moved. Done it. Thank you everybody. Same time tomorrow. See y'all then.