 we are live. Good morning and welcome to the April 27th Durham Board of Adjustment meeting. My name is Jacob Rogers. I am the chair of the board. I would like to start by acknowledging that we are conducting this meeting using a remote electronic platform as permitted by session law 2020-3. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body that is governed by the North Carolina General Statutes and the city's unified development ordinance. The board typically conducts evidentiary hearings on requests for variances and special use permits, among other requests. Today's meeting will proceed much like an in-person meeting of the board. On the screen, you'll see members of the Board of Adjustment, additionally planning staff and representatives from the city and county's attorneys offices are attending the remote meeting. Applicants, proponents and opponents were required to register in advance and are also attending the remote meeting. When a case is called for its hearing, speakers will be promoted within the platform so their video can be seen. The chair will swear in applicants and witnesses at the beginning of each case. Staff will present each case and applicants will then provide their evidence. Control of the presentation and screen sharing will remain with planning staff. Today's meeting is being broadcast live on the city's YouTube site and a link to this broadcast is on the website for the Board of Adjustment. Before we begin the evidentiary hearings on today's agenda, I'd like to provide some important information about the steps taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed in this platform. Each applicant on today's agenda was notified that this meeting would be a conducting using a remote electronic platform. During registration, every applicant on today's agenda consented to the board conducting the evidentiary hearing using this platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the hearing consent to the matter proceeding in this platform. If there is any objection to a matter proceeding in this remote platform, the case will be continued. Notice of today's meeting was provided by publishing notice in the newspaper mailed to property owners within 600 feet of the subject properties, posting a sign at the property and posting on the city's website. The newspaper website and mailed notices for today's meeting contained information how the public can access the remote meeting as it occurs. These notices also contained information about registration requirements for the meeting along with information about how to register. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation document or exhibit or other material that they wish to submit at the hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases as well as a copy of the city staff's presentations and documents were posted to the board of adjustment website as part of the agenda. No new documents will be submitted during today's meeting. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the Durham Superior Court. Anyone in the audience other than the applicant who wishes to receive a copy of the formal order issued by this board on a particular case must submit a written request for a copy of the order. I want to welcome everyone here and Madam Clerk would you like to call the roll? Sure. Jacob Rogers. Here. Chad Meadows. Here. Micah Jeter. Jeter. Here. Ian Kip. Here. Michael Retchless. Here. Tisha Waimour. Jessica Major. Michael Tarrant. Here. Natalie Bouchain. Here. All right. I'm sorry I was talking about that but I couldn't unmute myself. Jessica Major. Present. There we are. All right. We had a request for an excused absence by Tisha Waimour and this is something we'll need to vote on. So does anybody want to offer a motion for to excuse Tisha from today's meeting? Meadows. I'll offer a motion to excuse Tisha Waimour from today's meeting. Is there a second? Retchless second. Susan will you call everybody? Jacob Rogers. Yes. Chad Meadows. Yes. Micah Jeter. Yes. Ian Kip. Yes. Michael Retchless. Yes. Jessica Major. Yes. Michael Tarrant. Yes. Natalie Bouchain. Yes. All right. Motion carries unanimously. All right. And the next thing on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from the March 23rd meeting. I trust everybody's had a chance to review those but is there a motion to approve? A motion to approve the minutes and March meeting. All right. Do we have a second? Meadows. Second. Susan will you call everyone? Jacob Rogers. Yes. Chad Meadows. Yes. Micah Jeter. Yes. Ian Kip. Yes. Michael Retchless. Yes. Jessica Major. Yes. Michael Tarrant. Yes. Natalie Bouchain. Yes. All right. Motion carries unanimously. Would you like to call the first case Susan? Yes. Case B2000043. A request for minor special use permit for a government facility to be located within a residential zoning district. The subject site is located at 6919 Herndon Road. Zoned residential suburban and in the falls of the noose Jordan Lake protected area and in the suburban tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file and to verify the seating for this case it will be Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Jeter, Ms. Bouchain and Ms. Major. All right. Anyone who plans on giving testimony for this case will need to have your camera on to administer the oath real quick. We had a lot of, this is Chris Peterson playing in the apartment. We had a lot of people signed up but there's anyone else who is in the attendees group. Please raise your hands. I think we got everybody but okay. I'll show you everybody. Thanks Chris. All right. We'll need everyone's camera on. Who plans, who plans on giving testimony on this? If you don't plan on speaking then you don't have to. Michael Wedge, Todd Tingler, Mr. Tingler, are you there? Yes sir. I'm here. I do not plan on giving testimony today. Okay. Well, thank you so much. So if you are, if you do plan on giving testimony, if you'll raise your right hand you swear or affirm that the testimony you give today is the truth and nothing but the truth. I want to call on each one of you and you can say whether you do or not. Cheryl Summers? I do. Don, are you giving testimony? So, Chair Rogers, I'm here on behalf of the city. I'll be speaking for the city but not giving testimony. So I think as an attorney I don't need to be sworn in. That's my understanding. Okay. Floyd? McKissick? I do. Brian Eaton? I do. Tim Somerville? I do. Jimmy Edwards? I do. David Smith? I do. Michael Wedge? I won't be speaking. Okay. All right. And then also the next question is, do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I'm going to have to go through everyone again. Cheryl Summers? I do. Thank you. Floyd McKissick? I do. Brian Eaton? I do. Tim Somerville? I do. Jimmy Edwards? I do. David Smith? I do. All right. Eliza, do you have this one? Yes, I do. Adding to the ideas. Good. I'm going to share my screen and we can get started. Okay. Good morning everyone. Eliza Munro here representing the planning department. Planning staff request that the staff report on all materials submitted at the public hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections noted. Oh, noted. Thank you. Thank you. Staff would like to note before we get started that within the staff report at the time of the site plans in the middle there were some standing comments from the following departments, Public Works Engineering, Public Works Stormwater, the Planning Department in County Soil and Erosion Control. Since then those departments are still have not yet fully approved the project due to a personal time constraint given at the property and matters in which the applicant may speak forward to more. The applicant requested to be heard as soon as possible and is thus here before you all today even though the site plan is not substantially clear of comments. The waiver provided by the applicant and the owner that was located within your packets is a symbol of their acknowledgement that should the use permit be approved today and there are substantial to the information that was provided before you all then a new use permit will be required and they may have to come back before you all. So just wanted to clarify and give an update on those matters. So now I'm going to get started. Case B2000043 is a request for a minor special use permit to permit a government facility to be located in a residential zoning district. The applicant is the city of Durham General Services real estate division and the subject site is located at 6919 Herndon Road. The case area is highlighted in red on the screen. The subject site is zoned residential suburban 20 or RS 20 and is located within the suburban tier. It is also located within the Falls of Newst Jordan Lake Watershed Protection Overlay District or otherwise known as FJB. As noted here in the aerial you'll see that the site is currently vacant. There is quite a bit of foliage there but there are not any structures located on site. Stewart engineering who's the acting agent for the Durham County Department of General Services is requesting a minor special use permit to allow a government facility in this case a fire and EMS station number 18 to be located within a residential zoning district on which the approval of a minor special use permit by you all the board of adjustment. The use the subject to the limit use standards listed in UDO section 5.3.3F and the proposed development of the site meets the limit use standards. As I mentioned a little bit earlier the subject site is located within the FJB Watershed Overlay Protection District and has additional development limitations that further protect the environmental features on the site. The proposed development has an impervious surface area of 50.8% of the total site area which if you aren't too familiar with reading a site plan that information is commonly found here in the site data table but where the per UDO section 8.7.2B the site is permitted to have 24% of impervious surface area as the low density option for the impervious surface limit and where a development proposes intensity greater than that 24% which in this case 50.8% is being proposed. Then the engineered stormwater controls shall be used to control stormwater runoff from the first inch of rainfall in order to meet those water quality concerns. The UDO section 3.9.8A and B established four findings and 13 review factors that the applicant must meet in order for the Board to grant the use of the grant A use permit. These findings and review factors are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to these findings and review factors are identified in the application both of which are within your packet. There are a couple of attachments that were provided by the applicant after the case was originally advertised and those were a couple of renderings. Staff did send out an email to the Board notifying that there were some additional attachments to look at but those are also available within this packet and presentation as well. And staff is available for any questions throughout the hearing process. I do see a couple of hands, Mr. Chair. Not sure if you're able to see them as well. So they do see. Okay. Well, I do see hands but for any questions from Board members for Eliza looks like Chad, do you have one? I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And good morning, Eliza. I had a question about review factor H on page four. Just a bit of clarification. Is the tree coverage requirement for this site 15% or 14% and where is this project with respect to that standard? Thank you, Mr. Meadows. So the tree coverage for this site, excuse me, I give me one second. I might have to exit out of share screen so I can pull up the ordinance if that's okay with everybody. Sure. Yeah, the note that the staff report says 15% is required and they're providing 14%. So I just had a question about that. Whether or not their meeting get the most. Yeah, the staff report says they're required to provide 15 and they're in compliance and providing 14. So I'm just curious about that. Gotcha. My apologies. So when the staff report was originally done, they were in their second site plan review. There is a, they've now resubmitted as of the 15th of this month and that new resubmiddle is the plan that is available on this, it within the packet is the most updated site plan and that plan is in compliance with the tree coverage. They are providing 15%. Okay. And one more question. If you wouldn't mind on page eight, I'm sorry, page six review factor J, you had indicated under compatibility, I'm sorry, not compatibility. I guess it's called effect on adjacent property. There was a note in here that says staff does have concerns about the effect of these vehicles and the overall use on the adjacent residential properties as it relates to noise outside of standard operating hours. Have you talked with the applicant about that? And this is a note for the applicant. Applicant, please talk about that issue. Staff, have you had any just further discussion about that issue with them? Yes, Eliza and our staff speaking here, we spoke about this in the beginning for resubmiddle and then Tim and I have spoken over time. There really is not a commonly with uses within our noise ordinance. You'll notice that there are certain times and with like a football game or something of that sort, you can easily control the amount of noise. With a fire EMS station, there is no telling in which these individuals might receive a phone call and therefore would have to provide that service. So the conclusion that Tim and I talked about in the very beginning is that there really is not a way to meet the current noise ordinance standards just because there is no telling when an emergency might happen and these individuals will have to respond. And Tim might have a little bit or I'm sorry, Tim or Brian or someone from the city of Durham fire department might have more information about any practices they may use at other facilities. But that was kind of the concern that staff had there is that the standard operating hours that we see for most businesses or sporting events that the noise ordinance the city puts in place, they're able to meet them the nature of this type of work. They may not be able to meet them given that they have to respond to emergency at different times. Thank you. I'll ask the applicant. Thank you. Any other questions for Eliza before we hear from the applicant? I have a question. This may be for the applicant. Where is the current closest firehouse? That I am not aware of. I might ask Mr. Ian or Mr. Smith to chime in about where the closest one is in relation to this site. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for Eliza? I'll just comment Ian. I think the closest site is Parkwood and I had a question about why they're closing that location when it could serve the area for which this new station is proposed. When we hear from the applicant, well, hopefully they can answer that. Thank you. Answer that. All right. Any other questions? None? Let's let the applicant come forward. Who would that be? Here, Rogers, this is Donald Tull. I'd sort of like to introduce our case. Please move forward. Very good. Board, it's great to be with you again. I guess it's been a month or so. My name is Don O'Toole. I'm with the Durham City Attorney's Office here on behalf of the city, which is the applicant on this request. I've been working with both the city's General Services Department and if you're not familiar with that department, that department handles real estate matters for the city. Both Todd Tingler with that department and David Fleischer have been assisting with this application. In addition, we've been working with the city's fire department and then the city has retained outside design professionals that you'll hear from today, including an architectural firm that's worked on the design of the building. Just so the board knows, this is a minor special use permit application for a joint facility. It will house both fire personnel and county EMS. There will be county EMS station in this facility as well. The city and county would like to construct and operate this combined fire station and EMS station and it will be number 18 at 6919 Herndon Road. The location is southwest of the streets of South Point Mall. Under a joint operating agreement between the city and the county, a county EMS unit and city firefighters will both be housed at this location. As the staff report indicates, station 18 is located in the suburban tier where most of the city's population growth is expected to occur. So I think it's natural to presume that these kinds of services would be where you expect population to grow. Fire and EMS services are obviously necessary in close proximity to where people live in order to keep emergency response times to a minimum. Assistant Chief Eaton with the Durham Fire Department will provide additional information regarding the need for station 18 at this location. To demonstrate that we meet the UDO requirements, I have asked four separate individuals to provide testimony that the proposed applications meets both the general findings and the review factors applicable to this case. And those findings and review factors begin on page two of your staff report. You will hear from Tim Somerville. He's a civil engineer with Stuart Engineering who worked on the site design. You'll also hear from Jimmy Edwards, who's an architect with Davis Kane Architects. And I think listening to Mr. Edwards' testimony will demonstrate the sensitivity they tried to demonstrate in designing this building. Third, you'll hear from Assistant Chief Eaton and he will explain the city's fire station siting requirements and the response time standards for fire stations within the city of Durham. And lastly, you'll hear from certified real estate appraiser David Smith who will provide expert testimony and demonstrate that station 18 will not be substantially injurious to the value of properties in the vicinity of station 18. And with that, I'll turn it over to Tim Somerville. Yep, thanks Don. As you mentioned, I'm Tim Somerville with Stuart, civil engineer and I've been working on this project from the site design and layout. I've been working in land planning for the past 17 years and have been a licensed engineer in the state of North Carolina for the past 10 years. I would like to ask at this time that our application and all supporting documents be entered into the permanent record. And there are a few items based on some feedback I heard in the staff report and from planning's presentation that I'd like to go over before I pass over to Jimmy to talk about the building architecture. As we've mentioned in the staff report, the site is located in a Jordan Lake drainage basin and it's also in a watershed protection overlay which has limits on the amount of a pervious surface allowed on site. In order to meet the requirements of this drainage basin overlay, we are proposing a stormwater wet pond that will capture all of the runoff generated from the site and we'll treat it for total suspended solids. The pond will also provide peak flow mitigation to prevent any downstream flooding that could be generated from this new fire station. In regards to this site design and buffers, we looked at this with the sensitivity that this is being located in a residentially zoned area and is adjacent to residential properties. There is very little existing tree coverage on site and we've gone to great lengths to preserve those as to the furthest extent practical. They're mostly located along the southern and eastern property lines. We also, in order to supplement what trees are lacking on site, we're proposing some tree replacement areas. These areas do require larger caliper trees at the time of installation than your typical buffer planting would. So we combined all of these landscaping requirements, including tree save, tree replacement, as well as larger required buffers into one area around the property boundary in order to maximize screening and impacts of the adjacent property. I would like to clarify too the comment that was made about tree coverage, tree replacement. The site had non-residential developments in the suburb materials required to provide 10% tree save area. Due to the lack of trees that are on site, we couldn't get 10% of the trees because there just isn't 10% of that area there. The UDO then says that if you're at at least 6% tree coverage area, but less than eight, your requirement then is 14% of combination of tree save and tree replacement. So we are at 14 points to one, I believe, of a combination of tree save area and tree replacement area. So that's to clarify that question. And a clarification on the site status of the site plan as well. We are in final review. There are a few outstanding comments from Stormwater and Engineering. We have met and discussed those comments with them. We don't feel that they would have any impact on the overall site plan and it's in their final review. It should be approved here shortly, which is why we decided we felt comfortable coming before you today. So with that, I'll pass it over to Jimmy to let him go over the building architecture. Well, first, Tim, I think Chad, do you have a question for Tim? I do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One quick question, Tim. Thanks for the presentation. I noticed that the property that I guess is to the north is a recreation space or something like that. It appears to be a recreation space for one of the neighborhoods. I noticed that a portion of the property line that's shared with that recreation space includes a wall. Is there any sort of fencing or any other stuff that would keep a kid's ball or dogs from coming across into the site? Is there anything like that? There is nothing proposed with our project. The wall was more to screen the building from the adjacent property rather than provide any type of buffer like that. I will say that on the adjacent property, they have a pretty substantial line of evergreen trees and a berm that could potentially prevent balls and people coming over. So there will be a pretty substantial buffer of what we're providing and what's already existing between the properties. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Tim, I'm not sure who you will call on after you, but I'll let you. Jimmy Edwards, yeah. Good morning, everyone. Jimmy Edwards with Davis Kane Architects. I'm a registered architect in North Carolina. I have 19 years of experience and I practice with a focus on public safety facilities. When we design new fire stations like this, we keep two key factors in mind. One, making sure it looks like a fire station for those seeking service while folding the appearance of the facility into the surrounding residential vernacular. We do that through the use of brick throughout the entire facade, keeping eave heights as low as possible to mimic the surrounding residential houses and then standing, seeing metal roof on gable roofs, having the appearance of a residential-type facility. But we also are looking at response, and that which is the most important part of a fire station. So designing the station to focus the fire apparatus, travel and associated siren noise towards Herndon Road in this particular case to prevent vehicular collisions at the road as the fire trucks exit, and then the building being linear in design aligned with Herndon. We're also using the building and the design to keep the noise from going over the station into the surrounding residential in the rear and off to the side. So we kind of use the design to sort of block the sound of the sirens. So it's focused directly on the road in front of them. Any questions for Mr. Edwards? All right. Oh, Mr. Mike. How you doing? Mr. Edwards, hi, it's Mike Rutulis. Are you proposing any kind of warning signal or anything like that that would identify an emergency vehicle pulling out? We do not have that in the design. We evaluated that early on in the design process and looked at the way the major intersections of the road. And the closest one we came to was the traffic circle. That was a little further down. But it's a pretty linear road. So we weren't too concerned with line of sight as the fire apparatus exited onto Herringwood. Thank you, sir. Ms. Summers, once the applicant is done with their testimony, we'll bring on over to the opponents and you'll be able to ask some questions and they can respond to those at that time. I just want to... Sorry, this is Tim with Stuart. I just want to clarify, we are going to be providing an advanced warning sign, WB 11-8, as required by the NCDLT on both sides as you approach the station. They won't be electronic or activated, but there will be warning signs provided. Is that a noise siren or just light? It's just a sign. It's the standard road sign that says fire station ahead. Okay. Gotcha. Thanks. Don or Tim, do you have anyone else? Is Assistant Chief Brian Eaton on the call? He is. Yes, sir. Good morning, everybody. My name is Brian Eaton. I'm an Assistant Chief with the City of Durham Fire Department. I've been there for 22 years now and I'm in charge of the fire station's maintenance of our fire apparatus and our annual budgeting. I just wanted to let you know that, obviously, we are in support of this project and to answer a couple of the questions, you know, the City of Durham and especially the Fire Department endeavors to be good neighbors. So when it comes to siren noise and the like, you know, we try to be judicious as we can about using that to try to keep noise down. We, you know, also, you know, want to abide by the growth in that area. And that's one of the reasons that we would like to put that facility here. But after that introduction, if there's any other questions, I'll be happy to entertain them. Mr. Eaton, Chad. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Eaton. I appreciate that. I was hoping that you could and I apologize for my ignorance on the law. Obviously, you know, it seems that perhaps the residents are most concerned about the prevalence of siren noise as trucks exit the building and pull out onto Herndon Road to answer calls and so forth. Would you talk a little bit more about the rules with respect to when that siren needs to be turned on and when that siren can be turned off so that I have a better sense about, you know, are these folks going to be hearing every siren from every truck that comes out of the building or is there a way for you to not turn those on until you're farther down the street? How does, what is the law with respect to that issue and practice too, please, sir? Thank you. Sure, absolutely. So the law is anytime that we have emergency lights. So other than headlights, our red lights are flashing or police car blue lights. Any of those, any of those lights that are flashing, whenever those are on and the vehicles moving that you're supposed to be responding, what's called Code 3, that means that you have the audible sirens plus the warning lights. So when we receive a call, it being that we're in near residential area by law, we're required to use the siren. However, when we are responding out, typically what we do in practice is once we get, you know, 100 yards, 200, 300 yards away, then activate our lights and sirens to try to be respective of the neighbors and the residents depending on the call type and depending on the time of the morning. So this time of day, 9 o'clock in the morning, you know, more people are typically up and about. And so versus at three in the morning, where, you know, typically everyone's asleep. So we try to take that into account as we're responding. The noise complaints, if you will, are something that we have very few complaints of. Fire station 8 off of Wick Creek lane is sort of right inside or just on the outskirts of a residential area, very similar to this location. And we never receive any noise complaints in those locations. And we have a few stations that are in that type of scenario. And that's just something that we just don't have a lot of experience fielding complaints. Thanks. One more quick follow up of the examples that you've cited today, the other stations where you haven't had complaints, are those stations ones that also have consolidated EMS and fire or are those stations primarily just one or the other? So station 8 that I just mentioned does not have, is not co-located with EMS. However, our newest station, which is fire station 17 on Leesville Road, it's a little bit farther outside of a residential area, but it is co-located with EMS. And we have also not experienced noise complaints, especially from there are a few homeowners that are directly across the street. And that is not something that we have experienced as of yet. And that station has been in service for a little over two years now. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Eaton from board members? Mr. Eaton, I do have one. It's not completely directly related, but this board approved a minor special use permit for the Leesville and Dock-Nickels Road station probably four years ago or so. And that's, I would say, a pretty dense area now. You know, talking about the sound and everything, would the operations be somewhat similar? And the reason why I'm asking this is because that's a newer facility. And I imagine that your operations would be similar in this facility that you're proposing. Have there been any complaints or have you heard anything? What's noise like in that area? I'm guessing I'm assuming the operations would be very similar as in that area. It would be very similar to that location. And we, it's just not something that we've really experienced and complaints of noise. I think early on is what we've experienced is people think that they're going to be awakened every night by just constant sirens going by. And it just turns out to not really be the case. There are instances where we have a heavier call load than normal. That does happen on occasion, but it's a fairly rare events. And we are confident that we will not be, you know, waking people up in the middle of the night or causing people under stress by the occasional siren that's going up and down the street. Thank you, sir. All right. Don, I want to turn it back over to you. Thanks, Chair. Mr. Smith, are you available to speak? I am. Good morning, everybody. My name is David Smith. I'm a state certified general real estate appraisal. I also hold the MAI in the SRA designation of the appraisal institute, the most highly regarded designation that they have. I was asked to determine if the proposed fire station will be in harmony with the area and not substantially injure us to property base in the area. I believe you all have a copy of my report. I visited the site of the proposed station on Herndon Road. I also inspected those properties in the immediate area of the proposed station. To determine the effect of the proposed station, I used a technique known as the match pairs analysis. And this analysis properties that are similar, in most respects, are compared so you can find the effect of one particular characteristic. To determine the effect of the proposed fire station, I use sales of houses that were near an existing fire station. I located properties that were in the immediate vicinity of fire station 14 on Umstead Road, one of them actually backed up to the fire station. I then adjusted all of these properties, much like the appraisers do and we're valuing properties for mortgages to for any differences, any significant differences in the properties. The resulting average per square foot prices, selling prices of those in the immediate vicinity of the fire station were actually a little bit higher than one's properties that were away. I also analyzed properties that were away from a fire station. So there was really no significant difference. Since there was no significant difference in that fire station, I felt that this fire station would also not have an adverse effect. If you have any questions, you have my report. Generally, when people buy property, there's so many factors that enter into it and something like the fire station being closed by is really pretty far down the list. You know, they care about schools, they care about how far it is from work, things like that. So my dad has shown that there's no really adverse effect for being near a fire station. And again, I'll be glad to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Any questions for the appraiser? Mr. Smith. All right. Turning back to you, Don. Thanks. Chair Rogers, I would like to tender all four of the people who spoke on behalf of the city's application as experts. I think clearly Mr. Somerville is an expert civil engineer. Mr. Edwards is an expert architect. Chief Eaton is an expert in fire-related matters. And Mr. Smith is clearly an expert appraiser. So I would like to tender them as experts at this time. All right. So noted. Thank you. Very good. And again, as we've done already, all four of our witnesses are here to answer any questions you may have. You know, I think if you think about some of the fire stations that we have here in the city of Durham, fire station one is located downtown and there's significant residential right around that. There's a fire station right on 9th Street. And as we all know, that neighborhood is an incredibly popular neighborhood to live in. Fire station 17 has already been referenced. That's a joint fire EMS station about two years old. The residents in that area were desperate to have that fire station located there. And as Assistant Chief Eaton has indicated, there have been no complaints. I think our fire department are clearly good professionals and will do their best to keep noise to a minimum while at the same time keeping the traveling public and the nearby residents safe. Because of the information evidence that we put on this morning, I believe the city has clearly met the general findings and review factors. And we ask that you approve this minor special use permit to improve the safety of the residents in that area of the city. Thank you, Mr. O'Toole. Any questions for the applicant or any witnesses before we move on? Just want to make sure everyone has an opportunity. I just had a quick question about the timeliness. It was referenced before that they just needed to get through right away. So I just wanted to understand why. And so that's my question. I will allow the applicant to speak towards why the request was to be heard now. But in terms of what happens with regards to site plans, a site plan typically has to be substantially clear before it can be placed on the hearing. So therefore, this one Tim alluded to earlier that they're believing that this current review is their final review. But we would have waited for, standardly, we would have waited for it to be done, the final review had been finished. This just allowed the waiver was submitted in order to allow them to go now while that final review is wrapping up. I don't know if it will be the final review. I do have to make that disclaimer. There may be additional comments, but at this time, they're hoping this is their final. And instead of waiting for the final to be done, and then about six weeks after that, which is how long the notification period is, they requested to come to this meeting today, understanding the risk. And I'll turn it over to them if they want to get more into their personal reasons why they wanted to come to this one and not wait. Mr. Chair, I have one last question, but maybe we don't answer it yet. And that is I'm interested in hearing about those situations when noise complaints have been filed and what's been done to address those. Perhaps we don't need to talk about that, but I'm going to reserve the right to ask that question after we've heard from the folks in opposition. All right. I think Don was going to answer or respond to Eliza. Don, do you have something? Chair, actually I was going to ask Mr. Somerville if he would answer that question. I can answer it my best, but maybe I'll have Brian filling in. I think the urgency of getting in front of you today is that this project is fully funded by the City of Durham. It's on the book. It's an identified location of need for the city. And they are just anxious to get their approvals completed so that they can start construction and get this fire station open. All right. And Chad, I'm guessing your question still stands, and that was the question you had. That's right. Yeah, the question was, how has the city resolved other noise complaints associated with fire stations? And ultimately, whether or not we could even be in a position, and this is a question for the board's attorney, if we could propose a condition that dealt with that, I don't know if we could or we could not. Brian or Eaton, would you like to just respond to this? Sure, I'll attempt to answer that one. So in the event that we were to have a noise complaint, then we would look at the factors regarding the complaint, such as where was the, in this case, the fire apparatus, was it just, did it leave the siren on too long, or was it being, I'm obnoxiously loud, so using the horn or what we call a cue siren, which is a mechanical siren that creates a lot of noise. And as I was speaking earlier, we try to be very judicious about our use of that, especially when we're leaving the station in residential areas, acknowledging that people are sleeping in the middle of the night or trying to take into account that those can be disconcerting at times, so we really try to do our best to keep that from happening. But to directly answer your question, in the event of a noise complaint, we will investigate to see what were the factors leading up to it, and whether or not those are avoidable in the future, or whether or not that the employees who were utilizing the siren devices need to scale that back, or what were the conditions leading to that complaint? And we would do everything in our power to prevent that from happening in the future. Thank you, sir. Brian. I'll weigh in. Any condition with regard to noise and the noise and the effect on neighboring properties would be inappropriate. There is a noise ordinance, and so that is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. And so there would have to be a complaint and it would have to be investigated. And there's no way for this board to place a condition that would be in odds with that noise ordinance. Thank you. A thought that I had too, Brian. One of the thoughts about this is, you know, these are emergency vehicles, and in the times of an emergency, time is of the essence, and if it was one of our family members that these folks needed to get to, I'm sure that you would not care about the sound or anything. You want to make sure that, you know, I think that this is a, these are stimulating circumstances, I imagine, when this happens. But just my thought on that. But all right, so I think we've heard from all of the applicants. I think we have a couple of folks that look like as opponents. We'll hear from them. Cheryl Summers, would you like to say anything? So I'd ask the question earlier about Parkwood Fire Station being closed. I'm curious as to why we would close that station as opposed to renovating it to build something new in a residential area when we've got something existing, which is closed by, we hear those trucks going by all the time. So that's my first question. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Chair Rogers, could, could we get Ms. Summers address? Please. Yes. I, I'm sorry. I live in Grandin Trace, which is 1013 pond field way. So I am in the neighborhood that owns that community property that butts right up to the, the new proposed area. So additionally, we've had. A lot of people coming in off Herndon Road as a result of some further previous construction. So I've got, we've got concerns as community as to, once the construction begins on this new fire station and EMS station too, that that might exacerbate that. We've still kind of struggled with the city of Durham to get that resolved. So I don't know that that's a question that can be answered here in this forum, but I don't know if that's a question. I don't know if that's a question. I don't know if that's a question. I certainly are curious about the impact that that construction is going to have on water flow, specifically related to the flow on Herndon Road, as opposed to. On the back of the property. Let's get your question, initial question answered. Don about the Parkwood fire station. I'm not sure who's appropriate to answer that. I'm not sure I'm actually. So regarding the closure of Parkwood fire station, so in on July 1st of 2018, the city and county fire departments formerly known as Durham County fire rescue, which included Parkwood and Bethesda fire departments, those were absorbed into the city of Durham on that date, July 1st, 2018 and their personnel are absorbed as well. And so we are utilizing that station, which is the current fire station 18, which is at 1409 Seton Road until the completion of the new fire station 18. One of the reasons that we would actually, several reasons we would close that station are as follows. That building is a pretty old building. It doesn't have any ADA compliance. It was never really built for continuous occupancy by a full-time crews. And so the other thing is it does exit into a residential area. And we're going to a call such as a structure fire, an emergent call. We have school zones and areas where it's just not as prudent to driving trucks as fast by. So we, for the safety of the community, it's one of those reasons we would like to put at this new location. Additionally, it's also too close to fire station 12, which is right off of Carpenter Fletcher Road. And so there's some overlap in the coverage. And by moving it to the 6919 Herndon Road area, it actually smooths out the response curves and allows us to meet our response objectives for the five miles surrounding that station. So it's, there's multiple reasons why we would, we would rather have it at the new location. The last of which the exiting onto Herndon Road is a main thoroughfare. And so it does allow for more timely responses to the entire area. And in, in other words, as well, the, when we have a structural fire, there are not, there are apparatus coming from that district, but also from surrounding districts. And it gives them a better response curve to those areas. The summers, is that, do you have any other questions or concerns? That answers my question. I don't want to take over. I've got a lot of questions. So do you want to ask everyone else if they've got a question first before I go to number two? No, what we, what we generally do is, we hear a couple of minutes from each opponent and then the applicant provides its rebuttal and then we have deliberation. So it's kind of shouldn't be this, we won't have this back and forth. We want to make sure that you state your concerns and questions that you'd like the applicant to address. And then we move on to the next opponent and so on. And then we'll be closing the hearing after that. Okay. Thanks for that education. I appreciate that. Sorry about that. We talked about noise. We didn't really... Sorry to interrupt. Yes, I just wanted to chime in really quickly that Mr. McKiss did mention that he had a 10 o'clock, something else to engage in. So if Mrs. Sumner's questions extend towards that time, we may want to give him the opportunity to speak because he does have to leave at 10 o'clock. I understand you'll have 40 minutes. Ms. Summers, you can continue. Okay, great. So we talked about noise. We didn't really talk about light. Be curious to where the lighting, I know that we're focusing the building towards Turned-in-Road to try and funnel that noise, but what about the lighting? Yeah, the lighting will be, there will be required lighting to light up the parking lot as required by the UDO. The UDO does not allow for any lights fillover over the property lines. So a lighting design has not been done yet, but we'll need to meet all requirements of the UDO. And after construction is completed, a certified professional will have to go out there and verify that the lighting that was installed meets the requirements of the UDO. And if for whatever reason it doesn't, it will need to be corrected. And I can't recall our lights on pretty much 24-7 or do they really only come on in the middle of the night when there's a call and they need to get moving? If you are referring to the vehicle lights or the parking lot lights, parking lot lights will come on at dusk and they have to be required to be on from dusk to dawn, but those will just be providing typical lightings within the parking lot. Okay. And then regarding the assessment on property values, it sounded to me like the assessment was done on fire stations. This is a combined fire and EMS station. Not sure if that has an impact. I'm curious to hear if that is a substantial difference that might need to be taken into consideration. And then secondly, kind of affiliated with that question is when we were talking about noise, we were talking about noise related to fire calls. Since EMS is a part of this station, do the EMS teams go out with every fire call and vice versa or could it be fire for one and EMS stays back? And how does that work? I'll be happy to take that part of that question. So as far as the response for fire and EMS crews, so it is not necessarily one-to-one just because a fire truck gets a call, it does not necessarily mean that an EMS vehicle is also going to respond. There are many different call types where it's just a fire truck, as is the case with just EMS where the level of the call, it does not require two things. Many calls do not require the ambulances to go code three with lights and signs. And in those cases, typically a fire truck would also not respond. So in those cases, you would not even realize that either the fire truck or the ambulance were even traveling to a call as far as audibly or visually. But EMS is under the same restrictions. Whenever they have their emergency lights on, they also would have their sirens on. But just because you see one truck does not mean you're going to see a second one necessarily. And as far as any additional effect on value because of EMS, this is the only station I know of that has both other than 17. And so it's difficult to say, but it's really how many calls they have and how many times they're going out. But I would say it would be very similar and I wouldn't think there'd be any additional effect by having EMS as there also. And then lastly, in respect for Mr. McKessick, thinking about this 14% tree requirement, whether that's saving trees or replacing trees, if you've been on the property, you can imagine that from the Gran and Trace community, the residence community, not just the community space that we have above us, we've got direct sight lines to this piece of property. And in the wintertime in particular, when our tree buffer doesn't have leaves on it, it's going to be quite visible. So from that residential perspective or kind of goal of trying to make it fit in, it's just really difficult for me to see how that's gonna happen with 14% trees on the property. And I don't know if there's an opportunity to kind of challenge that or request that we take another look at that and do our best to increase that tree buffer in a manner for which we'll have a little bit more, less sight line to particularly the parking lot, which is what we're gonna be staring at on a daily basis. Yeah, as I mentioned before, we try to preserve as much existing vegetation that's out there, fortunately from where you are facing from the Gran and Trace neighborhood, there is not a lot of existing tree coverage there. And as I mentioned before as well, I do see that in that Gran and Trace open space that your HOA or whoever put it up as a good row of evergreen trees. And I imagine that was provide future thinking to screen from this property. We are required to provide tree coverage as well as tree replacement by the UDO. We are providing a 30 foot wide buffer, landscape buffer on adjacent to the Gran and Trace neighborhood. And we've concentrated all of our landscaping requirements to be within this buffer to densify it really as much as possible. And with tree replacement, we're required to provide four inch caliper trees rather than two and a half the minimum for buffer plantings. And we also made a conscious effort to plant evergreen trees rather than deciduous trees so that you can have that winter buffer. So, you know, we did make conscious effort to attempt to screen the parking lot and building from your neighborhood. And there's also the stream buffer located in the rear that is pretty dense and planted and that will not be touched at all. And in perpetuity will not be able to touch because it's partly Gran and Trace subdivision project that was identified as tree save area. So that can be modified as well. So there will be a substantial tree buffer between your development and the fire station. And where will the retention pond or the water collection system be installed? That is going to be along the southern property line again, adjacent to that stream buffer. It's within the buffers, the property boundary buffers around the site. So it's not, it won't be a prominent device that is right up against the, I know it's a common open space. It's not right up against that northern property line that kids could come in there and take a dip or lose a ball in there or anything. But it is placed further away kind of centrally southern in the property. Actually, I have a plan up now. I don't know if you want me to, how that works here in a line. I can't share it or... So planning staff have that. But I appreciate, Miss Summers, I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Summers, I don't think you as well. Floyd McKessick, would you like to say a... Sure, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. I live at 6903 Herndon Road. I've owned the property since 1993. When Brandon Trace was being proposed to development, I understood growth would come. I've never been opposed to growth, never been opposed to development. What I am deeply, deeply concerned about is the noise potential associated with this particular combined EMS and fire station. And I'm extraordinarily disappointed that the city did not take the initiative the way we expect of traditional developers to go out and meet with those in the community to sit down and listen to their concerns, to share with them the information and testimony we cover today in some regards. Because the key to coming up with a win-win is to have that type of communication, to have that type of transparency. If we would expect it of traditional developers, if they were coming along for some type of special use permit or rezoning, the city should be equally committed to that level of inclusiveness and communication. Now, in terms of noise, I have no doubts that those sirens coming right past my home and they say they're gonna turn on Herndon Road, well, I'm on Herndon Road. I'm gonna hear those sirens. And I know that they're gonna be going off at all hours of the day and night. There's no doubt about it. That's the nature of a fire station and EMS station. It's gonna be occurring 24-7. So I mean, there could be things done to mitigate the potential impacts. I heard earlier that there could not be some type of noise standards. And when I say that, I understand to separate regulations dealing with noise. I don't really know what the decimal level will be of these particular sirens on the equipment that's gonna be moving up and down the road. And it's probably gonna be difficult to measure under traditional standards because it's mobile. But what I do know is that if there was some type of condition imposed to say, as I think Assistant Chief Eaton indicated, we're gonna wait once we get on the road until we get away from the residential development before we turn on those sirens. That is the type of condition that would be beneficial to the community and certainly beneficial to me as a homeowner. I don't know what the alarms will be like within the building in terms of the sound, the decimal level. So people notice time to respond to a condition to an emergency. I don't know how much that's going to infiltrate into the neighborhood surrounding us. And of course, I heard concerns about drainage and issues like that. Right now, the drainage out there in Herndon Road is terrible. And Perler Road, where I went is civil elevated. And let me tell you what that means. That means that with that water already coming up, seeding the elevation of the ditch and going across the road, black ice is there all the time. I've seen so many cars get it off the side of the road where they're getting tow trucks to pull them out. I can't begin to tell you the number of times I've observed it. So there are already existing drainage problems that need to be addressed and certainly mitigated as a part of the plans that are going to be developed as a result of this project. So, and when you talk about whether it's going to be in curious to property values of those living in the community, I can guarantee you, it's not going to enhance my property values. So I want to go out there and resell my home, unless I happen to be positively impacted by Apple's announcement yesterday. Okay, that's about the only thing that's going to mitigate that impact. But it's not going to be because somebody wants to live near Sirens, because they can go off at any time hour of the day and night. So I mean, I don't know, I respect Mr. Smith. I've known him for many years. In fact, we both served on the planning commission together and I've served on the Board of Accusement here in Durham. So I understand the complexity of the issues that you are evaluating. I think much could be done to address the concerns which I have and address the concerns of neighbors in the area if more time was provided. For us to meet and confer whether it's virtually or however that might be conducted because information can address a lot of problems. Understanding what that final site plan that's being proposed is going to look like. Understanding what the comments are going to be coming in from various city departments relating to it. This property was acquired over two years ago. The fact that there's immediate urgency at this time must be the result of some type of neglect because there's really no reason if it was acquired over two years ago for us to now need to deal with it today at this meeting rather than giving us time to work through some of these issues. If it were me and I were trying to site a site for a fire station out in this area, it would certainly be logical to look at that federal road corridor where there already, you know, automobile dealerships out there, churches out there, other types of activities which cannot be adversely impacted potentially as a result of the type of activity that we generated by EMS and fire department. You could look down to Scott King Road. You could look out where that park is out there. There are a lot of potential sites that have the same locational attributes that the city could have evaluated. These locks originally part of the grand and trace project when it was developed. The same developer in the city acquired the residential locks. So I mean, I'm familiar with the history. I'm more deeply concerned about what we can do to work together collaboratively, cooperatively to address the concerns which I have and I'm sure many other neighbors have and to try to say, all right, how do we make this a win-win? What do we do to accomplish that objective? Now, what do we do to rush it through the day because it needs to be done because we neglected to do anything over the last year and a half, two years to help us expedite our path to get us there in an appropriate timeline? I don't think there is anything that meets the need for that urgency when we can work together, get the information, collaborate and better apps come up with a win-win. Maybe the concerns I have and other neighbors have can be appropriately addressed and adverse impacts can be mitigated. In my mind, that would be the appropriate course to take and if that course isn't taken, then I would be firmly opposed to what is before us today. So I thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. I know you do not have an easy task. I know that there's a lot of balancing that you have to consider, but I would hope that you would take the time to do it thoughtfully, deliberately and understand it. Will you make that finding a fact dealing with it not being incurious to those residing in the area or the property values out there in the area that you can do it? Honestly, knowing that if it was your home and you had that investment out there that the neighbors in this area have, that you would reach the same determination based upon the information that's presently accessible and that's being shared with us at this time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. McKessick. Don, would you like to respond? Sure, Chair Rogers. The only thing I'd like to point out to the board is the city has complied with the UDO requirements. That's what we expect of any property that comes before the Board of Adjustment. There are general findings and review factors that the city is required to address. I believe that the only party at this hearing today that has put on expert testimony is the city and we've put on four experts that testified about how the city meets those requirements. Whether a neighborhood meeting might have been a good idea, potentially. Maybe that would have been a good idea, but that's not required by the UDO. We don't require other developers to go out and do that if it's not required by the UDO. And I think you've heard from our civil engineer or architect and the assistant fire chief about the level of sensitivity that the city has demonstrated towards its neighbors and that it will demonstrate once this fire EMS station is open to the public. We're hearing from two individuals. There are other people that live in this area. It's just two people speaking about their fears. My guess is that those fears won't be realized. And at the end of the day, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. If the applicant puts on evidence showing that it meets the requirements, this board should grant the minor special use permit and that's what I expect the board to do today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Chair, if I could be heard very briefly. I think allowing for that type of communication with the neighborhood, with the community, the way you would expect developers to be engaged and working with homeowners associations is a thoughtful path that encourage his discussion and engagement to answer unanswered questions. I certainly respect Mr. O'Toole. It is a quasi-judicial matter, but a little more time. Would not hurt in terms of trying to address the concerns I think that I have and others have. Maybe they might be proven to be unfounded. Maybe there is a way to mitigate impacts. Maybe there is a way to craft that win-win. You only know when you communicate. You only know when they're at level of engagement. And I simply say, I would expect that the city would seek and want to do so rather than saying, it's here, unless you have decided today. I would think that would be a good approach, a good strategy and a good example of how you handle these types of circumstances. And that's what we ought to be thinking about in an illustrative example. What's best case, best practices? What would we want to do? What is the best case? Not do we minimally comply with the ordinance? Because I don't doubt me. Minimal compliance can be done in many respects. Well, I appreciate your comments, Mr. McKessick. I think one of the, as you know and familiar, we are, this board is, cause of judicial, it is governed by the UDO and a minimal compliance is compliance nonetheless. Brian Wardell, would you mind giving us a rundown of what is required of us when a minor special use permit comes across us, findings of fact, would you mind addressing this? Well, I think it's just a quick refresher for everyone. Right, well, it's set forth in the UDO. Exactly what you have to consider, what the review factors are. Give me a second, I could, yeah, I can pull that up because I always keep that on my screen. All right, you know, we've got the general findings, has to be in harmony with the area and not substantially injurious to the value of the properties in the general vicinity. In conformance with all special requirements of the applicable use, will not adversely affect the health or safety of the public and will adequately address the review factors identified below. And of course we've got 12 different review factors, some of which apply to this project, some of which don't, circulation. I'm not sure if that was an issue that was addressed. Parking and loading, I'm not sure if that was an issue that was addressed. Service entrances and areas, not sure if that was an issue that was addressed. Lighting, there was some evidence presented with regard to lighting. Signs, I'm not sure if that was an issue that was addressed, the appropriateness of signs, considering the location, color, height, so forth. Utilities, I'm not sure if that's even applicable here. Location and availability of utilities. I think there was some evidence of that. Environmental protection, I know that was an issue that was raised of Ms. Summers and was addressed to some degree by the applicant, preservation of tree cover. You know, floodplain issues, I know that was an issue that was raised. So there is some evidence for the board to consider in that regard. Screening, buffering and landscaping. I know that there was some testimony in that regard. The effect on the properties that was addressed by Mr. Smith, so there was some testimony in that regard, but there was also some concern that was raised by Mr. McKessick in that regard. And then number 11 is compatibility. The level of general compatibility with nearby properties and impacted neighborhoods, including but not limited to the appropriateness of the scale, design and use in the relationship of the other properties. I'm not entirely sure that was addressed. It may have been addressed in the applicant's submitted materials. I'm not sure that, I'm not sure that. I'll say this, Brian, I wanna interrupt real quick. Is that it is all of everybody who's sitting on today's hearing for this. It's all of our responsibility to look over that application and review all of that, even if it's not directly brought up in this meeting or by the applicant that's on us, our responsibility and we're supposed to take that into account in the decision as well, but I'm glad you mentioned that. Okay. I'd also. So those are essentially. That Mr. Somerville asked that all of the material submitted be made part of the record. All of these issues have been addressed. So I don't agree with the characterization that some of the review factors have not been addressed by the city. I appreciate that. Mr. Bordell, I appreciate your clarifying a few things. So those are the review factors that the board has to consider. And in their estimation, they have to make a decision as to whether or not there was sufficient evidence in the record to support those. And they are responsible for reviewing the materials. And if they believe that the review factors have been satisfied, then they would vote appropriate. But those are the review factors and whether or not there was sufficient evidence on each one of those factors is an issue and a matter for each board member to consider prior to voting. Thank you, Mr. Bordell. Before we close the hearing and any questions from board members to the applicant? Okay, Mike? Yeah, one thing not reviewed is pretty much the impervious service area. Mr. Somerville, can you give me the most condensed explanation of what an engineered stormwater control means being that the impervious service is really the issue here? Yeah, excuse me. We're above the minimum impervious service allowable for the FJV watershed protection overlay. So the UDO allows us to go over that if we provide engineered stormwater control measures. So we are proposing a wet detention time to be set at the low point in the site. We have all roof drainage and all parking lot drainage will be directed to that wet pond. The wet pond will be designed and permitted through the city of Durham's public work department and shown that it meets all requirements of the MCDEQ minimum design standards for stormwater control measures. So that really governs the size, the shape, the depth, how long we capture the first inch of rainfall. We have to detain it in the pond for a certain amount of time. And then I'd mentioned too that the pond will also provide detention, peak flow mitigation such that we're not providing any downstream flooding with the addition of this impervious surface. And so stormwater is signed off on this? Stormwater has not signed off on site plans. We have some couple of minimal comments that we're working through with them right now, but I don't feel that they're gonna have any effect on the size or shape of the development. All right, Ms. Summers, generally we hear from each opponent and this is a quasi-judicial hearing. So we have to take in expert testimony for these things. I don't know if you have a question or a quick point you want to make, but I'm gonna give, you've got a minute if you'd like to. Quick point, yes, I appreciate that. In response to the comment that only two people attended in potential opposition of this proposed construction, I'm actually representing 47 homeowners in the Grand Entry Community. We all work and people couldn't take this time all beyond and I don't think you would have wanted to hear the same thing from all 47. So I'm representing 47 homeowners today. Additionally, and if I'm incorrect, please help me. Notice was only sent out to people within 600 feet of the proposed construction area. So I think there are a lot of people in and around the area that may not even be aware of what's being proposed. So I do want to make sure that it's very clear that it's not just two people sitting here today. Given, we are also, we can't take hearsay testimony, so we can only take testimony from people who are in this meeting at the moment. So we couldn't, even if you had a letter signed by the, you know, or whatever it may be, these folks would need to show up. So I appreciate your remarks. Any other questions from board members to the applicant before we close the public hearing? I have one more question. There may have been reference, maybe I misheard, that there were some city departments that had not finished their review of this. Is that what I understood, Mr. O'Toole? That's true. That's correct. Stormwater Department and the Engineering Department has not signed off on the site plan, but we have been in conversation with both those departments and feel that we have addressed all of their comments and their comments that are outstanding wouldn't have any effect on the overall site design. Most of the administrative type of comments. I, any other questions? Mr. Kip, did that get everything you needed? Yes. Any other questions for, all right, well, let's, Eliza, do you have a recommendation for the board? Good morning. Yes, everyone. Eliza Monroe here with the staff, Plain Department staff. Staff recommends the approval of minor special use permit case number B21, excuse me, B2000043 such that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the information and plan submitted to the board as a part of the application and site plan case number D200199. All right, let's bring it back to the board for some deliberations, discussion. I sure would like to hear from everybody sitting, seating on this case and what your thoughts are. If you have any objections or issues or with anything about this, I think it is appropriate to discuss that now. Mr. Meadows has his hand up first. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought that the applicant did a good job of presenting the information here. I have a couple of concerns about the project. First, the staff report says the site plan is not clear of comments. So there could be more changes here. The second is that the staff report mentions concerns regarding impacts. The applicant did present experts. I won't dispute that at all. They're all very technically proficient folks and very much expert in their fields. However, none of them were audio engineers or experts with respect to sound or sound impact on people's homes. So for me, the key point that was raised by the staff and the key point that was raised by the opposition, specifically the noise, wasn't particularly addressed to the level that I felt reconciled my concerns, staff concerns. And so that gives me pause. I wonder if there might be some way for the city to help these folks feel more comfortable about efforts that could be undertaken to control noise or things that could be done within the law but that are not necessarily embedded in a condition of approval to help address their concerns about noise. And so I wonder if, given the fact that we've got a site plan that's not clear of comments and given the fact that there's these concerns about noise linger, is that an opportunity that the city could take to try to follow up and help allay these concerns? And that's where I'm coming from. Thank you. Thanks Chad. I wanna make sure, I don't think I said this a minute ago, I wanna make sure that we heard from everybody who was in support or at least I didn't leave anyone out rather. Don, did I leave anyone out from your team or is there anyone here else? Cause I did not ask that. Sorry, Chair, everyone on behalf of the city testified. Okay, thank you. All right. Any other thoughts from the board members? I'll share mine and I think I mentioned this a minute ago, I think we all appreciate emergency response individuals and people who, and these stations who, when it's needed, it's desperately needed. And I think, you know, time is of the, I said this earlier, time is of the essence. And I think if it was one of my family members who they needed to get to, I don't care about the sound. And I know even if that's in my neighborhood, whatever may be, I'm not saying sound is not an issue by any means, but I think that if we look at what or if I look at what, you know, the purpose of this, the, you know, so the need for this in a growing community is something that I take into account when I'm thinking of what to do here. You know, so while sound is something that is a concern and nobody wants to hear a siren at 3 a.m. when you're trying to sleep, I bet you're pretty glad when that thing shows up if you need it. And, you know, I also think about collisions that, you know, these vehicles are trying to get out in the road as quickly as possible to respond to something. And, you know, if there's traffic coming, they have to, you know, alarm, if you will, people that, you know, they're getting out in the road. I, you know, we've all stopped for these vehicles, you know, that were coming out of these stations up. I could see that, you know, that the condition of waiting to be on the road to have a siren, I think that would be very tough for a department to adhere to. Those are my thoughts, just because the given situation of how emergencies arise and the need to respond to those. But this, some of my thoughts, I may have some other more later. But Micah, you've got something? Yeah, I think some things for my consideration that I haven't, didn't really hear that may help put some of the residents at ease is the frequency and understanding that their peak times and their emergent situations don't always know. But there should be some data that the city is able to share with the community around how often certain firehouses or whatever are actually needed or have had to respond to the emergent or sirens in a course of, you know, a year or two years as a sense of information, right? To ground perspective and to ground expectation, understanding it's not guaranteed, right? But that's something that I feel like we miss. So we heard that if it happens, the department takes their arm considerate and they will always turn the lights, the sirens on both last and they have mechanisms to and levels that they can use. But I think it'd be good to know, like I live near a fire station too and I've been here five years and I can't count on one hand how many times the sirens, you know, jarred me out of my sleep in five years. So if there was something like that from a data perspective, and it could be just I'm a heart of sleeper, right? But I think that data could be helpful for the community to understand and go in perspective what they could be anticipating. Well said. Natalie, you have an item? Yeah, I have a quick question. So is this new station going to cover what Parkwood covered? Or, and I think that may have been explained earlier or is it going to cover a different section and somewhere else has done a cover Parkwood? Like the, the, the... I understand what you're saying. Are you with me? Yeah. Brian Eaton, do you want to quickly... Yes. On to that? So yes, when this new station would be opened up, it would be covering, it would have the same service district as it currently does, but we will be able to get to all areas of that district more efficiently. We are simply in the district we're occupying now with the old Parkwood or DCFR station on Seton Road. It's just not located in a manner to allow us to get to efficiently to that entire district, but it's the area we must use because that was the, that was the facility that we had. So yes, the, the coverage area won't really change as a result of the moving, you just make it better transportation to all areas of the district from that point. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any, any other thoughts from board members specifically or discussing a minor special use permit on whether this is an appropriate use for this specific site? Sorry guys. All right. Any, we need to, if there is a problem with us, please, please let us know or please say something is there, is he may want to make a motion. Now's an appropriate time as well. I think we'd like to hear from everyone. I have another question about impervious surface. I know there's a storm pond, but 50% impervious surface is very high. Is this exempt from impervious surface or is this needing to comply with impervious surface? Eliza and Rose from the staff department, I'll chime in real quick about what the ordinance states with regards to impervious surface. So there is a low density option, which is 24% for things that are located within this watershed, the FJB watershed overlay protection district. Ooh, that's a lot of words. There's a low density option of 24%. And then there is a high density option of a maximum of 70% in which they could hypothetically go to 70 if they provide the necessary storm water control measures. So in terms of there, of course, exceeding the low density option, they are less than the maximum option. And in order for storm water to sign on from a project, they would have to provide the necessary storm water measures. So I hope that clarifies a little bit that they are indeed exceeding, but they are less than the max and they are having to provide certain measures to ensure that storm water is okay with the project. And this is Donham tool from the city attorney's office. Just to follow up on what Ms. Monroe just said, to be clear what the city is providing in terms of impervious surface area and storm water facilities on the site is in compliance with federal, state, and Durham's UDO and city code requirements. So we are in full compliance with those requirements. What is the delay on storm water signing off and the rush for us to approve this when storm water has not signed off? That's my problem right here. Tim, address that question. Yes, excuse me, storm water hasn't signed off. We've gotten several round of comments and we've gone back through and through all the comments we have not changed the shape, size, or location of our pond. A lot of it has just been mostly within our calculations, how we're presenting evidence that we're meeting the requirements. Their last round of comments, there was only three or four standing minimal items. Related to our storm water calculations, kind of more interpretation type of things between us and the reviewer. Nothing again that will change the location, size, shape, or impacts of the size of the pond location or the amount of impervious surface proposed. Mr. Meadows. I have a question for Mr. Wardell. Mr. Wardell, would it be appropriate for us to find out if the applicant is willing to continue this matter until the site plan is cleared of comments and maybe has an opportunity to provide some additional information about past noise complaints or possible policy matters with respect to emergency vehicle operation? Is that appropriate or is that beyond the pale, sir? I think there are two ways that it could be addressed. You can request the applicant to decide whether or not they want to continue the matter to address some of the issues raised or the board came on its own initiative, continue the matter to a date certain in the future because the board believes that it does need additional information. So it can be done one of those two ways if that is something that the board feels would be appropriate. So either the applicant can request it or the board can continue it. Thank you. It actually doesn't bother me that this, it's not substantially clear comments because in order for it to get approved and done, they are gonna have to bear, they're gonna have to pass, they're gonna have to still up here uphold the law or the ordinance. I guess I'm looking at a little bit of a higher picture here and saying, looking at the use. I'm okay with a vote today, but I'm also at the will of whatever you all want to do, but just my thoughts, does anybody else have any thoughts that you wanna share? I think we've heard from three of us. Mr. Reches. Being the value of having a fire station and EMS, I'm fine with this. The evidence has been presented and I think they've met everything needed to move forward. I don't think comments, final comments are gonna persuade this and I'm fine with this project. That's four of us or four of us that we've heard from rather out of seven. Does anybody else have any thoughts? Or maybe that was five of us. I just wanna make sure that everybody has the opportunity to share your thoughts and whether, and if this is something that you don't support it now is the time to probably, well, it's not probably now is the time to give a reason if you don't support it, right? Well, does anybody have a motion that they'd like to put forward? Mr. Reches. I'd like to make a motion that application number B2000043, an application for a minor specialist permit on property located at 6919 Herndon Road has successfully met the application requirements of the Unified Development Warrants and it's hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the site plan. Case D200199 and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've got a motion for approval by Mr. Retchless. Does anyone wanna offer a second? Oh, Shane, a second. Second by Natalie Bushane. Susan, would you like to call everyone? Yes. Ms. Bushane. Yeah. Ms. Major. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Mr. Retchless. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. A vote of seven to zero, your minor special use permit has been granted. We wish you the best of luck. And thank you for coming for the BOA this morning. Susan, would you like to call the next case? Yes. Case B21. Hold on, Susan. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Mike, you got something? Request for a 10 minute break, please. Need a break? Yes, please. Let's take, it's 1007. Let's reconvene at 1017. All right. Thank you. I'll see you then. All right, I guess we're waiting on Mike. Once we have her back, we will get started again. Chair, while we're waiting, do you mind if I ask, we have one participant who is a caller. Do you mind if I just use this time to ask whom they may be? Please do. So we have a phone number ending in 0368. Can you just identify who you are just so we make sure we bring you in that the appropriate case? And you could press star six to unmute. Okay, I'm not hearing a response, so we could continue. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. All right. Susan, looks like we've got everybody here. Would you mind calling the next case? Case B2100013. A request for a variance from the requirement that a minimum of 70% of the bill dizon be occupied by the building podium. The subject site is located at 512 West Gear Street and zone downtown design support one and in the downtown tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and the property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and the letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Jeter, Ms. Major and Ms. Bochane. All right, so let's go ahead and administer the oath. So anyone who plans on giving testimony in this case, if you'll turn your video on, I'm looking around the room, Scott Dixon, I'm not sure, are you planning on giving testimony? If so, we'll need your, okay. No, I'm not, I'm just gonna be observing. Okay. Chairman Rogers, this is Dan Jewel. I also have a little different type of request. So one of the folks that signed up to speak is the property owner, George Davis. He does not have any kind of video set up at his place of business. So he's with me this morning. So if we could both be on the video when you administer the oath, if that's okay. Of course it is. All right, so we'll just need to see everybody. If you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony that you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? And so I'm gonna start with you, Dan. I do. I do. Jim Wiley. I do. Mike Sinsala. I do. Ellen Weinstein. Okay, and well, Ellen, you weren't unmuted. I saw your lips moving, all right? And also, do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Ellen. I do. Mike. I do. Jim Wiley. I do. And Dan. I do. And Mr. Davis is here as well. I do. Thank you so much. All right, Eliza, is this one yours? This one is mine. So I'm gonna go ahead and start sharing my screen if that's okay with everybody since we've got that oath taken care of. Take it over. Awesome. Good morning, everyone. Eliza Monroe here representing the Planning Department, Planning Staff Request of the Staff Report and all materials submitted. Had the public hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. So noted, thank you. Thank you. Case B2100013 is a request for a variance from the requirement that a minimum of 70% of the bill to zone be occupied by the building podium. The applicant is culture jeweled things and the subject site is located at 512 West Geer Street. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is zoned downtown design support one or DDS one and is within the downtown development tier. In the arrow here, you'll see that the site is currently the location of a commercial use. We have not had a design district case in a while. So I will briefly try to go over the intent of the ordinance as it relates to this area of Durham and of course will be available for any questions throughout the process. So within the unified development ordinance, the intent states that the design district was established to encourage bicycling, pedestrian and transit oriented development through regulations appropriate to the downtown area. It focuses on the form of the private and public realm instead of on the use and the intensity. Regulated through sub districts in this case at DDS one, the standards encourage a vital downtown economy that encourages terms positioned as a commercial, cultural and entertainment hub of the region while increasing with ability. The comprehensive plan states that the downtown tier is a historic downtown core in support areas where intense development and pedestrian activities encouraged. For the comp plan, it should be a transit and pedestrian oriented in order to enhance the street level experience and provide a mixture of goods and services near transit. Auto oriented and low density uses are discouraged and the creation of a high quality public ground is encouraged to enhance downtown Durham's position once again as a commercial, cultural and entertainment hub of the region. Buildings typically in this area are pulled up to the sidewalk to engage the public and are meant to have fewer gaps along the block face or along the streetscape that you would see. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, per section 16.2.1 of the unified development ordinance for the support one sub district, primary structures are required to have what's referred to as a build to zone within 12 to 18 feet from the back of the curve. And that's kind of shown here. You'll know that from the back of the curve, you'll see the applicant is showing 12 feet as well as 18 feet. And that's what's referred to as the build to zone. Additionally, presumed to UDO section 16.2.1B, a minimum of 70% of the build to zone shall be occupied by the building podium. Building podiums are defined as the initial levels of the building. So beginning at ground level above which the building steps back to a greater height. So building podiums can vary from one feet to several stories high. The applicant is requesting a variance from the requirement that 70% of the build to zone must be occupied by the building podium like specifically as it relates to Washington street. Instead, they're proposing the use of the building and a bicycle structure along Washington street. And however, I will note that the build to zone requirements are being able to be met on the gear street frontage even with this proposed garden in the corner. They're still meeting that 70% build to zone requirement for the building podium on this side. With regards to the downtown design standards, the proposed design encourages bicycling, which is a less intense form of development through the, though the comp plan does state that the intense development shall be encouraged in this area. Staff does have some wonder and would love the applicant to speak to how the proposed development encourages pedestrian activity or improves the quality of the public realm as the building is set back from the corner and leaving a slightly open space where there would standardly be a structure located there. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes the four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant a variance. And these findings are requiring or people identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application, both of which are within your packet. And staff will of course be available here for any questions as needed during the hearing process. And I will go quickly to the next slide. This was one of the attachments I was provided by the applicant a little bit after we advertised. So you should have received the email from Susan noting that this was updated. And this one is a little bit more color coordinated a little bit larger as well. And I think this will be a lot more visible for us to use throughout the hearing. Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you for putting this up. Chad, do you have a question for Eliza? I do and thank you Eliza for going over what the purpose of the design district and the design requirements are. I wanna paraphrase that so that I make sure that I understand exactly what you're talking about. Okay, so buildings downtown need to be pedestrian oriented. And so the objective of the comp plan and the design controls are to bring buildings up to the edge of the street or the sidewalk to create enclosure for pedestrians. So that they as they walk along the street they feel like they're in a downtown area with buildings adjacent to the sidewalk instead of in a more suburban area where buildings are set back from the sidewalk. Is that right? That's essentially the nature. That's correct. That's why there's the desire to have those buildings placed within that 12 to 18 feet from the back of the curb pulling them forward towards the pedestrian. Okay, and so how we create that experience for pedestrians in the downtown is that we ask that building walls be located within that build to zone the 12 to 18 feet from the back of the curb. And the standard says 70% of the street frontage has to have building in it. Obviously I see from the sketch here there's a couple of site distance triangles that wouldn't allow buildings. How much of the site in the configuration that is proposed by the applicant where do they come in on the percentage? Is that a question for the applicant or can you answer that? What they're proposing is it 5%? Is it 69%? What percentage of the building area is inside the build to area as proposed? So what would I can show it here? I don't know the exact percentage wise. So in terms of what is going to be provided within the build to and so starting within this 12 feet here and then this back until this 18 feet. So anywhere in between that area is where we would prefer or where a building should be shown. So currently what's being shown is there's a small sliver here. This area I believe is grass. Any of the green portions are going to be grass or landscaping areas. So there is a small corner of this non-residentially zone which is required. You can't have residential or excuse me, you'd have any use besides parking facing on the ground level. So there's a small sliver here and then these bike parking. So that's going to be what is within. I don't know the exact percentage there. It's definitely not close at all to the 70% of the building podium that needs to be occupying the build to zone but it's in terms of structure it's just going to be this portion here and then propose this bicycle covered area. And one last question. Thank you for that. My last question is typically has the city accepted bicycle parking or facilities like this on other projects where as building frontage or I'm sorry, building podium is that a common practice? No, so the only thing that would be considered building podium would be this triangle of yellow here. The bicycle parking is not considered building. Thank you. All right, any other questions for Eliza before we hear from the applicant? Shuffling through here, I don't see any. I have another question. May I get like a 30,000 foot description? What's going on here? Why does Bird Brothers need structured parking after 80 years in business? Is that an appropriate question? So staff will definitely have to reflect a little bit to the applicant about the full extent of the project as it currently relates all of the information that you received is what we also received. So I'm not sure their request at this time is they're showing a building envelope and proposed tenant and residential spaces but in terms of what uses, I'm not sure exactly what uses they'll be having to replace. There will have to be in compliance with the permitted uses within that zoning district but I will definitely allow the current property owner and Mr. Joule to weigh in on what they're proposing here in the future as if Stone Brothers is no longer there. Okay. Any other questions for Eliza? All right, would the applicant like to come forward? Dan, is that you, are you gonna be speaking? Yes, sir, can you hear me all right? Actually, turn it over to you. All right, thank you. Thank you Chairman Rogers and fellow board members. Always good to see you again. Good morning, my name is Dan Joule with Culture Joule Tims. We're the civil engineers and landscape architects for the project. Our office is just about four blocks away and I reside about three blocks away at 1025 Gloria Avenue. With me this morning are Ellen Weinstein and Principal and Project Architect with Weinstein Freedline, her associate architect, Mike Sincala. Also, Jim Wiley, who is with the development team. I will make a preface remark to Mr. Kipp's question. So Stone Brothers and Bird which has been a long time downtown Durham business will remain a downtown Durham business just not at this location. They are looking at several other opportunities in the neighborhood to relocate the business to. So the proposal that site plan will be submitted soon will be for a mixed use residential and commercial building with structured parking, ground floor retail along the gear street side and some on the Washington street side as well with upper story residential. I would like to get a little background on my credentials. I have a professional degree in landscape architecture from Purdue University and I've been practicing as a licensed landscape architect for 38 years now. The last 36 of those in the state of North Carolina with the bulk of that experience in Durham. Most of that work entails design and preparation of site plans very similar to this project. At this time, I would also like to request that also all of our application materials be entered into the record. Specific to this case, the UDO has made a generalized attempt to establish a set of prescripted design rules that try to apply to every situation, every site, every quirk that is specific to each site. I was privileged to serve on the citizen's advisory committee that helped guide the creation and adoption of the UDO about 15 years ago. And I also served on an advisory committee that helped with the creation of the downtown design district rules about a dozen years ago. Those rules were intended to have some flexibility in case of a hardship. And of course that's why we are here this morning. In this very specific case, the hardship is created by several factors not of our own making. The vision for chapter 16 of the UDO as Eliza described was to create a lively street level presence through bringing the buildings closer to the street at an architectural scale that establishes a podium in this case of roughly three stories above the sidewalk and opportunities to activate the street by creating ground floor transparency through the buildings with a prescribed amount of glazing. For the first dozen years of chapter 16 of the UDO being implemented though, this also worked in conjunction with the expectation that a building could occupy nearly a hundred percent of a given downtown property because either the site was already nearly a hundred percent covered with impervious surface and therefore exempt from having to do stormwater management which is in fact the rule. Or that if the stormwater management was in fact needed, then it could be done underground below the building or below the parking with vaults and sand filters as a way to meet the city and state mandated runoff requirements. But still meet those build two requirements of the UDO. The UDO also assumes that any given site is roughly rectangular and therefore a building which really wants to be a rectangle as much as possible can be built efficiently on that given piece of property. In the case of this property though, both of those UDO assumptions have proven to not hold true which is why we are here this morning requesting a variance from those chapter 16 requirements that a minimum of 70% of any given street frontage have building within the build two lines. First, our site is not nearly a hundred percent impervious. In fact, it's only 85% impervious. Those of you visited Stone Brothers and Bird over the years know that they have a series of gardens and outdoor display areas and things of that nature around the site which makes a really functional, beautiful facility that we're all used to, but unfortunately does not put an impervious surface in place that would grandfather our runoff requirements. And the reason that this is a hardship on this site is that there's been a recent change to the state stormwater BMP manual, best management practice manual which the city of Durham Public Works Stormwater folks uses their standard, which now finds that underground sand filters, which are the only viable way to treat runoff underground are no longer a recognized treatment method, even though this has been the go-to method for the last dozen years or so. And we, our firm can count at least a dozen downtime projects where we use those underground sand filters successfully. The reason that is so critical is that now when we start with a site that's not 100% impervious, we either need to A, reduce the proposed impervious surface on the site back to nearly pre-existing conditions, install above ground stormwater treatment measures, which obviously also takes away from the area of the site that can be developed in building and plazas and things of that nature. Or C, do a combination of both. And in our case, we will be doing the latter. But the critical point is that it decreases the amount of building site area allowable to develop the building and other impervious surface on. And so the question that came to us was, where do we decrease that footprint of the building and the driveways and things of that nature? We all know that any project has certain basic design requirements. We have to have some parking. As much as I would like to see us moved into a future where we have a fantastic local public transportation system that entices people to give up their cars, we're not there yet. And most importantly, the banks and finance companies who finance projects like that know that. And as you've heard before, projects need to have some amount of parking to get financing. And those parking areas, especially structured parking, have to be rectangular. And buildings generally wanna be rectangular, particularly when they were built over and around a rectangular parking structure, which is exactly what we have in this case. But as you can see, our site is anything but rectangular. Washington Street intersects Gear Street at an acute angle. And further, if you notice the public alley, which is labeled Hargrove Street to the top of the site, whereas it's perpendicular to Washington Street creates another acute angle with Gear Street and makes the site anything but parallel and rectangular. So this set up an odd configuration that makes it challenging, if not impossible, to make the building walls parallel to both streets. So where do we make it parallel? Well, we felt that Gear Street on the south of the project is the most important street, as you know, it's already starting to be repopulated with lively uses such as restaurants and entertainment areas and some residential being developed a little farther farther to the west. And we do in fact meet the frontage requirement and exceed it on the Gear Street side. So for those of you familiar with this corner also, the existing Stone Brothers and Bird Building, which has been on the site for more than 15 years, sits roughly pretty much where we're proposing the new building to go. It's a rectangular building. It wants to be where it is. On the Washington Street side though, there's a series of triangular green spaces, which is exactly what we've shown in the proposal. Outdoor display areas and storage areas all formed by the rectangular building juxtaposed to that acute angle formed by the street intersection and the alley. Further, the buildings on the west side of Washington Street over the last several years have been repurposed as a collection of really charming spaces with restaurants, residential, a distillery and other small uses. And all of those buildings are one story. I think that a taller building of the prescribed height right up against Washington Street would be somewhat incongruous with the feel of what Washington Street has now become. And I would consider that an unfriendly gesture to those neighbors. In fact, one of those neighbors is here this morning and may speak to that point. So to restate our request, we are looking for some relief due to this hardship from the requirement that at least 70% of the Washington Street frontage be occupied by the building podium. Our best efforts, we've been able to occupy about 10 to 15% of that build to line with podium. And instead, we are proposing an alternate means of how to meet that, that's still within the spirit of the requirements and the history of the neighborhood. In a moment, I'll turn this over to the project architect, Ellen Weinstein and ask her to speak about this proposed design solution that we feel makes this variance request still very much in keeping with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance. But before I do, I would like to close my testimony by summarizing that in my professional opinion, my statements reinforce our contention that an unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance provision, a combination of the unique shape of the site, the mandate for above ground stormwater management and limitations on building coverage of the site put in place by a change to the state rules. And the practical necessity that a building with structured parking needs to be a rectangle compels us to come up with a creative solution for Washington Street frontage, rather than being able to meet that strict 70% requirement. That those hardships did not result from actions taken by this applicant or the property owner. And in fact, have not only existed for years, but the shape of the existing building is some proof of why the proposed footprint is what it is and needs to be very much what it is. So in closing the proposed design solution we feel is very much keeping within the spirit purpose and intent of the ordinance. And with that, barring any questions, I would like to hand it over to the project architect, Ellen Weinstein to talk about that solution and the spirit and intent. Thank you. And it looks like we've got a question from Chad for you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And perhaps Mrs. Weinstein will answer this. I am curious as to the where we landed with respect to percentage numbers of this build to area being occupied by either building or something other than building but that we're going to sort of suggest be created to be similar to a building. So that, I mean, is it 50% is it 30% if someone could give just a rough approximation I would appreciate that it. And if that's Mrs. Weinstein, that's great. Thank you. Yeah, I'm Ellen. I'm happy to cover that one quickly if you would. So calculating building frontages as Ms. Monroe can tell you is not just a matter of measurement in the ordinance. And so what we've been able to do is the proposed green garden at the corner which is there today is actually going to be considered a separate parcel and not considered part of the frontage. So that partially gets us where we need to be. In addition, the parking loading access off of Washington Street does also not count as part of your frontage calculations. Like I said, it's getting complicated and that's just the way the ordinance is. So what our true frontage is calculated on then is based on the northern edge of the driveway off of Washington Street that goes into the deck and the edge of the Hargrove Street alley that red dashed line up at the top. So that is the portion of the site that needs to have frontage. And the true ordinance frontage calculation, as I said would be about 15% because that's about the portion of that frontage that has that yellow tan non-residential box occupied in it. Thank you. Let me clarify. So what I understood you to say was the lot's true frontage because there's some sort of subdivision or something like that. The portion of the lot that is currently to the southwest of the site is being carved off and is not part of this development proposal. So we're not going to count it towards frontage. Okay. Then there's the access way into the structured parking. We're not going to count that towards frontage. Okay. So the area from the edge of the driveway upwards to where the red line is, that is the quote unquote frontage that we're working with. And it looks like that is 51, 56, 77, 77 feet, 78 feet long. Is that right? That looks correct, Sariaz. Okay. Forgive me, because I am not a math student at all. Anyone who knows me knows that's the case. So of the 78 feet, 77, 78 feet that are there, are you suggesting that the portion of the non-residential storefront that projects into the build to area occupies 15% of that space? Is that, did I understand that that's what you said? That's correct. If you measure the maximum and the minimum build to, yes, sir. Gotcha. Okay. So there's still a little bit of percentage out there that needs to be met. And you're suggesting that the bike parking, I guess, I know you'll talk more about this, but the bike parking, I think that's shown on the plan here is goes towards meeting the intent of the pedestrian enclosure that's required by the building podium. Is that right? That is correct. Rather than doing nothing, we wanted to put something forward that we thought at least made the frontage lively. And that's what Ms. Weinstein will talk about. Thank you. All right, any other questions for Dan before we hear from Ms. Weinstein? I'm kind of shuffling through here and I don't see any. All right, we'll move on. Okay, thank you. Good morning, Chairman Rogers and board members. Appreciate your time and the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Ellen Weinstein, Weinstein Freedline Architects. We are the architects for this project. I've been a licensed architect in North Carolina for over 25 years and have a professional undergraduate degree in landscape architecture from Ohio State and a master of architecture from the College of Design at NC State, where I have taught as a professor of practice since 1990. Our office is located on William Vickers and I live at 610 West Morgan Street, both in downtown Durham. Weinstein Freedline Architects has a diverse portfolio of work that includes housing, schools, places of worship, offices and retail. Many of our projects are located in downtown Durham and in 2009, we had the opportunity to design a building in the Durham Central Park neighborhood, the first new building in the neighborhood in over 30 years. That project, the Durham Central Park Co-Housing Community, a self-developed condominium located at the corner of Hunt and Rigsby was also the first building approved under the then new form-based UDO. Subsequent to that experience, I was part of a professional group that met with planning officials throughout 2014 to discuss lessons learned and potential clarifications changes to be considered as the downtown design district guidelines evolved over time. As Dan discussed, the irregular shape of our project site presents a considerable constraint on how much street frontage our building can provide along Washington. We studied numerous ways to provide the street edge that the downtown design district requires on this odd shaped lot. We walked the neighborhood at various times of the day on weekdays and weekends and even in these COVID times, we saw people enjoying food and music at the Blue Note Grill, at the Durham Distillery, groups of one and two on lawn chairs sitting along Washington Street and watching NC Central Baseball at the ballpark. We saw a really rich and eclectic group of neighborhood activities and wanted to bring this relatively small scale of building and activity to our project just across Washington Street. The proposed bike seating shelter that, Eliza, can we show that image? This proposed shelter you see in the perspective which is looking north on Washington. This sketch shows a structure that provides bicycle parking for the retail spaces along Washington and Geer Streets and a place to sit undercover. The scale of the shelter helps to transition from the existing one and two story restaurants and residential buildings to the north and the taller buildings, our project included, that are proposed to the south. The shelter is clad with panels from the Stone Brothers and Bird Building that are the canvas for a wonderful mural known to all who live, work, and visit this neighborhood. We propose to reuse the mural panels of the Stone Brothers and Bird Building, but if reuse becomes impractical, then the mural will be recreated on new panels. We believe this shelter on Washington Street provides something new that feels very familiar and welcoming to our neighbors and provides a link to the very rich history of this site. I will close my testimony by saying that in my professional opinion, the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice achieved. Again, thank you for your time. Happy to answer questions. Any questions for Ms. Weinstein? So I just saw this pop up. Chad or Mike, I can't, I don't know which one went first. Yeah, I was about to say, I always call a Chad first. Mike, would you go first? Yes. Hi, Ellen, Mike Rutchels here. So the bike enclosure is, there's a section, I guess, that's kind of turned around and that is to expose the mural. Is that why you did that? Yeah, so there's bicycle parking both on Washington and then back behind the structure, which we imagine might be used more for perhaps folks who work in the retail and are more familiar with this place. And then the entire little shelter would be clad in the mural. Gotcha, and one more thing, I see trees on that sidewalk. Is there gonna be any curbs around those trees or is that just something you grew in or would that be a hazard, do you think? Well, the trees are required, the UDO requirement for so many street trees along Washington. They would be in the grates as required for the UDO. So the little green around the trees is perhaps a little too much artistic license here, but they would be in the required planting detail. I see. Well, it certainly is a peculiar lot. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mr. Meadows. Sorry. So thank you, I think this is kind of cool. Would you tell me how tall the shelter is and also the rendering that you've prepared, the perspective shows what looks like pretty heavily forested site behind the shelter. That's not actually like that, is that correct? I'm looking at the photo montage of the same site from existing Washington Street. I don't see any trees. Are these, was this just sort of creative license again or are you anticipating, you know, putting a lot of trees in behind the shelter as well? Yeah, good question. So the image that you see at the top of this is actually photoshopped over an image from the site taken on the site, obviously taken when the trees were in leaf and the other photos taken, you know, when the trees were not in leaf. So many of those trees that you see in the top perspective are actually on a neighboring property and will remain. And but a few, some of that underbrush that you see is on our property, as a property for this project and would go, but there is quite a background. As you can see on the lowest, on the bottom collage, the trees that you see beyond stone brothers and bird, I believe all of those trees are on north of the alley. Okay, great. And how tall is the shelter? Hi, this is Mike, this is Wynstein 3-line Architects. The shelter is 16 feet tall. 16, thank you. All right, any other questions for Ms. Wynstein? Shuffle through here real quick. I don't see anybody. All right. Mr. Rogers, that concludes the applicant's presentation. So thank you. All right. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this application for variants? Shuffle in here again. Eliza here, Brian, I don't want to... Sherrick, yes. Just trying to unmute. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I was not part of your swear in. Okay, let's go ahead and do that. If you don't mind raising your right hand, you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give today is the truth in nothing but the truth. I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. Alrighty, continue. Sure. My name is Brian Sherrick. I am the director of real estate for Measurement Durham that I'll share with Sherrick family. And the Sherrick family owns what we have is a 711 Washington Street LLC, which is 709, 711, 715 Washington Street. It's been mentioned a couple of times. It's across from the proposed development. It's where Blue Know Grill is during the stillery Corpse Reviver as their landlord. I'd love for you all to visit them. If you have not, they're all great time. But we are, we've been approached and by the developer and they've discussed their plans with us and we're in favor of what they're proposing. We agree with Ms. Weinstein that what they're proposing sort of helps benefits and gives context to our building. It's not overpowering our little one-story repurposed building that it really complements it. I think the creativity of pulling in the existing facade of stone brothers and bird, utilizing bike parking, those are great assets that we think will benefit their project, but also keep the neighborhood in our project surviving and well suited for this area. So as the owner of 711 Washington Street, we're in favor of the proposed. All right, thank you for coming today. You don't want to, I see, with Dan, yes. Mr. Rogers, my name is George Davis. I am the owner of Stone Brothers and Bird. I appreciate you letting me be here today and to speak. I just thought I would elaborate a little bit on some of the history of Stone Brothers and our intent with this project. Stone Brothers and Bird is an old company in Durham. Our conception date we use was the Bird Brothers, which Stone Brothers and Bird Brothers were merger later on, but Bird Brothers was actually founded by William and Raymond Bird in 1910 and we use that as our conception date. So we've been a part of downtown Durham for 111 years now and I want to take this opportunity to say that we're probably not under mile management, but we hope we're around another 111 years in downtown Durham. We don't plan on going anywhere except physically, that's all. So I want to be perfectly clear with that. Business goes on. The, I purchased Stone Brothers and Bird in 1976 with three family members. I was the only active partner in the acquisition and through the years. And through the years, last 45 years, I bought the other family members out. So I am the single owner of Stone Brothers. Our history, we're a farm supply of business and that's the depiction on the mural that we were talking about on the side of the building. In 1999, we won the Merchant of the Year Award from downtown Durham Incorporated, which I think was by default because in 1999, I think we were probably about the only merchants that were still downtown in Durham. But that being said, from that, we received a grant from the city and Michael Brown, who is an artist in Chapel Hill drew and depicted an old farm scene on the side of our building, painted this picture of an old farmer leading his mule across the field. And it's been a part of our business ever since and still is very much with us. And we hope will continue with us in this variance that we're asking for. The shelter that is being proposed will incorporate this mural and we hope will be part of our nothing else, our visual legacy as we go forward. And again, the fact that we hope and plan to remain open in a close proximity to where we are now, we feel like this bike rack with all that's going on with the new downtown Durham that this will add to some of the ambiance of what we have on Washington Street. So that being said, I just, I thank all of you for your time and listening to us and hope that we can seek your approval on this. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Just looking around, making sure, is there's anyone else here to speak in favor? I'm not seeing anyone. Is there anyone here to speak against this application for variance? Not seeing anyone for that either. All right. Does anyone from the board have any questions for the applicant clarification? This is Chad and I have one more. And I just for the record, I'm wondering if one of the speakers for the applicant can just take a couple of minutes and explain why it wasn't possible to stretch building facade along Washington Street on the portion of the site where the bike shed is located. I just need to understand why it wasn't possible to put building there. Yes, Dan Jewel. Thank you again. And that's a great question. And I know I went over a lot of things in my testimony, but there's two main reasons. One, we are stuck with an existing impervious surface percentage of about 85% on this site that we cannot increase by much at all. And that is because of those recent changes to the state stormwater BMP manual that does not allow us to do stormwater treatment and underground. And believe me, we still have to do stormwater treatment that is inflexible. That's not even something we could ask for a variance for, unfortunately, if we would, we would. If we could, we would. So what that compelled us then was to figure out where those green areas, where those unpaved and unbuilt areas on site would be. We're also compelled by a shape of a parking structure which is an aisle with 90 degree parking spaces on both sides, which describes that rectangle you saw in the exhibit. And then we are also required by the UDO to have a 20 foot depth of retail space between that structured parking and the front of the building. So all of those things together said that we have a building that has to be up close on gear street because that is the street that is the more active street. Already has the precedence on it. We have to maintain the green space that we have today. And the only way we could really figure out how to do that was to use those really odd corners, those acute angled corners formed by the street and then the alley intersection as well. And end up with the building location and the building configuration that we did. We did look at making the building more of a parallelogram which would kind of be the natural approach. But what that did, it affected the parking and it also took away from the pervious surface that we need to preserve. That was a long winded answer and I hope it was satisfactory. Thank you, thank you. It was and just so that I'm clear 100% the area that's at the southwest corner is going to become a garden or something but is not part of this development though it's shown on your schematic. You can't count that open space towards this project. Is that accurate? No, we will be counting that open space toward this project. So it will be part of the project. It will be developed as a garden as part of the project but because we can carve it out as a separate lot that means that that portion of the building adjacent to that does not need to meet the frontage requirement because it has no frontage. I see, thank you. All right, any other questions for the applicant or any of their witnesses? Okay, seeing none. Let's bring this back to the board. Any discussion, deliberations, thoughts? We do not get a, okay, Mr. Riches. Unmute there, Richelis here. I definitely think that there's definitely a hardship because of the peculiar to the property but I also think this design definitely brings, as Dan said, it's definitely congruous to the area and I'm for it. Any other thoughts? I'll share a couple. I'll share Mike's sentiments as well. I mean, this is a weirdly shaped lot here and even with Washington cutting pretty tough corner right there is, it's just, I can see how this is peculiar to this lot. So I'm also in favor. This is Chad. I think the part that the corner, the Southwest corner is a bit of fancy footwork, if you will, in terms of the application of the rules. Nonetheless, I think the proposal does attempt to meet the spirit of the COMP plan and the policy guidance that's in place and the code standards. So I am in support of it too. Thank you. That's actually a good point. I'm glad you said that. The spirit and intent of the ordinance is actually something I mentioned to say, I wanted to say as well. So thanks for bringing that up. Anyone else? Does anyone want to offer a motion? Meadows, I would like to make a motion that application number B210013, a request for a variance from the requirement that a minimum of 70% of the build-to zone shall be occupied by the building podium and property located at 512 West Gear Street that successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions that improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We have a motion for approval by, Chad Meadows, is there a second? Regulus second. Second by Mike Regulus. Susan, would you call everyone? Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Ms. Boshane. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. Vote of seven to zero, your request for a variance has been approved. You'll get a written order and we appreciate you coming for the BOA this morning. Thank you, folks. Have a good day. If you don't want to power through this or another one, let's do it. Case B210014, a request for minor special use permit for development of a legal non-conforming lot with a width less than 30 feet. The subject site is located at 712 Kent Street zoned residential urban and in the urban tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case would be Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Regulus, Ms. Jeter, Ms. Major and Ms. Boshane. All right. Cole, is this one yours? It is. I'll take it over. Oh, we got to do a, I got to swear in some folks. I almost forgot my duties here. Whoever plans on giving testimony, I think it looks like we have everybody on the screen here. If you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. All right, thank you. Cole, take it away. All right, I'm going to go over saying the planning department, planning staff, press the door, staff court, and I'm going to submit to the public hearing to be made part of the public record being necessary for corrections. So noted, thank you. The 21-00014 is for a minor, minor specialties permit for development of a legal non-performing lot with a width less than 30 feet. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is in the urban tier zone residential RU 5-2 and is within the city of Durham's jurisdiction. The existing use is vacant. Peter Guido, applicant on behalf of owner Joel Renteria, opposed to single family dwelling on the existing lot located at 712 Kent Street, which is approximately 20 feet wide. Parcel is residential urban and located in the urban development tier for Unified Development Ordinance 14.3.2. Sorry, A, any legal established lot with width less than 35 feet that above the street that is maintained by NCOD, NCOD or the city that was created prior to the creation of ordinance is allowed to be developed with a single family or two family dwelling for Unified Development Ordinance section 14.3.2B. Any lot does not meet the standard paragraph A, so that we discussed before, may be allowed to be developed with approval of a minor special use permit. Staff will be available for any questions during the hearing. Cole, Chad, do you have a question for Cole? I do, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. Cole, does this site have to meet the infill standards are there, like height requirements or anything like that would need to be complied with as part of the process of approval of this development? Right, so it does have infill standards as far as height goes. However, when it comes to the side yard setbacks, there is some different things that are for this lot because it is a non-conforming lot. It was not, I mean a lot, but those don't affect the infill standards. The only thing the infill standard would have to apply is the height. But I mean, we don't have any plans because this is just, as right now, this is all we have as a footprint. They may talk about height, but they would have to meet those things when they do build. They do have some adjoining addresses of the building height down there in the bottom of this plan. They may give you kind of a rough estimate where the heights are, but as of right now, there's nothing there. That's what I'm asking. Thank you. And I see that you have your hand raised. Yes, it says side yard is six feet minimum. So what are the side yards proposed? So the side yard is six feet, but like I was saying, there is some things that reduce the side yard. So basically, Cole, that's the infill standard related to the fact that you get like 60% or 80% of the... That's correct. And I'm just making sure I got it right. Yeah, so with single-family requirements on non-performing lots, they do not meet the law requirements. I'll be reduced as follows. It's on the rural tier, so 14.3.2 C2. In all the tiers, the total side yard is acquired, and each individual side yard shall be at least 80 of the required side yard, the district in a lot of locations. So six is not the requirement, it'd be 4.8, which he has provided. As you can see on the plan, it says 4.8 setback, and that's with the 80% reduction of each side yard of that six feet. So just to be clear, so it's a non-conforming lot and it doesn't have to conform with side yards? No, so it has side yards, but for a single-family and two residential lots that do not meet law requirements are allowed to be reduced. It has to be 80% of the required side yards. There is no total, which means the two sides don't have to meet the total, but each side can only has to be 80% of the total. So since it's 6%, 80% of that would be the 4.8 setback. Okay, so therefore the building would be 9.6 minus 25, 15 and a half feet, what? Here he's showing the building is 16 and a half feet. My math isn't that good. Just can you just run over with me, please? For 9.6 minus 25, so that's 16 and a half. Yes, I believe so. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Cole before we hear from the applicant? We'll just shuffle through here, I don't hear anyone. All right, Peter would you like to give us a rundown? Yeah, this is like Cole said, a non-conforming lot. It was created before the UDO. So we got through the setbacks. It requires a minor special use permit. Planned on building obviously a skinny house there. Nothing else really goes. And so I know about the height standards. Those I have to meet during the site plan review for when I submit my building permit, but I need this to even get that far. So there's no point for me developing a 16 and a half foot wide house until you guys give me permission to build a 16 and a half foot wide house. Mr. Meadows. Question for the applicant. That is a skinny house. Is this gonna be a site built home or is this a manufactured dwelling? No, it's not. It's a site built. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? I have another question. Mr. Kim. Did you consider approaching self-help which owns a big wide lot next door about getting a few feet from them? No, I did not approach anybody about that. I bought the lot and bought it a while ago with Mr. Ranterra and I have never approached anybody about getting extra square footage. I have found that's usually more of a hassle than it is worth it because then you have to make the lot conforming. So it's not like I can just get a few square feet. I have to get enough to make it up to a conforming lot. And so that would be difficult to be able to do that. It's like, I think 20 and a 25 feet I would have to get to be able to bring it up to performing, right? 50 feet, so I'm pretty sure it is. Any other questions for the applicant? Just gonna shuffle through here. Cole, do you have a recommendation for this group? Chairman Rogers, I have one question for the applicant. Go ahead, Mike. I'm sorry. That's okay. Did you reach out to the other property owners for any effects of what you're trying to build to the adjacent property owners? No, this one doesn't require, this minor special use permit didn't require any notification of anybody outside of what the city notified. So everybody would have got the letter in the mail like my other ones I've done for these. I usually just follow the UDO and I'm just following the UDO exactly what the UDO says. So it's not like I'm developing a quad or anything there. I'm putting a single family house there. So I just did exactly what the UDO said for this one. Thanks. All right, one thing I forgot to mention is there anyone here to speak in, else to speak in favor for this application for a minor special use permit? I'm just going through here. I don't see anybody. Is there anybody here to speak against this application for a minor special use permit? Again, I don't see anyone. Cole, do you have a recommendation? I do. A staff recommends approval that all the improvements be consisted with any information submitted in the application. All right, well, let's, would you mind stop sharing the screen for a moment so we can see everybody? All right, any thoughts? Discussion, deliberations, dialogue. A mobile home is 16 feet wide. This is a narrow house. A single wide mobile home is 16 feet wide. Your homes on, I don't know actually. The homes on 98 or, what's it called? What road has come down? Guest road are very similar to this. The homes on guest road are very similar to this. You go down guest road coming from North Durham. You're in a little house, right? Like it's actually a house house. No little house is there. Just a shotgun house. Your San Francisco style shotgun house. And you're talking about the new houses on guest road well, new that are kind of stuck in between the existing homes. Correct, yes, ma'am. Those houses on the left as I come, I'm developing up in Northern Durham in the Treyburn. When I come down guest going back to downtown you can see them on the left there. Okay. Very similar to that. Okay. Any thoughts? I mean, it's unique. It's not something that we see every day but it seems like he met the standards. Okay. One more question. I assume the driveway is gonna be in the front. Yeah, there. It's obviously not gonna be on the side. There is no, you won't be able to get a driveway on the side. So I'll either push the house back or you guys don't have a minimum driveway length from what I remember. I just live a minimum parking. So I'll just come in front of it and widen out to the front. I did this at 1010 Holloway Street as well. I'm building there and same thing. And 1112 Spruce Street for driveways. Okay. It's a very, very narrow car. Black family's car. They got the Fiat smart cars. Right. I'm selling to a certain clientele. No cars, now bus or app or transport. There you go guys. All right. Any other thoughts? We've got a recommendation for approval by staff. There's any, few people have offered some opinions. Does anyone wanna offer a motion? Jeter. A motion that, oh wait, I thought I had it. Sorry. Oh, this is the order. This isn't the motion. Oh, I don't have it. Let's go further down on the order. The Americans at the bottom of the staff report. What? All right. I can offer a motion if you can't find it. Is Jeter. Go ahead Mike. I hereby make a motion application. The second one would be to 1-0-0-0-1-4. An application for a minor specialist permit for development of a legal non-conforming lot with a width less than 30 feet on property located at 712 Kent Street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance. And it's hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the all information submitted to the board as part of this application. We've got a motion for approval by Mike Regulus. Is there a second? Micah? Second. Mr. Jeter. Susan, what'd you call everyone? Ms. Bouchain? Yes. Ms. Major? Yes. Ms. Jeter? Yes. Mr. Regulus? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Meadows? Yes. Mr. Kip? Yes. Motion carries 7-0. I'll vote a 7-0. Your minor special use permit has been approved. You'll get an order shortly and we appreciate you for coming before the BOA this morning. Thanks, guys. Have a great day. You too. All right, we're on our final one, final case of the day. Do we need a quick break or we want to go through it? Okay, we'll continue. Susan, call the case. Case B21-0015. A request for a variance from the required structured parking ground floor design standards. The subject site is located at 130 South Mangum Street, is in downtown design and in the downtown tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified, notarized affidavits, verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Mr. Kipp, Ms. Dermados, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Jeter, Ms. Major, and Ms. Bouchang. Thank you, Susan. All right, so everyone who plans on giving testimony will have to collect a, I guess your swearing in or I guess for those who have already done it, they don't have to, but so we'll need your video on for whoever plans on doing this. So Scott Harmon, plan on, okay. All right, and if you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? And I want to kind of start at the bottom here of my screen, Ashley Young, I got to have you unmuted, sorry. Apologies, yes, I do. Scott Harmon. Yes. Dan Jewel and Andy Porter. Yes, yes. And also do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Andy? Yes. Dan, I'm guessing yes. Yes. Scott Harmon. Yes. And Ashley Young. Yes. Thank you so much. Eliza, is this yours? Yep, it is. I can do it. I will take it away. Thanks. Eliza, I know you're here, everybody speaking from the planning department. I'm representing the planning department, excuse me. Planning staff request that the staff report in all materials submitted to the public hearing be made part of the public record with the necessary corrections as noted. Noted and thank you. Thank you. Oh, I should probably share my screen. I was like, why can I still see everybody? Here we go. Case B2100015 is a request for a variance from the required structured parking ground floor design standards. The applicant is Coulter Jewel Thames and the subject site is located at 130 South Magnum Street. Oops. The case here is actually highlighted in blue, a little bit different than normal. The red parcels are typically once they're highlighted for historic districts. So to distinguish on this screen, highlighted in blue, the site is zoned Downtown Design Core or DDC and is a local historic landmark and within the downtown development tier. On this screen, you'll see that it's highlighted in red. It gives you an aerial of what's currently there. It's currently a parking lot. It's got a little over 15 spaces there. And this here is a rendering that was provided by the applicant after the original advertising date. But it shows a little bit of what the nature of the request is here. So for section 16.3.2a.3 of the unified development ordinance, ground floor parking, ground floor frontage along the right of way shall only be uses other than parking. This section focus on the structured parking design standards within the downtown development tier. Section 16.3.2a.3a further states that the area required for those uses other than parking shall have a minimum interior depth of 20 feet and a minimum clear clearing height of 14 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance from UDO section at 16.3.2a.3a to permit a 12 feet, one and three quarter deep interior space with a 14 foot minimum height clearance along the Ramster Street frontage of the property. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant a variance. These findings requiring approval are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to these findings are identified in the application, both of which are within your packet and staff would be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process. Not just this rendering, but the site plans also available as well and can be shifted through if the applicant or the board needs it. Thank you, Eliza. It looks like we've got a question from Chad. You know what? You know I've got a question. So Eliza, please explain the importance of the 20 foot. I think that's what's being, the variance is sought for the 20 foot depth. What is the rationale for that requirement? I'm gonna read directly from the ordinance. It just gave me one second. I thought I had it queued up, but it has escaped me. Apologies, I'm working on my iPad and it's giving me a little bit of dilemma. Give me one moment, please. I'll read directly from section 16.3.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. So within section 16.3.2, it just mentions that this is the minimum interior depth for a retail space or non-residential, non-parking use space. So I'm not sure exactly the intended use here, but essentially that is the minimum interior depth for that type of usage of space. So the minimum is 20 feet with a minimum depth of 20 feet and a minimum clear ceiling height of 14 feet is what the code requires just as the minimum building design depth. Mr. Meadows, you're muted. Thank you. One more question for you. What is the parking requirement for the use that's proposed and how many parking spaces are provided? Parking, there is no minimum requirement within the downtown development tier. So the parking would be based upon the use and then you're allowed to provide the maximum is 100% of what's required per use. What's going to proposed use here and I'll go a little bit. The parking is within that site data table, but I'll go a little bit so you can see the rendering. Proposed use here is going to be residential condominiums, which my screen's taking a little bit of a lag. So there's going to be, you'll see here, well, here we go, go back one screen. There are 22 parking stalls, which should be able to hold 52 parking spaces. They will be in the proposed design currently has the residents and individuals need to park here, entering along the side here down this alley and they'll be parking within these parking stalls. And the mechanism for parking is a mechanic garage. So if you've ever been to larger cities, you'll pull a car in and then it can move upward downward forward backward and allows for more parking. And that alternative design, which we don't commonly see, it was approved by the transportation department for them to proceed with that design style for the parking spaces. That was a long answer to essentially say about 52 spaces. They're providing 52 spaces and how many condominium units are there? Thank you. One, six, two per condominium. So give me one second. Computer, a little bit of a lag there. One second. Might just be easier to do it this way since it seems the file is a little bit long. Chair and Eliza, is it appropriate for us to interject if we have some correcting information at this point or should we wait until y'all invite us to speak? Mr. Chair, I would allow you to answer. Well, if you've got the correct answer, Scott, go ahead. We're providing 22 parking spaces in the stalls, not 52. My apologies for the fire in front. But 22 parking stalls and they're in the stacking configuration. And my computer is not cooperating at this time, but I will pull that information up and be able to share it in one moment. Okay, I realized some people might think it's tangential, but obviously my questions are gonna turn on the amount of space occupied by the parking on the ground floor and the inability to accommodate the additional square footage for the non-residential that's required under the UDO. I need to understand where we are in terms of parking and how that calculus was made. That's my line of questioning. And I'll shut up and let the applicant speak. Gotcha. So you're wondering how many parking spaces have triggered per use? Yeah, I'm trying to understand. I understand there's no parking requirement, but I'm trying to get a handle on, are they providing more parking spaces and could perhaps remove one so they could accommodate the UDO or do they have to have the 22 that they've listed? That's the question. Gotcha. The parking requirements for use of multifamily or condo requires two per unit. They are showing a commercial retail residential that doesn't require any parking per section 10. So the maximum would be required for those 25 or 26 units would be 52 spaces maximum. They're providing 22 spaces. There is no minimum that needs to be provided within the downtown development tier. So they're not meeting necessarily the maximum or the amount required, but there's no minimum that they could provide less than 22, but they are providing 22. Thank you. All right, any other questions for Eliza before we hear from the applicant? All right, would the applicant like to, you Dan? Yes, sir, back again. Sorry, you have to see me twice this morning, but we'll go through this. Good morning again, Chair Rogers and board members, Dan Jewel with Cultural Jewel TEMS PA. We're the civil and engineers, landscape architects on this project. And our office is literally 100 feet away from this site at 111 West Main Street, Dagonley. With me this morning are Ashley Young, project architect with built form. Andy Porter who you saw a second ago sitting next to me, landscape architect, project manager with our office and of course Scott Harmon with the development team. And apologies in advance for repeating some things I gave you an hour ago, but I just wanted to get some stuff on the record. Good about my credentials. I have a professional degree in landscape architecture from Purdue University and I've been practicing as a licensed landscape architect in North Carolina for 36 years now with the bulk of that experience in Durham. And most of that work does involve design and preparation of site plans, preparation similar to this. And at this point, I'd also like to ask that all of our application materials be entered into the record. Thank you, Eliza for the very good summary of our application, the detailed staff report and general location of the project site. We're here this morning to expand upon that summary and provide supporting evidence for application in regards to the current conditions of the site, the expectations for development and the specific site conditions that create the hardship and why this, these findings support our request before you this morning. Specific to our case, the UDO has made generalized attempt to establish a set of prescriptive design rules that apply to every situation, every site, every quirk that is specific to a site. And those rules were intended to have some flexibility in cases with some hardship. And of course, that's why we're here. In this specific case, the hardship is created by several factors, not of our making. The vision for downtown that chapter 16 of the UDO guides is a denser urban form of development that promotes a mix of uses and a high level of much needed housing opportunities. This is housing that will allow residents to live downtown, support all of our great local businesses which need more customers right now as we know. And our proposal furthers the vision by providing just those housing opportunities in a scale and form prescribed by the UDO. Eliza, would you be able to pull the site rendering back up again that you had earlier? Perfect, thank you. There does exist a hardship that is quite peculiar to the site and that is not of our making. The site is unique in that the requirements of chapter 16 of the UDO prescribe that if an alley exists adjacent to a property, then service and parking access must be off of that alley. And of course, on the west side of this property, sort of running diagonally up through the center of the page, there is a public alley. So we are required to access off of that. In our case, we have Mangum Street and Ramsor Street on two sides and the Kress Building to the north. The dimension of the site along the alley side is very short. It can constrain by a code required exit stair on the back of the Kress Building. That's a little green box you see at the top of the rendered image. It's also constrained by the North Carolina Railroad right away to the south. I think many of you know that Ramsor Street is actually in the railroad right away. And even though our property line at Ramsor Street is a little bit closer to the curb, the North Carolina Railroad claims an additional five feet of right away, further conflicting and constraining our site. All told, this leaves only a hair over 67 feet in length to shoehorn everything into that alley frontage that the UDO describes needs to be there. And what needs to be there? Well, first it's that parking access. You've heard me say this before, but as much as we'd like to hope that our culture will move toward a less car dependent future, the need for parking is still a reality here in 2021. The market still demands parking and the banks still require parking to finance a project. And what we are seeing in projects these days is that the expectation is one parking space per residential unit. If I'd been in front of U7 or eight years ago, the banks would have been pushing for one and a half spaces per unit. So we're educating them, they're getting better than they are today. But what we are trying to provide is as close to one per possible. And we are proposing 22 spaces, which is actually a little less than one per unit. But we've been told that that would be satisfactory and the project can be financed and built with that. Eliza touched on this, but as another pretty extraordinary measure, what we're proposing on this site is to do the first ever mechanically stacked parking system in Durham. And that system has specific minimum depth and width dimensions, even with cars stacked three high as it will be. Additionally, the code requires that we provide a van accessible ADA parking space. If you provide one parking space, it has to be handicap accessible and it has to be van accessible. So as you can see from this plan, the light blue area just below the green box, that is the van accessible space. And of course, with the associated aisle that needs to go with it, that takes up about 16 feet of the alley. The stacked parking system that I mentioned a second ago, that is the brownish beige area in the middle. And that takes up the width needed for those spaces side by side. We had the choice of making that parking system deeper rather than the width that we've shown it. Meaning more cars would be parked in tandem, one in front of another rather than side by side. But in either case, the size of the site would have dictated that we would have needed some relief from the 20 feet of other use requirement between structured parking at the street. So the choice was between Mangum Street, which has historically been a retail street, an active street, the street that people walk to the D-Pak from downtown after dining and things of that nature. Or that we tried to get relief on the Ramzer Street side, which is not a retail street. In fact, those of you who have driven on Ramzer, the Durham Loop, as we affectionately know it, if you think about it hard, you realize that from the moment you peel off of Main Street on the western end of the loop, until you get three quarters of a mile east all the way to Pony Source Brewing, if you know where that is, there's only one use in the entirety of that north side of that frontage. Parking, parking lots, parking decks, and lower level parking for the county commissioners at the courthouse and lower level parking at the Durham Human Services Conflict. It's all parking. But we still need to meet the UDO requirement as best we can, and we will. So rather than the 20 feet that's prescribed, we are comfortable, and Scott can attest to this as his finances are on the line, we are comfortable that we can lease a space that is 12 feet, two inches deep, rather than 20 feet deep. And even though it's not explained in the ordinance, why it has to be 20 feet deep, I know because I've been involved with discussions on the UDO for many years, the basic intent is that was considered so the minimum depth to create a leasable space that a tenant would move into. But we think we've got a tenant that would be comfortable taking that space, having all the windows looking out at the D-Pack, and actually we've provided room for the required outdoor streetscape, some bistro tables and things of that nature. So we can actually create a 60 foot long, 50 foot long oasis of an active lively street front, which looks no different from the outside. It's only when you're inside you realize it's a little shallower, which would be the only bit of currently conforming form-based use in the entirety of the Durham loop. So to conclude, it is my professional opinion that unnecessary hardship results from the strict application of the ground floor, line or depth requirement in the UDO, resulting from conditions unique and peculiar to the property. As I stated, the very short distance, the requirement for the exit stair, the requirement for the handicap parking and the requirement to have some amount of parking on the site, which by the UDO has to be accessed off the alley. It's also my professional opinion that the hardship in this case is not caused by the owner applicant because it has not been subdivided or otherwise changed, but we are in fact compelled in order to meet the other requirements of the UDO and market realities of the parking. And we do feel that the choice to ask for the narrower space on Ramzer is a much better request than asking for a narrow space on Mangum, which is a more important retail street. And it's also my professional opinion that the requested variants will allow for development of the property consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance for the reasons I've described above. Let's hope we set a precedent and we get a good thing going and more spaces along Ramzer Street develop out as a nice form-based storefronts over time. So that concludes my testimony. Thank you for your time. And the team is here to answer any questions that you might have. And I believe that's the testimony for the entire team, Chairman Rogers. All right, does anybody have any questions or are any board members having a question for Dan or the applicant team? Natalie? I'm sorry if I missed it, but how many units exactly? We have 25 units and 22 parking spaces. So like I said, we tried to get close to the one per. We couldn't quite get there, but folks that will be financing this project seem to be comfortable with that. Any other questions? Just out of curiosity, the folks who live at Crests who will no longer have views south, were they notified? I know there's nothing they can do, zero lot line downtown, but just out of curiosity. Yeah, I'd like to let Scott, would you be comfortable speaking to that? I would, thanks for your question, Ian. I have met with the HOA at Crest and they actually have very few windows that face south and the ones that, there are a couple of units in the building whose predominant views are south in very small windows. But actually, if you refer back to the site diagram, the green area with the stair, we've actually held our building away from them. So we're not just like arrogantly covering their windows. They will still have light air and views through their windows. And we're keeping the face of our building about 12 feet away from them. And also in our historic district negotiations, our height is more or less about the same height as the Crest. So we're not going to be covering all the views from the top floors, which have more sudden views than others. But we have met with them, I've answered their questions. I certainly invited them to attend today, making sure that they understood that they should do so if they had concerns that they wanted to express. Thank you. So one of the things I wanted to ask, is there anyone else in the speaking favor? I didn't know that Dan said the team may be done. Just didn't know if there was anyone else on the call. Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak against this application or request for a variance? Chad, do you have a question? I do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And then I applaud your work, your detail here. I'm troubled that there's a standard in the UDO that we can't easily articulate its purpose. But it's one that we have to live with. A couple of questions regarding the mechanical parking storage system, which I think is cool. It looks to me like this system is set up to accommodate eight cars on one level. And again, correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't know anything about these things, but it looks like there's supposed to be eight bays or locations for cars per level. And I think you said in part of your testimony you were talking about three levels. And is that accurate? And would it be possible for the mechanical garage system to be configured so that it's three bays abreast instead of four bays abreast? Yeah. Mr. Meadows, that's a great question. And I appreciate it. You're looking closely at those plans and we drew every one of those faces on there. So do you remember that game that we played when we were kids? It was the puzzle game that had the 16 tiles that you would move around. And there was always one empty slot that you would have to move one, two, and try and get them. That's the way this system actually works. So there's actually two empty bays. So eight times three is 24. So there's actually two empty slots because those are the slots that a car will slide over into to make room for another car and go back and forth. I haven't yet seen this in operation. I've seen the video, but I think we might be able to charge admission for people to watch how this thing works. One more follow up. Any height limits that you were working with? I understand probably another layer of mechanical garage might add cost, but was there anything that was impeding you from going to four levels instead of three? Scott, can you answer that? Yeah, Mr. Meadows, I would say it's a combination of cost. It's a combination of the constructability of the concrete podium level, the fact that we're next to an historic landmark structure and staying reasonably close to the height of that structure rather than exceeding it to max out. The zoning would allow us to do a 30-story tower on this site. That would be a little practically challenging, given how small it is. And also, high-rise provisions of the building code. So we're kind of at the maximum what we can do with this five stories of wood frame on top of one story of concrete without triggering pretty significant consequences and far as building code, fire access, safety, and yeah. And I also want to editorialize a bit. Like Dan, I've participated in at least three of the rewrites of the downtown UDO and zoning ordinances over the years in the 20 years that we've been down here doing design work with the studio. And the goal of that layer of 20 feet is just to make sure that people didn't put meaningless three-foot depth like storefront windows in order to technically make it that you don't see a garage, but creating spaces that people can't occupy and activate. And it's just good urbanism. It's creating good addresses that can handle businesses. I don't know why 20 was the magic number, because I do small, cute, creative projects all the time in downtown, and I can do a lot with 12 feet. I can put people in there. I can put small businesses in there. I like the smaller spaces because they're more reachable to smaller local businesses because they're more affordable. And so I feel like we absolutely meet the spirit of the UDO with our design. And I don't think anyone will really notice the difference. So that is just my opinion, but it is a professional opinion born out of two decades of work in the downtown Durham area. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? All right. Asked if there was anybody to speak against. There wasn't. This is we do not get a recommendation from staff on this one. Any deliberations or thoughts? Does anyone want to offer a motion? Does anyone want to chat about it more? I'm restless here. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. But as I understand it, the hardship is because of the limited parcel depth and the configuration to the adjacent alley. Is that how I'm putting that together? Anybody can speak on that. Mr. Retros, yeah, Daniel, that is correct. It's the very limited distance along the alley where we already have a requirement of a egress stair for the existing crest building, a 16-foot wide van accessible parking space, and the dynamics of this very compact, admittedly, mechanical parking system to almost reach that one parking space per unit that the market and the financing currently demands. And that leaves us with 12 feet rather than the 20. And those would be relatively small cars, wouldn't they? In that. People with suburbans will not be trying to park in there. Gotcha. Thank you, Dan. Chad, did you have something? I don't know if you spoke at the same time. Yeah, I think this is a great solution. I appreciate this applicant. I know they're diligent. There's a lot of thought and creativity there. I really appreciate that. If I was pressed, I don't know that I could get there with a rationale for the variance. So I'm troubled because I like the proposal. I like the outcome. Procedurally, I'm concerned about the rationale that we're providing, and that worries me. But I'm also a little worried that we've got a standard in the UDO that we can't readily justify. We've had testimony that 20 feet was there for a reason, but not necessarily the right reason, and that a smaller space would work. So it's worrisome that there's the standard that we have that we can't necessarily justify. That's not the applicant's fault. That's something for us to grapple with. So I don't know. I'm kind of torn, because like I said, I think that a lot of thought went into this. I think that the spirit and intent of the ordinance is met. I think that it's got a feature that would be beneficial to the community. This mechanical whiz-bang thing might be something that could work in other constrained sites, and it would be nice to have a model. And for those reasons, I think it's great. Does the hardship argument pass muster with me? I don't know. I don't know that I'm convinced yet. So I'm kind of at odds a little bit about it. I got a, Scott, do you have something for, are you going to address, not sure what you want? Yeah, may I speak to Mr. Meadows' concerns? Yeah. I would think about a suburban house lot. The classic example of what a board of adjustment looks at are dimensional restrictions, unique dimensional situations that the standard ordinance provisions don't anticipate. It's usually about something a squeeze. Something is not big enough for a setback that's required. Something's not big enough for the driveway and where the UDO says the ideal place to put it is. It's about the ordinance imagines that everyone's lot is 50 by 100, but some people's lots are 40. And so part of your job is the board of adjustment. I don't mean to be presumptuous here. I've never served on the board. So there's a lot of things that y'all look at besides this. But it's like, how do you allow someone to get as close as possible to a use of that property that can benefit them economically, benefit the city in terms of creating tax base and all those things, recognizing that this is no different. If the city would like us to meet the 100% of the dimensional requirements for the commercial space, we can do that. But we won't be able to provide parking in our building, which makes it economically infeasible. It is no different than saying, you can have the house you want, but I'm not going to let you park your car on it. And I think a resident that came to you and said, I think that's a hardship, that I'm not allowed to park my car on my single family lot when everyone else can. And so I hope that is a metaphor that helps at least explain our decision to bring this before you. And pitch the idea that we've put the priorities in the right mix and that we're getting as close as we can to sort of a perfect solution without abandoning any one item. Like we've gotten close on every point. We're not saying there's a standard here that should just be completely wiped out. I hope that's helpful. Yeah, it is for me. And I want to thank you for clarifying that. I look at this and at the end of the day, I always ask the purpose of a variance is, well, I guess there's always a purpose. But the question I always ask is, does this meet the spirit and intent of what the ordinance is wanting to do? On this, I think absolutely it does. And so that justifies for me, I'm not saying for anyone else. But my decision today, does anybody else want to offer any thoughts? Chairman Rogers, retulers here, I couldn't say it better. I concur with the same outcome. And I would support this budget. Micah, did you have something on? I was going to offer the motion. I did find this one. Go ahead if you'd like. OK, I hear by motion that the application number B210015, a request for variance from the required structure part for a design standard on property located at 130 South Mangum Street, has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plan and all information submitted to the board as a part of the application. We have a motion to approve Ms. Jeter for this variance. Is there a second? Yep, second. Second by N. Kip. Susan, would you like to call everyone? Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Retzlis. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. No. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Ms. Boshane. Yes. Motion carries 6 to 1. Vote of 6 to 1, your variance has been approved. We appreciate you coming for the BOA. You'll get an order shortly. Good luck. Thank you so much, and you almost made it by noon. Thank you. I'm honest, that was my goal, but. Appreciate you all staying so late. Thank you for coming. All right, let's get this moving on a little more. Any old business? I don't see any on the agenda. Any news business? I've got an item that I'd like to mention. Krista, do you want to go first? Sure. Krista Cucco City, attorney's office. I just want to let you all know that we are going to be bringing forward some amendments to the rules of procedure for the board, just to align with changes to 160D. And just to make sure that what our rules say reflect our practices. Vice versa. And so the way that the rules of procedure account for amendment is that they have to be brought before you. And then the following meeting, they can be voted upon for approval or adoption. And so our plan is for staff to bring those to you next month for presentation, consideration, and then we would bring them in June for approval. Right. And it kind of tees up the thing I want to talk about. Last month, I sent an email after the meeting. I think I'm the only one. And I actually just thought about this before today's meeting. I think I'm the senior member now that Regina's no longer on the board, which is kind of crazy. I don't think I've been on here for any length of time. But I think it's been about four years since we've had a training that was provided by, I think it was David Owens at the School of Government. And I'm wondering, now that we're going to have some new rules or we're proposing some, if it's worth having another training half day, because this is how it used to be that afternoon. I think we had spent an afternoon or morning downstairs in the basement with the planning folks. And I think Jim Joyce, who is a former colleague and a friend of mine, is now taken over. I think he's in David Owens' job now, or at least he's over there at the School of Government. I don't know if it's worth bringing them in as well. I always thought it was incredibly informational, formative to have that. And I talked to Jessica a little bit about this before the meeting. I know that there's a cost associated with it, but I also feel like there's a lot of benefit. And I don't think anybody on the board, except me, has actually gone through that from the training since. When I first joined the board, which is about five years ago, we had something like annually, and I know it's been a couple of years since we've done something now. And I know we've got, I won't say any new members, but we've got some folks who may not have been through some of that. I don't know what everybody else's thoughts are. I'd like to hear. Chairman Rogers, is that, I took a 12 week class two on planning, are you referring to that one? No, this is more like a refresher on what the charge of a board of adjustment is. What's within the law? What's the intent of talking about quasi-judicial hearings and meetings and what we should be looking at, what various things. And Christa and Brian did a training a year ago, two years ago, that was very similar. But anyway, Jessica, you got something? Yes. So I can't speak for everyone else, but when I joined the board, I had a private training of that sort where everyone came in and both the city attorney and county attorney were there and members of the planning department were there. I assume that they did that for everyone when they joined. Natalie, did you get that? No, I didn't get that. Did you get that? I got that, yeah. I got that. I got that. I got that too. And I was given a book that I've read, and I got lots of other materials that I read. I thought you were suggesting, Jacob, like they're an updated training, like there was new stuff we needed to be trained on, not the... Absolutely. I knew that 160D is gonna be a big deal and it's gonna bring about some changes. So I think that that's, it's probably timely, but just for the sake of kind of getting everybody on the same page, we all know what we're doing. Procedurally, and the charge. I would support that. I also like to see what the amendments are gonna come up with. So it is good timing, chairman. I'm always up for new education. Yes, do anything new, informative, I'm up for that. I think it'd better equip us all. I mean, Chris and Brian, what do y'all think about this? Is it possible to get those school government votes or somebody involved or put together something in half a day? I don't know. Yeah, I mean, they routinely provide trainings and there's a cost to them, but I wouldn't really worry too much about the cost. The question is how effective it would be for the entire board. So it's probably better to pull the board and see where their comfort is, their comfort level in terms of what the content of the training would be. And I think they can also tailor their trainings if you have a higher level of understanding of what's going on in these quasi-judicial hearings and you wanna explore something a little bit more esoteric, they can do that as well. What I'd like to know is who did not get that initial? I remember, I know Natalie said she did not get that initial training. I think everybody else did. Mike, Terence? I think we missed Mike and Natalie. I didn't get it. Because of COVID. We're also gonna have another person appointed any day now, but anytime now I'm imagining. So I think it might be helpful for anyone who hasn't had that to have that. And then if you wanna have something more expansive, to do that as well. My experience with the School of Government Trainings, I don't know, maybe because I'm a lawyer, they, you know, sometimes. It is sometimes. I'm a lawyer. I mean, sometimes it is limited efficacy for me. But I think in observing the board, I think I'm going into like my ninth year and I ate a ninth year representing the board. And so I've seen the spectrum of how these things are run I think the best thing to do is to sort of have some standardization of how these cases are approached, as opposed to having someone from the School of Government come and give you a recitation on what the treatise of cross-eyed judicial hearings are. I think we just sort of need to standardize our processes on how we evaluate cases. That would be my suggestion. I know a lot of boys have standard forms that they use and so your vote comes down to a vote on each element. And so if a particular element doesn't get a majority of the votes, well then the permit's not issued. So that's one way that folks handle it. But that would be my suggestion. I'm not sure how much it would help to have someone come from the School of Government. Between Chris and I, we can probably answer all those questions that anyone would have that the School of Government would present on. I think what we would benefit most from is having some standardization of how we evaluate the cases so that we're sort of not treating people differently. Absolutely. So I think that's how we would benefit. Now the School of Government may be able to help with that. Right? Because I know they have some forms, they have blogs, they have information on how different jurisdictions handle it. And I think if there were any, I don't think there are many weaknesses, particularly now with COVID, I think with COVID, we're doing just a fabulous job in hearing these cases, right? But if there were any weakness, I would say it's sometimes we go a little bit astray on what the factors are and how to apply the evidence to those factors. So that would be my suggestion, but that's just me. Krista, what are your thoughts? I tend to agree with Brian that I think that it's probably more effective for us to kind of help train just because we have the most familiarity with sort of the cases, how you all tend to handle the cases, what the rules and procedures say, which is not to say that the School of Government could not get familiar with some of those aspects of how you all operate, but we've got a little bit more familiarity. So we can find out what a training might look like from the School of Government. I think going ahead and sort of getting Mike and Natalie on boarded and how we have typically done that in the past is also going to be beneficial for them. I saw that Chad dropped in the chat sort of walking through a case and we could use, we don't have to sort of invent something whole talk. We could get a case from five, six years ago, something, some set of facts where we can apply current UDO standards and kind of walk through that and sort of talk about questions that you might wanna ask, what would be an appropriate question? What would be an inappropriate question? How do we really get at? I think that that would be a really good idea to do. So we can also incorporate that. I'd like to go over what's appropriate and what's not appropriate. I think that I struggle with it. I'm sure everyone else does and has throughout their time on this because this is a little bit different, but what's a realistic timeframe that we could see in the 90 days? Jacob, I would suggest, if everybody would be amenable to it, like a half day retreat, plan sometime during the summer, you know, late spring, early summer, or even late summer, whatever. I think soon, my understanding is that in June, the state of emergency is going to be lifted. And so we can probably find some place where we can socially distance and everybody, most of the people will be vaccinated. I'm vaccinated, right? And so we'll be able to, you know, to have a good session and we can go through different scenarios and you can ask questions. You know, you can provide materials, maybe provide handouts that everybody could have. So it'd be more of a standardized process. That would be my suggestion, like just a half day retreat and we can go through and train on things and take questions and, you know, just try and get everybody on the same page. Yes, I don't think that same thing. I don't know if anybody... I'm all for it. Maybe make it a full day and the city and county can buy us lunch. Fine. And cold beverages. Yes. Fine. Yeah, I have no problems with any of that. So... All right. Well, you know, I think, you know, June sometime, the June timeframe would be a great, maybe July, whatever that needs to be. I think that would be a good time to do something like that. And also, given that we're going to have a new member, at least one new member, I think it's going to be even more timely. Three have been, what, nine, 11 members, whatever it is, haven't had any kind of training. Right. So, I think that's... All right, sounds like we've got that going and we'll see what happens. The next on the list is the Approval of Orders. Our first one, B21000010. I'm going to list the folks who can vote on this and make motions. It's Kip, Meadows, Retulis, Myself, and Tarrant. So, we're going to need a motion and a second for each one of these. And we are not going to, we won't here be to the second one, but let's go ahead and get a motion and a second for the first one. Excuse me, Chair Rogers. Did you say Mr. Rogers? I mean, Mr. Meadows, he's eligible to vote on my list. That's what I said. Ian Kip, Chad Meadows, Mike Retulis, me, and Mike Tarrant. Isn't that the correct, the right? Kip, Meadows, Rogers, Retulis, and Tarrant. Perfect, sorry. Yeah, so I need a motion from one of you, if you don't mind. Meadows, move approval. Meadows. Retulis, second. Retulis, second. Susan. Mr. Tarrant. Yes. Mr. Retulis. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Motion carries five to zero. All right, our next one is B2100013. This was a unanimous case. I need a motion and a second from the folks who voted on that today. Motion from Retulis. Meadows, second. Meadows, second. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Retulis. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Ms. Boshane. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. All right, our next one is B210014. Again, unanimous. Anybody who voted or was seated can make a motion. In second. In vote. Meadows, move approval. Kip, second. Ms. Boshane. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Mr. Retulis. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. All right, our final B210015. Meadows can't vote on this one. Motion by Retulis. In a second. Mr. Kip, I vote Shane. In second. Mr. Meadows. No. Can't vote. Only the other six. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Retulis. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Ms. Boshane. Yes. Motion carries six to zero. All right, that concludes our meeting today. Our next meeting will be Tuesday, May 25th at 8.30 a.m. I will see you all then. Hope you have a good day.