 We are alive. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed as an advisory board from the City Council and the County Commission. You should know that the elected officials have the final vote on any of the issues that are before us this evening. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom meeting platform. And in this virtual meeting platform, public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on the screen by default, but speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time during the meeting. If you have preregistered, your name will be called at the appropriate time during the case you signed up for, for you to make your comments, just like you would at an in-person public meeting. And if you called in before the meeting started and staff was able to get your information, your name will also be called at the appropriate time as normal. You can also call in during the meeting tonight using the phone number that's 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 need to wait until the particular public hearing you're interested in speaking in gets started after all of the preregistered speakers. And we have a list of all the preregistered speakers already. Once we've worked through their comments, I will then ask if there's anyone else who would like to speak on that particular item. And at that point, you will digitally need to raise your hand on the Zoom platform. You can press star nine on your phone. And then when we recognize you, we ask that you state your name and your address and then you can proceed with your public comments. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thanks again for joining us. May I have a roll call please? Good evening planning commission. I'm going to go in alphabetical order so maybe that'll make it a little easier this evening. Can you hear me? Okay, Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Al Turk. Here. Commissioner Amandolia. Here. Commissioner Baker. Here. Chair Busby. Here. Commissioner Durkin. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Here. Present. Okay, commissioner Kenshin. Here. Commissioner Landfried. Commissioner Lowe. Present. Commissioner MacGyver. Oh, I apologize. Commissioner MacGyver, I think he emailed the chair and asked for an excused absence. Commissioner Miller. Present. Commissioner Morgan. Good evening, president. Commissioner Santiago. Present. Commissioner Williams. Here. So, I have not heard from commissioner Landfried, but if you would like to go ahead and make an emotion to excuse commissioner MacGyver, we can see if commissioner Landfried shows up late. That makes sense. I'll accept a motion for an excused absence for commissioner MacGyver. I make that motion. Commissioner Morgan. Second. Commissioner Lowe second. Yes. I can't hear. I'm sorry. I believe moved by commissioner Morgan, seconded by commissioner Johnson. And we'll have a, we'll call vote please. Yes. Commissioner Alturk. Yes. Commissioner Amandolia. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Commissioner Busbee. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Commissioner Cainchin. Yeah. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. All right, thank you. Yes, it passed unanimously. I was muting because there was noise in the background. I apologize. No problem. Thank you very much. I think we can hold on a motion for Commissioner Landfree. We, I think, assume she will be joining us shortly. Ms. Smith, does it, the agenda has us moving forward with the minutes and consistency statement? Does that make sense now, or would we like to make adjustments to the agenda? Well, let's go ahead and do the minutes. And you did not receive the minutes for June 9. We can do those at the next meeting. There were no cases acted on on June 9, so that's not a problem. So if we could just get approval for June 2nd and 3rd, and I'm more than happy to take one motion for both, so we only have to do one roll call. Thank you. If someone would like to make a motion to accept both the June 2nd and June 3rd minutes and consistency statement, I will happily accept it. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that we, pardon me. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes and consistency statements for June 2nd and June 2nd and June 3rd. Is that right? That's correct. But I have to say I do it with great trepidation, knowing that Commission Member Brian isn't here, and we've then therefore lost the ability, well, the capacity that once had to go through the minutes so they've verified to code. Julie noted, is there a second to the motion? Back mid. This is Commissioner Morgan. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Morgan. We'll have a roll call vote on the combined motion, please. Commissioner Altair. Yeah. Commissioner Amondola. Yeah. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. And Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Vice Chair Kynchon. Yes. I see. OK. Commissioner Low. Yes. And Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. OK. Passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll move to adjustments to the agenda, Ms. Smith. So staff would like to recommend one adjustment to the agenda. We would like to move to the very before any public hearings, the resolution and recognition of Elaine Hyman, our former chair of planning commission who left us last month because her two terms had basically she had served two full terms and almost term expired. And we just wanted our term limited. And we just want to recognize her this evening. Chair Busby, I think you have the floor. If you would like to take care of the adjustment. Yes. And so the one adjustment would be that we would add the recognition for former chair Hyman. And we would move that to the next item on the agenda before proceeding through the rest of the agenda as proposed. Correct. So move, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Seconded. The move by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Morgan. This does require a roll call vote. Yes. Al Tark, Commissioner Al Tark? Yes. Commissioner Amandalia? Yes. Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner Chair Busby? Yes. Commissioner Durkan? Yes. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Vice Chair Kenchen? Yes. Commissioner Lowe? Yes. Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Morgan? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. And Commissioner Williams? Yes. Thank you, passage unanimously. Thank you. We will then move directly to the resolution. I believe former chair Hyman is available to join us via Zoom this evening. I saw her earlier. Mr. Chair, since I'm, I guess, the longest serving presently sitting planning commission member, I'm going to insist on my prerogative to adopt a resolution honoring our former colleague and sometime chairman Elaine Hyman in gratitude for her valuable service. Thank you. And that we spread the same across the minutes. But once it's prepared, do we have, do you have that resolution before you? I do. All right, thank you. I thought you must. I would, I would welcome a second and then I can read it and then we can, we can vote on it. And I believe chair former chair Hyman is available to, to join us as well. Do we have a second for the motion? Second. Thank you, commissioner Durkan. And this, I just want to confirm chair Hyman, is available and with us. There she is. I'm right here. It is with great honor and just a touch of sadness that, that I'm going to read this resolution honoring you and thanking you for your many, many, many years of service and leadership of this commission. So bear with me. I'm going to read it in its entirety. This is a resolution and appreciation of Ms. Elaine Hyman. Whereas Durham planning commission and the citizens of the city and county of Durham have benefited from her dedication and leadership, especially during the time of COVID-19 when she led the virtual public hearing efforts. In addition, she offered her support above and beyond the call of duty during the initial engaged Durham public workshops while serving as the chairperson of the Durham planning commission. And whereas this commission desires to express its appreciation for the public of a job well done, now therefore be it resolved by the Durham planning commission, section one that this commission does hereby express its sincere appreciation for the service rendered by Ms. Hyman to the citizens of this community and section two that the clerk for the commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official minutes of this commission. And this resolution is hereby presented virtually to Ms. Hyman as a token of the highest esteem and respect held for her. Adopted this 21st day of July, 2020 by the Durham planning commission. Ms. Hyman, I believe we will have the official roll call vote. And I would then welcome you to make any remarks to this body and commissioners as well as appropriate. But could we have a roll call vote please? Yes, Chair Busby. Commissioner Al-Turk. Yes. Commissioner Amandolia. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Kenchen. Yes. Commissioner Loeb. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes, certainly. Commissioner Morgan. Definitely yes. And Commissioner Santiago. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Overwhelmingly yes. That's an overwhelmingly yes, most definitely passed 12 to zero. That was a relief. I had my concerns before that vote. Ms. Hyman, the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Busby. And thank you, particularly Commissioner Miller. Because one of the things I'd like to at least, you know, bring forward is that Commissioner Miller was present when I joined the commission. And voila, Commissioner Miller is present as I leave six years later. That just goes to show you that those of us who have a heart for serving this community will figure out a way to do it. It's like rising damp. I'm always there. I'd just like to say to all of you how much I have appreciated being a part of this body. I look forward to all of the challenges that you will face in the future. I know that you will take each one of them with heart. I look forward to at least observing you from time to time to ensure that the citizens who count on you so much are engaged in this process. I'd just like to thank each of you. I'm depending on all of you to do something special. For example, Commissioner Durkin, I expect you to start looking out for the renters. Commissioner Johnson, particularly expect you to start looking for that price point and to make sure that all of those communities fit within the community. And for the others of you who have a particular specialty, I'm looking forward for you to apply that specialty because our communities need so much and our developers have the ability to give us even more than, you know, than they offer. And I love the fact that we're able to encourage them to rise to the occasion. And to my colleague and an individual that I share a mentor with, and I'm saying this for the first time, Commissioner Williams, I know that our mentors are going to be looking forward to hearing that voice. They've looked for it from me. Now they're gonna be looking for it from you. Voila, and I have exposed you so that they know to count on you. So having said that to the rest of you, thank you, Commissioner Kitchen for that wonderful talk that we had because I see that one of the things that you're doing is to support this body in a way that is meaningful to the community. So having had my two minutes, one second in the live light, it is my privilege and it is my honor to say to all of you, adios. Thank you, Ms. Hyman. Please stay for one moment in case any commissioners would like to make any comments. Look, after that, I'm not so sure. Mr. Chair, you said that she would receive this resolution virtually. I hope that she will receive a hard copy so that suitable for framing so that it can have, at least for a time, pride of place on what I know is a crowded vanity wall in the Hyman home. Absolutely. I will work with staff and we will figure out how to make sure Ms. Hyman receives this official version as well as this evening's virtual version. Any other comments from commissioners? Ms. Hyman, I just want to say. Yes, I would like to. Please, Mr. Commissioner Love. Yes, I want to say to Ms. Hyman, thank you for your service. Thank you for your leadership in the book of Ecclesiastes. It says for everything, there's a season. Thank you for your season of serving and because of your season that you have served, citizens of this county, this city are better for it. Thank you and God bless. Thank you so much. And Ms. Hyman, I will just also add, just there's not enough time to thank you for everything that you've done. You were on the commission when I joined. You really helped guide me. We were a team together as chair and co-chair back and forth. I really appreciate all you did. And then I did want to say it's in the resolution but most people don't know this. You were the chair during the engaged Durham process. You went to every single engaged Durham community meeting and you represented the Durham Planning Commission as the chair. You spoke at all, I think five of those meetings over a couple of weeks all across the city and that's the kind of dedication that you gave to this commission every time. And I deeply appreciate it. I will miss serving with you, but I do thank you for all that you have given to our community. Thank you and I will just say in response to that it was one of those rare opportunities where you have an inter, you have an opportunity to interact with the community, the citizens of this community. And I value that more than anything because it gives you a one-on-one ear with them and that's what they're looking for to be able to listen to them and then to come back and to show that their words, their responses made a difference. And I say to all of them tonight for all of those hundreds of people that I met, I just want to thank them as well and I will see them at some point because I continue to work for this community. It's my home. It is the place that I love. So that's why I will see you all at some point. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Busby. And this time I'm going to be signing out. I see Commissioner Williams as a hand up. I'm going to give her a chance if she wants to speak. Particularly after I have shamed her in front of everybody to say we have the same mentor. That is absolutely correct. I have some pretty big shoes to fill but I promise you I will do my very best to continue to serve and to serve my community with the same passion in which you have and for the exact same reasons. And if I can say nothing else, I want to say thank you for everything that you have been and you have done for this community, for this commission. And I honestly can't say thank you enough because I would have never thought in a million years until I met Ms. Walker and she told me that we share a common bond on this planning commission. So yeah, resounding thank you. And look and remember she's going to be watching and to all of you, our citizens watch these meetings and will definitely hold you accountable for what you say and what you do. So thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Hyman. Have a good evening. Thanks for joining. Thank you. Look and get to work you guys, you got a lot to do. And on that note, we will move to the first case in front of us this evening. We have three zoning map changes as well as a text amendment to the unified development ordinance on the agenda this evening. This is the first zoning map change. It is case Z19-00021. It's the 2720 Fawcett Avenue case and we will start with the staff report. Mr. Chair, if I can before we start that. I'm aware that the applicant here intends to ask that this case be continued for a period of time. And if we do that, and we take this hearing up at a later time, it might be more beneficial to all the people who participate to receive the staff report then. And so my suggestion is that we consider the applicant's request to postpone the hearing or to continue it and then find out whether or not members of the public or support that or oppose it. And then if it sounds like everybody's in favor, we can open the public hearing and continue it and then receive the staff report and public comment at a later time, if that's what we decide. Rather than get so deep into the case and then cause staff to have to make another report later on. If we're gonna hear the case essentially later, let's do all of the hearing later and just have a symbolic opening of the public hearing at this time. Commissioner Miller, let's hear from the staff because I did wanna check on this. Mr. Sivers has indicated he would like additional time to meet and talk to the neighbors and then bring this back, but those require us to have a continuance vote. I'll also note we have 70 individuals, 7-0 signed up to speak on this item this evening. So Ms. Smith, what do you recommend? And in particular, we need to make sure that we stay within the letter of the law of opening the case and then voting to continue it. Correct, Chair Busby, either way you go, you're going to have to open the hearing and then continue it until a date's certain. It's up to the commission if you wanted to try to get some feedback from those that are on the line that they're actually in the meeting as to whether or not, I think he was concerned and wanted their feedback, whether or not it would be okay to have the presentation and comment at the next meeting, whichever date that is that you continue at it to, but we also have to have the applicant formally make the request for the continuance. So you may wanna hear from the applicant first and then try to feel out some of if there's a person, if there's a spokesperson for the group, I don't know if there is, because there's so many people signed up, I'm not sure, but you could go that route and see. And it's okay, Ms. Smith, if we then, as Commissioner Miller is suggesting that we move right to hearing from Mr. Cybers and instead in lieu of the staff report. I think if you wanna hear from Mr. Cybers and he can request the continuance and if the people in attendance do not want to hear the staff report tonight, then we could, if you wanted to poll, I don't know how you're gonna do that, but I think you were gonna try to figure out what their feelings were, then we could present if we needed to. If you're just trying to save time, we can certainly wait and find out what they would like for us to do. Yes, Mr. Chair, my suggestion is, is that we open the public hearing, hear from Mr. Cybers, hear from members of the public on the question of whether or not the application be delayed tonight and then make that decision. And if we decide to delay it or to continue the public hearing, then we'll take it all up at the date certain to which we might move it. If, however, the general feeling after hearing from people just on the question of whether or not to continue that we're going to proceed tonight, then we can pick it up then. In other words, the staff's presentation is to the merits of the case and I would like to put that after that we decide the question of the continuance, but in either event, we're going to have to open the public hearing, but I would begin with the request for the continuance. Chair, also I was thinking you could also use the raise hand option for the participants that if they are okay with holding off until then, they could raise their hand in the attendee section. And then maybe we get it out there. Thank you, Commissioner Morgan. I was going to recommend you could try that and see how that works. We could try that first. I think we should at least hear from the applicant like Commissioner Miller said. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you all. I see nodding heads with the commissioners. Commissioner Williams. Yeah, I was going to say, but what about the people who might be dialing in? It may want to comment. They can't really rate. Well, I guess they could raise the hand via star nine. So yeah, okay. Sorry, scratch that. Okay, thank you. Okay, let's then hold off on the staff report for the moment. We will open the public hearing. And as I mentioned, we have 70 individuals signed up to speak, but recognizing that the first is Mr. Sivers and Mr. Sivers plans to ask for a continuance to continue to work with the neighbors. Let's start Mr. Sivers with hearing from you and then we can proceed accordingly. Thank you. This is Tim Sivers, Horvath Associate 16 Consultant Place, Durham, North Carolina. Yes, that is my intent tonight. I have about a one to two minute presentation for the reasons behind that. And if this is the appropriate time, I'd like to provide that. Please. Thank you. So originally we had a voluntary neighborhood meeting scheduled for the end of March, beginning of April for obvious reasons that had to be delayed. About three weeks ago on June 30th, I did hold that voluntary meeting as a digital meeting. And we provided, the neighbors did provide some great feedback at that time, as well as some other neighbors that provided feedback via email that we're not able to attend. The feedback has allowed me to provide changes to these plans. However, well, some of those changes include minimum and maximum number of townhouse units, additional stormwater requirements, decreasing impervious area, environmental traffic concerns, increased project boundary buffers, increased tree coverage, increased open space commitments, programming for the open space commitments, architectural commitments, as well as donations for affordable housing, as well as schools. I currently have about a dozen text and graphic commitments to add to the plan that is in front of you for the application this evening. I've made promises to these neighbors to research and update commitments as much as possible. And I wanna provide these updates to them as I have promised. For this reason, I would like to request a continuation of this project to allow time for the neighbors, staff, as well as your commission, additional time to review these modifications once they are on paper. The updated plans will be provided to staff as well as the neighbors this week. Do appreciate your time and I am available for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Cybers. So I do have a question, Mr. Cybers, from you're asking for a continuance. I know our motion will need to specify a time period. Is there a specific time period, a one cycle, two cycles, three cycles? What are you envisioning? Sorry, I had to unmute myself. I, my plans will be provided to staff this week, likely within the next, well, likely within the next 24 to 48 hours. So I would suggest a 30 to 45 day is adequate, but I believe that question is probably more based for staff as opposed to me. Great, Ms. Smith. Yes, I was going to say, Chair Busby, our agendas for August are quite full already with other continuing, other cases that were continued. And our, even our special meeting on the 25th is full. So I would say our next regular meeting after that is September 15th. That would be the soonest staff would recommend that it come back. I would say that that is certainly my comfort level as well to give adequate time for the community to understand and work with Mr. Cybers and to communicate with all of us. Great, thank you. So the public hearing is now open as suggested, we are going to try something. And I'm going to ask that if we've got 63 attendees, I know not all of you are here for this item, but many of you are. The other items after this do not have many folks who are signed up to speak. I'm just going to ask if you can virtually raise your hand, if you're on by phone, you can hit star nine, raise it if you are comfortable with the notion of a continuance until the September 15th meeting. And we'll give it a moment so folks can raise their hands. And Chris, I may need to work with you because what I'd like to do is then clear this and then ask the other side to also be able to raise hands if there are concerns. Yes, I can lower all hands once this round of voting is done. Great, thank you. That's power. Okay, I see 32 hands up. It was 33 at the high mark. Great, we'll stop the voting. And Chris, if you can reboot us. I'm going to ask the opposite question. If individuals have concerns about continuing this case, I'd ask that you just raise your hand as well. So I see one hand, two hands that have been raised. Great, thank you. As we are still in a public hearing, and Ms. Smith, make sure I have this correct. I think in the interest of time, seeing so many individuals who are comfortable with waiting, continuing this case and understanding that this case is going to change significantly between now and September 15th, I'm guessing a lot of individuals may decide that they are not interested in speaking tonight, but I do want to provide the opportunity for anyone who would like to speak to do so this evening. Is that an appropriate way to proceed, Ms. Smith? If they can indicate that they want to speak now, that would be great. And so did you want to time limit anyone or do you want me to keep time? I would, I would ask that if individuals, if you would like to still speak this evening, raise your hand, I will call you and I would ask that each individual give your name, your address, and if you can speak for two minutes. And Ms. Smith will appear on the screen when it's time for you to wrap up and I will ask that you just finish your thought. I see three hands that are up, four hands. I'm just going to call on you each in order. First is W-Home. And I think you have to star nine to speak. I just want to know if this is the maximum amount of extension we could get this very first round, that was my concern. I just want to take advantage of the 60 day, the full extension because some of the questions that we had initially, that was presented to the engineer over a year ago have yet to be even addressed. So I feel like we need a maximum amount of time for the extension. And could you give us your name and your address, please? Ms. Wilson, 2021 Great Bend Drive Durham, North Carolina. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Ms. Smith. So the maximum time that the Planning Commission can deliberate on a case before it has to move forward to the governing body is 90 days. So you've started out with 60. If you continue at 90 days, then you will have used the entire amount of time that you have under the Unified Development Ordinance to review the case. There could not be any more extensions after that. Thank you. And Ms. Wilson, essentially, when this returns to the Planning Commission on September 15th, we will have the ability to either vote on the item on the 15th or we could continue it for another cycle, for another 30 days. But at the end of the 90 days, we have to take action for it to move forward to the governing body. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Next is David Corley. Hello, yes, my name is David Corley and I live at 2615 Cone Avenue, Durham 27704. I am located here. I live with my wife here and we're expecting a baby. And we live at the end of Cone Avenue. We live right at the basin of where this water runs off from this hillside, this property that's being proposed to rezone. We will be directly affected by this. We receive runoff from this and then we have about a half acre pond and the water runs off of that on towards Ellaby Creek and then Neuse River. I wanna thank Tim for offering an extension because that's exactly what many of us wanted. So I do appreciate that and I wanna extend my thanks to him. Most of my time here was about these extenuating circumstances with COVID-19 and things like that. So it seems like he's already addressed that, which is great. And I just want the body to know that with these five communities that are surrounding this proposed rezoning, this is just an extremely sensitive area. It's very sensitive in its habitat. And so it does warrant this extension to be able to look at this more comprehensively. And I would suggest and like to see a more comprehensive study, traffic impact study for Cheek Road. I would also like to see one for Gear Street. And I would like to let the Planning Commission know that section 6.2.4 of the UDO as it pertains to residential rural development intensity does allow for a conservation subdivision. And we would like to explore those options by sitting down with a few planning commissions if at all possible and Tim Syvers as well. We think this would be a good fit and we think we could do this right. This is a very sensitive ecosystem back here with Goose Creek and the wetlands. And we wanna see it done right. Certainly if we're gonna be having affordable housing back here, we want people to have that same opportunity to have green space as well. We don't think anyone should be limited to that. And then, yeah, I guess I was just gonna humbly request for a six day extension. Looks like we got that. And then, yeah, I just want the commission to know that sometimes in the end, it's a black and white answer, but this is an extremely large gray area here. And there's a lot to take into consideration. And I know there's a lot of properties that come up for rezoning, but this is certainly a special situation. I've asked everyone send emails out asking people to please come out. I think this is a place that once you see this you'll understand why we have close to 70 people here. This is a really unique plot of land. So I wanna thank you for your time and I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Coralie. Chair Busby, may I interrupt for just one moment? Yes. I apologize for that. But we had two cases from our last meeting that were continued to September 15th already. We have other cases that are gonna need to be heard that are already in the pipeline. So I'm just gonna going to put out there that if we continue another case to September 15th then we may have to have two meetings in September because it's not really appropriate to jam other cases further back in the schedule. But because we keep putting others continued down the road. So I just wanted to put that out there and if the planning commission wanted to consider a different timeframe for this, I'm not advocating one way or the other but I'm just making you aware of the time the other cases that are scheduled. Thank you. And Ms. Smith, have I understand you correctly that if we believe that this general timeframe is appropriate we should just be prepared to have two meetings in September which we've been doing for the past few months given the situation anyway, is that correct? I would say so because we, I'm sure we'll have other cases that will be ready in addition to the continued cases. I just wanted to give you that heads up and I'm sorry the cases just don't stop coming. So. Commissioners, I believe it's critical for us to give the public the chance to speak and to weigh in and two meetings a month has been long and challenging but this is what we signed up for. So I just wanna see if you all agree are you all willing to have a second meeting in September to ensure that we can give these cases the time they need. Mr. Chair, we have people who are waiting to speak why don't we hear from them and then we can discuss this when we talk about whether we're gonna continue. That makes sense. We've got Benita Green next. Benita Green, if you can start you may have to need to hit star nine to unmute but we'd love to hear from you as part of the public comment period you have your hand raised. My screen froze, can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, I apologize for that. So my name is Benita Green. I live at 831 St. Fitzgerum in the Merritt-Morr community and I emailed over a presentation so I'm not gonna go through all of that. You guys have my information there but I did wanna ask if Mr. Cybers is still on the line. I know he's preparing all of this new information. How, I wanna know how he's gonna plan on rolling that information out to the communities. And Ms. Green, if you have any additional comments this is the time to ask and that's something that when we wrap up I can guarantee you one of us will ask that question. Yeah. Yeah, so I mean over in Merritt-Morr our major concerns are gonna be wrapped around safety and it's gonna be wrapped around the whole affordable the whole affordable housing issue. As with the rising property taxes that are in Durham so far we've seen a significant increase in this area. And so just really quickly on my first point when it comes to the whole pedestrian safety portion of it, Chic Road, yes, it is a state road. It is a very narrow road. There are no sidewalks. I have statistics and maps there that are gonna show you the amount of traffic, the single occupancy commuters that are already going in this area. We have from 2018, 90% higher single occupancy commuters than the county has. We have 33% five higher than the county in long commute time. So we have a lot of commuters that live out in this area that are traveling along roads that are very narrow and they have no shoulder. We also have pedestrians who are walking along those roadways to get to point A or point B because whether it be to school, whether it be to public transportation, whether it be to get food from the grocery store, just simply because we don't have access to those things within this community, they're having to walk at a minimum a mile or more for that and there have been fatalities along Cheek Road. So we do have a great concern for safety when it comes to adding additional traffic load on to Cheek Road. And there are maps attached that they're gonna show you the bus stops and the food density. And as far as on affordable housing, the key points that I just wanna cover on that is that Durham, the county, the property taxes increased, that overall in 2019, the property taxes increased for Durham County at 26.6%. In the Merrick-Moore community, our property taxes increased by 26.4% over in this area. So personally, I've seen my property, my valuation of my home increased by $42,000. Property taxes definitely increased significantly over the years and that's in this overall community. We have a large portion of a large population of people here who are retired or living on fixed income or getting SSI. I won't go through all of those numbers there in the report that I provided for you. So an increase in property taxes by having homes that are evaluated at $275,000 and up is gonna put a burden on our residents in this area. You're gonna have people who are just not gonna have the security within their homes. They're gonna be forced out by gentrification. So we have a great concern over being able to protect the residents in our community so they can live in their homes. Many of these residents have lived here for many years. I've lived here the bulk of my life and I'll be 60 in November. This community was originally part of a lesser plantation called the Rowan Plantation and the Milly Estates. So first of all- Thank you, Ms. Lee. If you can just wrap up your comment, you're at time. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm just wrapping that up just now, just letting you know that we have people who've lived out here for a very long time and it just would be very hard for us to see them displaced because of gentrification. Thank you. I hope you, and I know you will. I hope you stay engaged and come back and speak when this is back before us with the additional items. Next is Kyle Marion, then Jeanine DeLuzio and then Benjamin Whitehurst. I see hands coming down. Benjamin Whitehurst, Rod Potter. This is Kyle Marion, can you hear me? Yes, did you have your hand raised? Yes. Okay, please go ahead. Yep, so I think it takes a minute for those logged in to the desktop version of Zoom to rejoin as a panelist, so this is in delay. So yeah, Kyle Marion, I live at 1608 Milan Street in Durham. My main reason for raising my hand was those similar timeline questions that you addressed, so appreciate that. The only other thing I would say is, well, from your meeting schedule, it sounds like y'all probably aren't dying for extra stuff to do on the outskirts of things, but we've spoken to a couple folks on the commission who have been great with offering time and stuff. If anyone is up for or willing to give any time or help or come see this parcel in person at some point, anything like that, I'll just say we would love and welcome any input and involvement here. All of us concerned neighbors and residents and everything, none of us are planners, none of us are developers, so we're doing our best to wrap our heads around everything and try to be a rational objective, but I think if there's any way we can get kind of that same input data that we have firsthand to get you guys to see that and process it as well and see what your take on it all is, I know that if we could just get to that point, it would help me feel a lot better about everything, so that's all, appreciate it. Thank you. Benjamin Whitehurst. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. I'm at 1326 Logan Street, Benjamin Whitehurst, and I co-own the property, and thanking Tim Syvers, he's been very good in communication. There's a couple of points I wanna make that I think are due now and not in two months, one being that the plans that I've been seeing for the redevelopment, and just acknowledging like as a neighbor, we know this land is going to be developed, it's prime land, it's high value, and we want to be working with you all to make this a good project instead of a big 100 acre disaster behind our homes. So that's one reason why so many of us are interested. On the one hand, along Woods, where we are is a very nice neighborhood, it's calm and quiet, and on the other side, we have an industrial park and scrap yards. So we're hoping that what goes between us and the scrap yards is something pleasant that makes it a beautiful neighborhood. So just saying that, but the traffic is one huge concern, Logan Street, which is along the edge of the proposed development, it's a very sleepy street. I can sit outside for an hour without a single car. And in the plans I'm seeing, Sheik Road is being opened with access points through Rachel Avenue, through Post Set, and it becomes a shortcut. Logan Street becomes a shortcut between Sheik and here, and with the school nearby on Sheik, the traffic often backs up, and I can just, I'm envisioning this neighborhood kind of becoming heavily trafficked, and their nearby roads are not wide enough to support the traffic flow. So the increase in densification that's being proposed have a lot of concerns about traffic flow. If you drive through the heart of Milan Woods, Milan Terrace, Post Set Avenue, you'll see that one car is parked on the side, that two cars can't even pass. So I really want to emphasize to Tim and those listening the importance of working with the traffic flow. Milan Terrace between Sheik and Gear also has potholes on either side. Two trucks can barely pass. It's a big issue. And I want to make sure that in two months when we return to this, this traffic issue is resolved. I would propose, I would vote against the densification because I don't think our roads with the current plan can handle it. So just saying that out loud and echoing the desires for affordable housing in Durham and echoing the desires for a sound environmental review of the wetlands that are behind our properties. That's my comment. So thank you. Thank you very much. So we've got three folks with their hands raised and what I'll just say, in case you join late, the applicant has asked for a continuance which we will allow anyone who would like to speak this evening to speak, the neighbors raised hands overwhelmingly urging the continuance. We will plan to make a motion and vote on that until our September meeting or one of our meetings in September. But if you would like to speak this evening during the public comment period, you can keep your hand raised. So I'm gonna call these final three individuals for their comments. And then we will move to the commissioner discussion and an emotion on a continuance. We've got Rod Potter whose hand just went down. But Rod, if you're looking to speak, Mark Babbit and then Patsy. Hello. Yes. Okay, this is Rodney Potter. And I just wanted to quickly request that if at all possible, and he wouldn't mind doing it, if we could please have Mr. Nate Baker assist us with this conservation theme. And of course, we would welcome any of the newbies that have just come on the board to join you so they can perhaps learn more about this concept of a conservation neighborhood. We would certainly welcome them. But anyway, I don't wanna take up a lot of time. Thank you very much. We appreciate your help and goodbye to Ms. Hyman. We're gonna miss her. Thank you. Appreciate that. I see only Patsy Woodard has a hand up. Ms. Woodard, you may speak. I do not see any other hands up except for Ms. Woodard. If you need to, you can hit star nine if you need to unmute yourself. Okay. Mr. Corley, we've heard already from you. And so then there's one other hand that's raised who's a 919-682 number. Hello. Yes. Hello, I am Catherine Goldner. I was registered to speak, but I just, I am from Melan Woods. I live at 1316 Logan Street. And my property backs onto this prospective property. I just want to add my voice to the folks who are concerned about this land being a wetlands. It is a wetland and we are concerned about runoff into our properties. And also I just want to say that you get advice from the Soil and Environment Consultants and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources and the Army Corps of Engineer. But my feeling is that those bodies tell you where you can build, but not where you should or shouldn't build. And I wish there was someone from a wildlife or an environmental group that was included when you do these, when you ask for these surveys and reports. And that's all. Thank you. Thank you. So I do not see anyone else who is asking to speak this evening. I recognize many of you signed up to speak, but we'll hold your comments until the revised plan is in front of us. And so at this point, we will move to the commissioners recognizing we're not going to close the public hearing, but we will wrap it up for this evening. Commissioners, if there are any particular comments, I am comfortable personally supporting a motion to move this to our September meeting. Mr. Chairman, I move that we move, we continue this case, the hearing in this case until the commission's regular scheduled meeting in September, which is currently scheduled for September 15. And I further move that the staff explore with the commission members as early as is convenient the scheduling of a second meeting of the commission during the month of September. And since September 15 is exactly the middle of a 30 day month, I suppose it's possible that the second meeting may actually come before September 15th. I certainly would not object to that. I also want to remind the commission members with regard to this is that it sounds like the developer intends to add a great many commitments. And based upon what we heard at our last meeting about the city council's concerns about the commitments being added late in the game, it sounds like even if we didn't continue this, it would probably be sent back to us by the council. So rather than put this in a loop that would be frustrating for all the people who care about the outcome in this case, let's go ahead and continue it to September 15. Thank you, do we have a second for the motion? Mr. Chair, I second the motion, Commissioner Morgan. Thank you. I see Commissioner Williams has her hand raised. I don't know if she wishes to speak to the motion before we vote. Commissioner Williams, if so, the floor is yours. Yes, I just wanted to say since there was a brief polling question prior to whether or not I would actually or us as commissioners would actually be willing to have a second meeting in September, I absolutely don't have any issues with that. So I don't know if there'll be another vote posed for that or another motion made to vote for that, but I want to go ahead and let you know that I'm not opposed to that. Thank you very much. We have a motion and a second. So we will have a roll call vote, please. So Commissioner El Turk. Yes. Commissioner Amondola. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Kenchin. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. Okay, passes unanimously, 12-0. The staff will be in touch with the commissions in the next few days about potential additional days for September. Thank you. And thank you all who joined us for this item this evening and we look forward to hearing from you as this moves forward. Our next case is Case Z19-00045. It's 1310 West, North Carolina, 54. And we will start with the staff report. Good evening. I'm Lake Stradage with the Planning Department. I will now be presenting Case Z19-00045 for 1310 West MC-54. The applicant is Dan Jewel. My next slide, please. The applicant is Dan Jewel of Coulter Jewel Thames, PA. The site is one 1.194 acre parcel located at 1310 West MC-54. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from residential suburban 20 to office institutional with a text-only development plan. This request does not include a graphic development plan. The proposed text commitment would limit uses to those identified in UDO section 5.2.5.J office. Next slide, please. On the aerial, the site is shown in red north of NC-54. Next slide, please. Site photos illustrate the current condition of the site and area photos on the next slide depict the mix of office, commercial and residential uses in the area. Next slide. This site is located in the suburban development tier and the Falls Jordan District B watershed protection overlay. The future land use map designation is currently office consistent with the proposed zoning designation. This text-only development plan proposes to commit to office uses. Text-only development plans can only include commitment specific to use. Next slide. The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use map designation of office and the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies, including those listed on the slide and further detail as provided in the staff report. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and staff is available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Struthers. We will open the public hearing. We have three individuals who are signed up to speak all our proponents. We have Dan Jewel, Neil Gauch and Ellen Vogel. And so we will, I'll leave it to you to let us know your plan to speak and then we will see if there's anyone else who would like to speak this evening. Hey, Chair Busby, this is Neil Gauch. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah, so I'll go ahead and present on behalf of the applicant, if that's all right. Absolutely, thank you. Sure, so good evening, Chair Busby, Vice Chair Kenshin, new Vice Chair Kenshin, my dad. And members of the Planning Commission, my name is Neil Gauch. I am an attorney at the Morningstar Law Group at 112 West Main Street, here in Durham. Also with me today is Mr. Dan Jewel of Culture Jewel Thames. We are representing the applicant for a fairly modest rezoning of just over one acre on Highway 54 near 751, as Emily explained. And thank you, Emily, for your presentation. This is for a text-only development plan rezoning, which would change the current residential zoning to an OI district that would allow only office uses. I think this case is a perfect example of where a text-only development plan is the most sensible approach. The property is less than one acre. So even at its highest intensity, the buildout would have minimal impacts on infrastructure. Per the UDO, maximum height is limited to 50 feet and building coverage is limited to not more than 60% of the site. When we looked at it with the parking requirements for office type uses, we estimated that the max intensity here would be about a 7,000 square foot office building of a single story and associated parking. And that's basically what we think is what could fit on this site. Additionally, there are no streams or wetlands on or near the property. So the environmental impacts also are minimal. We are proposing to rezone a property from a residential designation to an office use so no new students or anything like that are expected. Of course, with any new development proposal, traffic always is a consideration. Given the configuration of the intersection at this site, access to the site is going to be right in and right out. This greatly reduces the attractiveness of this parcel for some of the more intense type office uses, but a traffic study will be required at the site plan stage for any use which reaches the threshold for a TIA. In this way, the proposed text only development plan rezoning for this property provides a degree of certainty with respect to how this property can or will be developed. Moreover, this property is owned by a private individual and is zoned for single family residential. If you ever have been by this site, I think you would agree that single family residential simply is not the appropriate use for this property. Frankly, this parcel would be a challenging place to live. As the future land use map indicates, this area is much more suitable for an office type use, which is what we're requesting. I wanna thank you all for your time. I'll be brief, I can end it there. Dan and I are available to answer any questions you might have and we hope to have your support tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. Let me just ask if there's anyone else who is in attendance who would like to speak. And Mr. Groesch, I assume you're also speaking on behalf of not only Mr. Joule, but Ms. Vogel. I can't say that I'm speaking for Ms. Vogel. I would like to speak. This is Ellen Vogel. Please. I live at 5018 Dresden Drive in Durham, which is the little neighborhood behind the property they're talking about. I do agree that office is the best use of this property, but I am very concerned about the traffic flow. In reading the information on the website for the county planning, there were car count information. However, it didn't say when that was from and we've had car counts done a number of times over the past couple of years. So depending on the dates of that, it may or may not have included Falcon Bridge Animal Hospital, which was closed for 11 months and just reopened. It may or may not have included traffic from Rite Aid, which has been closed since Walgreens took over and it may or may not have included Jordan High School traffic. My big concern is not so much the number of cars, but how that intersection is configured. If you go by there, the most recent configuration we have has a very short right turn lane from Hope Valley Road onto Highway 54 towards this property. I have the great excitement about twice a day since I work at Falcon Bridge Animal Hospital of getting to do the U-turn around the median at that intersection. And since they have shortened that right turn, it can be very challenging some days. People come flying up Hope Valley Road. They do not have a right turn signal on. They're in a lane that can go straight and so you're having to play a guessing game. Should I go? Are they gonna stop for the light or are they gonna dodge into that right turn lane and turn right where I wanna make a U-turn? And it truly is an accident waiting to happen. So I think one of the things that should be considered along with developing that property, if not immediately, is to simply change that traffic light to one of the newer style lights like they now have at Renaissance and 751 where when there's a left turn arrow for 54 going on to Hope Valley Road, there is absolutely no right turn. Currently, the right turn has the right of way. And this is what's causing problems. And the way that that is configured, plus when you add in the fact that the crosswalk is after you actually make that right hand turn, it's a death trap right now. So I do wanna express that concern that that intersection be addressed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. If anyone else would like to speak during this item, you could press star nine to raise your hand and we will call on you. I see one other person has raised their hand 9198241308. Hi, my name's Erica. I actually managed the property right beside Falcon Bridge Animal Hospital. I just wanted to chime in on the last caller. I do agree with her about the light that is an accident waiting to happen. If we could get something installed right there that's a little more modern with another signal for turning, that would be a benefit. Thank you. And could you give us your full name and your address for the record? Yes, Erica Rudd. The address I work at is actually 5140 Copper Ridge driving to right there on that intersection. Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else who would like to speak on this item, you can press star nine to raise your hand. I'll give it one more moment. I don't see anyone else. So we will close the public hearing and commissioners questions and comments if you can raise your hands. I might be missing it or just literally raise your hand if there's anyone who wants to speak on this item. Mr. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you. I'll be short. I guess this is a comment for staff and the transportation. Is there any insight or feedback you can give us regarding the public comments regarding the transportation issue? Is there any plans to look into that? Have you looked into it or what can we learn tonight about this situation? Erling Thomas, transportation. So this section of NC54, NCDOT does have a TIP project that will make improvements through this section of the highway. They do have a website dedicated to that project if anyone wants to visit their website to view what those impacts will be. And I don't know the specifics of if they will be upgrading the particular signal that they're speaking about, but they do have a TIP project that will modify this corridor. Any additional questions, Commissioner Johnson? Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't gotten used to the change yet. So this is a place where the future land use map and the zoning on the ground don't match up very well. And there is a neighborhood laid out next to this parcel. As a matter of fact, this parcel is part of it, but most of the neighborhood is not developed and it's probably because of the stream that runs back there, but I'm not entirely sure because it's very difficult to get back there to see anything. This is a question for staff. If this development is approved and an office building consistent with the text commitment is built on the property, what would be the buffer requirement between this property that would have to go on this property to buffer it against the RS20 next door even though it's not developed? Thank you for your question. I just one moment, I will pull up that information for you. Best that I not guess. Yes, it's not a simple question. It's one I often ask, but I realize that there are alternative answers available. But this is a resident, non-residential use to a residential use. So the proposed zoning of OI, if we were to be adjacent to RS20, it would be a 0.4 opacity minimum and a 0.6 opacity. The 0.4 would be applicable if the adjacent property is not developed. Right, and what would be the buffer width and where would it have to lie? So let's see, in the suburban tier, the 0.4 opacity translates to 20 feet and the 0.6 translates to 30 feet. And the developer at site plan could choose among options which would include a wall or fence, a hedge or using the interactive buffer model, is that correct? Most likely they have opportunities to utilize modifications for that specific width and opacity, it's dependent on the specifics. I need to do a little bit of digging to confirm if they could use specifically the wall or fence in this location. All right, well, thank you very much and I'm not asking you to do that digging. And to my, I'm going to vote in favor of this. It is a place where I think this expansion of the commercial node is appropriate and office is appropriate because it represents a step down between the more intense commercial uses at the intersection with between that and the residential, which is highway 54. I also note that it's a pretty neat application of the still relatively new text only development plan. And so I would like to see more of these and I think it's perfect for a parcel of this size. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Baker. Yeah, I have one quick question for the applicant and that question is, you know, beyond what's required of you in the building code, what green building elements do you intend on using your development? This is Daniel. Can you all hear me? Commissioner Baker, I do not know. The building has not been designed yet. That's all. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. Commissioner Durkin. I also have a question for the applicant, a short question. Just given office use and COVID-19 pandemic, I was wondering if this was already tenanted or if you anticipate you might have to, if you would be tenanted out at a new office building, given more. Yeah, that's a really great question. So we do have an end user in mind. It is a company called spec on the job, which is something like a bookkeeping and staffing agency for blue collar jobs. And the office that we think can be built here would be suitable for that tenant. That tenant currently is in a lease position and they are looking to take, you know, own a building for their office space. So that ultimately is who we think the end user will be. So I guess I would say it is speculative zoning, but the end user is very much involved and is looking at it. So we do think it's tenanted. All right, thanks. Thank you. And Commissioner Altura, I'm sorry, I didn't see you earlier, but I picked up that you have your hand raised as well. That's okay. This is Akram Altura. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay. I just had a couple of questions for staff. So the main one is that you mentioned the TIP project. This is on in attachment six. And I guess you, Eileen, you mentioned it earlier. You say that it has some right of way impacts for the site. And then the next sentence is that you say that there is a need for a right of way dedication to accommodate this project, but because this is a tax only rezoning, the applicant is not able to make that proffer. So, I mean, in this case, I mean, can you say a little bit more about what you mean by there is a need for a right of way dedication to accommodate this project? I mean, does that mean that you recommend that it is made by this applicant or something else? Eileen Thomas, Transportation. So typically if this were a normal development plan, we could ask for a right of way dedication as allowed by the UDO to accommodate the project. At the time of site plan, we will still ask for that dedication, however they will have the ability to make a reservation as an option. But typically during this only we ask for dedication. Commissioner Alturk, any additional questions? Commissioner Alturk, we may have lost Commissioner Alturk. I'm gonna move to Commissioner Williams and we'll come back to Commissioner Alturk if he's able to join us. Commissioner Williams. Yeah, so I too have concerns about this development and having gained the information in terms of the spec on the job attempt agency. I know probably presently with COVID-19 being what it is traffic to this area may not be as great, but once things kinda bounce back, looking at the proposed site and having traveled this area extensively for a number of years, looking at how coming off Hope Valley, even at Garrett Road, you're basically going to bend that corner even with a right turn in or right turn out without some type of assistance traffic wise or traffic management. You're looking at a major guessing game coming out of this. And I know there are several other businesses in that particular area that I frequent. There's a grocery store in this area as well plus people traveling to and from the South Point area maybe navigating traffic coming off Highway 40 onto 54 traveling into Durham. This is a heavily popular area, excuse me. And I just have concerns about this development moving forward prior to knowing what type of traffic management and upgrades may be taking place. I don't have any issues with the development itself. I'm pretty sure it's an awesome plan, but I do have concerns about the type of business that is proposed to move into this area and is involved with the development of this particular site and what that's going to do to this area that's already, I guess you could say overwhelmed with the amount of traffic traveling in and out and the guessing game that will be played with trying to merge because essentially you will be creating a blind corner almost trying to merge into traffic coming out of this. So how, I guess I know there's still stages going to this and this is just a text amendment only and we're waiting for certain things to go into it, but is there anything possible that the developer or the client would be considering for the safety of the patrons of this site even though it's text only. And I know that that will possibly come with the development plan, but I would like to know more in terms of what considerations beyond that this is just a good site and it's better zoned than residential. I 100% agree with that aspect of it, but I still have safety concerns about the amount of traffic that will travel through this and its location to this potential intersection of Highway 54, 751 Hope Valley. Sorry, Mr. Goche, is it possible that you could speak to I guess traffic patterns within the site of how those will be addressed to possibly slow down traffic exiting or entering if that has at all been considered or is it kind of just on the table that you want to develop and whatever a TRP develops from there is what you'll go with. Yeah, so thank you for the question and insight, Commissioner Williams. Right now we're not a site plan stage. We have looked at, as I mentioned, what we think go there, but ultimately there's only one access to the site, direct access to the site and that's going to be on 54. And it will be right in, right out. So there's some limit, I mean, it's median divided. So it's not like someone can pretend to turn left there or whatever. It is right in, right out. And that obviously is meant to keep traffic moving in one direction, hopefully making it more efficient and safer. There is potential for there to be cross access. The adjacent business is the dry cleaner. And I don't know whether it has been developed in a way that would allow cross access, but that's potential. But even if that were there, you still have the access to this site from 54 would be part of the requirement. Ultimately though, the spec on the job is not like a high traffic use. I understand that any end office user could go there. So the fact that spec on the job is looking at it as it's next potential site doesn't necessarily have any bearing on your question, but naturally the safety of the people that are going to be renting at this site is going to be one of the top things on the minds of whoever is ultimately designing it. And we don't know ultimately what NCDOT is going to do here, but you are correct. This is a very busy intersection. In fact, I believe it is one of the busiest in the city of Durham. And that's a no small part because it is the confluence of 751 and 54 and Ho Valley. So you've got all that traffic funneling to around this intersection on any given day. So we're fully aware of that, but there is no other way to access this property other than 54. That's the only frontage that this property has. So one way or another, there will be an access point there. I think Dan Jewel also is on the line and may want to speak more to this. Dan, I'll use my phone and friend if that's on. And if you can respond just directly to Commissioner Williams question in the interest of time and protocol please. I will and Dan Jewel again and my answer will be very, very short. And it really is reinforcing what the transportation department is saying. And that is NCDOT has commissioned a very robust study to totally relook at this stretch of 54 and how to handle all of these traffic issues. We actually had several conversations with NCDOT before we submitted this application. For the time being though, because of DOT budget cuts that study has been put on hold, but we've been told that we'll start back up again when funding allows. And I know I've seen several of you at the public hearings that were held last year on the 54 widening. So hope is on the way with a major redo of 54, just cannot predict exactly when that will be just yet. Commissioner Williams, any additional comments or questions? No, not at all, thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Alturk, I believe your back, sorry, you got cut off. If you would have additional questions or comments, the floor is yours. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I just wanted to apologize for getting off the line. Again, this is Dr. Malterk, since I'm not on video. I just wanted to thank Eileen for her answer. And I also just wanted to note that under, in attachment six under number one, transportation impacts, there's a little more information here in the staff report, which I think is really helpful to give us some context. I just wanted to thank transportation for adding that. So thank you. Thank you. I don't see any other commissioners raising their hands. So at the appropriate time, which may be right now, I will entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chair, I move that in connection with case Z1900045 concerning the property of 1310 West NC 54, that the planning commission send this case forward to the Durham City Council with a favorable recommendation. We have a second. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Morgan. Thank you. I heard a move by Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Morgan, I believe I heard for the second and we'll have a roll call vote please. Yes, Commissioner Alturk. Yes. Commissioner Amondolia. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Vice Chair Kanchin. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. No. Okay, the motion passes 11-1. Thank you. We will move to the next case. It is Z1900051, the long beverage. Mr. Chair, before we do that, at the beginning of the meeting, you mentioned something with regard to excusing the absence of Commission Member Landfried. Is there action we need to take on that? Yes, and if you don't mind, I was actually gonna put that off until after this case, and then we'll be down to a smaller number of individuals, but we will, she is not able to join us, so we will make a motion for an excused absence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. We will move to the staff report for the long beverage case. Good evening, Emily Struthers again, now presenting Z1900051 for long beverage. The applicant is Andrew Porter of Culture Jewel Thames PA. This site is 3.12 acres, a portion of one parcel located at 1-0-5-0-0 World Trade Boulevard. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from industrial light with a development plan to industrial light, no development plan, which would allow for all uses in the industrial light district. On the aerial, the site is shown in red, east of Page Road. Site photos on the next slide illustrate the current condition of the site. And on the next slide, area photos depict industrial light, undeveloped residential and commercial uses in the area. This site is located in the suburban development tier adjacent to the Wake County line. Adjacent zones include industrial light and residential rural. And the next slide shows Wake County zoning. Within Wake County, the site is adjacent to office research and development and the industrial makes use zones. The future land use map designation is currently industrial, which is consistent with the proposed zoning designation. As no development plan is proposed with this request, the uses and dimensional standards of the proposed industrial light zoning designation would be applied for the UDO. The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use map designation of industrial. And the proposal is consistent with comprehensive plan policies, including those listed on this slide and further detail is provided in the staff report. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and staff is available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. We will move to the public hearing. We'll open the public hearing and we have three individuals signed up to speak on behalf. Patrick Biker, Dan Jewel and Andrew Porter. And no one is signed up to speak in opposition. I will let the three of you let us know how you would like to proceed with your presentation. I see Mr. Biker has his hand raised. Good evening, Chairman Busby. Can you hear me, sir? I can, thank you. Okay, I'll deliver some brief comments and then Dan, Andy and myself will be available for answering any questions that the commission may have. So if I could have maybe three minutes of your time, I think that'll give the background on this case and then we can open it up for questions. Thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you. Good evening, Chairman Busby, Vice Chair Kenshin, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Patrick Biker with Morningstar Law Group and I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm here to represent Long Beverage. Long Beverage is a Durham family business that has achieved great success over more than six decades. It's a remarkable story of perseverance, dedication and the Durham can-do spirit. Today, Long Beverage employs over 200 people and serves the entire triangle and the surrounding counties. Unfortunately, Rodney Long, the president of Long Beverage could not be here tonight due to a business obligation, but he does send his greetings as a Durham native. Dan Jewel and Andy Porter of Coulter Jewel Thames, who are working on this project with me, are also on the Zoom call this evening. The reason for our application before you tonight is to accommodate current parking needs and the future growth for the next generation at Long Beverage. For those of you who were on the Planning Commission back in February of 2018, we had a very similar zoning application for Long Beverage back then. Also requesting IL without a development plan for the southern portion of this parcel. The Planning Commissioners in February, 2018 recommended approval unanimously. The issue to be addressed in the zoning map change before you tonight was a limitation on parking that we agreed to about 15 years ago. At that time, we really had no idea how much Long Beverage would grow by 2020, but we have very strong projected growth from now until at least 2025 or 2030. Accordingly, the flat field at the southeast corner of Page Road and World Trade Boulevard needs to be paved for additional employee parking and we have a site plan under review to do just that. This rezoning will allow the success story of Long Beverage to continue, creating good paying jobs for young people in the years ahead. However, I do wanna stress that the future growth at Long Beverage will not generate any significant peak hour traffic on Page Road. Long Beverage's employees arrive mostly between 4.30 a.m. and 5.30 a.m. and then finish their work by mid-afternoon. Therefore, any peak hour traffic conditions along Page Road will not be affected by Long Beverage. For all these reasons, we respectfully request your support of this proposal and our team will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you, Mr. Biker. There's no one else signed up to speak. If you would like to speak, if you can virtually raise your hand, you can press star nine and we will recognize you. So no one else has indicated their interest in speaking on this item, so we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, if you can let me know if you would like to speak or ask questions. I do not see anyone looking to speak. If not, I will entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chair, in connection with case Z1900051, the Long Beverage property over on the eastern side of the county, I move that the planning commission send this case forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. And staff, this is a city council case. County commissioners. I send it forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Thank you. Second, Senator Johnson. Are we moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and we'll have a roll call vote, please. Yes, sorry, Commissioner Miller, I couldn't unmute fast enough. Patrick Biker beat me to it. So Commissioner Al-Turk. Yes. Commissioner Amondoya. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Commissioner, Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Vice Chair Kynchon. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. Okay. Unanimous. Thank you. Before we move to the final item on the agenda, Commissioner Miller, this would be a good time to make a motion for an unexcused absence, giving an excuse absence to Commissioner Landfrey for this evening. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I move that we grant an excused absence to Commission Member Landfrey for this meeting. And the second, please. All second. Thank you, Commissioner Morgan. All over, we'll call vote, please. Okay. Commissioner Al-Turk. Yeah. Commissioner Amidolia. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Maybe we lost Commissioner Baker. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Vice Chair Kynchon. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes, and I note that Mr. Baker is returned. Okay. Commissioner Baker, this is to excuse Commissioner Landfrey. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Santiago. Yes, Commissioner Morgan. I'm sorry, Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. All right. Thank you. Passes 12-0. Thank you. So our final item this evening is the, it's case TC two lots of zeros. It's two zero zero zero zero zero three. And we will, this is the unified text development agreements to the text amendment to the UDO. And we'll start with a staff report. It's got to be better than my rollout. Thank you, Chair Busby. Thank you, Michael Stock with the planning department. I'm here with Don O'Toole. Don, would you like to introduce yourself? Sure. Don O'Toole from the city attorney's office. Don and I will be co-presenting and Don will be driving the presentation slides. If I do anything more than talk, my computer blows up. So sorry, I won't be able to present my lovely mug. Before you tonight is a text amendment TC 20 zero zero zero three development agreements. And we wanted to give you, next slide, Don. Just general background about this. Don will definitely go into a lot of detail about this statutory allowances or requirements. We're talking about statutory development agreements. They are allowed per state statute and we have them listed there. We have 160 D dash 101 listed because that is the recent combination of both the 160 A statutes and the 153 A statutes. So there be city and county enabling legislation for planning and zoning. And as maybe some of you know or don't know, they were both recombined to 160 D. When we get it, we'll get into what the statutory requirements are for development agreements are, but they were prohibited until 2015. The UDO actually specifically prohibited them. And that was lifted back in 2016. 15, so they are allowed now by right per state statute. However, what prompted this text amendment request was a proposal was brought to the city. You'll actually find out a lot more about this at your next planning commission meeting in August. I forget which one, but it'll be one of them. That a developer is proposing market rate units and the construction of affordable housing units or the provision of land if such units cannot be provided. That proposal doesn't fit within the standard UDO affordable housing density bonus provisions and the statutory development agreement provides a potential pathway for that through approval of an ordinance and public hearing. It's just an additional regulatory tool that allows the cities and counties to basically go into a contract that could provide many community benefits as if it's agreeable to the city or to the county. It's ultimately up to the council or board of commissioners depending upon the zoning, the jurisdiction as to whether to exercise the tool. They can be proposed a development agreement, but it's a legislative decision and they can deny it. It's different from when we hear the term development agreements kind of bandied about for lots of other things. Most recently we've heard it about the old police station and those are development agreements, but they are more kind of responses to RFPs proposals and such. This is an opportunity for a municipality or a county to enter into a unique development proposal that zoning doesn't can't adequately address. And so that's a good overview. This is Don and I'll take it over now from Mike. We've labeled this next section statutory requirements. The bullet points include requirements as well as allowances. The first bullet point, and I think this is really important to emphasize is that any development agreement that if it's to come before the elected officials, whether it's the city or the county, it would require a newspaper notice and a public hearing is required. And so the public would be able to offer their input. The other thing that the statute requires for a statutory development agreement is that the public be able to see the agreement before the public hearing. And the city or county would need to notify the public where they could find a copy of the development agreement. And of course it would most likely be available on the city's website for those that have computer access. Development agreement of this type has to be approved by an ordinance, approved by either city council or the county commissioners. And it has to go through a similar procedure similar to the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance. The requirements continue. With regard to zoning, a development agreement can either substitute for an underlying zoning district, meaning the development agreement could lay out all of the zoning requirements for the property subject to a development agreement or the alternative is a development agreement could supplement or modify a base zoning district. And the particular development that is actually under consideration that's been the impetus of this proposed text change, that would fall into the latter category. It would have a base zoning district and the development agreement would only modify some of the applicable zoning requirements to that parcel. Things that can be agreed to in a development agreement are what the permitted uses are on the property, density, building type, intensity of development, placement of the structures on the parcels and also design. You can specify the design elements through a development agreement. Additionally, public facilities that will be offered have to be specified in a development agreement. So I know that you're probably aware that typically utility extension agreements for extension of city water and sewer is something that frequently is associated with an annexation or rezoning and that's something that council has to approve. Those kind of public facility arrangements would be incorporated into a, could be incorporated into a development agreement. Development agreements can also address the reservation or dedication of land on the parcels that would be used for public purposes. In addition, development agreements can go above and beyond things that can normally be required through zoning to protect environmentally sensitive resources. Additionally, additional requirements in the development agreement, there needs to be a schedule that lays out when the development will occur, when the city will fulfill its obligations, when the developer would fulfill its obligations. Development agreements get recorded in the register of deeds office. They can also address any other public health, safety and welfare concerns that may come up with a particular zoning development agreement proposal. Development agreements can also include terms that address how future amendments of the development agreement will occur. And generally, minor amendments can be agreed to in writing between the parties, but if it's a significant amendment, that's usually going to require that the amendment go back before the elected officials for approval. The other thing that I think is really important for the planning commission to know is if a development agreement is part of a rezoning for a property, it needs to go through all of the same procedures that a rezoning has to go through. And so for example, with this particular case that has instigated this text change, there is an associated rezoning. So this development agreement with the rezoning would come before the planning commission for you to weigh in and offer your comments and recommendations to the city council. The other thing is if there's a rezoning associated with the development agreement, the governing body has to adopt a consistency statement, just like any other kind of zoning case. Mike? So thank you, Don. So after city attorney's office and planning consulted, we put forward, we recognize that the UDO is, although the statutes are out there and it allows you to do a statutory development agreement with the UDO being silent on the issue, city attorney's office and planning department agreed that it would be prudent to put in some text about development agreements. The first would be just an affirmative statement on them. The second that just makes it transparent that UDO requirements could be altered through a development agreement, but they need to be specified within that agreement. It's just not going to be, they need to be specified within that document. And that planning felt that it was also prudent to kind of limit the extent of the development agreement authority and that to not allow changes of use or housing types that are different from the underlying zoning. So, if a property is owned RS 20 and it allows single family development, that a development agreement for apartments or an office building would not be allowed, there would need to be an accompanying rezoning with that to establish the base uses and or housing types that would be allowed. So Roy again focuses more on if there are going to be any modifications to UDO requirements, they are the technical modifications. We're taking changes of uses or housing types off the table. That's the extent of it at this point, unless Don has anything else to say and Don and I'll be happy to answer any questions. I don't have anything to add, Mike. Thank you both. We appreciate it. There is a public hearing as a part of this item. And so I will open the public hearing at one individual who did sign up to speak and there may be others. So Ms. Mimi Kessler, are you with us this evening, Ms. Kessler? Can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. My name's Mimi Kessler. I live at 1418 River and Drive. I can really see that the benefits of this idea, particularly with sort of the example of the development that has been proposed for the opening session. I guess that I'm not entirely sure what problem it solves other than I guess that some financing organizations somehow don't feel comfortable with the development agreement that such as there is for the old police station. Maybe a statement that the public would see the agreement before the public hearing. The document refers to the public hearing and so it sounds like there's one public hearing instead of the minimal series of public hearings where it's heard before the planning commission and then by the governing bodies. So it makes it sound like it's circumventing the public's input to the level that at least we have now. My concern about this is that I would like for the residents in Durham to have more input into developments and this sounds like before it would even be available for inspection, so to speak, by the public. So a lot of time would have gone into talking between the developer and the governing body and that it sounds like that we want to reward conversations that go on in the dark and what I would like is to have more light on that type of process. So I'm concerned about the public's ability to actively participate in what changes they want in their own area. I think that's basically what I want to say. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Kessler. We have two other individuals who have raised their hands to speak during the public comment period and then we can see if they're questions then for the staff coming out of the public hearing. We have the first is listed as call in user one. They have their hand raised and then Billy B. Yes, hello, I think I might be caller one. Chair Busby, this is Ellen Plus. Am I being heard? Yes. Yes, hello, thank you so much, Chair Busby and the members of the planning commission. I believe that I wrote an email to all of you discussing some concerns with this text agreement having just listened to Mr. Stock. This actually kind of reminds me of a case that you heard a number of months ago where there was a golfing business that sought to rewrite, I believe it was lighting standards throughout the entire county in order to accommodate their business plan. And yet again, here we are seeing one individual coming forward, but we're considering rewriting code in a big way in order to accommodate them. And I just kind of wanted to bring up that parallel or potential parallel. I am deeply concerned about changing the code in this manner. I think that by allowing for extra regulatory zoning agreement with developers, the city is creating a product or a service that highlights the divide that already exists between the narrowing land rights that Durham's citizens have and the expanding land right, excuse me, that developers have. Development agreements create an option for developers whereby the normal zoning rules don't have to apply. The rules can be tailored just for them. Meanwhile, the rest of Durham, its citizens and its neighborhood have to abide by the zoning code. Therefore, it appears that we may have a tool here that by design ensures a process that is inequitable and unequal. Creating a new tool that would circumvent zoning requirements rings some real alarm bells for me. It's kind of like making a knife. That tool could be useful in doing certain good works, but it could also do real harm. And it begs many questions. I would like to know why would we give special right and consideration to people whose primary motivation is profit? Staff states that the tool would be used for dynamic zoning, but I would argue that another word for dynamic zoning is chaotic zoning. Could a development agreement be used to circumvent environmental protection? Could it be used to bypass meaningful involvement and input from certain boards and commissions? Could it reduce the input of affected neighborhoods through the process, as Ms. Kessler was just stating, if they are only weighing in and perhaps that's happening later in the process, then is not their voice and effectiveness reduced? Due development agreements have a history of lawsuits due to things like arbitrariness or randomness in decision-making. Have there been suits involving illegal bargaining away? Have there been suits involving inconsistency with uniformity requirements? Or has there been a potential to lead to corruption? I think there are an awful lot of really serious questions. This could be a great tool, but I think that the Planning Commission really should move very slowly and with a really good magnifying glass on this. I know you all have been drowning in subcommittees lately, but this strikes me as precisely as type of thing that requires a great deal of study. For some reason, this was prohibited in our zoning code for a decade, and there's no real discussion here as to why those prohibitions were in place. And I would really like to learn more about this. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak. Thank you, Ms. Pless. And Billy Dee, and while we do that, if we can go back to our regular screen, if we can bring the presentation down, that would be helpful as well. But Billy Dee, in the meantime, please speak. Thank you. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, everyone. Hi, I actually, I intended to join the hearing for items earlier in the meeting that were of interest to me, but I received a phone call and an email about this particular item today. And I just wanted to share that I also just feel really unclear about the long-term effect of this particular item. I'll confess, I just read the documentation today and just am seeing the presentation now. But I don't understand what problem this particular item solves. And if it will have far-reaching effects, I think it's meaningful to take the time and ensure that community members who may be impacted by any changes in the UDO just be informed about what the potential negative effects could be. But I think why I'm calling is because I literally don't understand what this is. And if it is something with potential far-reaching effects as a community member who thinks a lot about development, yeah, I just want to understand better what this is and what impacts it could have and what it is trying to solve. Thank you so much. Thank you. I don't see anyone else from the public with their hand raised. I'll give it one more moment. There's no one else. So we'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Alturk, you have your hand raised. We'll start with you. Thank you, Chair Akramal Turk. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay, great. I just, I wanted to follow up on some of the comments that were made by the three attendees, which I thought were all very valid concerns and also I share some of those same concerns. I'll just ask a specific question to Don because Don, you said that if a development agreement is associated with a rezoning case, it would come to the Planning Commission. But if it was not associated with a rezoning case, am I correct to assume that it would not come to the Planning Commission? And if the answer to that question is no, that it does not come to the Planning Commission, could we not contemplate adding that into the UDO to make it come through the Planning Commission? Cause I do agree that I think it would be good for us to have more public hearings on something that seems maybe useful, maybe, but again, because it is so new and it is kind of vague, it's very clear, it's unclear to me what the impact would be. So I think it would just be better if there was more of a public engagement or the public engagement process was stronger. And I think just coming through the Planning Commission does that, so yeah, so that's a question for Don. Sure, Commissioner, when I was reviewing the statutory requirements, those were minimal, the minimum requirements. And I would agree with you, Commissioner, that if the statutory language is not completely clear, what is clear is if the development agreement is associated with the rezoning, then it does need to go through the procedure of going before the Planning Commission. And I would agree with you that if a development agreement was going to take the place of a zoning district, I think it would be in the city's interest to write that into the UDO. That's not the particular example before us today. And I sort of feel like there needs to be a little bit of example there. I think there's some confusion by the first caller when Mike made reference to the development agreement for the old police headquarters, we are not trying to undo the deal that's already been reached on the old police headquarters. That deal has gone through and there is a development agreement in place. I think what Mike was trying to say and maybe it wasn't completely clear is that development agreement has the same name, but that's not a statutory development agreement like we're talking about here. The other thing that some of the callers mentioned is that there would be less opportunity for input. I think probably the opposite is true. In the particular development that's being proposed, that developer community engagement was not required. They were not required to have community meetings, but they have voluntarily gone ahead and done community meetings. In addition, if the text amendment is approved and that rezoning and development moves forward, that would come before the planning commission and there would be a public hearing. The development agreement would be made available to the citizens. And I think an important thing that we didn't really wanna get into the specifics of that deal now, but the reason that that's of interest is it's a deal that doesn't fit with the UDO affordable housing density bonus, but it's a deal that might create 82 very affordable housing rental units in Southwest Durham, which is an area that sorely needs affordable housing. So that is a potential positive outcome. The other thing I'll add is, I think there are many planning commission members that are really interested in deep plan rezonings and think committed elements are a great way to get things from the development community. I would argue that a development agreement is a stronger, better tool to accomplish those things. And if there are environmental concerns on a property, that can be addressed in the development agreement. So I think maybe this is new and I understand that, but I think a development agreement is potentially a stronger tool for the city in getting development that the city wants to see done in the city of Durham. Mr. Oterka, this is- Can I follow up on that? You may. Thank you. So again, just to be clear, I mean, that was helpful, but I guess again, because I'm unclear of when developers will use this, if one is being proposed and a developer wants to use one, but they don't have to change the zoning designation, but they want to use this agreement, they do not have to go through the planning commission. Is that correct? If there's not a rezoning associated with it, it would not necessarily come through the planning commission. That's correct. Under the standard. The one thing I'll also add is, this is an agreement. So it's not like the developer gets to unilaterally say, I want a development agreement. Staff, city management, and ultimately city council would need to approve the agreement. So it's got to be an agreement that the city is interested in. It's not just something a developer can take advantage of unilaterally. Thank you. Thank you, Don. Thank you, Chair. That's all. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. So I'm against this. I was against it when it came up in the general assembly years ago when it was proposed by the Home Builders Association. I mean, I spent weeks one session working this out in a J committee. The whole point of this, quite frankly, is for somebody in the development community to make a deal with the city and avoid public review. And I disagree with Don that any case involving a development agreement would ever have to come to the planning commission because the statute on its face says that a development agreement can change the zoning ordinance, including the procedures that would send it to the planning commission. And I note that because that's what it says even today, that a development agreement could actually come up through the city and be adopted by ordinance, including the language that's in here and skip over the planning commission from the get go. We don't really need the change that we're putting in here. And the limitations that it proposes to put on development agreements in the future are meaningless because development agreements can change the rules. In fact, even the thing that we have in our UDO today that bans development agreements itself can be overridden with a development agreement. So I guess my opposition is mostly symbolic, but the point here is to cut the people out. As a matter of fact, this is being sold because there's a case in the works that's being negotiated between a developer and the city. And it's an unnamed case. We don't know where the property is. I mean, this is a perfect example of why development agreements are a bad idea. And this is what will happen in the practice if we encourage them. I mean, if we really wanted to involve the public in an examination of development agreements and whether they're desirable and Durham, we'd be actually identifying what this case is out there. And rather than talking about it in vague terms, Southwest Durham, 82 public housing units, I acknowledge that it could be a tool, although I'm not sanguine about it, where the city could enter into an agreement for affordable housing in a way that is not bound up in the limitations of the affordable housing density bonus. And that that agreement subsequently, if it was drawn correctly, would stand a reasonable chance of being upheld in court. So it has that virtue. But I believe the whole point of this is to avoid public scrutiny. There is nothing in the statute that says that if it proposes a zone change, that it has to come through the Planning Commission. I have read it over and over again. I just cannot find it. I would refer, excuse me, Donna. I'm scared too. Don, I'm speaking. Mr. Miller, the floor is yours. Commissioner Miller. Thank you. So even the statute doesn't set out a minimum notice requirement. We could have a development agreement that could be a very long term. And of course, what the Home Builders Association argued in the General Assembly years ago was great big projects that are gonna take years to develop need to be able to have certainty and proceed without being subject to subsequent rezoning. And that's why it's written so broad. I mean, you can essentially just ignore local zoning and create new rules that are specific to the project. Like a development plan without a development plan limitation because the development agreement would supplant the zoning ordinance and you could or you could work it into the zoning ordinance so that it would not only apply to this property but perhaps change the zoning for other properties as well. And that could be done with a development agreement and skip over the Planning Commission. Essentially what it does is it abdicates public responsibility for land use regulation and essentially hands it over at least for a period of time and under certain conditions to the developer for an identified parcel of land. It could become if we got kind of really handy with it it could become just an alternative way of proceeding and skipping over and around the usual involvement of the public in land use decisions. I just think it's a terrible idea but I acknowledge that a vote against this proposal is meaningless because the city in my opinion could create a development agreement right now under the authority given it by the statute and that a development agreement could have in it the procedures for the approval of the development agreement as long as there was a minimal public notice as provided by the statute and a public hearing in front of the city council or board of commissioners whoever the governmental entity that is entering into the agreement with the developer might be. And so recognizing that a vote against this is symbolic I'm gonna cast that symbolic vote no Durham needs to as all the speakers said Durham needs to have greater public engagement and we do not need to sanction, encourage a workaround. I think if you want to have agreements that promote affordable housing in a way that's different from the affordable housing density bonus the city can enter into agreements with developers like the one that they did or are doing with the filing company with in at the police headquarters there are other ways to create enforceable agreements with the private developers to have affordable housing that happens outside the affordable housing density bonus which is we know is not been a very effective tool. We've gotten along a long time without development agreements in Durham and I don't want to give the green I don't want to be part of a vote that gives the green light to them now. Again, I point to the fact that this change in the proposed change in the ordinance right now is stimulated by a project that's out there that nobody wants to talk about the specifics and I think that is going to be the pattern forever. And by the time that the city actually holds the public hearing about the development project this the city manager and the city staff and everybody will have had their hands on it and they will have all signed off on it will have probably gone to the JCCPC and all these other places. So that by the time the public is actually invited to see the development agreement and speak on it it will be all but signed and adopted. And that's we need public engagement at the front end of projects not as a box to check at the back end. So that's why I'm against it. Commissioner Baker. Yeah, I really like adding tools to the toolbox and I think that increasing the number of tools that we can use in the development process is really important. I find myself in strong agreement with the things that Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Alturk and some of the community members have said you know I really truly believe that a development agreement could be a useful tool and could be well used if used and if crafted and used in the right way. And so I'm not against development agreements per se but I share some of the concerns that have been shared by my fellow commissioners. I'm still unclear about what the problems are that we're trying to solve with this. So that's a question I wanna ask to staff actually if you could clarify for me what exactly and then I think this would be useful for everybody what are the problems that we're solving with the development agreement and either Mr. O'Toole or Mr. Stott can mention that. Mike are you gonna take that? I can begin and Don you're more than welcome to jump in after it. There is no intent to be obscure about the proposed development agreement that's come before us. We wanted to focus on the text amendment at hand and not have a public hearing on that development but what it is is there is a development proposal on the North on Farrington Road, north of NC 54 where there is a request to rezone residential property to a higher density residential district and part of that proposal is to provide affordable housing to get additional units and also with the potential if the units cannot be provided to provide land to the city. And that is probably there are probably a couple of things that I'm probably forgetting about it but the providing of land to the city in order to get a density bonus is not something that the UDO allows and it's not something that we found that we wanted to allow into the UDO to apply everywhere within the city and county. So we tried to figure out the planning director to Sarah's predecessor, our predecessor Pat and community development. We're looking, we're asking us to explore what regulatory means could there to at least provide this as an option to city council or whatever and we came upon development agreements. Yeah, Durham has no experience with development agreements. They've been prohibited for a decade or so and I can't specify why they were particularly prohibited within the UDO. I could speculate but I don't think that's gonna be helpful. And everything that Mr. Miller has raised concerns about are actually going to be addressed through this upcoming proposal. They have met with neighboring property owners and stakeholders. They are coming to the planning commission. It is part of their rezoning. In fact, I believe I haven't seen the final product but it's going to be a committed element as part of their development plan. So the concerns that are raised at least for this particular one, it's gonna follow the same path as a rezoning request. That's the easiest I can explain it. There have been a number of city partners involved with reviewing this document to city attorney's office. Community development is leading the project and I believe they'll, I hope they'll be at the hearing for this but they have been working directly with that applicant for the, and the city manager's administration has been very specific as to getting an understanding of what the city gets out of this. What are those community benefits beyond what a standard rezoning would allow? Including making sure that there was community outreach. So I think that the concerns that are raised are valid concerns because this is new. It is new to Durham. Chapel Hill does it with UNC. Raleigh, we talked to Raleigh and they've never done development agreements but they're interested and see how it goes in Durham. Kerry does development agreements. Wilmington has high point and we felt that it was Commissioner Miller's right. We could have moved forward with the development agreement and just let it go per state statute. But the planning department intends to treat development agreements in the same way and with notification as with rezonings, the same kind of notification even though the statute allows for less. The statute allows for less for rezonings and we do more than that. Statute allows less for text amendments and we do more. So we will be doing more with development agreements. I'm sorry, Court. Okay. So thank you very much, Michael. I appreciate that. And I'm glad that the developer, and my interesting is it sounds like he's voluntarily held meetings that's not necessarily part of the development agreement itself. And it also sounds like it won't necessarily go through. It also sounds like it won't necessarily go through the same process as a rezoning because it wouldn't necessarily need to go through the planning commission unless it's paired with a rezoning kind of like an annexation. Is that my understanding that right? The way the current statutes are laid out and Don can correct me. I believe that's the case. Our intent is to treat them the same process throughout. So there is no, we are in a time whether you wanna think the city or county is gonna try to go around public input. We are in a time that public input is one of the highest priorities in any kind of governmental action. When we talk to JCCPC about this back in June, they're very excited about this tool but they were under the same understanding that it would go through a similar process from my recollection. So if there are adjustments that planning commission feels they'd like to make additional language to shore up some sort of public input, we'd be glad to entertain that. There is absolutely no intent to skirt public input. Any, at all. Yeah, thank you for that, Michael and I believe you. And I think as it's currently being proposed to us, I'm not comfortable with the language but I think that I could become comfortable with the language. And I'm not sure of all of the ways that it would need to be changed but I do know that I would certainly become comfortable with the language or more likely to be so if it did follow a rezoning type process. So it did come to the planning commission even if it's not coupled with rezoning. And also, I'd be interested in seeing some limitations to what it could be applied to. As you described this being applied to allow for negotiation with the developer next month to provide affordable housing, obviously that's something that I would like to see. So I don't wanna limit that. But I think that there's some anxiety and I think it's well justified for all the other ways that this could be used. So I'll just, I'll leave it there that currently I'm not comfortable with where it is but I could certainly see some changes that would make me comfortable with it. We've got, thank you, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Durkin, Commissioner Alturk and then back to Commissioner Miller. My only comment was to see what Don's response was. I think you wanted to add some response to Commissioner Miller's comments. And if you had anything else to add to it, Michael just said. Thank you, Commissioner Durkin. The one thing that I did want to add was there was an outstanding question from Commissioner Baker about why development agreements hadn't been used previously. And I know that my predecessor in the city attorney's office was a strong believer that we could get whatever we needed from developers out of development plan rezonings. But I think if anyone who has read the charter authority that the city has for D plan rezonings should realize that that's actually a pretty limited tool and the development agreement statute allows additional tools. And like Mike said, with respect to this particular development, I think Mike sort of cut out when he was explaining what the potential deal was. The developer wanted to take advantage of the density bonus in the zoning ordinance. And then he is working with another developer who does affordable housing projects. And that developer is going to apply for affordable housing tax credits. And the hope is that with the land in hand, they would get the tax credits and then they would be able to build the 82 affordable units. But then the question that planning and our office had was, what if that doesn't happen? And the developer said, well, we would be willing to give the city the land so the city could develop the affordable housing itself. And the city's community development department was very interested in that option. So that's, there was no devious motive in bringing this forward. It was staff and the city attorney's office trying to think creatively of, how could we facilitate a deal like this that would give us relatively expensive land in Southwest Durham, where either the developer is going to build 82 affordable housing units or the city would have the option. So that was the sole reason we brought this forward. The one thing Commissioner Durkin that I did, I wanted the rest of the commissioners to know is I really disagree with Commissioner Miller's comments about notice required as far as development agreements being approved. And all I can tell you is that if commissioners are interested they should look at 160A 400.24. And the notice provisions are stated pretty clearly there to me. And I've explained to planning my understanding of those notice requirements. And that's exactly what planning is going to do. The other thing is I do think that 160 D, 160, I'm sorry, 160 D 400.24. And then 160 D-400.32 makes it clear that if the development agreement is moving forward with a rezoning, you have to go through all of the same procedures that the rezoning would have to go through. And that was the only point I wanted to make. Just to kind of circle back on that, my only comment on the language, and this is definitely a knit, is that it should be pursuant to and in accordance with the statute reference rather than you're just creating the right to have the development plan, but it needs to also comply. And then the terms, I do think that what you've mentioned is covered in there. I read it. Thank you. Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair, I'll come up again. I just wanted to follow up on the last thing that Michael Stock said to Commissioner Baker's question, which is that you're open to the idea of adding provisions that would make public engagement process stronger in this case. And I guess I wanted to ask, is there anything in the state statute that would prohibit Durham from saying that development agreements are okay, but that we need to go through a more rigorous, I guess, public engagement process? And that may only be going to the Planning Commission, whether it is a rezoning case or not. I mean, is there anything in there that would prohibit that? No. Okay. Right. So thank you. And I think, yeah, so as Commissioner Baker said, I don't think I have any problem with the tool itself. But as it is written now, I'm uncomfortable and I'll be voting no. And I would love to be able to work with staff. I mean, not me personally, I guess, but to be able to come up with some language that would make the public engagement process stronger. And again, that may just be something as simple as having the Planning Commission or maybe more notice time or things, something like, you know, there are a number of ways I think we can do that. I doesn't just have to be coming through the Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Miller and then Commissioner Williams. So Don, help me out. Where does it say that it has to go? Where does the statute say it has to go through the Planning Commission? I think the language is in 160D-400.32. And if you want to have that conversation offline, I'd be happy to have that. No, let's have it now. I just don't see it. I don't know that we have 160D in our packets. I think we just have 160A. It's renamed. It's just renamed. It's the same language as it's not. Yeah. So I'm looking at the development agreement adopted pursuant to this chapter shall not exempt the property owner or developer from compliance of the state building code or local housing codes that are not part of the local government's planning, zoning, or subdivision regulations. It's in Section B. And then when the government board approves the rezoning of any properties associated with it, agreement adopted. They have to plan the provision for 160A-383. Well, remind us what 383 says. Those are all the procedures that require rezonings to go to a planning commission. All right. So, but what I don't understand is when I read it, is it looks to me like a development agreement can rewrite the zoning without changing the zoning. In other words, from district to district, well, that's a rezoning and that would have to go to 383. But if we're just going to change the rules for the parcel and create entirely new rules, which you're allowed to do in a development agreement, then you only have to go to the city council or to the board of commissioners. And are you talking about a development agreement associated with a rezoning or a development agreement standing alone? The development agreement standing alone by statute may rewrite the code as to the parcel. And I think that's true, Commissioner Miller. And in this particular case, that's not what's being considered. I don't care about the particular case. I guess what I would say to you is a development agreement has to be approved as an ordinance like any text amendment. So if it's a development agreement that sort of establishes all of the zoning rules for a parcel and doesn't rely on a base zoning, it's going to be approved as a text amendment just like a revision to the UDO. I don't read it that way. I mean, a text amendment changes the zoning for everybody from the tip of the county to the bottom. But one that development agreement that just changes the rules for the parcel is not a text amendment. It could be a text amendment. It's authorized to be a text amendment, but it doesn't have to. It's the language is permissive. It says may. I'm just deeply uncomfortable with all of this. Now I could, as other commission members have supported, I believe that we can, although I would assert that it's symbolic because a development agreement can change all the rules. I think we ought, if we're going to do this, I think we ought to have rules at stake with greater specificity than the proposed ordinance. What Durham, how Durham is going to manage these agreements? And it'll say that all development agreements are going to go through the planning commission if they touch on or concern anything having to do with land use regulations governing the subject property. I mean, you could have a development agreement that is, in my opinion, strictly agreement between the city and the developer say for the provision of affordable housing that has nothing to do with the zoning and consequently everything on the project will comply with the existing zoning. But if it touches and concerns the zoning, if it changes it either through a rezoning or through a rewriting of the rules of zoning for the parcel, I would like to say that it's got to come through the same rezoning procedures that any other would. I would like for Durham to say, when this was originally adopted by the General Assembly, it was for great big projects. But ultimately what's written today is the project that's subject to a development agreement can be any size. So I would like to say that projects below a certain size are not fit subjects for development agreements. I would like for it to say that there's going to be a maximum term and so that we don't forever sign away the land use regulatory authority of the city of Durham with regard to any parcel. I would like for it to have a whole bunch of other safeguards. And I think we can build them in recognizing that a development agreement could probably just blow past them under the way the statute is written. But I would at least like to hand the public who might resist that development agreement. The argument saying is, as we as a matter of thoughtful public policymaking set up rules to contain what we perceive as perhaps the worst practices that could result from development agreements and that this development agreement proposes to blow past them. I want to hand the general public that argument when that case occurs, if it ever should. And so I would like to see something that lays out more specifically, at least procedurally, how Durham is going to treat these. And if that ordinance came in front of me, I could be very flexible in what we put in it, but at the very least, I want to make sure that we are not going to essentially use a development agreement to rezone a piece of property, to upset neighbors reasonable expectations from the protections that the zoning of neighboring property provides them and have them to be the last to know because it wound up in front of the city council without any of the usual hoops and jumps and steps that people have a right to expect. If we could stop this for a moment or delay it so that we could thoughtfully write some of those things in it, I would support that and then be very flexible in how we laid them out. Ultimately, I would vote for it, but right now I have to vote no for the very reasons that the members of the public who have spoken on this have stated. And I know that these members of the public, some of you are going to say, well, it's the same old people, but I also point out to you that these people who have through their own hard work and through no particular financial interest of their own have become knowledgeable observers and commenters on what we do. And I think they are to be applauded. I don't always agree with them, that they are watching their comments are thoughtful. We need more people in the public who operate at their level of knowledge so that we're not just case by case. And so when these three people speak, I listen because I believe they represent a pretty broad upwelling of thought. So at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to delay this one for 60 days too. Thank you. I did want to ask Michael Stock or Don O'Toole. I also would like to spend a little time working on this. I know sometimes we are asked to send something forward. It'll be worked on before it gets to the governing body. I'm not comfortable doing that. Can you walk us through your timeline so we have a sense of the situation from your perspective? Can we work on this? What do you believe you need, time-wise? So I'll answer from what I know, Chair Busby. And by the way, it's not our timeline. It is my understanding that the developer needs a lot of things in place by October because of some of the tax credit deadlines. And so there's a very tight schedule that we're following. And the other thing that I'd just like to add is, I think it would be really easy to add in the community engagement piece to the text amendment that's proposed. I also do not disagree at all that a specific provision that says any development agreement, statutory development agreement of this type should go to the Planning Commission. I don't see any issue with that. As far as some of the other things that Commissioner Miller talked about, like limitations on the duration, I guess what I would say is some of that, I think you need to leave that flexibility in the agreement. One of the things I pointed out is a development agreement needs to include a construction schedule. So the developer is gonna be required to follow a very specific schedule. And I do want you to know that the planners, the people in community development, the manager's office, our office, we do look out for the best interest of the city. And obviously with these additional guaranteed avenues of community input, if we hear that from the community, we can make those adjustments to the development agreement language. So I guess given the deadline that I understand for this project, it's my hope that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this. I don't know if it can be deferred a month and the developer can still make their schedule. But I do know that they sort of have this drop-dead deadline of October. They're hoping to get their rezoning and the development agreement considered by city council in October. That's their deadline. Thank you. That's helpful from my perspective. I know from my perspective as well, I know you the individuals on tonight's call have the community's best interests at heart. I think I hear Commissioner Miller and others and I feel the same way is I have concerns putting something forward knowing that there are transitions. You've already talked about the former planning director. So the personalities change. And so I think getting the language right is really important. So the intent is understood from case to case. Hearing the deadline though, I mean, I'm gonna, I would like to vote personally this evening. I will vote it down as currently drafted, but at the appropriate time, that's the motion I will be voting on. Commissioner Williams, you've been very patient. So I do wanna recognize you as well. Thank you very much, Chair Busby. From the time that this was presented, it sounded absolutely 100% like it was going to be beneficial. And the more we dug into it and we peel back the layers of it, I do not agree with this. I don't agree with the fact that we're trying to develop a tool that's going to be beneficial in the short term for a developer right now, but we'll have long-term impacts on every community across the city and County of Durham, regardless of who the developer is. And I think we've cut enough blank checks across this city to try to get something. And it sounds like as of right now, we're trying to act as a major developer right now and push this through so that a developer can do something that may potentially benefit the city. We can get the land or they can develop it. But once this project is done, then what? What is that impact? How does that impact as it is currently written? How does that affect the communities going forward? How does that affect those same governing bodies and the same people that live in the city and the County of Durham going forward? There are a lot of naked statements the way that this is currently written. And the impacts are unforeseeable. They may be well intended as stated before, but intent doesn't go but so far without any type of language backing. And I think that we have to back it. We have to be more aggressive with how we actually protect the way that we move forward. Because we've heard a lot case by case every month about people discussing and saying affordable housing without a clear definition of what affordable housing means to the majority of people that live in the city. And I think that we have to be aggressive in how we protect the way that we move forward. And it can't just be about this project. And whatever, whatever ordinances that we're using with whatever governing bodies or governing languages that we're using in order to say that this is okay. I think on the surface as just a general person that lives in Durham and I want to see responsible development, I think that it is a tool that can be useful, but I think that there are safeguards that need to be put in place in order to protect the way that we go forward. And it should not be, okay, well, this developer came in they had this agreement, they had this understanding it worked for them. So we can use this in around in order to produce and to get what we want. Because at the end of the day, as a planning commission, we only advise. We're not the final say so. So it doesn't matter a whole lot that we don't agree because of the agenda of the city council is to move forward with this so that they can obtain land or this type of agreement can be made without safeguards. Then this is going to be a major hurdle for community people like neighborhoods, community involvement, associations, neighborhood protection overlays that get shot down. This is going to be a major hurdle for them when they're trying to accomplish something major. And I think that we have to be aggressive in how we do this and we have to get the language right. I'm 100% okay with voting today and I'm 100% okay with voting now. Thank you. Commissioner Amondolia. Thank you, chair. I'll try and be brief. I agree with a lot of the comments said by my fellow commissioners tonight. I just, I want to start out by saying I think it's interesting to me that we are proposing a UDO development amendment to benefit a developer. I know there was a commission meeting recently where a private developer had brought forward a UDO development and many residents were not pleased with the fact that that was the way the system worked in Durham, that developers had prime access to UDO amendments. And I just wanted to state that is happening by proxy tonight. I recognize that there's a lot of potential for this project, but it sets an interesting precedent in my mind. And I think we have to do something. I'm not sure what it is. I would state first that as it stands, I will be voting out tonight. But because as I read it, development agreements can occur anyway as the statute stands. We need to do something to limit it, whether it is putting stronger language on permitting development agreements or proposing something different where we returned to where we were before 2015 and saying that we do not permit them. I'm not sure what is best there, but I think we have to do something to create some stronger language. And I think the community engagement piece is important on this and on the amendment itself. The fact that only three attendees spoke tonight that worries me a little bit. And I expected there to be more folks speaking because of such a significant change to the UDO. And I'll wrap up by just saying, it sounds like to me we were given one problem and answered a different one. It's not like the direct problem was to do with being able to swap land to the city if these tax credits didn't go through and we instead ramped it way up and kind of gave away the bank with a full-fledged development agreement. That's my take on it. But like I said, as a stands, I'll be voting no tonight. I'd be interested in the continuance with some stronger language. Thank you. Commissioner Miller, you have your hand raised to be recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Don. Don, in your response to my last question, I appreciate that. It was very helpful too. You said it would be easy to add that language that said that development agreements that mess with zoning have to come through the planning commission. At least that's what I thought I heard you say. And I agree with you. I think it probably would be easy to write that language if one had nothing else to do. And I realize that that is probably not the case with you. But, and I realized that we're now confronted with some timetable, even though we're not gonna call it a timetable, we were gonna call it a deadline of October 1 that is unfair to us because it's inside, nevermind. We are meeting every other week from now forever until further notice. If it is in fact easy to mess with this a little bit and build in at least that one safeguard between now and our next scheduled meeting, which is the 15th day of August, just 20 days from now, it seems to me we could get this to a place where I would probably vote for it. Recognizing that under my opinion, I think that this developer in the city could make a development agreement right now and just blow past what we currently have in the UDO because the development agreement can change the UDO. So I'm glad that that's not what people are proposing. So let's, if we could have language ready by the 25th, that we could vote on then so that it could get in front of the city council at one of its two meetings in September, but then we're back on board for an October 1 deadline and we have at least said something in favor of public engagement about city actions that alter amend or change the land use regulations as they apply to a particular parcel or across the board. Is that practical? And I'm talking to you, Don, because I know that you are probably working from home and all those things that are associated with that and Lord knows you may have litigation and all those other things that said, oh my God, I thought that I was done with this. So it's to you. Is that a practical way to proceed? So I would work with Mike Stock on this and I do view it as an easy addition. I think I would make the language even more simple, Commissioner Miller. I would just say any development agreement approved pursuant to the following statutes shall be referred to the planning commission for their comment, just like we normally do, shall be referred and their recommendation to city council. Yeah, that's what the way I would have written. It is something that described the scope of its applicability and then by cross-reference the procedure to be followed. And it could be one, perhaps two sentences. Of course, I would like to have a saying, we're not doing development agreements for properties that are four acres or smaller and we're not doing development agreements that are gonna be 10 years in duration, set some outside limits on those things. And I think what we can set those limits in a way that does not unreasonably crimp the potentiality for beneficial development agreements in the future. Let's face it, it's not that we've had this great onrush of them. Since this statute was written, which if I'm not mistaken was at least 20 years ago. And Mr. O'Toole, to Commissioner Miller's question on timing and I'll note we have meetings scheduled for August 11th and August 23rd. Oh, there you go. So we are meeting pretty nonstop. From a timing perspective, is Mr. Miller's question, is that feasible as well for us to see language that could come back in one of these next meetings and still move this process forward? Mike or Sarah, could you comment on that? Do you see any issue with that? I don't see, I was gonna agree with Don. It was pretty much gonna fall on my lap to write the language and then I was gonna send it to Don to make sure he liked it. So it's gonna be more my work than his. But unless Sarah says otherwise, I don't think it's a problem to get the language back to you in that short period of time. I don't know the mail out deadline for the 11th though. And I don't know how far in advance the planning commissioners would like to see that language, whether they wanna see it with that agenda packet that goes to them or are they okay seeing it the day before or something like that. So there's that turnaround time, but otherwise we could try to make it work if we can. From my perspective, Commissioner Miller, I wanna hear from you as well since you were the one asking the questions. I would just wanna make sure that whatever we see is also the public has time to review in advance as well. I don't need it in my packet. I just need it in the publicly available way that the public also knows it's there. All right, so it would be a continued public hearing. So we would not have to mail anything out. I agree, the earliest we can, I would love to see it when we post the agenda, which ideally is 10 days for that 11th meeting. That means that Don doesn't get to go to bed. Don and Michael don't get to go to bed tonight. They're gonna work on it immediately and have it for us tomorrow. That would be great. But I don't see a reason why we couldn't shoot for the 11th, knowing that we've got the 25th coming on right behind it. And I don't think that we're talking about changes that are so great by their nature that we are tricking the public into, by converting today's agenda item into an entirely different agenda item for a future meeting. And although I know neither Michael nor Don want to be in a drafting situation with me, if I, you know, hell, this is all I do. So if you wanted to send me something in advance to perhaps stop me from arguing, then I'm available for that too. In other words, I don't see a reason why we can't send some memos out in the meantime, saying this is what we're thinking about. What do you think? However, we have to be careful about doing that. And so far as we don't want to create a secret public meeting. I say, let's give it a shot. If we've got a developer out there who after working with the staff, and I don't know all the circumstances here and I don't want to say that I'm so smart, I know you could do it another way, because I'm not. If we've got a developer out there that's looking to build 82 affordable housing units using the affordable housing density bonus, but would like to have a development agreement in order to get some part of it accomplished and that they would like to have the city council vote on it by a certain date. And this is a rezoning that's in the works, right? Yeah. Then let's see what we can accomplish in August. I would like to vote for this. Rather than vote against it simply because it's lacking an easy fix that would make me happy. Thank you. Ms. Smith, I'm assuming you're about to give us some guidance on timing. I was just gonna offer this up for attorney O'Toole and for Mike Stock. We would like to have whatever they're working on pretty much completed and ready to be mailed out around the 29th of the month or posted with the agenda online about the same time. So even if it didn't get mailed out, we could put it online for public access there. I can work with Mr. Stock and Attorney O'Toole to make that happen if they're good with that. And that would get it back to the August 11th meeting, which would give them some time to also coordinate with my staff or the rest of us. And Mr. Stock is helping and assisting with that zoning case. So we need a little gap there in between so we can get that ready as well, okay? That's helpful. Don and Michael, does that work for you? That does give you more than just tonight, but we still appreciate you working hard on this. Sure. Oh yeah, that's no problem. And I just wanna clarify, the four things that I got from Commissioner Miller, public input, we wanna address public input, planning commission, consideration and recommendation, duration of agreements and some limitation on parcel size. Yeah, that's right. Those are the things that I threw out there. I will try hard not to come up with other things. But essentially the way I would write it is, is that any development agreement that changes the altars, amends, the zoning regulations for the property that is subject to the development agreement will come through the planning commission following the same procedures as a rezoning. I'm not sure I wanna say all development agreements because I believe it's possible to have a development agreement that doesn't have a damn thing to do with zoning. They're probably unlikely, but I wanna hold out the possibility that it could occur and not have us having to deal with a development agreement where everything is a community development deal. Great. The only thing that's not my bailing with me. This was Mike Stock with the planning department. I definitely don't think we have any problem with adding the language for public input and planning commission consideration. I think we're gonna have to have more internal discussion about what really is the worth, the value of limiting duration and actually even limiting parcel size. I think development agreements can have the potential of providing community benefits in a variety of different ways. And if it's, and if we set it at four acres, for example, as a minimum, but a three and a half acre site comes in and it's, gosh, this is really gonna, seems like a really positive thing for the community. Same thing, kind of like with PDRs, we had, their arbitrary numbers established with when you can establish a PDR and we slowly took those away because we realized that you could have creative solutions and creative developments and positive developments on one acre sites just as much as four or 10 or 20 or 40 acre sites. So I don't think that staff is gonna say no outright to the parcel size and the duration time. I think that warrants further thought. I think that we could definitely come up with good concise language along the lines that Mr. Miller is considering for the public input and planning commission consideration. Great, thank you. So Commissioner Miller, this is an appropriate time to make a motion to continue this case until the August 11th meeting if you would like. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I understand your meaning. With regard to TC200003 development agreements, I move that we continue this until the commission's August 11th meeting. Is that correct, Grace? Is that what you wanted to hear? Then that's my motion. That is correct. Seconded by Commissioner Williams and we'll have a roll call vote, please. Okay, Commissioner Alturk. Yes. Commissioner Amandalia. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Vice Chair Kenchin. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. Thank you. It passes unanimous. Thank you. And Michael and Don, thanks in advance for working on it and we look forward to seeing the updated version. Yes, thank you very, very much. Ms. Smith, anything else for this evening? That's it on the agenda. Yes, I'll be in touch in the next few business days to throw some meeting dates out there. I have to, when we meet, I have to reserve the council chambers even though we are not there in person because that's where all of our equipment is to do the broadcasting and such. So. Great. So just a reminder, August 11th, August 25th, we've got our regular September meeting and we'll be adding most likely an additional September meeting. So I'll be seeing you around staff. Thanks to all the staff. I know a lot of you put in a lot of time and we really appreciate it. This meeting is adjourned. Take care. Thank you. Good night. Night.