 the Durham planning commission of 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. So you should know that the elected officials have the final vote before us this evening. As you know, this evening's meeting is being held virtually using the zoom meeting platform. So in this virtual meeting platform, public participants don't have the ability to talk or be seen on the video by default, but speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time in the meeting. Many of you have preregistered to speak tonight, so we'll call your name at the appropriate time for you to make your comments, just like you would at an in-person meeting or public hearing. If you called in before the meeting started and the staff was able to get your information, your name will also be called to speak at the appropriate time as normal. You can also call in during the meeting tonight using the phone number listed at the bottom of your screen for those of you who are watching live from home. If you call in during the meeting, you'll need to wait until the particular public hearing you're interested in gets started. And then we'll go through all the preregistered speakers who have shared their comments. And then we will always at the end of every public hearing stop and ask if there's anyone else who has not yet spoken who would like to speak during the public hearing on that particular item. At that point, we're going to need you to digitally raise your hand and you can do that on the Zoom platform or you can press star nine on your phone. And when you're recognized, we ask you to state your name and your address and then you can make your comments on the particular issue. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you all for joining us tonight and may we have the roll call please. Good evening, Chair Busby and planning commissioners. I just want to state for the record before I call the roll that there was at least one request for an excused absence and Commissioner Miller may be absent or he might be late joining us. So I would say let's do the roll call and at the end of the meeting, if we need to excuse any people from the meeting, we can take a vote at the end of the meeting to take care of that. That's OK with everybody. OK, all right. Commissioner Williams here. Commissioner Santiago has requested an excused absence. Commissioner Morgan here. Commissioner Miller might be absent or late. So we'll skip him. Commissioner MacIver here. Commissioner Lowe. President here. OK. Commissioner Landfrey here. Commissioner Kanchin here. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Johnson. I thought I saw him in attendance, so we'll skip over him. Commissioner Darkin. Chair Busby here and I see Commissioner Johnson. Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how to unmute the computer. Thank you. I was going to circle back. Thank you. Commissioner Baker here. Commissioner Amandola here and Commissioner El Turk here and we would like to welcome our new commissioners, Commissioner Landfrey and Commissioner Amandola to the meeting. Chair, that's all I have for the roll call. Thank you. I also want to extend the welcome to our two new commissioners. It's great to have you with us. We look forward to doing this with you in person when when it's safe to do so. But great to have you both on the planning commission. At this time, why don't we take a motion to approve the excused absences for commissioners Santiago and Commissioner Miller? Did you want to wait and see if Mr. Miller joins us first? Maybe wait till the end of the meeting or I actually we should check with you. I think he was he had asked for an excused absence specifically because he wants to make sure if he can't make a case that his vote is not counted as a guess vote. Okay, that's fine. Let's go ahead then. I'll take that motion. I make such a motion that we excuse Commissioner Santiago and Commissioner Miller. Second. Motion by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Al Turk. Again, Smith, do you remind me are we still asking for raised hands or roll call votes? I'll have to do roll call. Okay, we'll have a roll call vote please. Okay. I'm going to go in reverse order of our old seating chart. Commissioner McIver? Yes. Commissioner love? Yes. Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner Santiago is absent. Commissioner Canechan? Yeah. Commissioner Miller is absent. Commissioner amondola? Yes. Commissioner Al Turk. Yes. Commissioner Durkin? Yes. Commissioner Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Williams. Yes. Okay. It's unanimous. They're excused. Yes. Oh, did I skip you? I apologize. Chair Busby. It's cold. I think it's the glare on my desk. I apologize. No problem. Okay. Thank you. Let's move to the approval of the minutes and the consistency statement. Again, I believe we just have the minutes from our May 28th meeting in this packet. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Before we move approval, there may be other comments as well. I did notice that. The very first motion on the approval of the minutes and the agenda, there were no actual names listed for who made the motion and who made the second. Right. We'll have to check on that. I'm not sure we're going to have to go back and look at the tape. We're not sure that someone made a motion. We'll double check that. Okay. Yeah. That was one of the things that the clerk, the backup clerk, Miss Elliott asked me to look into. So we'll check that and correct it if we need to. Okay. Thank you. Any other, any other comments or if not, I'll take a motion to approve. Make such a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Second. Move by commissioner Morgan, seconded by commissioner low, and we'll have a roll call vote for approval. Okay. Commissioner Williams. Yeah. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Landfrey. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner out. Yes. Chair busby. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Miller is absent. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Miller is absent. Commissioner Kenchin. Yes. Commissioner Santiago is absent. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Commissioner low. Yes. Okay. Commissioner McIver. Yes. And just chair busby for the record, we wanted to remind the commissioners that there is. Because this is virtual. If someone drops from the meeting, your vote is not counted as a yes. Your vote is not counted as out of the meeting and not voting. Okay. Great. Thank you. So that we've approved the minutes and we'll go to adjustments to the agenda. Ms. Smith. So staff would like to offer one adjustment to the agenda and add one item under new business or an additional item under new business after the work program. We need to take care of the vacancy of the vice chair. We need to take care of the vice chair. We need to take care of the vice chair. We need to take care of the vice chair. And also procedure state that in the vacancy of the chair before the chair's term is has expired. The vice chair will step up and serve as chair automatically. So we need to elect the vice chair this evening. Great. Thank you. And that's it for adjustments. And that's it for the adjustments. I do want to state for the record that all advertisements and legal requirements have been carried out in reports that have been approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Could I get a motion to approve the agenda as amended? Summer. Back. Thank you. All call just has to be updated. I'm sorry. The roll call is incorrect as listed on the agenda. I think we correct. We may have posted it online. Correct. It may have been incorrect at one point, but it may have been wrong. It may have been wrong. You may have one that was sent out prior to it being updated. Okay. So, so, so we just need to make, thank you. Commissioner Durkin. We have a motion and a second to approve the amended agenda. And we'll have a roll call vote. Was the first out, Turk and second commissioner Morgan. I believe so. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Williams. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Commissioner. Lane Freight. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. And chair. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Is absent. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to move to our first case item on tonight's agenda. This is Fox place. It's case a one nine quadruple zero four. And concurrent zoning case Z one nine quadruple zero five. And we will start with the staff report. Good evening. Jamie Sonak with the planning department. I will be presenting. Fox place. It's a consolidated land use item. First slide please. The applicant is Cliff cradle from cradle engineering. The property is located. At eighty seven oh five and see highway seven fifty one. The property is currently located. Within the county. But there's a pending annexation application. The property is about. Just under three acres in size. It's located within the suburban tier. There is a request to change the zoning to residential suburban multi-family with a development plan. With up to eleven single family detached homes. The in addition to the zoning map change, there's also a proposed change for the future land use map designation from recreation open space to low. Residential low density residential. There's a typo on that slide. Next slide please. The aerial map shows the property highlighted in red. It's located on the east side of NC highway seven fifty one. Properties undeveloped. It contains a stream and upon feature. Next slide please. The staff report has several. Area photos. Some of them are depicted here. The property is bordered by the chancellor's rage development. Just each east of the site. Other residential developments nearby include. Huntington Ridge Eagles point. And Kensington residential development to the north. It is also abided by state owned lands. To the north west and south. Which are within the recreation open space future land use designations. Next slide please. The site is located within the suburban development here and falls within the falls Jordan district B watershed protection overlay. This slide shows the existing zoning on the left with the property in rural residential. And then the proposed residential suburban multifamily on the right and orange. Next slide. This shows the future land use map designation again and properties currently within recreation and open space and the applicant is seeking. A change to low density residential. Next slide. Here is the development plan that has been included in the staff report which highlights the access points. The building and parking envelope. Barbarian buffer and 10 foot no build the tree coverage areas. And the project boundary buffers. Next slide please. In terms of a summary of text commitments which have been included on the cover sheet of the development plan. There is a restriction in terms of single family residential units as being their permitted building type. With a maximum number of 11 units. There's a restriction of a right in right out at the site entrance on NC highway. 751. As well as other graphic. Commitments included on the plan. Next slide please. As noted, the proposed zoning is not consistent with the existing future land use designation of the site. And as a result, the applicant is seeking a future land use map amendment, which would then be consistent with the rezoning request. The proposal is consistent with the other comprehensive plan policies included in this list on the screen and further detailed in the staff report. Next slide. Staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable policies and ordinances. And I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you, Miss Sonia. I can appreciate it. We will move to open the public hearing. And just so fellow commissioners know the advance number of folks who signed up to speak on this item at the moment is 19. And so there are two signed up in support. And the rest are signed up in opposition. There are a couple who have not, we didn't, didn't tell us which way they were speaking on the issue, but there, there's a fair amount of people who have signed up to speak this evening. Normally what we, we do and we, we allow each side 10 minutes under our normal rules of procedure. I would recommend as we often do to extend that to make sure that we give everyone time to share their thoughts. And I would also like to say that I, I would recommend two minutes per person. That's often what we do, but I'm open to thoughts from other commissioners and would entertain a motion. For how we would go about the public hearing process tonight on this item. Commissioner out there. Yeah. Thanks. Chair Busby. I'll, I'll remember to use the raise hand function in the chat or that. I think that's what we do. I think that's what we need to do to give folks more than just 10 minutes on each side. So I like two minutes each. I wonder though, for the applicant, if we can give them a little bit more time, maybe, because it's just two people in favor. So maybe a few more minutes to either respond to. Some of the feedback. I think we've, we do that often. Give the. Those in favor some more time to respond. I think. Maybe 10 minutes for the, for those in favor and then two minutes each for. Others. Can we do that? Have we done that before? I believe we have. We can check with, with Ms Smith on staff, but I would agree that the proponents may have. Put together 10 minutes worth of time. And we will certainly then allow. Everyone then to, to share their thoughts. I think that's what we need to do. I think that's what we need to do. I think that's what we need to do. 10 minutes allowed applicant 10 minutes to make their presentation and two minutes for speaker on the other side. Considering how many are signed up. I mean, we've done that in the past. So commissioner out, if you want to put that into motion, we can, we can vote for approval. Sure. I moved that we give the applicants a total of 10 minutes and 10 minutes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner low. Well, we're all called back. The commissioner low second. Yes. Okay. All right. So commissioner McIver. Yes. Commissioner low. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Commissioner Santiago is absent. Commissioner. Kenchin. Yes. Commissioner Miller is absent. Commissioner Landfried. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. And commissioner Williams. Yes. Passes unanimous. Two minutes for each speaker proponent and 10 minutes. I mean a opponent and 10 minutes for the proponent. Great. Thank you. So we'll start with the two proponents. We have Mavis James and trans Perry have signed up to speak in support of the proposal. Yes. This is trans Perry. Can everyone hear me. Yes. Okay. Yes. I'm the. I'm the property owner. 87 05 NC highway 51. My name is trans Perry. So t r a n s last name Perry P as in Paul er y. I'm. I'm born and raised in Durham just to give a little background about myself. I'm born and raised in Durham. Live there pretty much my whole life. So when I went to college in New Orleans. I went to Hillside. Local product of Hillside play sports there. And at the college I worked for Walgreens and I came back home around 08. And started renovating and building houses. And I started building houses. I started renovating around 08. And started renovating and building houses. I started. Primarily in the. Downtown district. Around Cleveland Holloway. Morehead Hills. And I've renovated and built over 30 houses. It's probably close to about 35. Out. Here in the Durham area since 2000. Started since 2009. I'm very excited about this project. I think it's very. Consistent with the. Neighbor I mean with the area as far as like. Was proposed as far as like single family residential. I've had I remember I had the neighborhood meeting a few months back and. Seems like. Seems like it wasn't you know seems like you know some people were excited you know some people had questions but. Like like I expressed at the neighborhood meeting the. The. The proposed project. Like I said it's pretty consistent with Chancellor's Ridge you know. And that's. Pretty much. And well I guess I guess I'll say about the homes the homes that. The homes that I will build I build custom homes. You know I build houses built from I guess you can say from. Like like they were built in 1900 you know hardwood floors. Custom cases. Masonry fireplaces very custom homes. High quality. You go around downtown Durham. I have my sign up at my houses. I'm. You know I try to try to build on quality like I would have. Like if I feel like if I would move in on. So I'm very excited about this project. And I'm. That's that's about it. Thank you Mr. Perry. Thank you. Thank you. And Mavis James. Chair I do not see Mavis. This is Chris Peterson from playing department. I do not see Mavis James on our list of attendees. If Mavis is joining please use the raise hand function so that we can properly. And again that's star nine on the phone. Well, I'll propose that we move forward hearing from other folks who have signed up to speak and. If Mavis James joins us, we can hear. We can hear that later. So we're going to move to folks who signed up in advance as opponents of the project. We're just going to read. You're listening to the order that you signed up. So we're just going to run down this list. Again, two minutes per speaker. And the staff will help. Let you know when you are near that your, your time. What I would say is that two minutes goes really quickly. And so if it, if it's time to wrap up your comments, we generally just have a rule that says. You can finish your thought. So you don't have to stop in the middle of the sentence, but please complete your thought. And we'll move on from there. Michelle Alexander, Xander domain and Dan. Gindes are our first three folks who have signed up to speak. So Ms. Alexander. You might be on mute. Yeah. See, I see Michelle Alexander is on here, but is on mute. So if there's a way to. Come off of mute. This is Xander domain. Am I okay to go? Yeah. Yeah. Please go ahead and we'll, we'll work on getting Michelle Alexander off of mute. Thank you. Okay. Great. My name is Xander domain. I live at 312 Marist court in the Chancellor's Ridge neighborhood. My primary concern with this project is two fold with another small note. I'll say initially, my understanding is that this is a multi-home dwelling. So the, the proponents claim about it being very consistent with Chancellor's Ridge is a little confusing to me because the Chancellor's Ridge neighborhood that the property is immediately adjacent to is primarily single family dwellings. And my understanding is that the proposal is for multi-family dwelling. So it does not seem like it would be consistent with that neighborhood. But my primary concern that I signed up to talk about is for, is kind of two fold related to two of the features on the property. One being the stream and pond. So the stream and pond that are features of that property. I know that every year that I've lived in Chancellor's Ridge, at least almost every year for the past four or five years, stagecoach road, which is across 751 from the property has flooded. My concern is whether the development would contribute to the flooding of stagecoach road, which causes closings of that road. The second issue, the second concern that I have is due to traffic. That intersection is notoriously bad for traffic, even though there's a restriction for right in, right out and concern that the additional traffic for 11 multi-family units would be almost prohibitive to people going in and out of that, going through that intersection, especially if they're the stream and pond contribute to the flooding on stagecoach road. And then the second is purely environmental. And then there's recreational use area that stream and pond are homes to lots of wildlife that contribute, that help maintain a low population of rodents, things like snakes and turtles contribute to reduced rodents and bugs in the area. So my concern primarily around the, the actual features of that land and how they would contribute to traffic and the environment of that area. Thank you. Thank you. Michelle Alexander. Are you able to come off of mute and speak? We'll, we'll move to Dan Gindes. Hey, can you guys hear me? Yes. All right. Thank you. How are you? My name is Dan Gindes. I live at 142 college avenue in the chancellor's ridge development. My house backs it up to the civil core of engineering land that is adjacent to this proposed property. So a few things really quickly. I'm going to focus on ironically, I don't know Xander was nice to hear from him, but I don't know him, but I have the same exact concerns primarily. But first off, I want to point out that slide show that we saw quite interestingly, there was a GIS pick in the beginning. That was pretty old. So this area does not look like that anymore. If you look at that GIS, there have been developments dropped left and right. I bought this house in August of 14. I moved here from Indianapolis. I can't believe the development that occurs. It's a wonderful thing, but every wonderful thing has some setbacks. And in this case with the, in my opinion, over development of this area, the setbacks are primarily traffic and the effect on wildlife slash environment. So my biggest concerns are the traffic pattern. Somebody spent a lot of money and a lot of time and just rebuilt the intersection at 751 stage coach. They certainly didn't ask my opinion, but whatever they did was not a fix of the traffic problem. So a proposed project like this is only going to further worsen the traffic. If people are making a left out of that development, or more importantly, if someone coming south on 751 to turn left into that development, they're going to back that traffic, which I've seen backed up to the bone fish grill by root 40 a mile away. It's going to be just a horrendous scene. And at the end of the day, when you're trying to get home from work, it's not what you want to deal with. The stage coach flooding is something that I also started to notice in the last five years. I worked at UNC hospital and would drive that route all the time. It's almost a delayed flooding, but it occurred frequently. And now it seems to be happening a couple of times a year. We're getting wildlife in our front yard, foxes, things getting driven out from all this other development. And I've got the impression. I've talked to people who weren't here, who lived here 10 years ago, stagecoach never flooded. And then they built the development just north of it. And then they built 751 south, just south of it. And then all of a sudden there's a water problem. It seems that these things were overlooked. I don't want to overlook these things again when it's in my backyard this time. Again. Yes. Thank you guys for your time and, and for considering, I think that this gentleman who owns the property should have every right to build what the property. Thank you. Appreciate it. We then have Jason Gonzalez, followed by Blake Hasbrock and Richard Smith. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi there. So my name is Jason Gonzalez. I also coming from Chancellor's Ridge at 1134. Scholastic circle. I first liked the second and third, the points already made by Xander and Dan, regards to traffic and, and certainly the environment. The, these were points that I had already hoped to make, but I won't hammer those in again to use up that time. But in regards to the traffic challenges, I've already been in a really horrendous car accident, just trying to drive back into Chancellor's Ridge. So I just want to echo and really push that one. The importance of that and are already congested roads. But even more so, it pains me here to even consider the possibility that more of the greenery with the massive developments that have been going on around here are now going to be cleared away. Further congesting the area, especially at the time now with even our school districts are already congested. There are talks of, of requiring additional schools. No longer accepting some students at the ones that are existing that we, we moved here with the intention of being a part of roads bogged down as we've already said. I mean, I recognize our population here in the South Durham area is growing as it is throughout the triangle. But there's got to be a more sensible way to address this growth and this land without stacking houses on top of one another. Up to 11 houses and less than three acres is hardly what I'd call value, a high quality value for that area. While I have no doubt that Mr. Perry intends to build high quality houses. And it certainly sounds like he tries to stay true to that. I have to believe the value of those homes as well as the, the homes and the areas around this, this proposed development will significantly be diminished without this greenery for not only aesthetic reasons, but also as, as Xander and Dan pointed out for environmental and safety reasons as well. Thank you. A blade passive rock. It looks like you're on mute. So you can, if you're on the phone, you can press star nine. Looks like you're good. There we go. Can everyone hear me? Yeah. Great. Thanks everyone for your time. My name is Blake Hassabrock. I live at two 12 graduate court and our homes along the northern border of this parcel in question. Just a little background. I'm a 31 year old father of two born and raised in the Carolinas. My wife and I have invested in this community. We purchased and fully renovated our home about two years ago. And we do aspire to spend the next 20 years here in Chancellor's Ridge. So when we purchased our home, we did rely on the future land use map designation. As many other of the neighbors have to decide what the future looked like for our family. And so the first point is that I would like to trust that that future land use map is reliable on one hand. But then on the other, I feel we all need to consider how this affects not only but the generations to come. So the parcel in question is very low and slopes into a gully or stream that flows beneath that 751 into the army core land on the opposite side. So because of this, I opposed the proposal to change the future land use map from open space to low density residential. The staff says it's in the report that the open space designation for the property must have been a mistake, but they don't explain why they say that. So I don't think it was a mistake at all. And if you drive along the 751, you'll instantly see that the land contains a drainage feature directly reaching into the Jordan Lake watershed. So to me, this is an unusual request to take land out of the open space recreation designation to accommodate the development. I've noticed in being here a long time, the city's made minor boundary adjustments here and there, but never anything this vast in my experience. So Jordan Lake is currently a drinking water source for several cities, including Durham. And today we get our water from other cities that use Jordan water. So we do plan in the future to put our own straw in there. And then you may argue that 2.8 acres might not matter much, but I argue that 11 single family residences can't be so important that we should strip another parcel from the highest protections we can give the drinking water source. So once the parcel is gone, it's gone. And then the decision's made and we can't correct that in the future. And so, you know, to look out for the environment and generations to come. That's my stance. Then on the other hand, if we even are each. Is that time? It is. Yeah. Okay. Okay. The other, the other argument I would make would just be that the development plan wasn't thorough enough. So that's all I've got. Thank you so much for your time, everyone. Thank you. Richard Smith. And Richard, while you come off of mute, we'll have joy, I'm just going to spell it because I'm going to do a terrible job with it. Those are the next few folks to speak. But Richard Smith, if you can come off of mute. And love to hear your public comments. And again, star nine. If you're on the phone to unmute yourself. While he's on muting, I'm joy, sweetening and I did not sign up to speak. I'm sorry. I'm just listening. Oh, okay. So you do. You can not look at the phone. No, thank you. Okay. Thank you. Why don't we move to Caleb white. All right, Caleb, I see your hand up. You are free to speak. Hello, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to everybody here. So first off, I would like to give a lot of respect to everybody here. I appreciate that we're all here and talking about this issue. But I do have a lot of concerns about this. I am a member. I live in. Chancellor's Ridge. And I'm really concerned about this development coming out because I just feel like it really is not in, in line with. What we have designated for the residential. Density and. Just generally speaking, I also, I was looking for a little bit more information on what was going to be happening with the water feature. Cause by the looks of the plans, it looks like they're going to just. To somehow develop over like a giant. Waterhole in the grass. So I just think that, that there maybe should be some more discussion about how that even is going to happen. But generally speaking, I'm just, I'm really concerned with the traffic that it's going to be. Coming into the community based on this development. Again, I don't think it's in, in line with the actual, the density of housing that's in this community. And I think it's going to be, the density of housing that's in this community. And I really am worried about that environmental and impact based on that pond, based on the watershed. And also the flooding aspect actually was very interesting that people were bringing that one up because. I think that's also a very interesting point. And it does seem like the flooding has gotten. A little bit more poignant in the, the later years, but. Anyways, I will, I will cut myself off there and thank you for giving me the time to speak. Thank you. Richard Smith, are you able to. Speak at this point. If not James P. I see you're muted as well, but if you're available to speak, you can start nine and offer your testimony. So I just unmuted. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I can echo. And can you give me your name and address and then. Sorry. I apologize. My name is James Seacost. I live at 108 college. Which is in Chantos Ridge. Sort of directly off from where behind the area where this is going to be built. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. A couple of points. I pretty much agree with all the people that are opposed this. The things they've said. I was at the, at the neighborhood meeting that. Transpare held and I would say that the majority of the participants were against. His proposal. And it was not a very positive atmosphere. Actually. I will echo that the aerial maps are way outdated. And the pictures is proposal do not include any from the actual entrance, but it's not a similar development to Chantos Ridge. Are lots average. About a quarter acre in size. And if you take away the area that he can't develop on that property. He's looking at probably between. 0.13 and 1.4. Of an acre for each unit. And that doesn't even include the road and cul-de-sacres. That's not a similar development to Chantos Ridge. Are lots average. About a quarter acre in size. And if you take away the area that he can't develop on that property. And that doesn't even include the road and cul-de-sacres. Turn around. The access is going to be horrible. The traffic is already horrible. It hasn't gotten any better. 71 South's going to make that even worse. And the Jordan Lake runoff is. Is going to contribute to that as well. Happy to let him develop it as it is right now with the three or four homes that he could put there. That's probably a nice. Valid use for that piece of property. But I will say that. I think that. You know, all the points that have been addressed are valid points. And I'm kind of disappointed that really none of that was brought up. In the staff's. You know, rebuttal of his. Well, it's almost kind of looks like it's over stamped, which kind of bothers me because I feel like that's what happened with 751 South. I think I have a list of everyone that attended that first meeting as well, which included two attorneys. And a commercial appraiser. And none of them were happy with that. And they do live in the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. Sure. Thanks. Richard Smith, I'm going to circle back. It looks like you might be available to speak. My apologies. There's no comments. Just supporting as a resident to the opposers. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ben Conkel, followed by Elizabeth Skelko and Jackie baby Smith. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. My name is Ben Conkel. I'm at a 206 graduate court. Grew up in Durham, North Carolina, been here for over 40 years. I've had this property for the past 11 years. Things are getting real crowded down here in this area. The traffic has been an ongoing issue. The expansion and addition of turning lane at a. 751 South and stage coach has not really alleviated any of the traffic issues. Having 11 more homes in this property with the right in and right out. There's no way that's going to be. Helpful for anyone, I would say. The stage coach flooding has definitely gotten worse in the past several years. The flooding, I mean, it shuts things down for weeks at a time at various points in the past few years, the 751 development. The 751 South has definitely made that worse. I can't imagine adding 11 homes here in the sort of drainage areas going to help that at all. The wildlife impact. I mean, you're talking about directly paving over what is a very large pond right there. And that's going to cause a lot of wildlife to have to flee the area or turn up in other people's yards. It's not going to help with rodent control. Or the bugs and pests in the area. Yeah. I don't have anything significant to contribute other than agreeing with all the points that have come before me, but I don't understand how this would necessarily help the map seem wildly out of date. And I mean, 11 homes on that small parcel of land is not going to be a particularly, regardless of the quality of the homes, like it's just not going to be a lot of very effective use of the land. It's going to be very small areas for the development, for the actual houses. Yeah. I have pretty much nothing else to contribute other than I would strongly oppose this measure. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Elizabeth. Hello, my name is Betsy. And I've lived in the Chancellor's Ridge neighborhood since the first year was built in 1999. Before South Point mall and much of the development on highway 751 and Fayetteville road. Over the past 21 years I have watched as lots of retail development, two apartment complexes, three hotels, three big churches and auto park and five large neighborhoods, including the 751 assemblage, monstrosity have been built on set 751 and Fayetteville. In 1999, highway 751 had no street lights between chancellors ridge and highway 54. Now it is five. Stagecoach road had a one lane bridge where you had to wait and take turns crossing. Now it's been raised and widened with street lights at both ends. And it was still good. Now it's been raised and widened with street lights at both ends. And it was still closed multiple times last year for flooding. I've never spoken out. I'm not against development. I live in a neighborhood built just two decades ago. But all of this growth has affected the traffic on highway 751 with no widening or significant improvements. And the Jordan Lake watershed and flooding along stagecoach road. The landing question for rezoning has an existing pond that is often full. Where will that water go once you have all that impervious surface? Chancellors ridge had to build three water retainment ponds when it was built and they have never been full of water. Actually they rarely have much water in them at all. But this pond does. The landing question has a difficult access off highway 751 where it would currently be illegal not to mention very safe to turn if headed south or to turn north to turn south and headed out of it. Allowing a right out and right in only addresses the turning traffic but instead they will turn around in the chancellors ridge neighborhood to go back north. Now maybe you say it's a small piece of land less than three acres. What does it matter? And I would say that's exactly why it matters. It's a small piece of land. Let's leave it alone and not shoehorn so many homes onto this property. Thank you. Thank you. Jackie Bady Smith and then we'll be followed by Nicole Cruz and Donna K. Jackie Bady Smith. Are you with us and able to speak? I'm sorry. This is Mavis James. I'm late for joining the meeting, but I can speak after everyone has stated their concerns. Thank you. Yeah, that's a great plan. I appreciate you letting us know you're here. If Jackie Bady Smith is not with us, we'll go to Nicole Cruz. I don't see anyone raising their hand. We'll go to Donna K. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'm Donna K. I live at 202 alumni avenue. And again, I'm not anti-development. I live in transters. I'm glad to. Like many people mainly concerned about the flooding and the watershed. And I guess my question, because I did not come out as opposed or for four is I do think that there needs to be a study. I understand that the actual site plan review or to do the calculation to see if plumbing would occur. Is kind of a big deal. I know it's expensive, but I think that if this project needs to be considered, that has to happen. It's just not fair to anyone, including those future homeowners in that community to go forward without that kind of plan. I guess I want to know. Is the city prepared to, if you do go through with this, are you, are you prepared to request that kind of study to know what we're dealing with? Cause I think that's my main concern is moving forward without all the information. Great. Thank you. And it's, I'm not sure. I think that's why I'm thinking about the funding. And is the developer willing to invest the money for that? Last question, I also I'm confused about it says it's multi family homes, but then I heard to live in individual homes. So are these. Are these individual town homes? Are they single family homes? I wasn't sure about that either. Great. Thank you very much. And just so you know, during the public comment period, this is your opportunity to, the commissioners have time to ask the staff or the proponent or anyone else any questions and make comments. So it's helpful to hear your questions and commissioners may raise those on your behalf during the discussion phase of the hearing. Because I want to be open minded and hear what the data has to say. And I'm just not clear. What is there and I understand that it really that work has not been done yet. It's not appropriate time to do it, but that I think it really needs to be done. Thank you. Thank you. Kristen Sherman Servati. I see your hand raised. You can speak if you're unmuted. I can't hear you. I don't know if others can hear you or not. We will circle back to you there seems to be a an audio issue on your side. We've got two more folks who are signed up to speak we have Betsy Weatherhead and Ashley Gonzalez. So Betsy Weatherhead if you want to speak or Ashley Gonzalez are you with us. Okay I don't see any of those folks I do see a few hands raised. Kristen Sherman Servati do you want to try again and speak. Speak up it's still quiet. I see the pond that that we've talked about that floods very frequently I have been here for 16 years. And well before all the development that has happened that that I know Betsy talked about. I think I'm going to say thank you for all my neighbors. I, but I do echo. Most of the concerns here, my major concern is that this land is designated for recreation open space on the future land use map. I remember when there was an actual residence in that very small house on that 2.5 acre. Corvelin engineer land backed up to my property. And I know that we all, it was Chancellor's Ridge has had considerations for the way that it was developed in light of and in compliance with the storm water planning for Jordan Lake. The flooding is a major issue. Flooding happens down behind my property just in the Army Corps of engineer land as it is. And so I'm really concerned about utilizing that small space and having a lot of impervious land or impervious space taken over on what is pervious. Great, thank you. Thank you for your comments and your persistence getting through to us. So we have finished, I'm just gonna read the names of names who are on here who didn't reply just to give you one more chance. And then we'll go to Mavis James and any additional folks. But Michelle Alexander, Jackie Bady Smith, Nicole Cruz, Betsy Weatherhead or Ashley Gonzalez or any of you with us this evening and wish to speak. Okay, I don't think you're here. We will go to Mavis James and then I see a few other hands raised who I assume are individuals who would like to speak. If you've spoken already, you have one opportunity to speak during the public comment period, but we will call on you if you have not yet spoken of Mavis James. Yes, hi. So in regards, I am for the development of the property, myself being someone who has been around Durham for a long time, also knew the original owners of the property, the Carlton's who lived on that property. The property was in their family for a number of years prior to it being taken over by the Army Corps engineers as well as Mr. Carlton allowing for when they developed Chancellor's Ridge to use some of his property for the development of Chancellor's Ridge itself. I'm also very familiar with Trans Perry, the person who is looking to develop the land and is also the owner of the land at this time and has spoken to him because I was actually the one who introduced him to the Carlton and has spoken to him about his plans for the development. They are single family homes and not necessarily saying it'll be 11 homes, but it's up to 11 single family homes which myself of being interested in one of the homes itself. As far as the pond and flooding, Mr. Perry has looked into flooding of the pond and will continue working to make sure that the pond is not, is one, he wants to preserve it for the property itself, but two, to make sure that it's not something that's gonna flood the community. I don't believe that anyone would build a home and put it at risk for flooding or having the pond flooded. And just thinking about my current neighborhood now, there's always a reservoir for the water to go into. So no one who's gonna develop a plan is going to go in knowing that these homes may potentially flood. So I think that's something that realistically we need to go ahead and look at the bigger picture. No one's gonna build a home that's gonna flood. Mr. Perry actually has a very good reputation with the homes he's built around Durham. And I actually don't think that the homes would, or the residents of the homes would actually cause any issues with traffic. You have 11 single family homes. As far as adding to the traffic, I don't see how that would change. That would change the actual traffic pattern that we have right now on 751. I don't feel that those cars would, those people who live in that neighborhood would cause more traffic than what it is already on that road. Great, thank you for your comments. Thank you. Gonna move to the individuals who have raised their hands who have not spoken this evening. And I'm just gonna call you in order. If you would like to speak, this will be your two minute public comment opportunity. Audra Slavin. Hey, my name is Audra Slavin. I'm at 126 College Avenue and I'm an original owner here as well. Most of the comments have been said, but when I did buy here with the future land use, the Corps of Engineer property and no building behind it, I actually paid a premium for this lot. So if they, you know, I paid more to live here with the understanding that we would not be developing behind there. And so now what we're saying is we're going to develop behind there. You're gonna fill in that creek. It's not that long a walk down into Corps of Engineer to where you hit that creek and it does flood. I've been in it. My dog has gotten down in there before. I've had to get her out. So everything else everybody's saying is very true about the flooding. When we developed the farmland off of 751 onto stagecoach, it never flooded before then. As soon as you did that, that's what created the flooding five years ago that we continually experienced. So everything that Dan and Betsy and everyone has said is absolutely what we experienced. And then the traffic has really grown. It's difficult to get in and out of the development. So I hope the commissioners will take all of the comments seriously and why the reasons of being opposed. And I appreciate your time. And I also want to thank Jamie for providing answers and advance some of my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Cliff Cradle. Hey, this is Cliff with Cradle Engineering. I am in Durham, 204 East Markham Avenue. How are y'all doing this evening? Doing well. At least make your comments. All right. So I actually worked on this as a surveyor and engineer and understand what these concerns are. In looking at this parcel, we did look at the flooding that is adjacent to us. Actually the parcel was much larger originally and was acquired by the Army Corps of Engineers from the original owner. And that was in development of the Jordan Lake. And the Army Corps knew that this was gonna flood and that's why they purchased this land. And there's land to the Northwest of us and to the South of us that is owned and still owned by the Army Corps of Engineers. So flooding was anticipated. It is in a flood plain. Does it flood? Yes. Is that gonna stop? I don't see that stopping. Are we contributing to that? With this amount of homes? No. Matter of fact, we're not allowed to by the city ordinance in moving forward on this site. And all of those have to go in before the first building permit is approved. So the little pond on the site, which was obviously man-made, does it flood? It might get full, but the only contributing water to that is coming from Chancellor's Ridge. And then it goes into a small creek that is right off the property that goes back into the Corps of Engineers property. So that was anticipated also. It is a nice little feature. We hope to save it. Not making any commitments on it at this point since I'm not the owner, but hope to save that. But that was a man-made feature. There are some utility easements that cross through this property that were done for the benefit of Chancellor's Ridge. There's actually two sewer easements. One on the south side of the property and one on the west side of the property that go through this. And that was done for the benefit of Chancellor's Ridge. And the majority of the people speaking. So I think that this previous landowner and the existing landowner have taken a lot of this into consideration. And I was not at the neighborhood meeting to address some of that, but I'm disappointed that a lot of these folks didn't at least say that in the neighborhood meeting. But I understand timing. As for the traffic on 751, does DOT need to increase that? Absolutely. Do we have power over that? Not at all. We have access to 751 and in accordance with DOT in the planning department, in transportation department, we have agreed to the write in, write out, which makes the access as least impactful as possible. And actually, some DOT made several mistakes when putting up the guardrail and actually had to change some of that for us. And in addition to that, the Corps of Engineers actually cut off access to this property for a small time being in part of that. Just to show you how much the designation of this property has been all over the place. All right, should it have been open space? No, never should have been. It was always residential and it was taken as part of the building of this dam. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. And then finally, we have John Paul Schick with his hand raised. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes. Great, thanks, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I appreciate your time here tonight listening to all of us. Again, my name is John Paul Schick. I live at 308 Alumni Avenue, which is in Chancellors Ridge. I've lived here since 2014 with my wife and my two boys. I've lived in Durham since 1997. By day, I am a real estate attorney with the firm of Ortiz and Schick. I did attend the neighborhood meeting where the presentation was put on about this development and having practiced real estate and commercial real estate for many years, I can tell you that I was thoroughly unimpressed with the presentation. But specifically, the reasons I oppose this application are the following. The number one reason is safety. This driveway on 751, so close to the traffic light at stagecoach, so close to the entrance at Chancellors Ridge, even with a right in, right out, I think is gonna be a safety problem. Not only the turning in and out at that driveway, but as somebody else mentioned, people that are going to want to make U-turns around whatever island is installed in front of that. 751, as you've heard other people mention, is an issue. And I think that the safety of this entrance is huge, is paramount. 11 homes may not be a lot of cars, but all we need is one car to turn in or turn out wrongly. And then who knows what can happen. The other reason I oppose this is it's a bad idea. To the extent that we need new homes in the area, we've had over a hundred units open north of this project at South Point Trails. And of course, whether it's 1,000 or 1,200 or how many ever it is coming at 751 South, these 11 homes are a drop in the bucket and I don't think we need that. The Army Corps of Engineer property, yes, it does flood. I too have been down there with my boys. I would like to address this idea that we at Chancellors Ridge are benefiting from easements. I can almost bet you don't us to a dollar that those easements were required by some of your predecessors from the city in building Chancellors Ridge. So that although yes, we benefit from these easements, I don't think Chancellors Ridge had a choice in that matter. And then finally, I've heard the hope that the pond will be saved and not paved. I've heard that hope in many, many, many other projects and the cost of paving over it where you can put another house or two on it usually loses out. So I think the downside to this project, the many downsides are far outweigh the upside of this project. And with that, I'll thank you once again for your service to our community. Thank you. If you have not spoken yet tonight, I see Caleb White's hand is up. I believe you've spoken already but if you have not spoken and you wish to speak during this public comment period, please raise your hand and we will give you your opportunity. I don't see anyone else requesting to speak. So at this point, I will close the public hearing. And I'm seeing hands of folks who've already spoken. So we're gonna close the public hearing and we will move to comments by commissioners. And again, recognize the commissioners may ask questions of staff or proponents or even just folks who have spoken this evening. Commissioners, if you can raise your hands, if you would like to speak and I will call on you. Commissioner Lowe, I see your hand raised. Would you like to speak? Yes. Just one of the presenters, I think it was Ms. Mavis James. I don't believe she gave her, it was her address. At least I didn't catch it. I did not either Mavis James. I know she signed up, but Mavis James, if you can provide your address, if you're able, that would be appreciated. Well, currently I do not live on 751. I live at 8 Caspian Court. Thank you. So I'm in the South Point area. That's great. Thank you very much. Commissioner Lowe, any additional comments at this point? No, thank you. Thank you. I see Commissioner Johnson. Was that, and you're muted if you- Yes, I'm back, I'm back. The floor is yours, Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chair. So I guess for my end to start off on things, I would like to add we are able to ask questions at this point, right? To Mr. Trans Perry. And so my first question is a typical one I usually ask. And can you provide us a sense of the price point for the residential units that are anticipated to be developed on this park? I haven't pinpointed a price point, but I've had to give a range. I would say anywhere from $500 to $700,000. And while you're still there, I'm sure you'll likely be asked questions from others, but just to start off with addressing some of the concerns that have been raised from opposition to this request, can you start off by just giving us a sense of how you came up with the up to 11 unit on this small parcel and any thoughts around, like how will the actual program of the site in regards to green space and et cetera, anything that could be informative to us and how you will put up to 11 units on this small parcel and it's still not just have a quality home, but overall quality of life community that plugs into the surrounding community. All right, well, I was raised in Southern Durham and I've seen Southern Durham grow. I remember when there was no south point there and it's grown us, that's where we live in, things are growing. But I will say that I plan to keep the pond. I think there'll be a nice feature. I have a little recreational area just to the, my boundary is right, just to the south of the pond. I have a nice little recreational keep the pond. I just think the up to 11 homes answer your question, sir. That came from just working with Mr. Cradle, as far as like what, and I believe working with Mr. Cradle, like how many houses would be allowed, as far as density. And I think it'd probably be closer to 10, just so the lots would be a small, but we still have to, like I said, we're in the early stages of this development. So it might be 11, but it possibly could be 10, but I plan on keeping the pond. Thank you. And so just to be brief, for the sake of brevity, to start this conversation off with my fellow commissioners. I will say that I am familiar with the south point area and this particular site and the growth in this area here. And the concerns raised are, if you ask me, they are, they warrant attention. And the fact that this parcel is being asked to go from recreation and open space to basically a request that is not just from a back of the envelope number then, but it probably will look like from a visual standpoint, it doesn't align naturally with what's currently there in the sense that you take 2.8 acres and 10 or 11 units, you're talking about close to four units per acre. And so what does that mean? What else you can do on this site? And then the questions about the flooding and the traffic issues or whatnot. And so I do think that the concerns raised do warrant attention, not just from this commission, but beyond this here because, you know, there will be a quality of life. And yes, this is a small parcel, but this set precedent about what can be made as arguments for while we continue to do things certain ways. And so me looking at this application is like, when there was, there just doesn't seem to be enough certainty included, like on the development plan to provide a better sense of what the neighboring communities can expect this overall project to look like. And I have other questions, but I'm pretty sure knowing my fellow commissioners that you all will be asking some of them. So I'll wait to see what other questions that comes out of this discussion. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Before we move to the other commissioners, is Ms. Sanyak available? Because I did want to just make sure that I understood I believe I heard a commitment to preserve the pond, but I don't see that on the development plan. Is, am I understanding that correctly? Yes, David Sanyak with the planning department. Yes, that's correct. Currently there is no text commitment to preserve the pond. The building and parking envelope includes that area of the site. And while I'm speaking, I'll just also state for the record too that there is a text commitment relative to the unit type. The residential suburban multifamily does allow for a variety of different housing types. However, the applicant has committed to single family detached housing. So I just wanted to clarify that as well. Thank you. I'm gonna call on the commissioners in the order you raised your hand. So Commissioner Alturk is next. Thank you, Chair. And thanks to everyone for your feedback and being on this call. I think a lot of thoughtful comments. I agree with a lot of them. I agree with a lot of what Commissioner Johnson has already said. Let me ask, if I could just ask staff first a few questions. I wanted to, the first question is about the open space requirements for a development like this. So this is in the RSM or the proposal is for to change it to RSM. Is there, I mean, I'm looking at UDO section 6.3.1 and is that correct? Am I correct in seeing that there are no open space requirements for this zoning designation? And then how does that, well, I guess I'll let you answer that first and then. Yes, again, Jamie Sondack with the planning department. I'm also looking at the same table. I believe that you're referring to under 6.3.1 for the dimensional standards and there is not an open space percentage provided for the RSM zoning district. But in sheet C0200 and the development plan, I see in the development standards section here, open space, I don't know if you see that and then it says 18.0 minimum. So is that, I mean, is that a commitment to preserve or to have 18% I assume for open space? Right, there's, I guess I should clarify there's no maximum, the minimum is 18%. Okay, so that, but is that minimum because the applicant has put that into the plan or is that somewhere else? Or is that the- I'll clarify again on the dimensional standard chart within the RSM zoning district, there is a minimum standard for- Right. The zoning district there is just not a max. Okay, I see. So that's the minimum and that's what the applicant is committing to, I guess, right? Okay, so the second question I had in that same section of the EDO, 6.3.3. I see that there is a in section B of that, 6.3.3. A density bonus for RSM. Do you think that that would apply because this is on a major roadway? I would assume that would be designated a major roadway. Do you think that would apply here? And is that a site plan thing or is that would that have to be approved in a development plan? So we have not done an analysis to see whether or not that density bonus has, is applicable here. However, if it is applicable, they do not have to identify that on their development plan and that is something that they can take advantage of at the time of site plan. Okay, I mean, from what I can tell, I mean, I guess I haven't done the analysis either, but okay, so it seems like it might be possible. I could not answer that question. I don't know if they have enough frontage because there is a frontage requirement in terms of what they would need to maintain. So I do not know whether or not it's something that they would be able to take advantage of. Okay, thank you. And so another question back to the open space requirements or, you know, this is, so this is currently the flum here is open space and rec and rec and rec. We don't typically see a lot of cases where we changed it from that from that flum designation to low density or, you know, residential. It seems to me like, I mean, I guess we don't have any standards to say if we are going to take land out of this designation and make it residential, it needs to satisfy some requirements or some, I mean, we have, I assume as a county, you know, open space and tree save goals, right? But we don't have anything to, I mean, how would that align with some of the goals that we've discussed kind of in recent cases about open space and tree preservation? Yes, you're correct. We don't often see these types of requests in fact, in many areas where we have the recreation open space designation and we as staff when we see the application indicate that no development or certain types of development can't occur within that area. When this application came in, there was a request to change the future land use designation and staff reviewed that request. Typically we'll look at our GIS layers in terms of the environmental constraints on the site. And in this case, when we pulled up the data, there was not the FEMA floodplain area that would coincide with what we normally see as the recreation open space area. In addition, the properties privately held. So staff came to the conclusion because the mapping in some cases with respect to the future land use designation is done at such a large scale level that this was considered a mapping error. With that said, the applicant, the property is currently residentially zoned so they could develop for the property for residential purposes under the existing zoning. However, with the request that came in with the application seeking higher density than what's there right now, we reviewed the FLAM and felt that that modification made sense. Okay. Yeah, because currently it's zoned as RR so they could build up to three single family homes there. Correct, right. I had a question for transportation as well. So transportation has requested in attachment eight for the applicant to provide an off-site sidewalk and I guess the applicant has decided not to do that. Could you tell me exactly where you are requesting that? Is that, I mean, I see that it's a long 751 but it's I guess not, it is not fronting their site, their parcel or so can you clarify exactly where you're requesting that additional off-site sidewalk? Correct, Burling Thomas transportation. So this request was for the frontage of parcels, I believe, just to the south to avoid a gap in the sidewalk system. Okay, so just to the south, okay. So kind of close where there's that no-build line riparian buffer on the development plan. So it would connect with the existing sidewalk to the trailer's raised development. Okay, thank you, thank you. Great, and then could I, I also just have a couple of questions for the applicant. So one of the things that struck me about this is that it is zoned RSM or you're proposing to change it to RSM which is confusing because that's multifamily but you're also saying you only want to build 11 single-family homes or you're committing to that. But I assume part of the reason for that, Mr. Perry, is that you want to, you don't want some of the requirements or some of the restrictions on lot width maybe and lot area, is that the primary reason that you chose this designation because it seems to me like an RS10 would make just as much sense here because it could get you up to four units an acre. Could you explain why you're requesting an RSM zoning to the applicant? So, Mr. Perry, if you are able- Okay, I'll unmute it, I'm sorry. Yeah, I was, you know, it was my first development, like I said, I just done primarily residential in the downtown area, a lot of infill lots and I was just going by the recommendation originally it was 16th town but I have not done town homes and I've only done single-family homes and that's why I changed it doing this whole process that I committed to just single-family homes because that's what I know and I don't want to step outside my comfort zone if you will. Okay. And you've said that you want to commit or keep the pond, are you willing to make that a commitment on the development plan? Yes, I believe that it's on the plan, not the zoning plan. I believe I'm saying that right. I was talking to Mr. Crable, the civil engineer that is on one of the plans, just on the zone of them that I want to keep the pond. I think that's a great feature to the property. And I remember when Mr. Carlton toured when he was alive, he took me around the property and he remember going in the pond and things of that nature he told me, just the two of me. So I plan on keeping the pond. Okay, can we confirm that with staff that that is? I think as long as, I mean, I should be able to keep it. I mean, you know, I don't see why I couldn't. Sorry about that. Yes, Jamie Sanyak with the planning department. We will accept the text commitment that will allow the applicant to offer committing to the fact that the pond will not be removed or modified. So I guess we would need some more specific language in terms of what exactly they're committing to. Okay. Thank you. I guess we can see if an applicant wants to come up with more specific language. I'll just, I guess I can wrap up, I've spoken a lot. I, you know, I initially didn't like the RSM zoning here, but I thought about it and one of the things that I don't like about RS 20 and RS 10 is that the requirements for big lots, you know, I, you know, some of the neighbors said that this would not be in line with the character of the area. But I, you know, in my mind, you know, smaller lots are good in the long run because they can help us increase housing density while potentially protecting and saving open space. So I have, I don't have quite an issue with maybe the smaller lots or even the number of units. I'm not, you know, I think 3.9 units an acre is not wildly out of character with the area. However, having said that, I'm still, I feel like if this is, this was zoned and as an open space piece of land and, you know, I feel like there should be a little bit more environmental protection, something above and beyond what is just required from the UDO. And so I feel like if the applicant would potentially, you know, put in some more environmental protections, which I think is what a lot of folks have discussed tonight, I would be a little bit more prone to vote for it. Right now I'm still on the fence and I'm willing, I'm interested in hearing what others say, but I kind of wish that there were some more environmental protections here. And I would also love for the applicant to be able to build sidewalks offsite. I think that's a, that's especially when the transportation department is echoing what the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission is asking for. And so I'll stop there. Thank you, Chair. Great, thank you, Commissioner Alturk. Commissioner Morgan, you had your hand raised earlier. Do you have comments? And you're muted at the moment. Yeah, I know. I'm just trying to find the right button that mute. No, I think Commissioner Alturk asked some of the same questions I had in mind. So that's why I've lowered it. Great, thank you. Commissioner Durkin. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. I'm confused about whether there is actually a proffer regarding the pond. Planning to do something is not quite the same as committing to it. So if Mr. Perry can confirm whether or not it was an actual proffer or if it's something that he needs to confer with his engineer about, then it's either something we're bringing to the table now or are not. We just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page on that. Is that a question to Mr. Perry? It is, yes. If it's actually a proffer or if it's just an intention, but not a commitment. No, it is a commitment. I don't see, I mean, I think that'd be a better question for Mr. Cradle, but I've expressed him that I want to keep it. I'll let him answer if we can keep, I don't know, it might be some regulations with the city. I'm not sure, but I'm sure. I think Mr. Cradle still will. Yeah, he's there, so if you could answer that question, Mr. Cradle. Yeah, that's a concern. We will have to look at the actual outlet to the pond since this was man-made. We have to make sure that the outlet is safe for this kind of development and it meets all of the state standards. Typically, these older ponds do not, so I don't want to commit to not modifying the pond, but if Mr. Perry wants to keep the pond, then we will commit to the pond. Also, part of the designation of this being RSM was to keep these environmental features all over the site and give us the flexibility of the houses as opposed to the RS20 or RS10 designation because we do have tree coverage area on this site. We've got stream buffers on this site. We've got boundary buffers against both the core land and the open space that's associated with Chancellor's Ridge and that kind of tucked everything into what would be smaller lots. The purpose of this was to build the houses so that we kept all the environmental features in addition to these two large sewer events that go through the lot. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. So just we're not putting, there's not a proper on the table for tonight, which I think is the right move because it seems like a big commitment to make right now about really factoring into the feasibility of that. And I did have a question for staff, Jamie. One of the concern, well, many of the concerns were environmental related issues and one question that came up that I wanted to make sure was answered was what kind of environmental requirements or testing are required at the site plan stage? And this is just the development plan. It doesn't lay out the actual footprints of the houses or anything with a whole lot of great details. So at that stage, what is required that the developer will have to undertake and pass with whatever requirements are that were. Jamie Sanyak with the planning department. In terms of the testing, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to something specific? If there's an EIS or if there's what they can do with the pond and with the sewer easements and the concerns about flooding, if there are things that will be done at the site plan stage that would address some of those concerns. Okay. I believe if the commission doesn't mind, Mike Irwin and others from stormwater may be on the call to better help answer questions related to stormwater at the site plan level. That would be really helpful. Okay. Good evening commission. My name is Michael Irwin. I'm an engineer with the stormwater development review section. In regards to this is parcel. They are going to need some sort of a stormwater control measure. So I would recommend that this pond be available for retrofit without having any more engineering survey data from Mr. Cradle. I wouldn't know what the current situation of the pond is. There's also sections of the site that are down slope from this pond because there's a ridge in the middle of the property. So I don't know how they're going to get the water from the south side of the, or from sorry, from the west side of the development back up to the pond. And we'll need some other sort of a stormwater control measure on the site. But keeping the pond right now appears to be a viable alternative for stormwater treatment. Okay. Just so it's clear for everybody, the attendees that there are stormwater abatement measures that have to be undertaken at sites that are not reflected on the development plan. Sorry. Yes, but most definitely, yes. They have to go to the site plan stormwater impact analysis where they talk about the peak flow runoff and the full assessment of saltless treatments or any other of our regulatory requirements. And it's usually a document that's greater than 60 days along also for engineering to get over. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Durkin. Before I recognize Commissioner Kenchin, I did just want to note that Commissioner Miller has joined the meeting. Good to have you with us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we are on the Fox Place agenda item and in the commissioner question and comments section I'd like to have your attention. Thank you, Chair. Most of my questions have been answered already. I did have a couple more for the owner, Mr. Perry. I'm curious like there's no other access points other than 751. Is that correct? That's the only access to the property 751. And then also Mr. Cradle in his letter to the city said the price point will be 325 per unit. But I think I heard you say 500 to 750, which is a pretty big difference from what we saw. And then lastly, why no sidewalks? I mean, you're asking a lot from us in terms of making concession to turn this space into something that works for you, but you said no to sidewalks. I'm curious about what the rationale is for saying no to the sidewalks. Those are my three questions to Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry, you're welcome to answer your questions. What was the first, the style of the first question I was, I don't, this doesn't appear to be in the access points other than 751. There's no way to connect to the other neighborhoods. So you've only got the one way to access the property, which is, which appears to be a really tough turn from my vantage point at least. So I was wondering about that. That's correct. Am I reading that correctly? If I'm just- Yeah, that's correct. That's correct. One, one, one, one, one, one interest. And the sidewalk is, I don't have the map in front of me. I think it only have about 60 or 70 feet of frontage. So I mean, that's, I mean, I don't commit to a sidewalk. I mean, I guess it is feasible for the 60 or 70 feet, but I don't know if I feel like they want me to take it all with a chance of ridge. That's crossing over Army Corps, another property. So that's why, you know, we said, you know, that's why we, that's why I said, no, no sidewalk, all the way to the Army Corps, I mean, all the way to the Chancellor's Ridge sidewalk. Can I chime in on that one? Yes, please. All right, so the sidewalk, which is required across the frontage of our site, which is 60 feet, and then going to the south of us, which is hundreds of feet, also has a great difference of over 20 feet. So the sidewalk would actually be out of sight down in the bottom, which belongs to the Army Corps of Engineers, which is also in a stream buffer. So development of that would actually hinder and cause more environmental issues than it would resolve. A nicer sidewalk would be actually from the back of the site to the open space through Chancellor's Ridge. Okay, thank you. And the only other question was about the price point. Again, I saw the letter from Alfredo indicating 505, but I think I heard you say somewhere between 500 and 750, which is far from, I mean, we need middle housing in Durham. 500 is far from that. 325 is not that much better, but it is better. So what is it gonna be? Is it 325 in a letter or is it 500, the 750 that you indicated earlier? Five to 750, it'll be five to 750. Thank you. Thank you for your attention. Any other commissioner, Commissioner Miller, I see your hand raised. I wanna give other commissioners just a final moment. That's fine. Any other commissioners, raise your hand actually or virtually if you'd like to speak. Commissioner Williams. Yes. So actually looking at this project and to what commissioner Turk was saying earlier in terms of we need density. The issue with this is we're creating density with 11 homes between 500 and $700,000. And I don't think that that's actually density that Durham needs. Not to mention the concerns that the people in this area have because they live there daily. I don't think anyone can necessarily say whether or not their property will or will not flood. And because these people aren't just five or six year residents, most of them that spoke are 15 to 20 to 30 year residents. I have concerns as I always have impervious surfaces always create way more runoff than grass surfaces do. My other concern is there seems to be a little bit of disconnect between the engineer and the owner. So I've got an engineer saying that he doesn't want to commit to saving a pond. It's man made, but I have a owner that wants to save the pond. So I think that there's a miscommunication there which may present further hurdles with this project going forward. I have issues as far as the runoff, how that will be contained, whether or not a watershed will actually be an issue within our UDO of retention pond is mandatory for new construction. And there's a concern of how the water will move uphill by nature without some type of mechanical unit water tends to flow down. So if there is any possibility that less properties could be developed on this same lot, I think it would be met with less resistance and there still could be an addition to the area. I definitely have a commissioner kitchens concerns with a letter stating $325,000 and then a price point of over half a million to almost three quarters of a million dollars a major difference. But that didn't seem to be the concern of the residents was the price, excuse me, the price point, whether they were unaware or not, it was more so about the traffic, the safety and what that's going to look like on the impact of those that already live there. And if nothing else has shown up is that the community has a greater voice than the few. And there's a lot of resistance to this and the commentary or the resistance to this appears to be consistent in the flooding issue. Flooding has gotten a lot worse. The majority of Durham is built in a flood plain and some homes have managed to escape that but over time with us building inconsistent areas and adding on to infrastructures that cannot support certain structures or overbuilding, I think we're continuing to add to the issues of flooding. And 751 Jordan Lake, what happens when there's massive rains and the Army Corps of Engineers or different aspects have to release rates from Jordan Lake, like what does that look like? I know specifically growing up in Southern Durham, I know exactly what that's like. I've traveled 751 and it's not much different than traveling highway 54 heading into Chapel Hill on a busy, busy day. So even though 11 homes may not seem like a lot right now, the continuous structure of what Mr. Perry traditionally builds are quite a few homes in a seemingly small area with short driveways. And I would assume that these people would entertain so traffic will definitely increase right in, right out. And just looking at the overall plan, Mr. Perry does exceptional work, but I do think that the concerns in this area are valid. And I think that they go well beyond just looking at the number of lots and looking at density. I think that the concerns of during construction building, construction equipment in this area during the course of building the entire subdivision, I think those are all very valid concerns at least as far as I'm concerned. I definitely have issues when it comes to flooding and runoff. That's my comments. Great, thank you, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Miller, I don't see any other hands raised. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Tom Miller speaking and I apologize to everyone for being late. This is my actually first time ever to be late to a planning commission meeting in the last six years. I have met with the neighbors here and I've studied the staff report and I've looked at the development plan. And quite frankly, in all my time on the commission, this is the only case that I can remember where we've been asked to pull a property entirely out of land designated open space and recreation on the future land use map to make it available for development. We have from time to time been asked to adjust borders here and there and in some of those cases for really good stated reasons, I may have supported that, but this is extraordinary to me. And I will acknowledge that all around the Jordan Lake watershed, we have allowed development that wise planning says we should not have allowed. Some of it we have been compelled to do after resisting mightily. And I was part of that resistance in one capacity or another. I am disinclined to even for 2.81 acres or for 11 single family homes, so small a change to vote in favor of reducing land designated as open space and recreation in the future land use map for a property that is so close to the reservoir, which soon we will be drinking from. And quite frankly, our ability to grow and develop as a community in other places more suited for growth and development is dependent upon our ability to keep Jordan Lake the best drinking water source we can. It has not been so long ago that the newspapers covered the ridiculous efforts by the McCrory administration to float devices in the lake to help remediate some of its dreadful problems with water quality. It sure it seems like this is just a little project of what difference can it make? But we are killing Jordan Lake using the death by a thousand cuts. I will not wield the knife even for so small a cut. I'm going to vote against this. Even if we were to approve the future land use map change, this is a development plan with so few commitments. I don't have a very clear vision of what this development's going to look like. And although I'm sure you have covered it in my absence, why we're using a multifamily designation to build 11 single family homes, I'm deeply troubled by that as well. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman. I'll be ready to vote when. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. This is a final chance. If any commissioners would like to speak, if you can virtually raise your hand while we wait, I will just also echo the concerns raised by many of the commissioners. And I plan to vote no when there are motions made on this item. I don't see any additional hands at this point. So I would ask for a entertain a motion. If I may then, Mr. Chairman, Tom Miller speaking. You may. In connection with case A190004, I move that this item be sent forward to the city council of Durham with a favorable recommendation. Second. Thank you. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Al Turk and we'll have a roll call vote. I apologize for the glare. I'm trying to get out of the sun. Commissioner Williams. No. Commissioner Morgan. No. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Emondola. No. Commissioner Durkin. No. Commissioner Al Turk. No. Chair Busby. No. Commissioner Landfrey. No. Commissioner Teenschen. No. Commissioner Baker. No. Commissioner Lowe. And Commissioner McIver. Yes. Okay. The motion fails 11-1. I'm sorry, 11-11. Mr. Chair, my name was not called in the roll call. Oh, sorry, because I forgot you showed up. That's why I got 11-11. It should be 112. Commissioner Miller. No, please. Okay. I knew my math wasn't adding it correctly. Thank you for calling me out on that. It failed 112. Thank you. She skipped me earlier this evening, Commissioner Miller. So you're on video. I'm falling out on my job. I apologize. And I'll entertain a motion on the zoning cases. Well, please. Mr. Chair, in connection with cases E1900005, I move that we send this item forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Move by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Alturk. And we'll have the roll call vote, please. Yes. Commissioner McIver. Yes. And Commissioner Lowe. No. Commissioner Baker. No. And Commissioner Kenchin. No. Commissioner Miller. Yeah, I wasn't ready. No. All right. Commissioner Landfried. No. Chair Busby. No. Commissioner Alturk. No. Commissioner Durkin. No. Commissioner Amondola. No. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Morgan. No. Commissioner Williams. No. Okay, motion fails, one to 12. Thank you. Ms. Smith, before we move to our next item, you had mentioned an interest given the length of tonight's meeting and the large crowd assembled a potential break at some point. Yes. This might be a good time to take a quick recess and start back up at 730 if everyone is okay with that. We don't need a vote. We just need a consensus. Okay, I would agree. All right, we'll see you at 730. And commissioners and attendees, you can just go mute and go off video and come back in 10 minutes. All right, good job, everyone. 730, you are here. Let me just check and make sure that the staff is here so we can keep a records for the minutes. We will move to the next item on our agenda. And next up is the Chin Page Road case. And this is a case A19 quadruple zero one eight and concurrent case Z19 triple zero five zero. And we will start with the staff report. Good evening again, it's Jamie Sonyak with the planning department. I will be presenting the Consolidated Land Use item for Chin Page Road. First slide please. The agent for the application is Bob Zoomwell from McAdams. The property is located. There's several properties on the north side of Chin Page Road generally located at 5203. The site is located within the city's jurisdiction. It is located within the suburban tier. The request for this application again is to change the future land use designation of the site to office and change the zoning of the site to office and institutional. There is a request for a straight zoning of the property. There's no development plan associated with this site just as a little background which has been included in the staff report. This property is a remnant track that remains after the adjacent property which is about 37 acres in size was purchased. That 37 acre track is subject to a development plan which is legacy case Z07-21 that requires the construction of Crown Parkway along the Eastern property line. That development plan was for the FedEx facility to accommodate that site. And my understanding is there was a land swap between ownership groups and this property resulted in that. Next slide please. The property is highlighted in red. It's roughly eight acres in size. The next photos depict the context of the area and site to the north appearing to get to the site. Next slide please. There is just to give a context of the area. There's the Republic Services Recycling Facility, a church and approved office park again for the FedEx as I mentioned before and an auto repair service facility to the west directly to the north and east is the creek side at Bethpage Residential Development. Across Chimpage Road to the south are additional residential developments which extend to Page Road along to the west along Chimpage Road and Chronicle Drive is Bethpage office which includes a pending zoning map change from ILD to OI with no development plan. Next slide please. The context map shows the property, the existing zoning on the left and the office and institutional zoning on the right. Next slide please. Future land use designation, the property is currently industrial and the applicant is proposing to change it to office to coincide with the zoning request. Next slide. In terms of the comprehensive plan policies the proposed zoning is not consistent with the future land use designation of industrial but the applicant is seeking the modification to be consistent. Staff has reviewed the industrial land use study and determined that this property is not suitable for the industrial designation given its size and the proximity to the residentially zoned land as shown on the context map and then described in the staff report the current industrial future land use designation does not serve as an appropriate transition between the residentially zoned land to the north and east. Staff has determined that the office designation is more consistent and more compatible with the adjacent land uses and that the requested office will allow for more complimentary transitional uses to be developed on the subject site resulting in more compatibility with the surrounding properties and allowing for a more cohesive overall development with the Bethpage community. Staff did express concerns in the staff report that without a development plan, however, there is no way to address any potential impacts or mitigating factors associated with being adjacent to an industrial or low median density future land use designation. And staff also wanted to note that the site will have access through adjacent lots, therefore it does not meet the intent of policy 252E. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. The staff determines that the requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies except where I have been noted. I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you, Ms. Sanyak. We're gonna open the public hearing. We have four people who signed up in advance, all are proponents. And so I'll just read their names off and then we'll provide, since they're all proponents, they can have a total of 10 minutes unless we determined to change the rules and then we can see if there's anyone else who would like to speak on the item. Ms. Smith. I can keep time, I was just letting you know. I can split it into two and a half minutes each or just, they can just talk and I can track it as they go, either way. Okay, that's great. Thank you. I'll just read off the names. They may have a plan on how they'd like to proceed. We have Patrick Becker, Rob Griffin, Kevin Walls and Bob Zoomwald. I'm President Rob Griffin here. Patrick Becker here. I'll probably be the main speaker followed by Mr. Walls. And then I think our team will be happy to answer any questions. And hopefully take a lot less than 10 minutes. That's great. You may proceed, Mr. Becker. Good evening, Chairman Busby, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Patrick Becker with Morningstar Law Group. I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm here tonight representing tribe properties for this agenda item. For those of you who have been on the Planning Commission for at least a year, I'm pretty sure this item will be deja vu all over again. We had a practically identical case on your September 2019 agenda. Back then that case was for 23 acres, whereas tonight's agenda item only covers about nine acres. By way of introduction, I'd like to give some historical background on the overall Bethpage project located here along Chimpage Road. It's been my privilege to work with tribe properties on the Bethpage development for the past 14 years. Back in 2006, tribe properties was our lead office and industrial developer for Bethpage. An assemblage that amounted to 450 acres located pretty close to RTP and RGU Airport. Pursuant to what we designed and what was approved about 14 years ago, the residential section of Bethpage has been built out as an age restricted community called Creekside, which represents a great neighborhood here in Durham. Unfortunately, the office and industrial section of Bethpage has languished for the most part since it was approved unanimously by the Durham County Board of Commissioners. Back then the Board of County Commissioners consisted of Becky Herron, Helen Rekow, Lewis Cheek, Phil Cousin, and Michael Pate. I recall Commissioner Becky Herron being very insistent that the Bethpage team create enough acreage-zoned IL to accommodate around one million square feet of space, and that is what we did. Back then before the great recession, we thought Durham needed a large swath of IL zone property to compete for a major corporate headquarters. Well, the world certainly has changed since then, given that the IL zoning on the 8.8 acres we were talking about tonight allows for either office or industrial uses. We wish to rezone these 8.8 acres to allow for either office or multifamily. We think that is a better fit for the adjacent Creekside neighborhood, and it allows tribe properties as the leading office developer in Durham to continue marketing this site for office use. Next, what I'd like to discuss briefly is our team's decision not to submit a development plan with a zoning map change to OI. Again, going back 14 years, our team undertook a massive TIA for Bethpage covering over 400 acres. The Bethpage TIA, as part of that development plan, runs with the land as part of the zoning. That TIA accounted for potentially high peak hour traffic generation from these 8.8 acres, and any use allowed under the OI zoning district contemplated in tonight's agenda item would be equal to or more likely less than what we accounted for in the original TIA. In fact, the staff report states that the anticipated traffic generation will be reduced by about 2,600 trips per day. Also, since tribe properties does not have an end user at this time, it's impossible to scope a traffic impact analysis. Keep in mind, Durham city ordinances, including but not limited to the UDO place limits on this site in regards to noise, lighting, building height, no more than 50 feet, and pretty significant boundary buffers under UDO section 9.4 to give the neighbors comfort for this rezoning without a development plan. For all these reasons, we respectfully request your recommendation of approval, and now I'll turn it over to Mr. Kevin Walls. So I'm kind of representing a lot of the residents of pre-cited Bethpage. I've been a resident there now just coming up onto five years, one of the original residents. And we've been speaking positive to change all these incendiary parsnays around us from industrial to office industrial. We understand the uses. We've covered that several times. And multi-family or even office fits into design as was originally presented to us when we purchased here in 2015. So that's why I'm here to just speak positive to that. I've on several committees and councils here within the subdivision. And I think that the majority of the people here is who I'm speaking for. So that'll be end of my statement. Mr. Walls, could you give us your mailing address, please? Oh, I'm sorry about that. Kevin Walls, 1027, Branwell Drive. Durham. Thank you. And any additional comments? Rob Griffin or Bob Zumwalt? Hi, Rob Griffin speaking. I'm a Raleigh resident 4901 Glen Forest Drive in Raleigh. Representing TRIP properties in the owner of the site. The site has some severe topo issues. If the site were to connect both to the planned creek side, phase five, as well as Crown Parkway, it's approximately 30 plus feet of topo it'd have to deal with over a relatively short distance to connect the two. Going to an OI zoning gives the site a little more flexibility for a smaller footprint, more nimble building footprints. It could be anything from office building to townhomes to being keeping with creek side. And we just think it makes the overall site more marketable, provides a much greater transition for the residential between creek side and the IL zoning, both the Republic and the New FedEx facility going in. It just really fits the transitional nature of uses. I think to Mr. Walz's point, far better than having the IL right up against the current residential zoning. Thank you. And Bob Zoomal, would you like to speak as well? No, I'm just here to answer questions. I appreciate it. I'll just mute myself. Thank you. Thank you. So those are the individuals who signed up. If you are attendance and you would like to speak during the public hearing, if you could just raise your hand virtually and we will provide you the opportunity to speak. I don't see anyone else raising their hand. I'll give it one more moment. No one else is stepping forward. So we will close the public hearing. And commissioners, if you can raise your hands, I'll call on you. I'll start with Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for staff, if I may. In a district or district zone like this with office institutional against a PDR, what is the base requirement for the buffer in terms of width and opacity? And I realized that there would be alternatives under the interactive buffer model and also using a berm or a hedge. Mr. Miller, let me look that up for you while I don't have that number off the top of my head, but pulling up the chart now. So if the property is in the OI district and is adjacent to a PDR in the suburban tier, it would either be a 0.4 or 0.6 opacity, which would require, hmm? If I may, what would the width be? That's what I was gonna get to just now. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. The, it would either be a 20 foot or a 30 foot width. And if it's 20 feet, it would be a six? No, the 20 feet coincides with the 0.4. Okay, what if it's 30 feet? That would coincide with 0.6. Really? That's correct. In other words, the narrower it gets, the less opaque it has to be. Why would anybody have 30 feet? You can only do the less, the smaller limit if the adjoining property has already provided a buffer, which the previous best page zoning, I can check it. I think it's a 20 foot, but I can check that. Okay, I get it now. So if there's a buffer on the other side. That's right. Right. Okay. But it, and so, but we're looking at a 0.4 opacity. And what's the height limit for buildings in a straight OI in this situation? I believe I put that in the staff report, but I will. I'm sorry, you probably did. I apologize. That's okay. Just bear with me and I'll pull it up again, 50 feet. Right. So Mr. Chair and my colleagues on the commission, I intend to vote for this, but I would prefer to be voting for it with a development plan that had at least some commitments improving the transition quality of this property against the residential next door. I believe that the buffer requirements are really not adequate if we're operating on a property that could have buildings as tall as 50 feet. But since I see this as an incremental improvement over the industrial zoning that's on the property, because the neighbors actually favored this rezoning, I'll be voting for it. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. My dog seconds your motion apparently. Other commissioners who would like to speak, you may raise your hand. I don't see any others. I'll also just echo Commissioner Miller. I voted for something similar as Mr. Biker mentioned. I'd rather have the development plan as well, but I believe moving from the current zoning to the proposed zoning is a step in the right direction and hearing the neighbors are supportive gives me comfort to support this. Any final thoughts, commissioners? Commissioner Baker? I'll just say one thing real quick that, you know, I think both of these zoning districts by themselves are unsustainable sprawl. And so I don't see a major consequence in approving, you know, voting to recommend approval of a change in the zoning map, especially given the fact that some of the adjacent residents are in favor. Thank you. If there are no other comments from commissioners, I will entertain the first of two motions on this item. Mr. Chair, I move in connection with case A1900018, the property at Chin Page Road, that we send the future land use map amendment forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Alturk and we'll have a roll call bill, please. Commissioner Williams? Yes. Commissioner Morgan? Yes. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Commissioner Amidalia? Yes. Commissioner Durkin? Yes. Commissioner Alturk? Yes. Chair Busby? Yes. Commissioner Lanefreed? Yes. Commissioner Miller? Yes, please. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner Lowe? Yes. And Commissioner McIver? Yes. This passes 13-zero unanimous. Thank you. And take a motion on the zoning case as well. Mr. Chair, in connection with case Z1900050, the property at Chin Page Road, I move that we send this rezoning request forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Seconded. I'll move by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Morgan and the roll call vote. Commissioner Williams? Yes. Commissioner Morgan? Yes. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Commissioner Amidalia? Yes. Commissioner Durkin? Yes. Commissioner Alturk? Yes. Chair Busby? Yes. Commissioner Lanefreed? Yes. Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Kenshin? Yes. Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner Lowe? Yes. Commissioner McIver? Yes. Passes unanimous 13-zero. Thank you. We will move to our next two cases, our zoning map change proposals. The first is Carrington Woods 2. And this is case Z1900037. And we'll start with the staff report. Good evening, Jamie Sanyak again with the planning department. Cover sheet says Carrington Woods. Let's just make sure it's the correct PowerPoint. Do you want to go to the next slide, please? I believe that's the right case. Okay. Great. Sorry about that. Thank you. The applicant agent is Glenwood Holmes LLC. The property is located at 833 Clayton Road. It is pending an annexation petition. The property is just under nine acres. It's located within the suburban tier. The applicant is seeking a rezoning request. To residential suburban 10 with a development plan. Or up to 23 single family lots. There is no future land use map amendment associated with this. Development. Next slide. Property is highlighted in red. It is heavily wooded. There are a number of easements that are shown on the plan as well as an existing wetlands on the property. Next slide. The pictures depict the properties. The property and the area to the east and west contains mostly residential subdivisions, twin lakes. And woodland parks specifically. Both rezoned at the RS 10 level. Most of those homes were constructed in the 1990s on 10,000 square foot lots. Additionally, you'll see on the area as well as the development plan, there are three street sub stubs from these subdivisions that are located within the sub urban tier. And then there are two areas. Two, which will be, which will require connections from those developments. To the site. Southern high school is found just northeast of the property. Next slide, please. Just those are additional photos of the area. Next slide. This site is located within the suburban tier. Next slide. Next slide. This is the residential area district. You'll see the existing zoning on the left. And the proposed RS 10 zoning on the right. Next slide, please. This slide depicts the existing. Future land use designation as low density residential, which is consistent with the application. Next slide. And this slide shows the development plan, as well as the residential area. Next slide. Next slide. The access points tree coverage areas and the project boundary buffers. As well as the density and the unit type. Next slide. In terms of key commitments, the applicant has committed to single family detached. As the. I made a building type. Restricted the number of units to be a max of 23. In addition, there are a number of different types of building materials. And a requirement for covered front. Entries. Next slide. The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use designation of low density residential, which is consistent. In addition, there are graphic commitments. Discussed on the development plan, including a variety of reef types. Building materials. And our requirement for covered front entries. Next slide. Next slide. The proposed zoning is consistent with the other policies that have been included on this screen and further detailed in the staff report. Next slide. And staff determines that these, that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other apical policies and ordinances. And I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. We appreciate it. We'll open the public hearing. We had six individuals sign up in advance. Two proponents and four opponents. If it makes sense to fellow commissioners that seems still fair to me to operate with 10 minutes per side. That would give each of the opponents. More time than we actually gave the opponents in the earlier case. Two and a half minutes per opponent. So I see heads nodding. So let, let's proceed. We have. Penny. Yes. And Gary. Sevella signed up to speak in support. Yes. Good evening. This is Gary. Sevella. Penny and I are working together on this. I was planning to give a statement. Maybe take five minutes, maybe less. And a penny can either correct me after I'm done. Or. Or say some additional remarks that she wishes. Does that sound good to you, Penny? Yes, that's fine. Yeah, you may proceed. That sounds good. Okay. Great. Like I said, I'm Gary to be an attorney. I represent the applicant here at Glenwood homes. About two years ago, the planning commission considered Glenwood homes is request for a straight rezone of the same property. And I think that's a good point. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that was considered. Glenwood homes is request for a straight reason in the same property from RS 20 to RS 10. There was no development plan a submitted with that. And the commission did not recommend approval. And the concerns that were expressed at that time. Fell into really three, three categories. One was the absence of a development plan that limited the number of units. Subdivision configuration with a little more clarity. The second bucket of concerns was really just to traffic impact along Clayton Road and through the adjacent subdivisions. And finally, there was some concern about disturbance of wetlands that are on the site. The case went to the city council in December of 2018 and it voted to deny the application. So Glenwood went back to the drawing board and we created a development plan to address many of the concerns that we could. And so now we're back before the city with requests to rezone again from RS 20 to RS. But we have a development plan this time. As Ms. Sunyak covered, the plan limits the maximum number of units. The 23 building type has been limited to single family detached residences. And we have an update on the price. We expect to sell these at about 250,000 per home. When we submitted the annexation petition in August of last year, we'd estimated 225, but prices have gone up. The plan also proposed is three access points. There are stubs as Ms. Sunyak alluded to, one on Meadowcrest Drive to the east, Alpha Drive to the west, and Dairy Road to the south. Last time there was an issue about whether there could be a separate entrance to the site from Clayton Road. The idea being that the new residents of this subdivision would not need to drive through the existing neighborhood. And I would just point out that it was the opinion of Mr. Bill Judge with the transportation group and also of Ms. Cable, our design engineer that NCDOT would not permit such an entrance. And so the only access options to this site really are the three existing roads that are stuck to this site. The plan also shows the precise location of the wetlands and the amount that can be disturbed. And the amount of disturbance, we minimized it to just fit the road that plan to connect to Dairy Road to the south. And the area of disturbance is so small that we don't expect the state water resources division to require any wetland mitigation. So we've done our best to try to minimize the disturbance. And also I just want to point out that Glenwood went beyond what was required of the development plan by including a boundary buffer along the perimeter of the property. It's 25 feet in places where we plan to include tree coverage. And then it's 10 feet in areas where there will be no tree coverage. And I just want to note that this boundary buffer was included after we had met with the residents in September of last year. After submitting the application, we notified all of the owners on the list that we received from Ms. Sunyak. I believe it's all owners within 600 feet. And 10 residents came to the meeting venue, which was the East Regional Library near the site off of Lick Creek Road. And we shared with them the initial draft of this development plan that's on the screen. And we also shared a sketch subdivision plan, which is just kind of our concept for how we plan to subdivide the site consistent with the development plan under consideration. The sketch was very similar to the one that Glen would have shared with the residents about two years ago. It was my point at that meeting that the attendees were largely appreciative of the commitments made on the development plan, specifically the limit on the number of bits and some more clarity around access and how wetland disturbance would, how that would unfold. There were still concerns about traffic, however, just to be completely candid. I mean, as to that, all I can really say is I'd ask the commission to align that under current zoning, 15 units can be built. We would still have the issue of interconnection to the three hubs that stub out the property. And so really the traffic impact, I think needs to put on what the intermittent increase on traffic is going from 15 to 23 units. And I highlight that according to the staff report, the increase in units is projected to add just 87 vehicles per 24-hour period. Now just to put that in context, that's about a 1% increase in traffic volume that's in the report, which it looks from the footnote that it was measured in 2017. As for traffic that will go through the existing neighborhoods, as to that I would just say that there were three different access points that will interconnect the three roads to the site and those will all share those 87 daily trips. We're not dismissing the concerns about traffic. We're not saying that they're completely insignificant or won't be felt. It's just that our view is that the impact isn't substantial enough to deny the reason, particularly when it's consistent with the future designation and the surrounding neighborhoods are all zone RS 10. So in reaching a decision, I hope that the commission will recognize the efforts that Glenwood Homes has made at transparency and communicating with the residents and efforts to exceed the minimum requirements in an effort to address the residents concerns. And so in some, you know, we used to ask that the commission favorably recommend this proposed zoning map change to the city council. Thank you. And Penny Cicadolo, do you have any additional comments? Well, I think Eric covered it very well. I do want to state as an engineer, it does seem logical to connect all the roads, connect all the utilities, all the sewer, all the water. We'll now have our circulation pattern through this subdivision. It is designed to match what is in the surrounding area and appears to be a legitimate request for reason. Thank you. And as I said, we have four individuals who signed up and listed themselves as opponents, Joe Peck, Quincy Ratcliffe, Denise Reeves and Kenneth Wiggins. And so Joe, Mr. Peck, if you're with us, we'll let you start and each of you have up to two and a half minutes. Joe Peck, are you with us? You can raise your hand or you can star nine to unmute yourself. I see Quincy Ratcliffe. We'll move to Quincy Ratcliffe. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you all for the opportunity to speak this evening. First and foremost, I would like to say to Ms. Isabela, thank you for the clarity in which you expressed this evening with the site plan that you have. We wish as the neighbors and the ones who live in these areas, we wish that was shared with us prior to this meeting. But he has done a good job with sharing the information that we have asked for since 2018. Now, I guess you need some background for me. Do you still want that? Or just go ahead and move in. We would love for you, if you can share your name in it. You've already gave us your name, your address, and please share your thoughts about the proposal over the next two minutes or so. Okay. Again, my name is Quincy Ratcliffe. My address is 3219 with Land Park Road. I live at the corner, which is the main entrance to Derry, to the Carrington Woods entrance, which is Derry and Woodland Park Road. My mother built this home in 1991, which she has since passed away in 2017. So I have pretty much been with her since 91, although I moved away and came back. So I say that to say the owners of the property, everyone who is speaking and have participated in these meetings, we have owned our properties since for 15-plus years. So we have a great deal of compassion in reference to the upkeep and the growth of the community. So my concerns, along with my neighbors, and some of them will share them as well as I will, initially, they were about the, I'm sorry, traffic, the growth of this area. We have greatly outgrown the infrastructure for this area in which we live. So to add Carrington Woods and with, although they expressed, there are three entrances. One is at Woodland and the other two that will lead out to Meadowcrest and no wood. There's still, what they did not share is there is only one road that those streets will lead out to unless Clayton Road. Clayton Road is greatly impacted by traffic when Southern High School is in session and when we are working during the rush hours. DOT has not addressed what the growth of this area as far as we can see at this time. There are other communities, along with Carrington Woods, that have been developed, for instance, Cochle Farms. Cochle Farms has more than 100 homes, single-family homes, and if you add two cars per 100 houses, that greatly exceeds the traffic in which we can handle here. We have had three fatalities that I know of, and we just want something to be addressed in reference to that. And also, oh, I'm sorry. Please finish your thought, but you're fine. Okay, and the last two concerns that I have is safety. Of course, it's safety, and it's the infrastructure, and the sidewalks. The city, we have met with Ms. Soniac City, the planning committee, well, city planning. We have met with them. We've done everything that we're supposed to do. So there is a projected date to put in sidewalks along Clayton and Freeman Road. Those dates, to start, is as of August 2020. We don't know if that's still in place. However, there's just so many concerns that need to be addressed in reference to the traffic that has not been shared with us, but we've heard some things from Mr. Sabila and Glenmore Holmes tonight that we wish were shared prior to today, we are trying to work with them. The last meeting was September 2019. I think there were enough time to meet again prior to this pandemic and quarantine so that we could all work together in making sure this takes this both as pleasantly for everyone. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Denise Reeves? Hi, can you hear me? Yes. All right. Thanks for giving us a chance to speak on this proposal. I'd like to echo everything that Quincy said. I'm also concerned with the traffic. 23 homes would equal greater than 46 cars, which is way too much traffic even without rush hour. Again, as she spoke, when Southern high school is in session, the traffic is atrocious and to add those extra cars would be impossible. We live at 917 Glenrose Drive, which is adjacent to Clayton Road. So for us to be able to get out onto Clayton Road at any given time is just an absolute nightmare. It doesn't matter the time of the day. Also, I would like a little more elaboration on the wetlands. It's my understanding that any development near around or through wetlands is going to destroy it even if it's a very small percentage. So I would like a little elaboration as to what they're going to do and if they do develop into those wetlands how it's going to disturb it and or destroy it. Thank you. Thank you. And finally, we have Kenneth Wiggins. And you can start. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes. Oh, okay. Thanks for the opportunity to speak this afternoon and listening to Quincy and I think Denise, pretty much what I had here on the notes that I was writing down. She'd be pretty much covered it. And my concerns were pretty much the same thing just there's pretty much the traffic because like I said, when Southern high school is in session, you know, it's pretty rough. You know, I live on Meadowcrest, 14 Meadowcrest Drive, which the development they're going to be doing is behind me. And when I come out to Clayton Road, sometimes it's like, you know, playing dodge ball to get out there because it's a tree line that kind of blocks my vision to the left. And I guess kind of take a chance a lot of times. And then when it gets really heavy in traffic, it's kind of rough coming out onto Clayton Road from Meadowcrest. And then even in schools and you've got kids walking and the kids not walking on sidewalks, they're crossing the street, which is to me is a safety problem there because you got all these kids that are getting out at around three o'clock, they're making their way home and then you got all this traffic and they're crossing the street and there's no sidewalks, a limited amount of sidewalk for them to walk on to get home. So that's a safety concern of mine because that Southern high school is in a very deep curve. And unfortunately, a young lady lost her life there a few years back coming around that curve and she was a high school student. So it's a very dangerous curve. I have a cousin that lives in the curve and every time I go to her house, I gotta make sure I turn all the way around to come out. So just saying it's pretty safe, safety issue that we're concerned about when we add traffic to what's already here. And also, like I said, I've been living here for 20 plus years when the first house is on Meadowcrest, actually first house on Meadowcrest. And like when I bought the property back then, the developer that we were buying from, he wanted to buy the property that they're now developing on. And he told me, he said, well, if you choose the lot you're on, you don't have to worry about ever having anybody behind you because there's a creek and wetlands back there and you can't develop on that. And I was like, okay, so I chose the lot that I have, which is 14. So for that reason, and of course, fast forward, things change. I'm sure time changes, but in my mind, I'm like, what has changed? The creek's still there, the wetlands are still there. Why is there now a capability to develop in that area? And so pretty much that's all the concerns I had, pretty much the safety, traffic and wetlands as covered before. So thank you for your time. Thank you. If there's anyone else who'd like to speak, who has not yet spoken, please raise your hand and we'll call on you. I see Natalia Russell. Natalia, are you able to speak? I see your hand raised and we'll give you one more moment. If you're interested in speaking, you may during the public hearing. Mr. Chair, is there any way that we can offer these people some suggestions or technical assistance that might make it easier for them to speak? I'm concerned about having two people who are here and who've indicated desire to speak but can't. Yeah, I mean, we told them numerous times, star nine, if you're on by phone, if you're on Zoom, we've got staff who are helping make folks queued up to speak. So if Natalia Russell, if you are interested in speaking, please go ahead. I see Penny Sacadlo has her hand up as well but she's already spoken during the public comment period. And Chris, if you can help me out, there's a 919-308-1389 number who has their hand raised as well. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, sorry. This is Natalia Russell. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I actually stay at 3301 Whitlam Park Road, which is on the corner adjacent from Ms. Ratcliffe in Derry, Whitlam and Derry. And I will say that my concerns mimic those that you've already heard. This is the third time that this rezoning has been proposed and the concerns remain pretty much the same. The traffic concerns and safety concerns are at the forefront. We really don't feel that DOT has properly assessed the area. There's also the impact to wildlife and conservation. We pretty much have wildlife in our front yards now. And there's very little trees in this neighborhood because it's just overly saturated and populated. And I would implore you to think about the fact that the DOT, I can't remember who spoke earlier, where they basically advised that a entrance and exit point was denied onto the main thoroughway of Clayton. And that is because this area is overly populated and saturated already. So the additional, I think it was 23 homes, would definitely increase the amount of traffic. The safety concerns regarding the high school students, currently there are no sidewalks. They are walking on the side of the street to and from school. And to be quite honest with the COVID, you have families now walking around the neighborhoods constantly with the traffic that we have right now. And it is very concerning because there's really nowhere for them to walk other than the streets. The Sheik Road, excuse me, Clayton Road continues to be a bottleneck to Sheik Road. If you are commuting anywhere, you are basically stuck. You are at the mercy of the traffic that we currently have with the existing neighborhood. And just because there's a patch of land that is between Twin Lakes and Clayton Crossing, it doesn't mean we should wedge in 23 or it'd be quite transparent, even 14 homes, because that is just too saturated. I mean, yes, we do understand that there's three exit points but to Ms. Ratcliffe's point, two of them, there's only one way in and one way out. So what kind of relief are you really getting? So the main entrance would really be Woodland and Dairy. And Woodland is a very busy street as it is. It connects most of the main street vessels in Twin Lakes. It's just not a good idea. I mean, this is my third time speaking on this issue. My concerns remain the same. We are concerned with the safety of the children in this neighborhood and the overly populated saturation of this part of town. Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't see anyone else raising their hand. I'll give it one more moment. And seeing no one else, we will close the public hearing and commissioners. This is your time. If you wanna raise your hands, I'll start with Commissioner Miller who has his hand raised. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna make sure I understand by asking some questions. But I'll begin by saying when this came to us before, having met with the neighbors and understood their concerns and my biggest concern was the absence of a development plan. And I can remember that we pleaded with the developers to include a development plan to provide these neighbors with greater level of assurance about what was going to go in here. And the answer was it was too expensive to do a development plan for projects of small and that they wouldn't consider it. So I voted against it, at least in part for that reason. But I wanna make sure I remember well from the other case. So I have a question for Ms. Cicaldo and also, or I'm sorry, is it Cicadlo? Cicadlo, and maybe staff can answer this too. This development plan limits the development on this property to 23 single family detached houses. That comes out to about 2.7 units an acre. If that limitation were not present, or if this was just a straight RS-10 rezoning, Ms. Cicadlo, you are an engineer. How many single family homes do you think under the RS-10 zoning you might put on this property? Given the limitation, certainly you have played with it and figured that out. I believe that the pure math says it would be 30. But I think that the 23 would be the most that would logically go on it. It looks like it may be less, but it is capped at 23. There is additional tree-save area buffers and the wetlands will all be in open space. So there will be a lot of area preserved. And I'm no engineer or land use planner, but as I look at this property and imagine how your internal street system might work, I see the road coming in at Meadow Lane, perhaps turning north to cul-de-sac or a bulb, and then proceeding kind of in an S-shape down to Alpha. And then another road that would run across the wetlands in that area where you say wetlands to be removed in order to access Jerry Road. And that lots would be organized on either side of these roads and that bulb that would go up towards the north, is that kind of how you saw it happening? That is kind of how I saw it happening. There is not a lot of flexibility when you are connecting three roadways and trying to limit the crossing of the wetlands to as perpendicular as possible. And the reason you're removing those wetlands is to provide for that crossing. That is correct. So can you tell me what you anticipate, although it's not shown on the development plan and does not have to be, I'm assuming that there, some place on this plan, there will be a place for stormwater mitigation. Can you tell me, I'm sure you've thought about that, where that would go and what it would look like? Yes, it will be some sort of storm measure consisting of a drop-on or sand filter, probably adjacent to the wetlands in the southwest corner, because that is where the property drains. So I'm looking at your development plan on sheet three, sheet, well, it's S1 of three. Correct. And there is a schematic of a tree that says proposed tree coverage area. Is that, in that vicinity, is that where we're talking about the stormwater mitigation? Yes, it would either be to the left of that tree or to the south of that tree on the other side of the wetlands. So we don't have topo on your development plan, but I'm assuming that, and based upon my recollection, especially when you're over on the east side of the property, the, in your in the backyards of the neighbors there, your property is considerably lower from them. And so the drainage essentially runs south towards the wetlands. But then when you get to the wetlands, it might rise only gently a little bit on the southern side of the wetlands where Dairy Road connects. Is that correct? Is that my perception correct? That is correct. Yes, sir. Do you, will it be necessary to have some sort of stormwater control measure on the south side, separate from the one on the north side of the wetland property? It depends on how much area we use for, depends on which device we use. I anticipate it's going to be closer to the tree shape, but I need to allow myself some flexibility on the other side of that wetlands because that's all going to be open space anyway. What's all going to be open space? The area where you have the buffer on the southern border, that's open space. And then going north towards that tree shape is open space. All the wetlands are open space. And going over towards Mr. Wiggins yard is open space because of the wetlands. Okay, and I mean, I can see where the wetlands to remain. And I know that will be open, but you envision that your site plan will include even more open space beyond those boundaries. Is that correct? Is that what I understood you to say? That is correct. So those are my questions primarily. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Actually, I was going to go ahead and just finish my comments. Okay. So I'm usually the neighborhood guy on the planning commission. And I think I still am. However, this time. Look at this property. And I consider how it might be developed in the future. I note that it's entirely surrounded with RS 10. With single family homes. RS 10 under optimal conditions is three to four units an acre. Around there. And this is going to come in at 2.69 units an acre. We're going to have boundary buffers. The separating single family homes from single family homes. Something that the code does not require. I am very sympathetic to the whole Clayton road problem. Especially that curve that happens just as you're going from West East on Clayton road, that curve around there makes the site line. Tricky. And I get all of that. My problem is that ultimately this is a piece of property that is going to be developed. And I do not see it at any point in the future. Anybody coming along. And proposing a development for this piece of property that has. Fewer units. Or a general scheme more consistent with the surrounding development. Then this one. I anticipate that some of my colleagues on the planning commission may have. Some pause that this piece of property is to be developed with so few units. I think the most important consideration in a situation like this is having a. Residential infill. On a parcel like this. That is consistent so that the new people have what the older residents have. And that it is all relatively seamless. I would be very concerned if there was only one attachment to the existing neighborhood. So that all of the residents. Had to come and go from one place. But here there are three. And are they all going to be used equally? Probably not. Probably not. But certainly there will be some division of uses. And I know that if you live in this area and you have to put up with Clayton road one more trip per day. One more car on that road. Just seems excruciating. But the simple thing is that. This piece of property and other pieces of property along Clayton road. Going to get developed. My own view and my own advice to the neighborhood, which is unwanted. Is that. I just don't see a proposal getting better for you than this. And for that reason, I'm inclined to vote for this. However, I can be convinced. Otherwise, if my colleagues on the commission. Come up with reasons I have not thought of. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Another commissioner out. Thank you, chair. And thanks again to the neighbors for, for your comments. You brought up some. Concerns about safety and traffic that I think are warranted. I. I agree with commissioner Miller that, you know, When he was talking about the curve on Clayton road. I mean, when I went out there, it was, I mean, It's something that's a, that is quite scary. So I can see the concern there. I, you know, I was on the fence about this case about two years ago. And I ultimately voted against it. And I think it's, you know, I was on the fence about this case about two years ago. And I ultimately voted for it because I thought it was a reasonable infill project. You know, almost everything around this piece of property is rezoned RS 10. Some things are probably more, you know, it's possible that some of these parcels are more dense than this will end up being. As commissioner Miller was, was alluding to and speaking about just now. You know, one of the things that I think that I like about this project as well. And I appreciate what the developer and the applicant have done is that, you know, they have added buffers that are not required. They have preserved the wetlands or most of the book with the wetlands. It seems like from what I can tell the open space requirements, they have actually exceeded them, which we don't always see from a 15% requirement to 20% is what they are. Providing 25% tree coverage, which is a little bit more than sometimes we see. And so I do appreciate a lot of those things. Again, I feel like it is quite reasonable. And for some of the same reasons that commissioner Miller pointed to, which is that this is now zoned RS 20, which means, you know, someone can easily or probably develop 15 single family homes that will not be considerably different from 23 single family homes in terms of traffic and impact. So, so for those reasons, I'm also inclined to, to support this. I did have a just because the question of sidewalks came up. I want to ask staff just to clarify for us and for the neighbors, you know, when this, if this is built, the developer would be required to build sidewalks along the frontage of their property on Clayton Road. Is it just on the side on that side of, on their side of Clayton Road, or are there other sidewalk requirements? I just can't remember when I went out there. But they would be required to build sidewalks just on their side of Clayton Loads on the south side. Okay. Frontage. Yes. Great. And while I have you here, I, you know, the BPAC did recommend traffic calming devices. I guess your comment to them was that it wasn't a specific enough recommendation. I am curious though, because in a recent case you did actually ask the applicant to provide traffic calming devices, I think because it was a little bit more specific, you asked them to provide them, or I think you may have recommended that they provide them on roads that connect to other neighborhoods, right? So the applicant was proffering traffic calming devices that were more specific with a specific type of measure, which we could then enforce at the site plan stage. In this case just saying it could just be a stop sign, which is not really getting to the point of what you're trying to achieve. Yeah, but if the applicant was to say well we could provide traffic calming devices along or right at Dairy Road, for example, that would be something enforceable and in your mind something desirable? Along with a specific type of measure, because every measure is not appropriate in every location, so we would want to evaluate that as well. Okay, and you wouldn't be able to do to do that tonight, so we couldn't, if I asked the applicant for something like that it wouldn't be specific enough for you to be able to say we're comfortable with that commitment, is that correct? Right, I would want to look at the specific layout of the area just to see to make sure it was appropriate in that setting. Okay, thank you. So I guess for the applicant, I mean I do have a just to follow up on that, I do think that some of the concerns that have been raised are about traffic and about safety and about, and I do wonder if some traffic calming devices along some of the three access points would really go a long way, and I know you can do that at site plan, but I think it's always a good gesture to the neighbors to do something like that at this stage in the process, and I'm curious if you would be, I guess I'm not going to ask you to do that tonight, but if you could try to do that or work with staff to do that before the vote at City Council, would you be willing to do that, or have you considered that? Yes, this is Penny again. It is obvious that we have thought about it, we offered it. One of the dilemmas we have is as your traffic engineer has stated, you have to pick something that's appropriate for a particular situation, and in two of these connections, we're one house away from an intersection. So you have to be, there's already going to be a stop sign there. So we were thinking the traffic calming would be better suited in the middle of the project to slow things down in the middle of the project because each end has an intersection within one width of a house, and so that's the dilemma we got into. But the short answer is yes, we have thought about it. Yes, we are willing to talk about it. I don't know if we can get as specific as we can without having our subdivision plan completely visible to everybody that needs to approve it. Yes. Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you. Yeah, I guess I will wrap up and say that I think for some of the same reasons as Commissioner Miller, I'm inclined to vote in favor of this. I think it's a reasonable request. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Alturk, Commissioner Baker. A lot of similar things to say. I had some of the same questions. I won't ask those. This area really, really does lack sidewalks and that's frustrating. And that's because of the past and the current priorities of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. And it's also because in the past, developers were not required to build sidewalks. That is in part because of the persistence of this body that developers are now required to build sidewalks on both sides of the street. And so, you know, the automobile traffic, I also think has incrementally become worse because we are designing virtually all communities to only realistically be accessible by automobile. We really very rarely see any other realistic option. So I think that the lack of sidewalks in this particular case, in this particular area really shows a very clear environmental and mobility justice issue. So I'm pleased to know that upon development of this site, there will be a sidewalk along at least their portion of Clayton Road. So that's positive. You know, similar to the things that Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Al-Turk said, you know, this is an infill development. It's within walking distance again, you know, recognizing that there's a lack of the proper pedestrian infrastructure. But this is within walking distance of a school. And the fact of the matter is that we are a recommending body, the Planning Commission is a recommending body. And our recommendation will move forward to the Durham City Council. And Durham City Council has shown a very strong preference for high densities, for higher densities, even higher than is being proposed in this proposal. And so I think that the residents should have a say over what happens in their communities. And I'm frustrated by the things that we've heard today. But I also believe that there is a fair balance between increasing density in a neighborhood near a high school, and also not causing, you know, additional heartburn and pain to the surrounding community. So while I'm not necessarily enthusiastic about the proposal before us, I do think that there that it may sort of represent and embody a fair balance, or as fair as we can expect it to be achieved. So I would just second to the applicant that, you know, I would ask that you work with Erlene and work with staff and and try to incorporate traffic calming. And in particular, you know, I would like to see traffic calming commitments. If possible, you know, by the time this this goes to council, and I will be putting that in my submitted comments to council. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Kenshin. Yeah, first, I want to say I really do appreciate the second time around. I mean, this came before us. I remember it well. And I think it's much improved from when it was presented a couple years ago. I voted no for it. I'm going to vote no for it again. To me, I mean, Clayton Road is a real problem. And not just that, but compounded by the fact that it's a high school that so many students walk to all the time. And it is a real problem. I just can't imagine a scenario where I will vote yes to something that might jeopardize student safety. And next year, in fact, I think from what I've heard not been verified yet, but I think the middle school and elementary schools will be using Southern as opposed to high school students. They'll be online. Not been confirmed yet. But whether it's high schoolers or middle schoolers, it is a very dangerous road. I think it's a very good development plan as much improved. I really do appreciate the effort that's been into it. But until Clayton Road is fixed, we approved one similar to this on Freeman Road, but it was because they made some improvements to Freeman Road. They've got to fix that road. It's just not I can't imagine putting students in that position. I'll be voting no until Clayton Road is fixed. And I would urge my commissioners to think about student safety. And let's put that above some other things as well. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Kenshin. Commissioner Johnson. I'm sorry, we'll start with Commissioner Williams. I'm sorry, I got you out of order. Thank Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chair Busby. I actually echo a lot of what Commissioner Kenshin said. Clayton Road is an extremely highly traveled area. So is Freeman Road even with the improvements. You have a lot of blinds fighting. And even with the high schools returning for the fall, mainly online, you've got middle schools and elementary schools using the high school to see even more dangerous situations. There's an ongoing issue with Clayton Road that I don't see getting improved anytime soon, unless something major is done or there's enough of a community impact in which these upgrades are being made. I also have an issue with developing in this area for numerous reasons. Outside of the day to day traffic with high schools getting out at four o'clock, you've got people traveling back in from Raleigh off Highway 98 that live in that part of Durham and they cut over in a this is a heavily traveled area. Excuse me, not to mention Southern football program, generating a lot of traffic on the street parking in that area. Southern's basketball program is generating a lot of traffic with people in that area parking on the streets. Some traffic measures would be helpful, but I don't see where many could do a lot. Even if even if there were traffic likes, there's going to be other issues because you're going to force cut rooms of neighborhoods and other areas to try to avoid certain traffic measures that are maybe put in place. None of this is at the control of the developer. This is just unforeseen circumstances that are hazard in this area. The lack of sidewalks in this area is major. I've driven in this area several times and the number of students that commute from school to home have no other choice or path but to walk in the street or to try to walk on not even what is a bike lane is literally just the yellow stripe on the side of the road and then dirt and any slight mistake even from a young driver and there's an automatic loss of light. It's detrimental and it's something that we need to address and though voting yes for this will not stop someone else from developing in this area, perhaps the commentary in which we have a public record if reviewed will be enough to shake someone to say, hey, let's make some improvements. Let's do a little bit better. Let's have a little bit more consideration for this area. Let's put in sidewalks. Let's handle the traffic issues even if the Department of Transportation has no immediate plans for mediation for this this particular area. A developer can come in and commit to building sidewalks and easing that foot traffic and doing a little bit more and I absolutely applaud this developer for coming in making the adjustments. I remember this case very well. I love the way that it's approached. I love the considerations that are put in but it still doesn't change the fact that this is a heavily saturated area with a lot of traffic and no real way to control that traffic either on foot or by vehicle. Not to mention public transportation is not really a major force in this area that could help some like lessen some of the driver traffic if it was more efficient to this area. So those are my comments and I do plan to vote no. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Can you hear me? So I echo the sentiment of Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Kitchin and one I would like to state that I think that the second go round of what we're looking at now is very much improvement for what I voted against with the last vote but I too remember this case because I spent time driving that area in that site multiple times at different times of the day and the safety issue with that area of that project site still like is the key factor that's driving like the quality of life reality of whatever comes to that place to this site in this area and again as Commissioner Williams stated you know this is not necessarily the fault or you know the onus of the developer. This is just the context in which the developer is trying to to develop this site and I just I'm not comfortable and I guess I'm prepared to vote no tonight even if this vote the final vote is in favor I want the the city leadership to understand that this is not a clear cut vote that you know it's an improvement for what we started with and so it is it's no green patches ahead because I think there are some challenges in that area that has to be addressed because we're literally literally talking about human lives when I first drove that site and saw how close it was to school my first thing was there's no way if I was a parent I'd be comfortable allowing my child to walk around that end to get to school so it's like something has to be done because this won't be the last project that comes to this area and you know this is the reality this is a tough vote for me because you know I understand that development will happen more cars will be placed on the road as a result but at this point in time I think that you know my vote will hopefully send some kind of signal to the final orbiters of what happens with this project that you know further consideration beyond this particular development is something that has to be developed really because the city continues to grow we're going to be I think confronted with similar situations in regards to infrastructure and the impact on human lives and the quality of life in these communities so I just wanted to make sure I'll record with you thank you commissioner Johnson commissioner Durkin yes I have a question for Arlene you can come back online yes um so if this if this if we don't approve this this development does not occur and they're not accordance with this development plan that's in front of us and the applicant could develop just based on existing zoning and it would be aid fewer homes but could they have an an e-grass of street on to Clayton directly um at this point I do not believe DOT was willing to grant a new access point to Clayton Road just because of the proximity to the other intersections and the site distance issue that's been mentioned with the curve but ultimately it would be NC DOT's decision okay yeah I don't remember on the last time we saw this whether or not there had been a street and entrance on to Clayton right there there was not okay okay I'm inclined to vote yes for this one um it's it's not ideal I I do think this property will get developed and I appreciate the fact that there's a development plan and a lot has been done since the last time we saw this one uh significant time and effort has gone into this and this gives us a development plan that has a lot more commitments than we saw before which was really nothing so I'm inclined to vote yes it is not ideal I do think that Clayton Road needs a lot of work um but I don't think that this development is going to be the one that fixes that if we vote no for it. Commissioner Durkin uh Commissioner Miller I'm going to hold off one sec and seeing if there are any commissioners who haven't spoken yet who would like to speak okay I don't see anyone else so back to you Commissioner Miller thank you Mr Chairman when I see that I might be voting against Mr. Kenshin and Ms. Williams then I have to rethink my position uh and I'm not saying I'm going to vote with them but I want to explore a little bit uh and explain my positions some I've been in the neighborhood advocacy business for a very very long time and I have seen cases where neighborhoods have to come down to City Hall over and over and over again on the same piece of property and eventually there's a there's a calculus at work where you have to pull the trigger and and take the best shot for fear that the next one may be much worse and that's kind of where I am with this but I don't live in the neighborhood and I don't speak for these people I just like I have that feeling with the way we're going with density taking such an important part of our policy thinking and what have you I have just this feeling that the likelihood that we're going to get a better proposal for this in terms of compatibility is increasingly small but I do get the issue I mean I drove out there and to make a left-hand turn out of this neighborhood onto Clayton Road with that curve is scary and I can imagine doing it every single day to commute into the city of Durham I I would worry me I would probably I have not tried all three I've done two of the three entrances into this area and I'm sure that it might function I have one way out in the morning and another way in in the afternoon I don't know but here's here's what I'm going to ask my colleagues who are inclined to vote no to think about under the current RS 20 zoning I think it would be very easy to develop 15 maybe even 16 single-family homes the difference there between 16 and 23 is pretty small and that that isn't going to come before so it isn't going to come before anybody the neighborhood's never going to be invited to see it that's going to go straight to site plan review and then to building permits no public comment no chance to resist no chance for input and we are literally talking about a difference of you know 23 versus 15 so here's my question to to you folks who are inclined to vote no if this project was 20 units instead of 23 units and I know that the developer is not asking that but I'm asking it would that change your thinking because the traffic impact the the incremental traffic impact caused by this development ultimately on to Clayton road is a function of the number of units and we know that right now the number of units the traffic impact of 16 is there it's on the books that could happen I don't think it will because I don't think a developer is actually going to develop it that way I think they're going to the next request is going to be for for you know 50 townhouses but if it were 20 units instead of 23 units would that change your thinking and that's my question and I wanted to put it in the context of my overall fear for the way this is going thank you Commissioner Miller I see Commissioner Williams has raised her hand I recognize you thank you Chair Busby and no even at 20 units three unit difference would not change my my voting 12 or a half of that yeah maybe but not at 20 and at the end of the day knowing what I know about the situation and I know that someone can and someone might come through and they may develop in that area but I have to look at what's in front of me right now and what's in front of me right now as a proposal for 23 units and at the end of the day in good conscience I have to live with myself and I'm not okay with it no no one else has to come before me and no public hearings and they can have the right of way to build whatever they like once they get this on the permits and everything is approved or the building permits excuse me but I still have to live with myself and driving through that area with 50 town homes will be just as concerned is going to be just as much as an issue I just won't have a say but today I have a say so I'm using it great Commissioner Commissioner Kenshin I would I would agree with Commissioner Williams who wouldn't change my vote either I mean the neighbors have spoken and they don't want it and they feel it's unsafe I agree I think it's very unsafe I think no one can can convince me that it's a safe place for students so young people to be walking down the street and let me add one more thing I've got to say this if this was if this was Jordan Haskell I don't think this would be I don't think we would even consider it I've been on a commission for a while I've lived in Durham for 22 years I don't think we'd have this kind of pause if it was Jordan Haskell but it's not Southern Haskell got to say it I'm sorry for saying it but you're talking about the safety of students it's a real issue for me and the community have said they don't want it I agree with them I concur and I know someone can come and do the same thing but not because I voted for it they may they may come out and do 20 units or whatever but not because I voted for it so I can't stop that but I can say no to this one I don't think it's safe I think it's wouldn't be right to go against community wishes and our precedent has been opposite of what that would be so I would say no so Mr Busby those were my questions and I really appreciate the heartfelt responses thank you thank you uh Commissioner Lowe and then Commissioner Landfried uh thank you Chair Busby uh evidently obviously I wasn't part of this planning board meeting but I do appreciate the the backdrop information that has been presented here tonight and for me the major issue for me is the issue of safety what I'm hearing tonight that it is a public safety should be foremost in our minds and as it's been forestated uh some of the residents in that area has brought the opposition against this so I'm inclined tonight to go no thank you Commissioner Lowe Commissioner Landfried um yeah I have a question again um for Ms Thomas on the sidewalks issue yes um what I think one of the members of the public mentioned that they had had some meetings with the city about sidewalks and that they had the impression that there was a plan to build sidewalks on um Clayton Road um can you update us on that that might help us give a sense of whether there are other processes in place that might address some of these safety concerns hopefully sooner rather than later so the city does have a current sidewalk project that will build sidewalks on Clayton and Freeman Road but they are near the high school so there will still remain some gaps between this development um and the sidewalk that's proposed to be constructed near the high school and that sidewalk is planned for construction in this in august of this year that's helpful thank you and I don't know if it'll be helpful the limits of the sidewalk construction for the city's project is from Freeman Road down to Chandler Road along Clayton Road it'll be from Freeman to Chandler and then on Freeman Road it will be from Clayton to city and way that's great to hear um given everything we've heard so thank you for that update welcome you're welcome thank you any additional questions commissioner Landfried no that's all appreciate it right I actually had a follow-up from Ms. Thomas so we started to make you jump back in the picture thank you no problem so the the last questions my commissioner Landfried were really important in my opinion and um so when the sidewalk gets built and I'm trying to you gave us everything and I'm trying to look at google maps to make sure I have it all correct so this development is on the other side of the street you know what's really interesting about this development and one of the things that excited me about it originally is that if you walked through Meadow Lane which will now connect you would come up briefly up Meadow Crust Drive to Clayton Road if I were a student living in this neighborhood I am less than a half a mile from southern high school if I if I'm living in the neighborhood going to the high school uh in theory that should be an easy pedestrian opportunity in current practice it is incredibly scary as my fellow commissioners have pointed out uh is there the opportunity what when these improvements are made is there also going to be some sort of crosswalk or a hawk signal or something that will allow students to get from the west side of Clayton across the street to the actual high school is that in the current improvement plan I would need to look at the sidewalk plan but more than likely those types of improvements they are typically included um when they're they are near schools but I would need to confirm that by looking at the plans themselves okay and and you might be repeating then coming out of southern high school going north on Clayton Road how far will this current sidewalk improvements go where does it end so the the project coming out of sorry where was your start point again I'm basically thinking if you're coming out of southern high school and you're heading north on Clayton Road okay where does this where will the new sidewalk end so the city's project it is does not is not along that section of Clayton Road okay so it it starts at um for Clayton Road it starts at Freeman and goes south to Chandler Road and then along Freeman Road it starts at Clayton and goes east to Obsidian Way where there is um existing sidewalk that's being constructed um by nearby development okay thank you I appreciate that you're welcome uh before I recognize commissioner out Turk I mean I'll just tell you where I stand fellow commissioners this has been really tough and still is I wrote down a whole bunch of questions when I read this packet and most every single one got checked off except sidewalks to the school and um I'm not comfortable voting on this one I'm gonna vote no but you could blow me over with a feather because I understand this is not under the control of these proponents but I'm gonna stand with my fellow commissioners to hopefully send a message to our elected officials that uh we gotta do better we gotta do better around southern high school and we gotta make these investments to make it safe for the students uh commissioner Kenshin's point is well taken uh you know Jordan High School lots of sidewalks so we gotta do better so um but that said I understand every commissioners thinking who are gonna plan to vote for it because I recognize all those points as well and I have no idea what the what the right the right decision is so but I'm gonna vote commissioner out Turk thank you chair um I I think if miss uh Ratcliffe is still on the line and I think she is I you know from her comments you know I got a sense of and maybe I was wrong but that she was appreciative of the changes that have been made or the clarity that has been provided um and she would have just liked more time to think about it and to uh to have had some more conversations with the developers and I'm I'm curious just if if she wouldn't mind answering you know based on our conversation tonight as well um in particular this point about you know if we don't if this is not rezoned you know there will still likely be 15 to 16 single family homes there would be increased traffic it's it's possible that there would be fewer or less uh environmental protections um you know we can't control some of those things if um you know if it goes straight to site plan it goes straight to the administrative um body the planning committee planning department so I'm curious from miss Ratcliffe if she would you know what what would she like to see from this development planner from this uh or what she sees tonight that would you know maybe make her more comfortable supporting this because I I got the sense that maybe she was on the fence and so uh if you know if she wouldn't mind answering that that would be helpful to me miss Ratcliffe if you are uh still available to speak you are welcome to answer commissioner out Turks question can you hear me yes okay um I'm not on the fence as from all the meetings we've had um I'm willing to work with them just like my neighbors are willing to work with them but all our concerns are as long as our concerns are heard and met um because we are we live here we know what happens we know the the traffic zone the issues that goes on in this this area everyone that's speaking they come and go but we're here every day so my concern is we would we would greatly work with them if they will try to accommodate what our requests are um that one need and they have with us at the library in September they never followed up as miss Bunyak and miss Thomas suggested to us when we met with them it would be best for us to work as together and that's what we have tried to do with them um so if the if they could clearly sit now and talk to us and give us the development plan let us see what they had instead of waiting to present something to you all that they have one they didn't show that to us as I'm looking at my notes now for what Kenny explained miss Kenny explained it seems like it's still the same plan that she they share with us in September um so I'm not going to say I'm necessarily on the fence it's all my concerns are with the traffic and the safety of the children and the pedestrians who have to ride public transportation our neighbors who walk and exercise um it's it's just it's it's it's ridiculous but I under we know that this development this land is going to be developed eventually we do understand that however if somebody is willing to work with us and hear our demands and our concerns we will work with them as well that's all thank you miss crackliff and thanks for clarifying your position and and um correcting me on that uh I guess you know I was in favor or inclined to vote for this I um I will likely vote no on this now but I will ask the applicant if they will I mean I don't know what else can be done I mean I do think I am still on the fence about this because I do think this is a decent proposal and I think even the the commissioners who are voting against this have acknowledged that this is a you know a pretty good or not bad proposal and so I I don't know if it can be improved but um I'll just ask the applicant if they would consider a continuance to to to meet with the neighbors and maybe either present the development plan a little bit more give them more time to to think about it and to you know to work with them uh you know maybe get that number down a little bit between you know down from 23 to something else that is is a little bit more reasonable or suitable for the the neighborhood um so I will just ask the applicant if they if they would like a continuance because I I think I will be voting no Mr. Sevilla or Ms. Cicadolo you're welcome to answer commissioner al-Turk's question. This is Penny Cicadolo and the answers um certainly were always open to suggestions I don't know that this developer is capable of solving Clayton Rhodes traffic issue um we did hear from Ms. Ratcliffe about wanting some more buffer behind her yard that is on the development plan we heard from Mr. Wiggins that he wanted some more space behind his lot that's open space we have addressed their conditions um but I'm still open to finding out if there's something else short of redesigning Clayton Rhodes. Commissioner al-Turk any additional questions or comments? No I don't think I will ask for the continuance unless other commissioners feel like it is warranted uh I mean I I agree I think with that general that comment that I've heard a number of times already to tonight which is that we probably can't solve the problem on Clayton Road and so um but I don't know if other commissioners have other you know if they think a continuance would be helpful I I'll entertain that option but I won't ask for it. Okay thank you. Commissioner Amandolia. Thank you chair um I just wanted to briefly say I came in tonight expecting to vote yes for this it seems to me an opportunity for info development and affordable units uh book and cited 250k homes which to me seems like a step forward for ability especially in this area however the words of commissioners Williams and kinship have moved me to reconsider that I agree we cannot change the current patterns on Clayton Road for this vote but I think it is important for us to stand together and tell us and show the city that um we need to do better in the future. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to pivot back to both Commissioner Baker and then Commissioner Miller. Yeah I'll be quick um you know our our votes are not the final say they're recommendations to city council and sometimes that means that we need to send a message um and this isn't about uh punishing or rewarding developers this is about making a logical judgment and a statement about planning issues the planning issues that come before us um second I think that um the density is appropriate um but I think maybe the timing is not appropriate and that is one thing that I that I heard uh several uh commissioners say um and that's planning that's logical planning um third um you know I think our comments to council are as important and sometimes more important than our actual vote the vote that we take and the vote out I think that whenever council comes uh and takes a look at the at the comments that we have provided and when uh commissioners are uh unanimous or near unanimous or saying the consistent you know saying the same things consistently you know council takes note of that and I think that uh you know if we all have similar things to say on this application that um that that will uh that will resonate with them and then finally um you know I often uh approach a case with a strong opinion and I often approach a case wanting to persuade my fellow commissioners uh of my opinion and I want them to listen to what I'm saying and I want them to vote with me and um and I have been persuaded uh so I will I will be voting no um you know this isn't about punishing a developer or rewarding a developer this is about sending a message to council and I intend to put a lot of this discussion in in my comments to council thanks thank you commissioner Miller so thank you very much and I wanted to say the same thing I've had my hand up for a while um all throughout this case this time and last time I've had my neighborhood advocates had on uh this time when I saw this plan I thought well finally we've got the thing that we wanted last time uh but I forgot why we wanted it uh we wanted it because this is where these neighbors live it's whose town is it it's their town um I've turned in and out of this neighborhood a couple of times in the last two years they do it a couple of times every day uh nobody knows this area better than they do and so when we depart from what they see as problems or what their vision for the area is I think we are on shaky ground and I'm grateful to my fellow commission members for reminding me of that so I'm going to vote um know if I must on this um I don't think it's fair uh to take a piece of property that's going to be developed somehow by somebody uh and say that whoever has this is is uh responsible for fixing Clayton Road uh but I do think we have to take into account no matter who proposes what that Clayton Road is the way it is uh and we can send a message to the city but ultimately the city doesn't have the hell on a lot of control over Clayton Road it's an ncdot facility I would love to have and I I also realized having a lot done a lot of this work myself that there are a lot of factors uh that go into this and that a solution where developers and neighbors come together uh is never perfect for either side I saw where Mr. Al Turk was going with the possibility of giving them 60 days to really work it out and to put things on the table and to make adjustments that might be incrementally enough uh so that the neighbors balancing their risks uh and the impacts and the developers their pocket their interest in their pocketbook can perhaps come together and so I like the idea of a 60 day continuance if the parties want it and we work together in good faith to see if there's middle ground um I just can't ever get it out of my head that you can build 16 houses on this piece of property right now uh and while it's like with my approval without my approval the fact is is with or without it they can do it um and we're no closer to to making things better there uh than uh we are if we approve or disagree with this project so I'm going to make a motion if I may Mr. Chairman that we continue this based upon what I've heard the neighbors uh through Miss Ratcliffe and the developers through Miss Cadlow say a motion to continue this for 60 days to see if these parties can work it out uh I will say this uh that if this motion is voted down I'm going to vote against this project and that may influence how the rest of you vote so that's my motion Mr. Chairman there's a motion on the floor is there a second the motion is second a two cycle 60 day continuance second second okay so moved by commissioner Miller seconded by commissioner Al Turk and again this is a two cycle delay uh actually I'm sorry miss Smith what's the proper term we should be using because we usually say two cycles and we're meeting every other week it seems like two cycles is okay because that's our regular cycle but the day is September 15 okay and and that's my motion Mr. Chair okay let's have a roll call vote please okay um this is the motion to continue commissioner Williams commissioner Williams yes uh commissioner Morgan yes commissioner Johnson before I vote the question is can we do this without having to get approval or this uh from the uh the applicant themselves can we can this but be you can continue it without their consent um that's up to the commission I know a lot of times you do ask but I think that they did ask earlier and they indicated they'd be willing to work with the um viewers if and unless I'm in I'm filming that the the context yes okay commissioner Durkin yes commissioner Amon excuse me Amondelia yes commissioner Al Turk yes chair Busby yes commissioner Lanefrey yes commissioner Kynchon yes commissioner Miller yes commissioner Baker yes commissioner Low yes commissioner MacIver yes okay passes 13 zero unanimous to be continued to September 15 we'll put it on the agenda thank you and thanks to all of you who spoke on that item we look forward to hearing about the progress on September 15th uh we're moving to our final zoning map change item this evening this is the Cortez Drive residential proposal in this case Z19 00038 and we will start with the staff report good evening uh Jamie Soniak again with the Durham Planning Department my pal uh the I will be presenting the Cortez Drive residential zoning map change application next slide please the applicant is Bethesda Associates LLC the property is located along Andrew Avenue in Cortez Drive it is roughly 46 acres in size located in the suburban suburban tier the applicant is proposing to change the zoning to plan development residential 5.322 there is no change to the future land use designation which is low medium density residential and the development plan indicates a development with up to 250 residential units next slide on the aerial the site is highlighted in red it is generally undeveloped heavily wooded there are wetlands and streams it has frontage on Andrew Avenue and is separated by Cortez Drive next slide please the this slide provides area area pictures as well as the site and the surroundings the property is situated among a number of existing residential homes including along Cortez Drive and Andrew Avenue to the south and north are additional single family homes including a rezoning request which was approved on June 10th 2020 a long pleasant drive and south miami boulevard for up to 170 apartment units uh to the rear is undeveloped land and a commercial center which um fronts on south miami boulevard next slide please this provides the context of the existing zoning on the left um and the proposed zoning on the right the property is also located between the fall short and lake watershed protection overlay um as noted on the on the right the property is proposed for a pdr 5.322 next slide please this um slide shows the future land use designation of the property being in the low medium density residential which is four to eight dwelling units per acre which is consistent with this request next slide um as included in the staff report this is the development plan which highlights the access points the building and parking envelope riparian buffers 10 foot no build areas uh tree coverage areas it also identifies the number of units and the density next slide please in terms of the key text commitments the development plan commits to single family detached and residential townhouse units as the um permitted building type it restricts the number of units to 250 units there are a series of transportation um related improvements associated with the tia the transportation impact analysis there's a commitment to constructing sidewalk and several of the gap areas um there's also a commitment to provide additional asphalt along the front front full frontage of the site along um the east side of andrew avenue for a bicycle lane next slide uh this highlights some of the um graphic uh and design commitments included on the development plan next slide subsequent to the writing of the staff report the applicant has offered a number of additional um design commitments that have been reviewed and approved by staff that i would like to read into the record and i'll read them slowly because it's um i believe it's two slides here so in terms of the architectural style residential buildings within the proposed community the development will have compatible architectural elevations with respect to materials color and overall development elements in terms of the distinct architectural features the townhome building front elevations shall have a minimum offset of 16 inches with two offsets per every building of four units to enhance architectural variation a minimum of three colors shall be utilized per residential building decorative garage doors shall be used with the development within the development and shall include garage uh carriage house style hardware um or windows residential buildings shall have a combination of hip cable or shed roofs in terms of the building materials residential building materials shall exclude vinyl siding residential building roofs shall have composite shingles or metal roof roofing additionally uh in terms of the residential housing type side and sizes the development shall include a variety of town home units and single family dwelling sizes to reach a border market a family sizes home transition and home afford and housing affordability no less than 20 for no more than 45 of the townhouse units shall exceed 1,400 square feet no less than one 10 but no more than 25 of the single family unit shall exceed 1,700 square feet no site plan for the new development on the subject property shall be approved without provision for at least 100 townhouse townhome lots and at least 30 single family detached the development shall include townhomes with a maximum width of 18 feet single family dwelling shall feature a maximum width of 30 feet next slide please in terms of the comp plan policies the proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use designation of low median density residential which would be consistent with the rezoning request and the proposed application is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies including those listed on the screen and provided in further detail of the staff report staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and i will be happy to answer any questions that you have thank you you're welcome thank you so we will open the public hearing we have eight individuals who signed up as proponents and i may ask mr. george and mr. gosh if all eight are planning to speak or if they are doing it as a package and and then we have one individual signed up in opposition hi this is nil gosh and i will say mr. steve george laura holman ryan acres from McAdams and rinal stevenson from rainy camp are all part of the team here and they're all available to answer questions but i was planning on doing the speaking i'm not sounds like there are some other folks who've signed up in support of this and i'm not aware of who they are uh i may repeat some of the names that's really helpful laura holoman audra slavin who i think spoke on a previous item and tammy haze yeah so laura holoman is is uh with macadams and she's on the team okay oh i'll propose why don't why don't you go ahead mr. gosh and if if you want to speak as the proponent on behalf of the team and i'll read off any of the additional names i think some of these folks signed up maybe for multiple hearings i'm not sure they're still on the oh i see i understand all right well um miss mith hold on a second i do believe there was a person signed up for the very first hearing that it put the wrong case number by their name so that person may have left the meeting i'm looking now i don't see them in attendance still um so that might be the the where the math is a little weird so you'll find out i guess when you get to them thank you sure so should i begin please yeah so uh good evening or rather good night i guess uh chair busby and members of the planning commission my name is nil gosh i'm an attorney at the morning star law group here in durham at 112 west main street i'm representing the applicant for this project as i mentioned mr. steve george is with us on behalf of the applicant so is laura holman and ryan akers from mcadams and ryanel stevenson from ramy kemp let me start first by thanking jamie not only for her presentation just now but also for her guidance and diligent review of the additional proffers which she just presented for this development thank you very much for your for your work on that and working with us on that jamie um and i'll start by saying that this is a development that i am personally excited to be able to work on because i think it is a step in the right direction for new residential communities in durham as you can see from the commitments the developer is proposing a community with a mix of housing types including at least two different townhome options and two different single-family options in reality we believe there will be more than just two options for each type of home but the proffers ensure at least two options for each type uh there are various other commitments which speak to the quality of the building materials variations in the front facades of townhome buildings the width of the actual homes and the minimum mix of housing type i i hate to gloss over these but you know i'm it's getting late and i know we have limited time but you know suffice it to say that these commitments speak to the thought and intentionality that the applicant has put into this community now aside from those text commitments there are other commitments which are worth mentioning first of all a traffic study was required for this development and there are several committed road improvements included on the d plan as a result of that study in addition to the improvements that would be required to access the property it is worth noting that the developer of this community would be required to build out the remainder and improve the existing portions of quartet's drive to city standards which is more than a third of a mile of road construction there also is a small gap in the sidewalk along quartet's which the which is off-site which the applicant has committed to completing in addition to the sidewalk on the remainder of quartet's uh the development plan also commits to installing traffic signals subject to ncdot approval of course but uh those traffic signals would be at the intersections of angier and pleasant and angering lover all told the development plan commits to a significant level of new infrastructure but wait there's more uh as you can see on the d plan there is a wetland feature or stream feature on the property which essentially cuts the assemblage into three distinct areas of course this presents challenges to how the property can be developed but it is worth noting that the developer in this case has committed to only one stream crossing and i wanted to point that out because that commitment is quite subtle it is a graphic commitment but the udo requires d plans to show all proposed stream crossings as you can see only one is shown on this d plan because the developer has taken the time to consider carefully this community's impact on the environment likewise in addition to saving the vegetation within the wetland area the d plan graphically commits the saving over two acres of existing vegetation in the northeast corner of the property while that land is developable rather than trying to shoehorn in as many homes as possible the developer has set that area aside intentionally to provide a meaningful buffer area for existing homes along shila overall the development plan commits to preserving around nine point four acres of existing tree coverage and vegetation as i said i am excited to be working on this community and as a germ resident i hope to see it succeed this development has been well thought out at the planning stage and will put new home ownership opportunities on an infill basis in an area where bus transit already exists the developer has made some strong commitments related to design and housing mix which speak to the needs of the germ community as a whole additionally the d plan commits to a significant amount of public infrastructure which will be funded through private means the project is consistent with the city's long range plans but more importantly it makes sense in the context of the area so we hope to have your support for this development we have our team available to answer any questions that you have and i'd like to reserve the remainder of our time for any rebuttal and thank you for your time great thank you mr. gosh we do have one other individual who signed up as a proponent and that is tami haze tami are you with us yes sir can you hear me yes okay you're welcome to share your thoughts for a few minutes if you can give us your name your address and you're listed as a proponent for this proposal tami are you with us can you hear me sir yes please please i'm sorry it kept muting me um my name is tami haze and with my husband thomas haze and we're at 3601 andrew avenue if you notice on the map we're actually at the corner of courtes and andrew and everything goes around us in a sense um we're actually pretty excited about seeing this area developed it's been a long time we have lived at this home for about 24 years and it pretty much has looked the same um except for maybe them paving courtes um other than that there really hasn't been a lot done um i guess one of the we have a few questions because when we met with them last year um courtes wasn't they were saying courtes wasn't a factor they were creating another entrance off of angier on the other side of us going into the development and now we've noticed that courtes is now a factor um i i like the idea of the turning lanes and the traffic lights and especially the sidewalks there have been people that have been hit um along angier there's no space for people to walk or either ride bikes on angier it's just road and grass ditch um so we're kind of concerned about how this will impact our property now with it being courtes have now i'm assuming it's going to have to widen the road because if they're going to create a turning lane and sidewalk and all this stuff how does that impact us our property and then um will this also mean that this area will then become city limits because as of now we're counting so will that also mean that we will then become city limits based on all these things and if this goes through you know what kind of estimation data we're looking at as far as um construction and how long would it last those are just a few you know questions or concerns that we have right off the top of our head great thank you very much during the public comment period it's a great opportunity to ask those questions we can see mr gosh reserve some time as part of their 10 minutes so he might answer those comment period or we as commissioners may ask some of those questions as well but thank you very much thank you we had one other individual signed up to speak as an opponent and it's erin hammacky and erin you may make your remarks if you're able to join us erin i see you are you're still attending the meeting so we'd love to hear your thoughts if you're able to speak mr chair if you can remind her once again and i think we're going to have to just get used to this about how the the the ways she might connect with us and speak to us yeah erin if you're on by phone you can hit star nine and that should allow you to speak it it looks like you should be able to speak hello yes okay there we go thank you for bearing with me um so my name is erin hammacky and i've lived at 16 613 pleasant drive for 12 years now on a property adjacent to the courthouse property um for those of you who aren't familiar with the neighborhood we are a semi-rural community with the mix of residents from various backgrounds and income levels many of the residents value the privacy green space and wildlife habitat that is supported by this area and the streams that run through it several residents have lived in the area for 20 years or more i have concerns about the proposed rezoning of the property for several reasons the density doesn't seem or seems incompatible with the surrounding area in my view it also doesn't seem like a forward-thinking development that considers a balance of housing needs with preservation of green space and pervious surfaces and finally i think andrew avenue simply can't handle the traffic that will be generated by the development and the current f-rating for traffic in the neighborhood will go from very bad to even worse um i visited all of the the households adjacent to the property on shiloh pleasant andre and cortez and out of 26 homes i was able to access 16 or two-thirds of them were opposed to the rezoning requests and three households were undecided 22 residents signed a non-binding petition to protest the rezoning two households were in favor of the development mostly citing hopes for an increase in property values and i appreciated hearing my neighbor the hazes comments this evening as well just speaking for my household we definitely understand that Durham is a rapidly growing city with a housing shortage and that unbuilt land like this will rise to the surface for proposed development we aren't opposed to development of any kind in fact my partner is a builder but we'd like to think that we can plan these new developments with a broader vision of what kind of city we want Durham to become and we'd like to think that it's possible to achieve without compromising the character of a community that's been here for 100 years we'd welcome developments at the current zoning or at a revised zoning that balances housing needs with open space that would truly add lasting value to the city and neighborhood it's difficult to imagine traffic getting any worse than it is now but that's what would happen with this added development it was truly shocking to see and imagine the 18-minute wait time at the intersection of Pleasant and Andrew and 24 minutes at Andrew and Glover that is projected if the development plan is enacted and none of the DOT recommendations are implemented it's also difficult to see how traffic flow on Andrew will be appreciably improved with any measure as the railroad tracks limit road widening and the neighboring train yard will continue to present an issue as trains frequently block traffic access at Ellis Road and cause backups onto Andrew Avenue. Finally I don't feel that the six days that we had to review the development plan and text amendments prior to the meeting is an adequate amount of time I know that several of my neighbors express confusion about what the plans were many of the residents in the area are older do not have access to necessary technology or they speak English as their second language and face significant barriers to actively participating in this process and tonight's meeting which may explain why there aren't other opponents speaking today unless y'all are willing to vote against the request tonight on the basis of traffic information alone I hope you'll consider postponing making a decision so that residents can have more time with the development plan or just speak with the developers if the commission intends to move forward with with recommendations I hope you'll consider recommending development at a density less than proposed or with limited higher density housing balanced with substantial protection of trees and wildlife habitat thank you so much for your time thank you very much I see two other attendees have raised their hands I assume that means they may also be interested in speaking I'll call on you one at a time and you can unmute yourself if you would like to speak Paul Joffrian and then then we'll get to Mark Welker yes thank you so much all of you the hours are growing late I want to thank my neighbor Ms. Hammacky neighbor Hayes for their comments my name is Paul Joffrian my wife Patricia Sykes and I have lived at 705 Pleasant Drive for 19 years in a home that borders the Cortez project area this neighborhood is a richly diverse economically culturally racially neighborhood of approximately three-quarter square miles north of the proposed project area with some businesses 200 or more homes many if not most of which constitute naturally occurring affordable housing the development pressures on this naturally occurring affordable housing neighborhoods are substantial once a week or more we receive unsolicited offers to buy our home or part of our lot toward the southern end that abuts the Cortez project in no way am I suggesting that the Cortez project is connected with that I'm just identifying development pressures to sell upon neighborhood residents with regard to traffic impact the only way to get out of this neighborhood is by way of Andrew Avenue or highway 70 bottlenecks day and night during commuting hours at intersections named by Ms. Hammacky Pleasant Drive at Andrew Glover Road at Andrew Lynn Road at 70 Pleasant Drive at 70 are formidable. Andrew Avenue between Pleasant Drive and Cortez Drive is narrow it's two lanes 12 inch concrete border that empties onto sloping rutted shoulders in both directions speed limit is 35 but rarely observed pedestrians neighbors walking their dogs or bicyclists heading up to the goboa quick stop at Andrew and Glover must choose between risk of a twisted ankle on the rutted shoulder or facing oncoming traffic there are no sidewalks there are no curbs Andrew Avenue cannot be widened without abutting the railway right-of-way or infringing upon the right-of-way and front yards of residents on the east side adding 200 to 400 additional vehicles to this scene on top of the 200 to 300 vehicles that will be added because of the approval gen 10 of the Pleasant Drive rezoning request and the additional vehicles that will be added by the Brighton I don't know the full name the Brighton Manor approximately three-quarters of a mile south of Glover and Andrew off of Andrew is forgiven me for using a strong term it is an assault on the traffic management capability of this quarter the quality of life in this residence of this neighborhood I think deserve consideration I appreciate fully the developer's comments it sounds like a wonderful construction thank you thank you appreciate your comments and when miss Smith comes on and gives a two-minute warning we ask that everyone can finish their thoughts as appropriate we have mark welker as well hi can you hear us yes hi my name is heather cross my husband mark welker share with me we're at 713 Pleasant Drive our property is just down from the lady earlier sorry I forgot her name already we came on tonight undecided we were one of the ones that she had spoken to and we currently are not really against the development um traffic is has gotten worse in the past couple years with the construction on 70 when they shut down the access of east end drive all the traffic that used to take east end we saw move over here on to Pleasant and um back when we first thought it was right around the time we first bought this house we were told you know a lot of people might re-change the routes when the bypass back to 147 opens back up which is still in the process of being instruction and the construction on 70 finishes up so some of that traffic you know we're wondering what's going to happen what's going to change as the big construction projects end the mentioning of the possibility of with this project going through that there would be the potential for lights at Pleasant and lights at Glover are a huge bonus to me like if that's something that really would go through that would be huge because those are places that cause really bad bottlenecks particularly when trains come through there's no light at Glover having that feature would be great um so to to us you know we see the need for housing in this area it's huge especially something like this that's mixed it looks like it's gonna be more affordable housing than a lot of the other things being built in this area um i'm i have to stand pretty much for it um particularly with some of the things they're doing it looks really great and i came on tonight really not sure of where i'd stand so thank you appreciate that any additional comments from any members and anyone who is not spoken yet this evening i don't see any other hands up mr. gauche i believe you and your team had a few additional minutes reserved if you would like to make any additional comments or answer any questions yes sure that would be great thank you again this is nil gauche at the morning center law group uh speaking on behalf of the applicant just for the record um i did want to touch on a couple things so one you know as i mentioned a traffic study was required for this development and the developer here is taking the traffic i mean there are traffic commitments on the D plan and the developer does not you know dispute that there are traffic concerns in this area um just to give you an idea and i'm not suggesting that the the price of any of these improvements is necessarily played into your decision but each one of those traffic signals two of which are committed um generally are going on the low end costs about a quarter of a million dollars to install i have no idea why that is but that's what it is and there are two that are that are being considered or being committed uh as part of this development plan uh whether they will be installed ultimately as with any traffic light is going to depend on whether it's warranted per ncdot but given the the level of traffic in this area already um you know you might expect that it would be in the other developments going on you might expect that they will be um they will be warranted when the time comes to evaluate them the other thing to be aware of is that one of the main pressures on traffic here is the existence of that rail corridor there and and the rail yard uh so the the trains that come in in this area often will come in at a very slow rate uh because they they essentially park there and sometimes they park in the wrong place and block traffic and there's no doubt about it but there is a funded ncdot project to grade separate so to bring the track above the road at the at the intersection of uh andrew and glover no i'm sorry but uh ellison glover um and uh and that is calculated not by us by ncdot on already funded project uh it's it's project p5706 uh that is calculated to alleviate a lot of the traffic concerns that this area experience is already um essentially because it is getting that those trains out of the flow of traffic of regular vehicle vehicular traffic um so in addition to that improvement this project is committing to additional road improvements um as far as the points of access because of the number of units that are that are being proposed with this development the udo requires at least two points of access so on the development plan you can see that there is a point of access proposed along andrew avenue and there also is a point of access on cortex those are the two points of access that are being considered um for this for this development to make it udo compliant based on the number of units uh cortex right now is not at a city standard and i think i mentioned before the developer here is going to be improving cortex to a city standard for his entire length that that right of way is already dedicated but if you've been down to the site then you know you can turn from andrew onto cortex uh and then you can turn left on to the rest of cortex as it is today that right of way actually continues all the way down as a paper right of way it's not been improved and that's the portion that the developer will be improving across its frontage um the uh you know what it is getting late and i think i have addressed a lot of things that that we have heard from the neighbors today i'd be interested to hear any questions and comments from the point of commissioners so again thank you for your time thank you i don't see any other hands from the general public raise to speak i'll give it one more moment uh seeing none we will close the public hearing and commissioners i see a few hands up i'll start with commissioner dirkin sure so i have a question for the applicant on price points can you for the record state what you're expecting the single family homes and the townhomes to go for sure and we thought a lot about this and if you'll give me a little latitude i'd like to speak to it in depth if i can so i want to make clear that we're not okay given the late hour if you can late in the evening we can um make it brief that would be appreciated well sure i so i just want to make clear that we're not committing to any particular price point no no no just expected sure yeah the builder believes that the townhomes will start at around the 204,000 mark and will sell at a top range near 229,000 and for the single family detached homes the builder intends to start selling those at a price near 250,000 with the top end around 290,000 okay um thank you for that that seems high to me for this area i don't think that would qualify as additional naturally occurring affordable housing as was mentioned by one of the participants um spoke i agree that there is is a naturally occurring affordable housing in that area i don't think it's new construction for sale um at those price points one other thing related to affordability that i wanted to raise was the additional design commitment the first one this says the development shall include a variety of town home unit and single family dwelling sizes to reach a broader market of family size home transition and housing affordability i have no idea what that means and i have no idea how it will be implemented and how someone will confirm that it's the development has is in compliance with that commitment so my question is really more to staff as was this vetted like how how how do you prove that this was in compliance how would you monitor this at all james sonyak with the planning department good evening everybody um so yes the the design commitments have been vetted um and we just received them recently the the intent as as i understand it in terms of this particular proper um is to address some of the concerns that the planning commission have raised on other applications to provide a variety of different sizes um and it's um and obviously they we we don't have proffers or specifics in terms of the um the price points but we have heard concerns regarding providing a variety of of housing sizes so i i believe that that's the intent that the applicant is trying to um to achieve the design commitments are our our commitments um and so um we feel really meant to be a lead in to the remaining four bullet points and the additional design commitments because if that should be deleted it's i think it's very confusing and just provides lip service to the planning commission to as if they're giving us what we've been asking for i don't think it gives us anything except for a vague language that i'm not sure how you would enforce that okay understood and i and i can see um i can see how that might be inferred and jamey if it's appropriate i mean we we can strike that one i don't think that would cause any kind of delay uh it's the it's the first one if i understand jaren the first one listen every almost every development i ask you have you use the affordable housing density bonus have you considered it and everybody says no and everybody knows that i would love to have enforceable affordable housing in Durham however i don't think this language gets us there and i think it's a very dangerous path to go down of pretending you're providing something that you're not and and making the public and our elected officials and that they're providing something that's being requested and it's not getting anywhere near it so as i mentioned we we can strike that the staff has no problem if that is removed i consider it's stricken for my other my fellow commissioners i'm i'm not going to be voting for this one based on the concerns i bring thank you commissioner dirkin uh commissioner meller so there's a lot in this um that i like and look for uh mix of unit types and large project project uh density level that is uh not high by Durham standards but might be a little high for the area but the area is been developed in a pattern that has some natural separations in it uh a mix of unit sizes of the law doesn't let us commit to to actual price points but it does allow us to commit to unit sizes and based upon the idea that smaller units are generally cheaper they don't have to be but they generally are that's one way to get at the at the affordability a relative affordability problem and i appreciate that uh more thoughtful commitments on uh design elements um lots of open space reserved of course much of it had to be reserved because of stream buffers but um so a lot of good things here but the reason why i wanted to speak early on is um erin hammacky uh i think i've put i'm not sure i pronounced her name correctly if i had not i apologize uh has pointed out that uh the ability of the neighbors to actually see the development plan uh is less than a week this worries me uh if we're serious about really engaging with the public with a development plan rezoning of this magnitude with so many issues especially relating to traffic and what have you um i think we need to be better about getting that out there so that people can make thoughtful comments uh i am concerned as she was this evening that more people in this area might have spoken had they had a chance to a better chance to see absorb and understand of the development plan the developer today um has made a whole lot of proffers that changed the development plan considerably um there was no way for these neighbors to see this i actually shared the list just today with um miss hammacky um to see if it changes her view of the of the project um i'm just uncomfortable proceeding with a 50 acre project with lots of potential impacts affecting these neighbors on the basis that they've had six days to figure it out it's complicated enough uh with any amount of time but six days seems just doesn't seem to be fair and i'm not blaming anybody the developer certainly is not responsible for the shortness of notice um we're operating under some very strange rules and uh it's just hard and we have lots of meetings scheduled uh and i even i have to admit i constantly lose track of where we are um so i get it but ultimately these neighbors have one shot to understand what's going to go on around them uh i went out to pleasant drive it is one of the few streets in Durham that is actually aptly named uh it is a beautiful place uh accidentally one of the loveliest neighborhoods in town and it reminded me that in our frenzy about density and affordability and all these other things we have to reserve places in Durham County that are like pleasant drive um and i believe this property can be developed in a way that doesn't necessarily threaten pleasant drive but it's just another issue and i believe the people who live on in the pleasant drive neighborhood um have a right to understand and absorb and make thoughtful comments on a project like this so that we can be guided um by what they say we as i said in connection with the last case i'll say it with this case the people who live there know it best understand it best um and the information they give us about uh their area and what they want for it are extremely important uh so mr chairman i'm going to move that we continue this for 30 days not so the developer and the neighbors can work something out or anything like that just so that the neighbors can understand this project and come back to a continued public hearing and uh make sure that everybody who might care about this has had a chance to speak to us uh commissioner miller at the moment i i didn't hear you make the motion i believe you were saying you would like to make the motion i am making the motion okay i know commissioner baker would like to speak as well but it is a it is a motion and if there is a second then i'll hold off my comments and all second commissioner miller thank you so uh we have a a motion for a one cycle continuance with the second uh we we we can uh if someone wants to speak uh on the commission to the vote to the amendment uh commissioner turk us to your hand up i don't know if that was from before no that's on the motion if you don't mind chair the floor is yours thank you um you know just like the last case you know it is our uh we can call for continuance or vote for continuance without the applicants permission but i do often like to ask the applicant what they will do and what you know what they are thinking in terms of a two two cycle continuance not not because we need their permission but i would like to hear from them um if they would like this and what they would try to do in the next two months to to to bring along the neighbors in this case so i'd like to ask that to mr goch that's okay thank you mr and for the record i believe it was a one cycle continuance that is the motion okay thank you yeah i was going to say that thing and so thank you for bringing that up uh chair busby and thank you for the question commissioner alturk um so look uh we know we added proffers at the last minute jamey worked diligently to get those on the powerpoint and to vet them uh we're really proud of them but we also know the neighbors have not had an opportunity to look at them uh we welcome a one month delay and uh and and we'll be happy to come back uh in a month after we've after the neighbors have had more of an opportunity to digest these uh these new commitments in particular and frankly uh after the planning commissioners have had an opportunity to digest them i know you got your packets kind of late to begin with and then you probably never even got the new conditions uh until tonight so um i think it's i i think it's warranted and we welcome it commissioner alturk thank you i just i think i think miss uh hammacky mentioned this in her comments and i i may be misremembering but i think she mentioned that you know there there are likely a lot of people who want to speak on this case that even in a month or even in you know if if it is a one-cycle continuance then that really means only a week or two of of trying to reach out to those to those folks that live around this this neighborhood so i just um i guess i would caution against a one psych only a one-cycle continuance or i would also or and i would also urge the developer and the applicant to uh to really try to reach out to to folks that uh to the neighborhood in a way that's you know relatively in a way that's inclusive and that's um and so and i'm happy to to work with miss hammacky right i think a number of us are happy to to facilitate those meetings but um it's just it it's difficult for it's hard for me to see how that can be done in a way that i think is what we are hoping to do in the long run here in Durham which is to involve neighbors early on to to make the process more transparent um just that's just a word of caution i will vote for the continuance but uh it's just it's just a word of caution for the applicant and for the neighbors thank you commissioner out turk i don't see any other hands raised with the commissioners and so we do have a motion on the floor for a 30 day one cycle continuance and we'll have a roll call vote please um yes i wanted to point out that that would be um i wanted to make sure that we got the date of the meeting on the record please if that's okay that's my emotion okay um commissioner williams yes commissioner morgan yes commissioner johnson yeah commissioner amandalia yes commissioner darkin yes commissioner out turk uh yes commissioner buzz um chair busby yes commissioner lanefreed yes commissioner miller yes commissioner canchan yes commissioner santiago excuse dapsons sorry he's absent i's late now forgot commissioner baker yes commissioner low okay and commissioner mckyver yes okay it's unanimous 13 to 0 to continue to august 11 thank you see you next month thank you very much so we have two items under new business as we head into the home stretch and the first is the f y 21 planning department work plan and so we'll start with the staff report hello everybody i'm sarah young with the planning department and i'm coming to you tonight to hopefully talk quickly about the department's work program as you know we are required by the interlocal agreement that creates the city county planning department to submit to the governing bodies every year a proposal for the work that the department will do as you also know the vast majority of what's on the work program are things that are mandated by law or by city policy program of practice and there is very little room for discretionary projects right now we're in the middle of a very large discretionary project which is the new comprehensive plan that of course remains on the work program there's still much work to do and we are kind of regrouping those efforts and hopefully you'll be getting an update soon on that project but we are adding two other discretionary projects to the work program for next year in response to growing concerns about our environmentally related regulations and open space planning so one of the projects is to strengthen the regulations in the unified development ordinance regarding natural heritage sites, Durham inventory sites, and historic properties there are several instances in the ordinance that just say very lightly to protect or preserve these types of assets but they give no regulations as to what that might look like what the expectation is and so often at the administrative site plan stage it is very difficult to enforce for a developer to do anything to protect these resources so one project will be to work on actually strengthening and putting teeth to those regulations the other project is going to be an analysis of all of our adopted open space plans there are many many items from those plans that have not been implemented and we are going to be looking at those trying to work with our partner departments in the Durham Parks and Rec department, Durham General Services and Durham County real estate their open space acquisition program to see what items from those plans still need to be done and try and work within CIP and other mechanisms to get them funded and implemented so although I like to joke and say that we're the planning department we're not the implementing department I definitely think that we have a role to help make those plans a reality and deliver on the promises that were shared with the community in the development of those plans so those are two projects that we will be adding to the work program for next year so with that I'm happy to take any questions that you all may have thank you very much and congratulations on your your your role as the acting planning director thank you commissioners any comments or questions for for staff or just comments in general and this is an item that that we vote on correct this evening correct we would need a recommendation thank you commissioner miller thank you mr chair i'm really glad to see these additional projects and i'm going to throw out just one thing and it's consonant what what i've always said when we get to this stage in the year I think that we need to be intentional um and create better programs for public engagement lowering lowering the barriers that the complexity of this process naturally create for uh people to become involved and when i say people i mean people who are not engineers or land planners or attorneys or people who stand to make a lot of money from planning decisions the folks whose interest in our planning and zoning rules are the places where they live and i would love to see us create more and better ways for them to to get involved with adequate time and without fear um i know we have some programs that are on hold we were beginning the business of having planners available so that people could ask questions in front of planning commission meetings i'm not sure how that was going but i applauded the effort i have heard nothing but good things from the planning academies that were being being done but they're very small starts and what i think we ought to do i would love to see the planning department have some ombudsman positions uh that where planners dedicated to uh the business of advising uh not just answering questions but actually advising um uh what i will call ordinary people about how to protect their interests from their point of view and i know that's could be controversial but at some point i think we've got to do that or we're never going to get better um my time on this commission is short the chance uh to talk about as a commission member to talk about uh the work plan again may never come up so i'm going to throw it out there i intend to vote in favor of this work plan i will make the motion if it if so if that's required but i do want to say it out loud uh so that all my fellow commission members can hear it uh this was my concern when i first came on the planning commission many years ago and it will be my concern when i leave it a few months from now thank you thank you commissioner meller other questions or comments i would just echo commissioner meller and the big picture and i'm pleased to see what's in the work plan i wish the planning department had more resources to tackle more items and that's been a continued theme as well but i'll plan to vote for this and i'm happy to entertain a motion for approval well i promised so mr chair i move that we send fiscal year 2021 planning department work program forward to the elected bodies that would be the city council and the border county commissioners uh with a favorable recommendation uh i will uh get our opportunity to come in it uh in writing uh echo some of the things that i said to you folks we have a second second uh we'll give it to commissioner morgan on the second i was moved by commissioner meller and one of the roll call vote please commissioner williams yes commissioner morgan yes commissioner johnson yeah commissioner and amandalia yes commissioner durkin yes commissioner altarp yes chair busby yes commissioner lanefreed yes commissioner kinship yes commissioner baker yes commissioner low and commissioner mcguiver yes okay thank you skip over me again what's that i mean yes i skipped you again oh you know why i marked you out earlier i'm so sorry commissioner meller yes it's late again thank you it passes 13 zero thank you commissioner meller i believe she marked you out years ago but don't think i don't know it and she isn't the first well i tried to mark you absent earlier but they they were intent on invoting to excuse you and i was going to wait to see if you showed up because i had this feeling you would and you did well like a bad penny that's right we have one final item the item we added to the agenda the vice chair election and i will hand that over to the staff so um per the rules of procedure chair busby moved up to replace chair hyman because the election isn't we don't have an election until later in the year and so because her because she was term limited he just would move up and replace her so what we would need to have an election for tonight is just a vice chair to serve into our next regular election so um the floor is open and staff can take a nomination at this time uh miss smith i'd like to nominate commissioner kenshin and i would note that uh i'm a city appointee so we we do need to make sure that the vice chair is a county appointee yes we typically try to have one of each from each jurisdiction as chair or vice chair do nominations need a second yes please can i second that please sure are there any other nominations from the floor at this time i think mr baker has his hand up i was just going to say that i was also planning to nominate uh commissioner kenshin oh okay thank you um okay so if there's no other nominations from the floor and no other discussion um i'm ready to take a um a vote if the commission is ready that the commission of kenshin has to accept that nomination i don't we don't care what he thinks yes i guess he should draft it mr kenshin do you accept the nomination i do i do thank you okay okay great thank you um okay i'm going to go down the wrong call one more time and i'm not going to for you mr miller commissioner williams yes okay uh commissioner morgan yes commissioner johnson yeah commissioner amandoya yes commissioner durkin yes commissioner al-turk yes vice chair busby um excuse me chair busby yes old habits die hard commissioner lanford yes commissioner miller yes commissioner kenshin um yes you don't have to vote for yourself but that's really good commissioner baker yes commissioner low commissioner let me thank uh yes okay yes yes thank you sir commissioner macgyver yes okay um the election to um to elect uh mr kenshin vice chairs 13 zero um i have one last really quick announcement if you all will humor me um if that's okay um i sent out an email last week to our uh i call them our frequent flyer applicants it's our group of applicants that you see most most of the time we have a group of applicants that are our typical ones that we see in and deal with and i sent an email out explaining to them that based on recent comments and concerns that were expressed at city council meetings um and we haven't had the same concerns expressed at board of county commissioners but we have not had the same set of circumstances either so they may would feel the same but definitely city council has expressed this concern a lot lately about development plans zonings that have left the planning commission and between the time they leave planning commission and they are presented to city council they have changed dramatically um and sometimes they changed and and it's not sometimes all the time they changed dramatically to be more stringent because on the development plan you have to exceed the ordinance minimum requirements you can't go backwards and do less if you go backwards and do less you automatically go back to the planning commission but there's a section in the ordinance that allows the director to have some um some purview and some review of what is considered significant enough to send it back to the planning commission once it's already been to planning commission but before it gets to council if they change the commitments on the plan and so we um we've taken a a fairly conservative aggressive approach in my opinion and and we reserve the right to make adjustments as we go along but we have informed out the applicants that going forward effective yesterday any commitments that are made after planning commission with the exception of monetary text commitments like if they want to make a monetary text commitment to the Durham public schools or the dedicated housing fund or something very very simple which would that pond earlier may have been an easy one because to retain a pond on the development plan is a fairly simple note they can be put on the development plan um but we do reserve the right to review those at planning commission but if they make those changes after planning commission we are going to send them back they are not going to be taken to the governing body with significant changes anymore going forward there's a couple of cases that missed the that missed our effective date of yesterday so there might be a couple of cases that move forward with at their own risk where they they're changing the plans after planning commission to make them more restrictive or adding more text commitments and design commitments we've cautioned them about that but there was a recent case is city council that which has been referred back to you you will see it in on a future agenda it was for 1432 Ellis road and it was referred back because of the number of text commitments that were added after planning commission and before it got to city council the city council felt very strongly that the planning commission should see those commitments and have the ability to review those so i just wanted to put that out there again we reserve the right to modify as we go if we see necessary we are more than happy to work with you on the spot and with applicants on the spot when it's reasonable and when we can vet the commitments and we are comfortable with doing that the night with planning commission meeting otherwise we will ask for an automatic continuance to work those things out at the planning commission level before they get to the elected officials so i hope that that makes sense and we'll move forward in that direction and see how it works and certainly take your comments or concerns as we go madam chair i mean mr chairman i have a question about how this will work yeah go ahead so in article three of the uda we've got a 90 day clock on the business of the planning commission uh and so if we have a situation where it comes to us we don't like it we make a lot of comments the developer listens to our comments and becomes concerned because they got a they did not get an enthusiastic uh vote from the planning commission so they want to amend their uh proposal going forward to city council my first concern is is if we take a really really strict view on changes and send everything back to the planning commission we may have some developers dig in and just simply refuse to make changes um i don't know whether that will happen or not because if they did we would probably just vote again if it came back to us it might be unenthusiastic or they'll just push ahead to the council without making changes i mean i like the fact that our influence causes developers to make changes especially if it is in favor of or bends towards what we have said the second concern though is the 90 day rule if it gets to if it is what happens to a project that where we've said no they want to make changes before they go ahead to council that means it's got to come back to us uh the 90 day clock ticks all through that is it time then to go make a special change to the udo that says that when something has to be re-referred to the planning commission that the 90 days is told uh or is that a statutory provision that we can't alter so the first the first statement um my comment on that would be that that's why we're gonna we're going to commit to be flexible and we may um make some adjustment as we go in this process because we we started off more conservative and more aggressive because we really want these things worked out when they come to you we want these things worked out during the review we want the legwork done ahead of time and we want the things worked out with you uh the planning commissioners and that's why staff is willing to if we have to ask for continuance while it's still in your 90 day period to work those things out before it ever gets to council that's what we will do we're going to be probably become a little more um or diligent about that rather than and it actually has not been an issue we've just of late we've had some plans that have added a lot of text commitments after the fact and you know adding one or two is one thing but when you've got a you know a list of 15 or 16 things that are added and the plan changes quite significantly after the planning commission sees it that's what was the um impetus to this i see the the acting director has come on the screen so i'm not sure if she wants to say something so i don't think we have to say acting she's the director of my book yeah exactly i agree i'm trying to be appropriate so i'm gonna let her speak um yeah it's all just an act um the the ordinance um commissioner miller that is a great question what the ordinance says is that um we can refer something back due to significant changes for an additional hearing so that additional hearing would start another 90 day cycle with the plan excellent answers my question thank you if it's an act it's a convincing performance thank you very much i do my best work i was obviously pulling the section up to uh to read that yeah you're back every two weeks there you go but i hope that made sense what i the first part it did it did and i'm very grateful great thank you and i'll just add from my perspective i mean commissioner miller i appreciate your your question about the the timing issue because i hadn't thought about that i think this is going to be very encouraging and a positive especially because we often have votes where we all vote no and we write our comments and then a whole bunch of new things are added and it is probably challenging for the governing body to know if we vote no because of what we had in front of us at the time or will we vote yes with all the new additions it really does i think allow us to be playing the role we're supposed to play as an advisory board so it'll be very interesting to see how it plays out but i appreciate the staff taking this step and i look forward to seeing how that plays out for us as a commission and mr chair if i may i have another little bit of business um i wasn't here uh at the beginning of the meeting when we welcomed miss landfried and mr amondolia and so one i want to add my welcome to the welcome i'm sure you gave them i also want to make sure that i am pronouncing austin's last name correctly so i'm going to ask him to say it out loud for me to hear uh well it's actually kind of contested in my family but i pronounce it amondolia very good i'm going with until your mother calls me i'm going with you uh well she agrees with me so that's all good all right so it's all good the uh other thing i'd like to suggest mr busby is we have two committees that are serving one of those committees because uh miss hyman has left us is a man down um uh to use a lacrosse term and uh i thought uh since it is up to you to uh appoint people to committees um and it might be of interest to our two new members to join one the other or both of the committees if they want to and that's consonant with your view of the committee's business um we have a uh the last of three scheduled meetings with regard to the affordable housing slash trees committees this week uh and then mr baker's committee on the udo uh is going to be scheduling meetings but i wanted to make sure our two new members had an opportunity to join us in that work if that was their interest absolutely thank you for bringing it up i will say the affordable housing group is finishing up its work this week and that will be coming back to us and so you're welcome to get in touch with commissioner miller who has been helping shepherd that process the the long term effort is commissioner bakers of committee that is working on udo items i believe it's the that committee has met once maybe twice thus far twice but but that does have a longer shelf life and you should also feel free to be in touch with either myself or with commissioner baker if that is of interest to you if tonight hasn't scared you off already we set up committees from time to time as as issues arise so there'll be other opportunities as well if you would rather wait for a new committee they do rise up periodically so just to clarify mr busby am i to take it from your comments that if either miss landfreet or mr amondolia were to join our committee uh and it's meeting on thursday that i would treat them as voting members of the committee i feel free to reach out to me i don't think that would be a problem as long as we don't trip having a quorum no i i don't think it's it's not a quorum issue it's it's an uh open meetings law issue but i don't think the addition of even both of them would challenge that thank you very much you bet uh if there aren't any other items recognizing the late hour we will adjourn and i will see all of you next tuesday when we meet once again so thank you all appreciate it everyone congratulations armir i hope it's what you wanted you can get on to it you get it right