 Good afternoon, welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. So you should know that any item that is before us this evening still moves forward to the elected officials. They're the final determinants on each of these items. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom virtual meeting platform. So in this meeting platform, public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on the video by default to maintain decorum and a discernible record of the meeting the chat function has been disabled. Speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time during the meeting. Many of you have pre-registered. So when we get to the public hearing for the item you've signed up for, we'll call your name and you'll be able to give your name, your address and offer your remarks. If you called in before the meeting started and the staff was able to get your information, your name will be listed. So we know to be able to turn off the mute and allow you to speak, but on each item, if you haven't signed up yet in advance we'll also offer the opportunity for you to speak and you can virtually raise your hand and then we will call on you and provide you the opportunity to speak during the public comment period you'd like to speak on. You can also call into the meeting tonight by dialing 1-301-715-8592. And again, we can then call on you and you'll be able to speak. You can virtually digitally raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is not favorable. Thanks again for joining us tonight. May we have the roll call, please? May we have the roll call, please? Good evening. Good evening, everyone. Sorry, I had to turn a light off in my living room because the glare was blinding me. I had to turn a light off in my living room. Yes, so Commissioner Amondoya. Amondoya, sorry. Here. Yes, so Commissioner Amondoya. And Commissioner Baker. Here. Chair Busby. Here. Commissioner Baker. Here. Commissioner Cameron. Here. Here. Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Cameron. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Durkin. Present. Vice Chair Kanchin. Present. Commissioner Landfrey. Vice Chair Kanchin. Present. Commissioner Low. Commissioner Landfrey. Present. Here. Commissioner Low. Commissioner MacGyver. Here. Here. Commissioner Miller. Here. Commissioner Miller. OK, I think Commissioner Morgan is running late, so maybe Mr. I'm here. I made it. Hey, you made it. OK. So Commissioner Miller. I'm here. You made it. Are you there? I'm here. So Commissioner Miller. I hear you. And Commissioner Williams. I hear you. And Commissioner Williams. After all that, everyone's here. Thank you. I had to get an afternoon beverage. I stir the water. It is not a problem. Thank you. I had to get an afternoon beverage. Thank you very much. Before we get to adjustments to the agenda and approving the minutes from the last meeting, I did want to welcome Kimberly Cameron as our newest commissioner. So Commissioner Cameron, welcome aboard. And if you'd like, I'd love to offer you a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself. I'd love to offer you a minute to put me on the spot. Why don't you? You didn't warn me about this. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your welcome. Thank you to the city council for their vote of confidence to appoint me to this commission. And I look forward to working with everyone and serving the citizens of Durham. I've been a resident of Durham for about eight years. Moved here from another city, bigger city in the southeast, named Atlanta. So y'all don't complain about traffic to me, please. But I get spoiled here in Durham. My sister even tells me I've forgotten how to drive fast when I go below 85. But like Durham, my daughter has basically grown up here and made this her home. And so again, look forward to serving with everyone. Welcome aboard. So with that, we will move to the approval of the minutes and the consistency statements from our October 13, 2020 meeting. If there are any adjustments, please raise your hand or let me know. But if not, I'll accept a motion for approval. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Seconded. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Morgan. And we will have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Amandoya. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Cameron. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Canchin. Yes. Commissioner Landfried. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner MacGyver. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. Thank you, it's unanimous. Thank you. And Ms. Smith, I don't believe we have any adjustments to the agenda, do we? No. The staff is not aware of any. We do not have any to recommend this evening. I would like to state for the record, as usual, that the advertisements and additional requirements were carried out in accordance with state and local law. And those affidavits are on file in the planning department. Mr. Chair, if I may, I did. So when I drove around, I noticed there was not a rezoning sign on the Virgil Road side of the Olive Branch case. Are we required to post on both sides? Well, we actually did post both sides. That sign apparently moved around quite a bit. It should be on the correct site now. I think our sign crew posted it a little too far one way. Then we adjusted it. And then we had to go back and move it again. So it did move around, but it was there. And it's on the correct property now. We wasn't there yesterday at all. OK, well, it could have fallen over. We'll check that again before city council. We've actually been out there three times about that sign. So yeah. Well, it's a hard piece. It's hard to find that side of the property. Yes, it is, I agree. But we did post it, and we'll double check. Thank you. Thank you, Grace. Great. Thank you, Ms. Smith. We will move to our first case this evening. And this is case A200003 and concurrent case Z200003, Olive Branch Reserve. And we will start with the staff report. Bear with me. One second, Chair Busby. I'm going to pull the presentation up. Great. Thank you. Certainly. Can you see that now? That's good. Great. Didn't want to start like the last time. Look, speaking to a blank screen. Good evening, Danny Culture with the Planning Department. I do want to make one correction for the staff report. There was a typographical error that we found in the staff analysis for item F, Development Impact Assessment. The proposed zoning should say PDR 3.220 and not PDR 5.556. That was the only error that we could find in that. We just wanted to make note of that. So anyway, the request for Z200003 for zoning map change has been received from Tim Syvers, a whore of Athens associates for three parts of the land, located at 1607 Olive Branch Road and 802 and 830 Virgil Road, totaling 113.579 acres. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from Rural Residential RR to Planned Development Residential 3.220 or PDR 3.220 for a maximum of 350 dwelling units with a minimum of 20% of each single family and town home unit types. The future land use map designation is listed for a very low density residential two dwelling units or less per acre and recreation open space. The applicant's request is for low density residential development four dwelling units per acre or less with no change to the recreation open space designation. Aerial map indicates the location of the site which fronts Olive Branch and Virgil Roads. In the site area, Olive Branch Road contains a single family dwelling and several outbuilding slated for removal. The Virgil Road properties are undeveloped and maintained in natural forest vegetation, except there are some gravestones slated for relocation in the 830 Virgil Road site. Area photos, the area around the site is mostly forested with some single family development farmland. Just northwest on the 1101 Olive Branch Road development road site, which you can see in photo four there, development was recently approved for 616 single family and town home units. And again, through some of these other area photos, you can see it's mostly wooded with some spotted single family development. Zone in context, the site is, again, is zone RR and adjacent to the RR zone properties with PDR located just to the north and west of the property. The future land use map, the proposed zoning of PDR 3.220 at a low density residential designation is not consistent with the future land use map designation of very low density residential. The applicant has submitted application A1900017 to modify the flow to low density residential, which is consistent with the suburban development comprehensive plan policy. The development plan, as shown, indicates the proposed density, the area of development, points of access, environmental features, required tree coverage, quantities and locations, required project boundary buffers, and impervious surface restrictions. The key commitments for this plan include permitted housing will be a mixture of single family and town home units with a maximum of 350 units total and a minimum of 20% of each single family and town home unit types committed, a maximum impervious surface area not to exceed 50% or 56.79 acres, minimum of two items to be included within the required open space at the time of site plan, which are a dark part, taut lot, disc golf course, or soccer play field, provide a one-time $35,000 contribution to the city of Durham dedicated housing fund prior to certificate of occupancy, provide a one-time contribution to Durham public schools prior to the certificate of occupancy, ensure average walk links not to exceed 600 feet in length, minimum of 20% of town home units are limited to single car bays or less, minimum of one traffic calming device is defined by city of Durham traffic calming guidelines to be provided, and 10-foot wide constructed shared facility to connect future Martin Branch Creek Trail. And additionally, their committing to the wildlife corridor uses limited to infrastructure, stormwater control measures, and open space amenities. There are other traffic commitments, also a minimum of five feet of additional asphalt to be provided for the full frontage of the site along all branched and vertical roads to accommodate bicycle lanes, a minimum of 65 feet of right-of-way to be dedicated for proposed collector street and constructed to city of Durham standards with three 11-foot travel lanes, two five-foot sidewalks, and two five-foot bicycle lanes, or 10-foot shared facilities are permitted by UDO section 1244C. Oh, excuse me. And there are other traffic improvements required on Copperton Pond Road at Olive Branch Road, Olive Virgil Road at side axis one and two, and Olive Branch Road at side axis three, and on Copperton Pond Road at Virgil Road. And if not completed by other developments, they'll have additional traffic improvements required on NC 98 to Kemp Road, Olive Branch Road at Dot Nichols Road and Copperton Pond and Olive Branch Road and Leesville and Mount Herman Shady Grove Road. Staff analyzed proposed development for persistence with the comprehensive plan policies and determined that the request is consistent with all comprehensive plan policies in order to accept for the current flung the natural heritage inventory and open space master plans. The applicant has the application to change the flung and the 300-foot wildlife corridor has not been identified for full protection for the NC-NHP mapping system and adopted East Durham open space plan. I do want to note one additional item. The applicant has conveyed to the planning staff that they might proffer changes at tonight's hearing. Staff has reviewed certain committed changes that are acceptable to those moving forward, provided it is also acceptable to the commission. If there are modifications proffered that the staff hasn't vetted, we will note those and address them in the meeting. And staff is available for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Kulture. I appreciate it. We will open the public hearing and we have four individuals who have signed up. They are all members of the applicant team and it's Tim Syvers, James Chandler, Baohang Wan and Michael Foley. And so I'll hand it to the four of you and if needed, you have up to 10 minutes to make your remarks. Thank you, Chair Busby. This is Tim Syvers with 4Veth Associates. James Chandler and Michael Foley are here with me this evening. We are social distancing together to attend this meeting. Baohang Wan is with VHB and he is our traffic engineer. He's logged in at his office and available to take questions. My presentation will take about seven minutes. So if it's the proper time, I'll go ahead and begin that now if the PowerPoint presentation can begin. That I have provided. That sounds great. Thank you. Thank you. Again, Tim Syvers with 4Veth Associates, 16 consultant place Durham, North Carolina. Danny, thank you for bringing this PowerPoint presentation up and especially your work of taking this project over from other staff, previous staff members. I really appreciate you and Grace and all the work you've done. If you can go to the next slide, please. The request in front of you this evening does include a change in the rezoning of 113.5 acres from RR to PDR 3.220, an amendment to the plume to allow the low density residential as well as an annexation of just under 116.9 acres. The project is located between Olive Ranch Road and Virgil Road. It is south of Doc Nichols Road and north of Carpenter Fletcher Road. The surrounding area includes large tracks, single family as well as multiple recently approved single family and town home developments. Next slide, please. This project is located in the heart of the Southeast Regional Lift Station service area. It's approximately three miles to both Briar Creek Shopping Center and the Ravenstone Shopping Center on NC 98. This map outlines our project area while illustrating other approved and proposed projects within the base. Next slide, please. This proposal also includes the application for amendment to the future land use map to allow low density residential development. This request will align the future land use with the parcels west of Olive Ranch Road as well as recently approved, recent approvals by the city council to the parcel north of the project area. The project is compatible with the existing land use patterns and is consistent with the intent goals and principles of adopted plans while supporting our city's housing domain. Based on the presentation by the city planning director at the city council work session on September 24th, this proposed use and density is also consistent with the expectations of our future development in the area while higher density residential, office and or commercial areas are anticipated closer to NC 98 and US 7. Next slide, please. The proposed maximum of 3.220 units per acre will provide a maximum of 350 units with a minimum of 20% mixture of each unit type. The density is compatible with nearby recent approvals of densities of 2.944, 2.999 and 3.236. Beezer homes is anticipated their sales price to start in the mid 200s for the town homes and mid 300s for the single family units. Next slide, please. The development plan illustrates landscape buffers, tree preservation and open space areas, utility stream crossings in yellow, vehicular stream crossing in blue. Access points are identified with the red arrows and the collector road is identified by the dashed line in the south side of the development. This development has nearly 600 linear feet of frontage on Olive Branch Road and 1,600 linear feet on Virgil Road in which turn lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks will be constructed. Next slide. Both Virgil Road and Olive Branch Road are currently two lane roads. Virgil Road will be widened to three lanes at access point one and two and have a continuous three lane section between these two access points. Olive Branch Road will be widened to four lanes with both north and southbound dedicated turn lanes at access point number three. Next slide, please. In addition, an eastbound left turn lane will be constructed on Carpenter Pond Road at Olive Branch Road as shown with the red arrow. The southbound turn lane and traffic signal shown in blue is committed for construction by a separate approved development. Next slide, please. This application includes the annexation of 116.88 acres. This encompasses the entire project area, the adjacent road frontage as well. It also includes a 350 foot path of the right away of Olive Branch Road to connect to the existing city limits in an effort to eliminate this gap. Next slide, please. A summary of the key tax commitments consist of a minimum of 20% mixture of unit type, a minimum of one traffic calming device shall be provided. Average block length shall not exceed 600 feet. Additional asphalt on both Olive Branch and Virgil Road for future bike lanes. Traffic improvements as previously mentioned. Greenway easement or the construction of a greenway trail as well as dedication of right away for the proposed collector street. Next slide, please. Tonight, I'd like to commit to the following reservations. To existing tax commitments, the revisions are identified in red. 22% tree preservation, 25% open space, a minimum of three program space items, which will be included. A one-time $87,500 contribution to the City of Durham Dedicated Housing Fund equating to $250 per unit. A one-time $16,000 contribution to the Durham Public School Systems and a minimum of 30% of the townhomes will be limited to single car, bays or less. Next slide, please. In addition tonight, I'd like to commit to including the following architectural design elements which have been reviewed by the planning staff as Mr. Caltrow had mentioned. In order to promote variation in home appearance, no single family or townhome unit can be constructed with a front exterior elevation, front facade or color palette that is identical to the home on either side of it. All townhome buildings should include a minimum of two front-facing gable architectural features. All single family units shall contain a front-facing gable architectural feature and transparent windows and or decorative hardware shall be included on all garage doors for both single family and townhome units. And finally, I'd like to commit this evening to increasing the illustrated wildlife border to provide the full 300 foot width on each side of the stream with the project limits, within the project limits to meet the objective of the Eastern Durham open space plan. Next slide, please. In summary, the proposed public utility connections to the Southeast regional lift station is environmentally preferable to septic systems with the soil types in this area. This proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and is also consistent with the planning department's expectations of future development in the area. This development will provide transportation improvements in the area to maintain acceptable levels of service. The project is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the proposed density and will not increase substantial adverse impacts to the adjacent parcels. It'll provide the opportunity for additional housing choices while supporting our growing population of our city. I do appreciate your time this evening and our team is available if you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Savers. And there was no one else who was signed up but I do want to give again the opportunity if there's anyone who is attending who would like to speak on this particular case. If you can raise your hand, you can hit star nine on your phone and you can raise your hand. I don't see anyone raising their hand. So we will close the public hearing and commissioners, we will take it to you, commissioners who would like to make comments or ask questions on this item. If you can virtually or literally raise your hand, I will call on you. Commissioner Miller. So I have a couple of questions. Tim, I really appreciate you expanding the wildlife corridor to the full 300 feet. Can you tell me what, I'm a little confused, is it still possible under the development plan as you propose to modify it to include things in the wildlife corridor such as stormwater control measures and other amenities? Yes, that's correct. So by other projects in the area have simply limited it to no residential building in the area. So we're limiting it to the uses as proposed on our text commitment to allow the SCM in combination with the natural stream buffers, keeping this wildlife corridor and it'll provide wildlife habitat by the SCM. SCMs, specifically wetlands especially, absolutely provide habitat for frog, salamanders, dragonflies, along with other insects, which is why placing them inside these wildlife corridors is beneficial and is appropriate. Is there any possibility that your stormwater control measure would also go into any part of the floodway? No, that is not permitted by code. And there are two, can somebody pull the development plan map up? Share that with us. Is there someone out there that can do that for us? Thank you. Thank you, Danny. So go to the third sheet, I guess. Oops, maybe it's anyway, later still. It's a map I want. Yes, that, thank you. So the corridor, if I understand it, the corridor includes the part of the creek that goes north-south and the part that goes flows from northwest to southeast. Is that right? Thank you. I wanted to make sure I understood the map. So there are two crossings shown. One is a utility crossing and the other one is for a future connector road. And so what I want to understand is why is the future connector road necessary? This is Tim Syvers. Is that question to me or is that to staff, sir? Anybody who can answer it. Okay, well I'll take a stab and then transportation, if Erlene's available, she may want to ask as well. But the vehicular stream crossing and the dash line is actually the future collector road that is on the city maps. So the city wants this. And then what, help me make a picture in my mind's eye with the utility stream crossing looks like. Sanitary sewer. So it's a pipe in a cleared area. That's correct, typically 30 foot wide. And then somewhere in here we might be putting in some sort of stormwater control measure. I'm beginning to worry about whether or not with all these things in it, the corridor can actually function as a wildlife corridor. And the word corridor to me implies that this is a natural area that wildlife can use to move from place to place, not simply live. In other words, this isn't necessary for frogs and salamanders and box turtles, but this is a place where deer and other animals can move freely back and forth. And with these crossings, I'm worried that our policy seem to be at odds with each other. Tim Cybers again. So the policy, and this may be a question for Danny, the policy does allow these crossings. And I think planning your staff, the staff may be able to interpret that, provide more information to you on that. But the wildlife corridors with riding them around and wider than the stream buffers, help provide that natural buffer within the stream buffers, which will stay in Nashville, but also provide a wider area. As you know, deer go outside of forested areas, but with the commitment of having that 300 foot on both sides of the stream, so we're doubling what you see in the screen, the width of the screen here, they'll have that corridor and have that ability to move up and down, even if that is an area. For example, also greenway trails. Greenway trails are proposed along stream buffers within stream buffers and within corridors like this that the Durham open space plan allows. Well, I'm less concerned about trails than I am roadways with traffic. And I'm also concerned about stormwater control measures which can take up, for big projects can take up right much space and it's all cleared. And I'm just, is it necessary as a matter of engineering to include those features inside the wildlife corridor? When the stormwater, I don't know how many stormwater control measures you have in mind for this property. So you thought about it and you've got something in mind. Yes, and typically yes, the stormwater control measures are up against the stream. And in some cases specifically, if there isn't a specific channel outside of the stream buffer, these devices need to be piped directly to the stream channel itself. So yes, the general intent of the design is to have them adjacent to the streams but outside of those floodplain areas, as I mentioned, they're not allowed to be within the floodplain area. And then Tim, you and I have traded some emails. I'm very concerned about the little cemetery in there and I don't know why a cemetery so small cannot be preserved in its current situation. So the cemetery location for this is kind of difficult for preservation. Dan, if you'd like to go to the existing conditions page, I believe it's page two of four here, it's smack dab right in the middle of the development. It is in the middle of the development but it's only about 300 square feet and that would be generous. Yes, and that is true, it is a small, but so we are and we'll be working with legacy research. They're a consultant group located right here in Durham. They actually, and they specialize in this field. They would do an investigation and investigation of the site to determine the number and ultimate location of these. If there are any additional that are unknown, that determined investigation will provide that. They'll coordinate with the family to best decide where to relocate these gravesites to. And just like there's proper locations for commercial areas and there's proper locations for residential development, there's also proper locations for graveyards. These previous members of our community really do deserve a peaceful location where family members can visit them. And in my professional opinion, the middle of a subdivision is not a peaceful location for a grave site. So I went out there and looked at this graveyard. Danny, were you able to fix those pictures so we could display them? So it's right on top of the ridge. There are two graves marked with stones that have legible inscriptions and there are four graves marked with field stones, which in my experience indicates that those are graves either of children of very poor people or those are African-American graves. And so there's the graveyard. You can see that it is other than the fact that the one stone has fallen over. Two of the graves are surrounded by that chain on those stanchions. And then just beyond the edge of this picture are in a very tidy row, four graves marked with upright field stones. Yeah, so I looked all these people up. But these are the photos that I wanted people to see. In my opinion, it is possible in a development this big to set aside and preserve in a peaceful and tasteful way a place for cemetery like this. And I live in a neighborhood that's been developed for well over a hundred years and we have just such a cemetery located in the middle of the neighborhood. And it is a quiet and peaceful and a place of repose. I would feel better about voting for this if I had some idea about where what the ultimate disposition of this is. And I have to say that I find the text on the development plan moving the stones when in fact what you, I hope what you propose to do since it's required by law is to move the graves. I would just feel better about it if I had a more fully developed plan about where all this might go. Understood, sir, and I appreciate that. I can provide you additional information in the future as we're working with legacy research and what they provide. I do want to clarify though, that yes, that was the intent of that language. It's not simply just moving the stones, sir. It's absolutely respecting the past members of our community and doing what's right for them and for their family. They did make a couple of very successful movies on this theme, I'll point out. So those are the things that make me uncomfortable. Is there any way to change the committed elements so that we can move more amenities out of the wildlife corridor? I'm sorry, sir, could you ask that question again? So I'm uncomfortable with, I mean, with the committed element that says that certain amenities like stormwater control measures and other things are going to be in the wildlife corridor. And I also acknowledge that in other cases I probably have voted for developments that allowed that. But I am beginning to get a better picture of how this wildlife corridor works thanks to the inclusions in this staff report. And I'm just a little concerned that if we loaded up with crossings and developmental amenities, that it really can't function as a wildlife corridor and that we have a plan that envisions land reserve for wildlife while at the same time in our practice we more or less ignore it. Those are my comments. I wait to hear what other commission members have to say about this project. Commissioner Miller, this is Danny Caltre again of the planning staff. I did want to clarify something on that Eastern open space plan that yes, there are allowances for crossing streams and flood plains with certain things. Eastern open space plan though is pretty specific in protecting the corridor. And the only thing it called out for crossings specifically in language specifically was the actual greenway moving through the creek and actually for any roadway crossings for those to be designed so that culverts or bridges would allow for wildlife to move through those areas. Well, and I appreciate that completely but the open space plan isn't part of the code. And when this rezoning is approved, if it's approved by the city council, there's nothing that requires anybody to follow the advice of the open space plan. So this is our last crack at including in the development plan commitments to actually comply with the expectations of the plan. If we don't deal with that now, then we're essentially saying it's okay to not do those things that the plan envisions. And that's why how these crossings work and how these other features that might get put in the wildlife corridor perform matter to me. Commissioner Miller, any additional questions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to ruminate on this and listen to what my fellow commission members have to say about it. Thank you. Great. Commissioner Morgan. And thank you, Chair. I had a couple of questions for the applicant. When I'm looking at the map or the development plan for the area for both things, there are two areas of development on either side of the wildlife corridor. Do you have an idea of how many units you plan to put on either side in general? I know you're talking about 300 units overall, but what's the distribution? That depends on the final layout. Tim Cybers, who are about to associate. That truly depends on the final layout and where the final townhomes versus single family will go. Obviously the larger location on the right hand side will take the majority of the units. So I don't clearly know that the fine answer at this time. I was just curious if you had a percentage or kind of an estimate of what it might be. 70, 30 maybe? Somewhere in that range, I would say. Okay. And I guess the other question would be with traffic on Olive Branch and on Virgil Road. We've talked about different traffic and that those are two lane highways that we're adding 300 more units. And then we have another 600 across the street and things like that. Can we get an idea of what the traffic pattern might be if it was 70, 30 on Virgil versus Olive Branch and then they both kind of dump into Carpenter Pond and further south? And I'll leave it to your traffic person. Sure. So I can actually answer that. So if I understand you correctly, are you asking if the stream crossing was not proposed and the traffic was pointed in two different directions as opposed to combining? That's one option. And the other thought was just what would be the estimated traffic flow on Virgil versus Olive Branch? And then really where do we see the traffic going from a traffic study perspective? I could, I'll answer that and then also pass it over to our traffic engineer. So my first response to that would be if we were to remove that crossing, then and staff can follow up here again. I believe, and I'd like staff to follow up. If we did not have that crossing and did not show that collector road, we actually would be not be compliant with the transportation improvement plan that they have in place. So I do want to keep that in mind as well. I'd like to hand it off to Bahung Wan to respond for the traffic concerns. But I will note before he does speak is that that's really something that hasn't been studied because we are assuming the interconnection. And if Bahung, if you could answer, have any more information? Correct. My name is Bahung Wan. I'm a traffic engineer with HB. My office address is 940, Main Campus Drive in Raleigh. We prepare traffic study in 2009 for this Olive Branch Reserve project. And regarding commission, Morgan's question about traffic assignment, and we assign 70% to Virgil Road and 30% to Olive Branch Road. And that the traffic assignment that's like Tim mentioned at that time and because the frontage is much longer along Virgil Road, also that's ample capacity over there. So it makes them to assign over there. So, but now we start with collective revenue. We can take analog during the phasing study and see what's actually impact will be based on their actual assign layout. Okay. And then you're seeing beyond that, I mean, where the traffic would actually flow to Carpenter Pond. Would that go on to Carpenter Pond or further south into the Leesville Road area into Wake County? Or is you seeing that going more towards Briar Creek at this point in time as far as traffic? Oh, yes. If we go on Virgil Road, that two directions do go. One is to go along a minor proportion of traffic, go and learn Camp in the road, and then the majority will go on Leesville Road to a valley direction. All you the city roads go towards Briar Creek, but they have alternate road. It's using Olive Branch Road and using Carpenter Pond and Andrew Chapel towards Briar Creek Road. So both possibilities are accounted for in traffic study. Okay. Yeah, might be concerned is just the traffic in that area. And I know it's already congested during peak times already and the roads are not set up to do that. I didn't know how much that's been brought into it. I guess it's maybe a question for staff. Is there any, has there been any review of this from a traffic perspective? I think we should defer to Earlene Thomas if she's here. Yeah, that's what we're about to do here. Earlene Thomas transportation. So there's not been a sort of area wide study. I think it's what you're asking about in this area. I think that's something that's definitely at the forefront of the minds for the folks with the Metropolitan Planning Organization that do the long range traffic plans and modeling for the area. But currently there hasn't been a sort of small area study for this part of the county. Okay, yeah. There's just a number of new developments going in and I've noticed a lot of new units going in there and it's gonna be a big effect on the traffic going into that area. Right, and they just want to add to Earlene's comment. I think there's a long-range plan in the campus section, in the rally section. There's a new this way to realignment. That's kind of like a real line. There are new segment already been built within their existing subdivision that will connect to Carpenter Road that will take away traffic from existing this way of road. Also, there are another long-term plan for extending TW Xander Road and to cross the city road and then go attend an insect exiting alignment of Leith Road within the valley jurisdiction. But both are long-term plans and should be conservative. So we did and take away any traffic based on the long-term plan. We just take the worst case and then around the level of surface analysis. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Morgan, can I also add to that? This is Tim Cybers. Sure. So as you know, and you did mention there are a lot of other projects in this area. Some have been approved by city council already and we're all well aware of the DOT not doing many projects in this area. So as part of these developments and as part of these improvements that are listed as a requirement of different developments, we have those that are required of this development. But we also have, as you can see in the cover sheet of this development plan that says there's other road improvements in the area that are done by other developments, but if they're not done, that would also be a requirement of this development. So with those lists, and it's an extensive list for this development, those intersections, if you will, along with the frontage of our site will be brought up to that acceptable level of service. So it's one of those aspects where these developers are coming in and will be doing the road improvements, but you're absolutely right in today, it is congested with the anticipation of the developers coming in and increasing these roads to help provide the traffic, to provide the assistance with what's the issues now, as well as the increase in traffic based on the proposed units. Thank you. Sure, no problem. I just noticed that when I usually, I live in the area and I go down Leesville into Wake County pre-COVID around five o'clock, the backup of the traffic coming off of Olive Branch, as well as Leesville going into Wake County seems to back up pretty significantly and adding a lot more traffic or a lot more cars to it because of some of these developments. I'm seeing that we're going to be needing to do something there. Absolutely, sir. Okay. Thanks, Commissioner Morgan. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you. So my question, I'm not sure if staff or the applicant can provide insight, but following up on the comments regarding the traffic improvement in the profit commitment, what's the process of knowing when and who will be actually performing whatever is required or agreed upon to do it in regards to other development projects versus this applicant have not done? And so, like, when are those final decisions made and how does that comport with how this final development plan comes together in regards to what has to be done in this area? And hopefully that makes sense. This is Tim Syvers. I can answer that. Erlene may also want to provide some information on that and I see she's popping up. So Erlene, I'll let you answer. Erlene Thomas, transportation. So at the time of site plan, we would evaluate what improvements have been completed. And if they have not been implemented, they would be required at the development that whichever development gets there first basically. Thank you. And so follow up. So do we have a full scope of what the list of improvements would look like and have you all put a price tag to what that list would be if you had to do all of them or if you didn't have to do any of it with U-Zero? So what's the maximum investment that this project sponsors potentially in this space? If you'll give me a second, I will do some really general quick math in my head. Give me 30 seconds if you will. Very general. Our improvements along the frontage and the improvement along Carpenter Pond and Isle Branch, those are probably in excess of half to three quarters of a million. If the additional improvements are required of this development, you can likely with traffic lights and everything like that, you can likely double or triple that cost. Thank you. And so to Erlene, transparent transportation with those ballpark figures, can we a certain that at the end of the day, regardless of who does it, that all basically the full price tag of improvements will be done in this area before all of the projects in this area are 100% complete? Yes. So once they are committed elements of the development plan, they are required to be completed prior to occupancy permits being issued. Thank you for now. That's it. And I'll pause for now, Chair. Thanks, Commissioner Johnson. We will go to Commissioner Baker. Yeah, just one quick question. And Danny, are you able to bring up the development plan? Certainly. Let me just second. I'll pop that right back up. All right. Thank you for doing that. Any particular, you want the main development plan? Yes, please. Okay. So I'm just looking at the external connections to this site. And I'm curious about, and this is to the applicant, it doesn't look like there's anything hindering connections to the north, but I only see one connection to the north. And I'm just curious about why there would only be one. Sure. This is Tim Cybers with Horvath Associates. So in the northeast corner of the site, if you'll see there's a wetland and some dashed lines there, if you don't have to at this point, but if you were to look at the existing conditions, the topography in that area is very extreme. So you can see that that asterisk represents a larger tree save area. So our intent is to save that little valley that runs through that area to keep it natural, which is why we've provided one connection that is outside of that natural area. Do you know more or less the length, the length along that entire top part? Let me switch over to my AutoCAD file. Give me 30 seconds, please. Okay. I guess the main thing I'd like to say is, is it seems like there are more connection, more possibilities for external connections there. And in any case, that would be, that would be something that I would like to see, Tim. You don't need to give me the length, that's okay. We don't need to, we've got a lot of cases on the dock here. But as everyone knows, to me, the Durham Planning Commission meetings are sort of a monthly exercise in climate denialism. And we, and that's of no individuals fault, it's a systemic problem. And I think that we have a lot of work to do to change that. So, one of those things is kind of looking at connections externally there. That's all I've got. Thanks, Commissioner Baker. This is Tim Syvers, do I have the ability to respond to that? Mr. Syvers, when you get to my comments, I'll give you a chance to make any final comments. Perfect, thank you, sir. You bet. Commissioner Armandolia? Thank you, Chair. I just had a quick question for staff. And this is mostly for my education as a relatively new Planning Commission member. We're doing these impact assessments, especially around traffic. Are we looking at cumulative effects at all, or is this kind of presented on a case-by-case basis? So when the traffic, Erling Thomas transportation, when the traffic study is scoped, they do have to take into account the all-approved development in the area. So all of the surrounding developments that were submitted or approved at the time that they submit have to be included and evaluated. Okay, and you say approved, I mean, by the governing body. So if it hasn't quite hit city council yet, then it wouldn't have been included. Well, in this area, we have been including everything that has been submitted just because of the rapid growth in the area. We don't want to miss any of them. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Yeah, I also just echo some of the comments of Commissioner Baker. I feel really hesitant and concerned about a lot of the development patterns happening in this portion of Durham. And I think, you know, we should be cautious recognizing that there are forces at play that are larger than this particular case. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I don't see any other commissioners with their hands raised. So, oh, Commissioner Durkin, I will give the floor to you. I just wanted to echo the concerns on the environmental impacts especially and just the lack of the over development in this area without residential uses without any corresponding commercial and non-residential uses. There's also no public transportation in this area really to speak up with the webber. And I'm just concerned about continuing to have development like this, especially in this part of the county. Thanks. We'll likely be voting now on this one. Thanks, Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Lanford. Yeah, I just wanted to echo the concerns that have been raised and share that I will also be voting no on this proposal, not necessarily due to any specific flaws in the proposal from the developer, but because the Durham, you know, the vision for the current Durham Comprehensive Plan calls for us to ensure that we are, you know, growing in a sustainable fashion with high quality growth and the ongoing drip, drip, drip drop of suburban sprawl in this area that has will result in a massive loss in tree cover and in rural area and in rural zone is the definition of suburban sprawl to me. And I can't support it in general as a value statement. So I'll be voting now. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Kulture, I had a couple of quick questions for you that I don't think were asked yet. The first, yeah, thank you. The first is you had mentioned that you knew about some proffers that Mr. Cybers offered tonight and that if there were additional ones, you would let us know. I just wanted to confirm were all the proffers that we received this evening were they all run past the planning department in advance or are there any new ones that you need to flag for us? The ones that he actually mentioned tonight, I actually printed those out and went through to make sure they were the ones that we actually identified and vetted. Great, thank you. And then my second and final question is in your staff report, you noted that there were parts of the development plan and proposal that were inconsistent with policies. Are there still inconsistencies following these proffers or have they all been addressed from your perspective? The only one that really is inconsistent was he had only shown a certain width of that corridor for the wildlife corridor. He is now proposing to pull 300 width of the corridor. However, his text commitment still are showing intrusions into that corridor. So, per the Eastern open space plan, the only, from what I read, the only things that would be or should be allowed would be the Greenway trail through the stream bed and any roadway crossing that in those should, and actually those should be designed so that they would allow for free flowing wildlife movement like under call or under bridges. Thank you. And Mr. Cybers has promised I'm gonna give you an opportunity to just address any final points. I think we're getting close to a motion for a vote. So, any final points you'd like to make to us. Yes, thank you. Thank you, sir. Tim Cybers, we're about to associate. So, I just do wanna commit or respond to some of the notes about the environmental. As I made in my presentation, the increase in the tree coverage area. So, we are going above and beyond the code, not only for tree coverage, meaning tree preservation. And I wanna clarify that it is tree preservation that we're going above and beyond. We're also going above and beyond the overall open space requirements. In response to Commissioner Baker's, I looked and did get the dimension of there. It is very close to that 2400 linear foot dimension across the Northern property line. And at, I believe at that 2400 or above that a second stub would be would be allowed. So, if it's acceptable to planning, which planning is not aware of this at this time, but if acceptable to planning, I would like to go ahead and commit this evening to adding a second connection, a second street stub to the North. If Danny is acceptable to that, I'd like to add that to the commitment tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Before we get to commissioners who have raised their hands, I wanna give Mr. Kultra and the planning staff an opportunity to let us know about your thoughts on that. If you need a moment that let us know, and I can move to some other commissioners as well, but the important for us, I think, to make sure that you are comfortable accepting that tonight, or if that's something we need to wait on. I have a quick text with my super superiors. And we feel like we can make that work for the additional point of access. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Cybers for those comments and for that proffer. Thank you, sir. You've got a vice chair attention. Yeah, Mr. Busby, one comment, it does feel a little bit like sprawl to me. I think, you know, just from two in the area over the past few days, you can see all the developments happening and no real way to connect all of the dots. I do want to hear though, what was the price point discussed? I think I heard a low 200s for getting on the units. What's the price point for the developer we talked about these units again? So these are homes right now is looking to develop these homes. They anticipate the sales prices for the town homes in the mid-200s and the single family in the mid-300s, sir. One more time, I'm sorry. The town homes in the low, I'm sorry, town homes in the mid-200s and single family beginning in the mid-300s. Okay, thank you. Great, thank you vice chair attention. We will circle back to commissioner Durkin and then commissioner Miller. Here, Busby. Yes. I do want to point out one thing about that text commitment for the additional access point because I did just look at the existing condition sheet on that plan again. In the area in the northeast or in the north central area on that site there are a lot of extreme environmental conditions. So I want to point that out that it could be that it could make a crossing very limited in this area other than the one they're showing. Let me pull that plan up just for a second and point that out to you. Please. And as you do that, Mr. Cybers, any thoughts on that as well that are worth sharing? Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to when I was responding to the comment about that northeast corner. There is a lot of topography changes. There are some wetlands in there but I foresee our second street stub being to the west of the street stub that's currently shown on our plan to in order to keep that area that is highlighted on your screen right now to keep that area as a preserve because that is a wetland natural environmental feature that we want to keep. Back up, Danny, on that map. Show that whole top line there, that whole northern boundary. There it is. Because the street red is their property line here. So the area I'm circling here are a lot of steep slopes and there's some wetlands in there. So there are a lot of steep slopes in this area in extreme topography. That's not my own concern, but. Thank you, Danny. This is Tim Savers. Thank you, Danny. Yes, and that's exactly what I was referring to. So our two street stub connections would be to the, if you will, the western half of the project. Of course, not within the floodplain and stream buffer to the very western property. Great, thank you. And thank you for raising that question, Mr. Kulture. We will go to Commissioner Durkin. Yeah, I had a clarifying question for the applicant. On the open space, how much of your open space is met by area that's not a wildlife corridor or a stream, another stream or a buffer area? So how's that met outside of what you're required to leave as quote unquote open space? I have not calculated that to date. So I don't know. But as you're aware, the majority of the site, if it's not a lot or it's not right away, it is generally open space. So out of the site and the open space area, it's probably half and half within that corridor and outside of that corridor. But that's an estimate based off of five seconds of thought, if you will. Okay. And the same is probably true of the tree coverage, correct? Generally, yes. Okay. I mean, my point, and I don't really mean to, we're talking about this one, because that's why I'm bringing it up. I don't need to point fingers because I think this is a recurring issue that I have on projects where developers or applicants will say that you're exceeding something, but the threshold is very limited considering you get to count areas you are not permitted to build on at all in that number. So I don't find those numbers to be that persuasive. I'm just noting that. Thanks. Thanks, Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Miller, back to you. So with regard to extra connection points, I don't know how many of the rest of you actually got out and walked down into this property. It's pretty remarkable that little pathway that leads off of Virgil goes across the top of a ridge. And especially as you look to the north, when you walk along that pathway, it places where you can see through the fairly dense woods, the topography is dramatic. And I point out, if I'm not mistaken, those are two foot contour lines. And so there are places, especially in that one corner where in a few linear feet, you have literally 30 foot drops. So I just see some, I hate the idea of adding a commitment to throw in another connection point when nobody has had an opportunity to really think about the best place for it and how it might work, especially with, I mean, I don't know what the contour is really, how they function particularly well on the property to the north. I just hate the idea that we have done a lot of planning and engineering since this public hearing began. I frequently ask developers to consider additional proffers and things like that. I realize I'm as guilty as this is the next person. But today we got a long list and I could not write fast enough as Tim was going over them. And I feel a little funny voting, knowing that I don't have anything in writing in front of me, except for the few notes I was able to take. I'm not sure I understand what I wrote. I feel funny voting for or against this project without a clear understanding of what the development plan commits to today because some of those proffers were, I in my opinion, pretty significant changes going from a 150 foot wildlife corridor and places to a 300 foot wildlife corridor is a big deal. So Tim, is there any way that we can delay this for even one meeting and send us these additional proffers? So you have a chance to think about them before we vote. If you need to, I can review those again this evening. The majority of them are simple updates to some of the percentages, some of the new proffers that are brand new that planning reviewed were architectural commitments that Commissioner Miller, you typically asked for. And they're the standard commitments that you know you have seen from me in the past. But yes, the big change is that commitment for the wildlife corridor. So we're simply taking a 300 foot corridor and making it the 600 foot. So because we're just simply doubling the width in that, I'd like to proceed with a vote tonight, sir, if that's possible. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Tim. Thank you. Now, just before we get to a motion or two motions on this item, Mr. Savers, I just want to confirm, can you state back to us your final proffer on the additional connection just so we all have that? I know Mr. Kulture said that the staff is fine with it and I'm fine then voting on it this evening. I just, it'd be good to have it on the record one final time. Yes, sir. I don't exactly know the wording that staff is looking for, but I will commit to providing a second street stub on the Northern to property limits of this project area. Thank you. You're welcome. This is Danny Kulture, a planning staff again. We have some tax consulting again and we feel like it may be best if this could be just written as a potential access point that way that if there are restrictions that would actually- Chairman, this is commissioned with Johnson. I'm going to bear a hard time hearing it's choppy. Okay. We'll have Mr. Kulture. What I heard Commissioner Johnson was that the staff are thinking that we make that a potential addition but not that we lock in that commitment this evening. Am I correct Mr. Kulture? That would be correct because if they lock it into a firm access point and they're unable to build it, it could mean that they would have to come back with a new development plan. Got you. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I'm more comfortable with that. Commissioner Baker, I just want to check with you as well since this came out of some of your questioning. Is that, are you comfortable with that moving forward? Yeah, absolutely. Great, thank you. And I'll just say I'm with most of my commissioners here that I appreciate a lot of the proffers that were made this evening. I think it's made it a stronger proposal. This area, I've voted against many development proposals in this area. I fear, continue to fear that we are building first and planning later and that the pieces aren't of adding up and fitting together. So while I appreciate the proffers, I plan to vote no on this case before us this evening. That said, I would entertain the first motion on the two motions for this evening. Chair Busby, this is Tim Cyvers. I just wanted to note that I am also acceptable to the changing that to a proposed access point just for record. Thank you. Thank you, thanks for confirming that. Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I may. Please. With regard to case A, oh my goodness. Two, six, zeros, three. I recommend that we send this forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Seconded. Thank you, commissioners Miller and Morgan and we will have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Emondola. No. Commissioner Baker. No. Chair Busby. No. Commissioner Cameron. No. Commissioner Durkin. No. Commissioner Johnson. No. Vice chair Kenchin. No. Commissioner Landfried. No. Commissioner Lowe. No. Commissioner McIver. No. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Morgan. No. And Commissioner Williams. No. It was unanimous, zero, 13. It failed. The motion failed. Commissioner Miller, if you may on the second case, please. Yes, Mr. Chairman. With regard to case Z, two. However many zeros that is. Five. Five zeros. I'm sorry, I believe it was five the last time. Five zeros, three. I recommend that we send this case forward. I move that we send this case forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. We'll give the second to, I believe, Commissioner Johnson and we will have a roll call, will it please? Commissioner Amandolia. No. Commissioner Baker. No. Chair Busby. No. Commissioner Cameron. No. Commissioner Durkin. No. Commissioner Johnson. No. Vice chair Kenchin. No. Commissioner Landfreet. No. Commissioner Lowe. No. Commissioner MacGyver. No. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Morgan. No. And Commissioner Williams. No. Okay. Fails to zero, 13. Thank you. We will move to the next case. This is case Z two five zeros one and it's 30 16 page road townhouses. And we will start with the staff report. Hey, good evening, chair Busby commissioners. Thank you for having me this evening. I'll be presenting on the 30 16 page road town homes case tonight. This is for a zoning map change and plan amendment. There is a annexation tied to this case. The applicant is Jeremy Anderson with Coulter, Jewel and Tames. The application submitted was for a plan amendment zoning map change and an associated annexation petition. This is located around 30 16 page road which is at the Northwest corner of paved road and globe road intersection. The jurisdiction is currently in the county. The assemblage is about 26.86 acres. The development here is the suburban development here with an existing zoning of residential rural. The applicant is proposing that they rezoned to 7.2 PDR which is 7.2 dwelling units and acre. The current flood designation is industrial and the applicant is proposing a flood designation change to medium density residential which is six to 12 dwelling units and acre. This proposal is for up to 193 town house residential units. Before I get into the rest of the presentation I wanna call out some quick corrections. On the staff report, photo seven was attached in error. Thank you to those that sent me a message letting me know I appreciate your astute attention to detail. And then planning today received a revised SUDS. This is attachment nine, the summer utility development statement. This new SUDS clarifies the site's connection to the county sewer which is independent of the SUDS process. And we'll guarantee that it meets the county's offsite capacity assurance requirements. As I said before, this is located about Northwest corner of page road and globe intersection parcel to the Northwest. You can see some of the area photos that don't include photo seven heavily treat area. The adjacent property is single family homes in the zoning context. So here you can see on the right side of the zoning map the PDR proposal of 7.2 dwelling units and acre from the existing residential rural designation and how that would fit into the context of the area. This case is a narrative of changing from a future land use of industrial to a more appropriate residential development pattern. You can see the future land use map does have this as industrial as you can see on the left-hand side of the map. And on the right-hand side, the proposal is for a medium density residential. And again, that's six to 12 dwelling units and acre. You can see on the map how that would fit into the context of the surrounding area. There's some key tax commitments in this applicant's proposal. This includes restricting the residential units to townhouses as the permitted building type, limiting the number of units to 193 units. It also has some key transportation commitments that serve to mitigate some of the potential traffic concerns and impacts. These include the construction of an exclusive northbound left turn lane with adequate storage and the dedication of an additional 25 feet of right-of-way along Page Road frontage. There's also a minimum five foot additional asphalt along the full frontage of the site along the west side of Page Road. There's restricted site access to right in and right out at site access point two on the proposed conditions of the site development plan. And it also includes a construction of a concrete median on Page Road, really to restrict left turn access to the site. There's also quite a few graphic commitments that include the location of tree coverages, including tree protection areas, site access points, 20 foot project boundary buffer, 50 foot stream buffers and 10 foot no build lines and building and parking envelopes. And then the design commitments do include some hipton gabled or shed roof types, a variety of exterior building materials to really help transition into the area. Architectural features including projected bays, vertically proportioned windows and gable end walls with accent siding. Again, it's to create this context of the area and help differentiate it a little bit. Some other design commitments are at least 40% of the townhouses will offer a maximum one-car garage stall and at least 40% of the townhouse units as well offer a rear loaded garage. I've includes the proposed site conditions in this presentation as well. I can also pull up the development plan once we get to the public hearing portion. I just wanna point out the proposed conditions that I mentioned in the previous slides, where the stream falls on this parcel and where the project boundary buffers are. Some of the existing conditions, there's a requirement of tree save of 20% and applicant is committing to a minimum 20% tree save which is through the preservation of existing tree coverage. And then the open space required for this is 16% and there's an open space commitment of 17% on the development plan positive by the applicant. Staff has reviewed these against the conference and plan policies, including the flum of medium density residential. The suburban tier is defined. The suburban tier development focus, continuous development and infrastructure capacity. An assessment was done and capacity in the existing sewer water should be able to serve this area. We also looked at a school level of service standard, connectivity, provision of open space, the natural environment and open space level of service standards. And again, this applicant's proposal is consistent with these comprehensive plan policies. Staff does determine that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Staff is available for questions at this time. Thank you, Mr. Cahill. I, we're gonna move and open the public hearing, but I am sure we will be back with questions for you in just a little bit. We have three individuals who have signed up as part of the applicant team. One individual who signed up as an opponent and then three other individuals who I assume are probably opponents as well, their neighbors or are connected nearby to the proposal. So we will allow the applicants a total of 10 minutes for our rules of procedure. And then the four individuals, if they're with us, will have 10 minutes combined as well. And I can play timekeeper here. The applicants are Charlie Yokely, Jeremy Anderson, and Neil Gosh. So we will start with you and I'll let you let us know how you wanna arrange your comments. Good evening, Chair Busby. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. And good evening, Chair Busby by the Chair Kenshin, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Neil Gosh. I am an attorney at the Morningstar Law Group at 112 West Main Street in Durham. I'm representing the applicant for this project tonight. And with me is Charlie Yokely, who is with Lenar and Jeremy Anderson from Culture School 10. Let me start first by thanking Mr. Cahill for his presentation. You already have heard the basics of the project. It's about 193 homes on 27 acres. While the community will consist solely of town homes, actually three different product types are contemplated. The community will include a one-car garage option, a two-car garage option, and a rear alley loaded option. And while it's hard to pinpoint because there's so much movement in material prices and other market factors, we believe we'll be able to bring this community online within the $255,000 to $300,000 price range. I know that's a question that often gets asked so I figured I'd just answer it up front. The design commitments included with this project, which Mr. Cahill alluded to, also help ensure that each home will have an outdoor space which is becoming increasingly important in this market. We also have committed to having some stone or masonry on the front facade of each home. The development plan includes several road improvements associated with the project. For example, the community will require an exclusive northbound left turn lane along Page Road so that traffic turning into the community can get out of the way of traffic, through traffic during peak hours. The project will dedicate 25 feet of right-of-way along Page Road Frontage. And we also committed to installing five feet of additional asphalt along Page Road Frontage, presumably for like a bike lane or something like that. You may have noticed that the D plan shows multiple points of access. However, many of those will not link up to existing roads at this time. Instead, those steps will provide connectivity to new development when they come online. Until the properties around the site develop, the project will include two points of access, both of which will be along Page Road. The northernmost access will be right in, right out, while the other access point will provide the left-over movement. At our neighborhood meeting, traffic was a chief concern. While our project includes several road improvements, it actually was not large enough to warrant a full-blown traffic impact analysis. The good news is that a nearby project, Best Page, is very large and is required to implement several road improvements in this area. In fact, since the neighborhood meeting, the Best Page developers have installed a stoplight at the intersection that flowed in Page. Best Page also will be or has already installed traffic signals at Page and Chin Page intersection and Longistics and Page Road intersections in addition to installing turn lanes on Longistics way. Those road improvements will greatly improve the flow of traffic within this corridor. Finally, I did want to touch on the suitability of this site's accountant. Currently, the property has an industrial plumb designation. While allowing residential development here would create isolated industrial pockets on the plumb, the existing industrial designation is somewhat of a whole itself. Residential development exists north, east and west of the industrial designation. I would argue that the current industrial designation is not necessarily appropriate here in the first place and that residential development is more appropriate. I appreciate your time and consideration of this project. We hope to have your support tonight and we have our team available to answer questions. Thank you very much. And we look forward to a vote tonight. I would like to reserve any remaining time for a potential rebuttal. Thank you, Mr. Ghosh. We've got about six minutes left if needed, so I'll circle back to you at the end of the public hearing. Thank you. And then as I mentioned, the four remaining individuals, and we'll see if they're with us this evening, we have Abdul Choudhury, Sammy Abdulbaki, Moe Elgamal and Heather Meehan. So if I'm gonna just see if you are here. Mr. Choudhury, I see you're with us and we'll give you two and a half minutes. And if you can give us your name and your address and then your comments, we'd appreciate it. Yes, this is Abdul Choudhury. I present the neighbor, which is just south, Islamic Association of Raleh. And we have approval for a worship center and a school. Presently it's a small facility, but of course with 25 acres, we do plan to expand to a bigger worship center and bigger school. And our concern is whether we will be allowed in future because of all these new residences being our new neighbors. And if we can get some sort of commitment that our use will not be limited just because now we have new 193 neighbors. Thank you. Any comments or was that it, sir? Basically that's what our concern is that now we are already in process of building and a lot of something new develops and our future plans are basically out of line. Great, thank you very much. We will, just so you know, process-wise we'll have everyone make their comments during the public hearing as you probably saw in the previous case, commissioners can then ask questions and we can help make sure that we can help illuminate and get some answers to your questions. Thank you. Next is Sammy Abdelbaki and I don't think I see, oh yeah, Sammy, Mr. Abdelbaki, I see that you are here and we'll get you off a mute and if you can then make your comments as well. Yeah, I think my points have been covered by Dr. Shuddery so I don't have any further comments. Thank you. Moe Elgamal? Yes, the same thing. Dr. Shuddery made our concern so that's about it. Thank you, sir. And finally, Heather Meehan? Yes, hello, Dr. Shuddery is speaking for all of us. Thank you so much. I think you just made the record for four speakers in a public hearing. We appreciate it. If there's anyone else who would like to speak, you may raise your hand and we will give you the opportunity to speak on this item. I don't see anyone else. So Mr. Ghosh, if there are any comments you would like to make with your reserve time, the floor is yours. Sure, absolutely. Just to respond to Dr. Shuddery, I will say I can understand and appreciate your concern and oftentimes new neighbors can create issues for uses which have been there for some time. I will say that the Durham zoning code does allow for religious institutions to operate and pretty much every zoning district, some require a special use permit and I would be happy as a zoning attorney to discuss that with you and talk about the options that you guys have available to you to achieve the expansion of your facility. That's something that we've certainly have worked on in the past and I would have no problem consulting with you all on that as well. But thank you very much for attending tonight and for your comments. Thank you. And I'll just give the opportunity again if anyone else would like to speak on this item. If you don't see anyone else, so we will close the public hearing and Commissioner Miller has raised his hand. So the floor is yours. You are on mute, Commissioner Miller. I would like to know if somebody can show a context map if someone can show me the property that Mr. Shuddery is talking about. Yes, I'll pull that up, Mr. Miller. Thank you. I'm sorry this is taking so long. Just one of the things that happens with these virtual meetings. And Mr. Miller just saying it's the property directly south. Pardon me, say that again, Nell. It is the property directly south. Okay, so it's adjoining. Yes. That helps a lot. Alex, not necessary to show the map unless others want to see it. If you're about to get it up, if you're able to show it, that's fantastic. And so it's that next parcel down, but you're showing no connections to that. That is correct. There are no connections to that property south of us. Our connections actually go kind of to the west and then from there south to that page. Right, thanks so much. And so if we can make it so that Mr. Shuddery can answer a question, I'd be grateful. Commissioner Miller, you are able to pose the question and I think we can. All right, very good. So what I'd like for Mr. Shuddery just wants more to make sure I understand because I was a little slow on the uptake on his concerns. I'd like to know from him again what their plans for are for their property and to understand how it will connect to the page road and try to get an understanding about how his use of his property will work as I evaluate this proposed development. Yes, this is Shuddery. Thank you. No, we connect with the page road and they are our adjoining neighbors. Our concern is that we will presently we are building a small worship center and an elementary school. And we do plan to expand to a bigger school and a bigger worship center. Plus we also have a charity clinic which at some point we may want to move in there. And our concern is that having 193 new families around they may oppose our expansion to a bigger facility. And right now we are building only 11,000 square foot but we don't have 25 acres to build just 11,000 square foot. Right. So we need some sort of understanding and commitment that we will be allowed to do what we have started doing there already. And so if I can ask Mr. Cahill a question. Yes, sir. So that property is currently zoned rural residential. Correct. And I will admit that's a zoning district where I cannot claim to be familiar with the table of uses. They're going to be able to build a, in that zone of their proposed worship center and perhaps a school facility with it or will they require rezoning for that? So my understanding and I can clarify on this for you is that they already have a phase site plan approved for the area. And I think they're more worried about the concern about additional residents coming in and having pushed back about that phase site plan that was already approved. They already have their MS, the MSUPs are required for the uses and those in that designation. So, all right. I was just wondering procedurally if what might happen? It's an interesting situation. The other question I have is unrelated to that but thank you for letting me rehearse some of that a little bit and get a better understanding. If this project only had one connection to page road, what would be, how many units would be allowed on it? That's for you, Alex. 90. 90, but because it has two, it's not constrained in that way. But these two connection points are only 200 feet apart. Is that right? Correct. It's just one of those things where it's, we make a rule for an ostensibly good reason and then we defeat it by letting you have parallel driveways. I'm not suggesting that the developers are taking advantage of his rights under the code. It just seems to me it's a place where our code, our code is kind of pitiful. So, to the, Mr. Chairman, to the rest of the commission members, I agree that this is a place where industrial, future industrial use seems like a really bad idea given the way things are developing out. And I look at the nearby PDRs and they are in at the low end of the medium density residential range. This is would also be towards the low end but would be denser than those others. I will say there are some things in their committed elements that I find refreshing. I wish the materials list was stronger. I wish some of the design commitments were stronger, but I really liked the idea that within a townhouse project, we have a real prospect for having some variety and not just a row of soldiers with garage doors opening onto the street. The fact that 40% of these units will be rear loaded and that there will be a mixture of two and single and two big garage openings is something I'm inclined to reward with my vote. I did want to know the staff report says it's 191 units and Neil, you said it was going to be 193 units. Can you tell me what it really is going to be? Well, actually there is a zoning condition on there that limits the maximum number of dwelling units to 193. I think there may have been a typo in the staff report. That helps. Yeah. All right, I'll just make that notation on my report, on my own copy of the report. So I'm interested in what other folks are going to say, but when I drove out there and looked at this piece of property and its immediate surroundings, this didn't seem like a terrible idea. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. And I would note that was a good catch on the staff report. It does say 193 at the top and then down in the summary it says 191. So the 193 number does sound like it is correct. I don't see other commissioners with hands raised yet. So I will offer, I had a similar take as Commissioner Miller and you might ask, so why did I vote against the previous proposal? And I'm going to vote for this, I'm planning to vote for this proposal, even though I certainly want to hear from my fellow commissioners and that may have me rethink my vote, but context matters. And this in my opinion is currently in the future land use map as industrial. I really appreciate the staff report giving us detail about the industrial and how this ranks and the amount of industrial land we believe we need as a community. We are over planning for industrial. And so we're going to see more of this. And so this better fits where this area is headed. And as Commissioner Miller noted, it isn't excessively changing the character of this area. I'm very concerned about the influx of suburban development into what are ostensibly rural areas. This area is a different area from my perspective. It has more of the roadway capacity to handle this. So I'm going to plan to vote for this as well. Commissioner Johnson. Thanks, Chairman. And so in just following up on your comments and Commissioner Miller's, so I'm in favor to support this again because context matters. And as you stated, and a number of the questions that I did have have been addressed. One, my concern was about the existing industrial designation and looking at that area. My question was, is that appropriate for industrial development? And my thinking was no. However, the FLAM shows that it is still designated for that type of development. And so part of my supporting this, in just generally speaking, is making a statement to city and county leaders that this area is not, from my perspective, an area where we should be pushing industrial development, particularly if we are hearing that it's not eroding the integrity of our ability to have enough adequate industrial space here in the city and county. And so that was one important thing to me. And secondly, while 191, 193, whatever the final number is, we've been talking about variety and the products that we're putting into the ground while this is a 100% town on-house development, I tend to be more comfortable with it and with some of the commitments, ensuring that they won't look all cookie-cutter like some of the developments that we see across the city and the county, and so particularly the city areas. And so with that being the case, I think that for me, this is in part a kind of a nudge or compelling the future land. We don't know what's going to happen with the final comp plan that's going to be refreshed or a new one, but hopefully this area will not be designated for industrial development. And maybe this project here bringing residential development will be one way to further signal that we should take a different direction than what we're currently looking at. So those are some thoughts that I have. Thanks. Thanks, Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Baker. I would echo some of the comments that were already made. One question I have in looking at the development plan, the same question I had on the last development plan is regarding the connections. I'm curious, this is a question to the applicant. Are there no connections to the south? And if not, why is that? So, Commissioner Baker, that's correct. There are no connections to the south, which is the Islamic Center property. We did look at putting a connection there and had at a time approached those property owners. And because of what they had to do on that property, the connection from a residential community to that property did not seem to serve any useful purpose. And ultimately, there is a connection. I mean, there's not a connection to the south on our property, but it's like, just a couple of feet away on the Bethpage property. So we're having a connection out to the west of our property, which will cut down into the Bethpage project, which there's a stub to the north property line, I guess, of Bethpage. So there is a connection in that direction, just not directly across the Islamic Center property. I understood, yeah, one of the things that I wanna reiterate that Tom Miller said, Commissioner Miller said is the 40% rear loaded lots. And I think that's very beneficial. Now we've got sidewalks on both sides of the street, thanks to recent UDO amendments. Now we have street trees between the sidewalk and the curb and slowly but surely through our UDO amendments and through some of these commitments, we're actually creating a more, slightly more walkable pedestrian realm. We still have some work to do. And certainly, this is again, as we often see, fairly large property, only one use. So kind of a lack of walkability when it comes to other uses that people could be walking to, but it is progress and we are headed in the right direction. So that's all I have to say. Thanks, Commissioner Baker. I don't see any other commissioners asking to speak. Now I do. So Commissioner Armandolia. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to echo some of the comments already made as initially a little bit on the fence with the zoning change portion of this. I completely agree with the comments that have already been made about the flum. But it definitely seems to be a step in the right direction. You can at least imagine someone walking to some local employment centers and some potential retail areas. The sidewalk network isn't necessarily the best there because we still have many disconnected sidewalks. But there's some potential there and I think that's promising. And so I would likely be voting yes on this. Thank you. Commissioner Durkin. I'm just confused about the comments about sidewalks because there's not a sidewalk on the page on either side of the road, is there? Anybody know? Not most of the way. I think that's what I was saying is like it's disconnected most of the way. There are some like when you get a little bit farther north on page. So you can't really walk anywhere because you just be walking on the side of a somewhat busy road. So I just want to point that out that you can't actually get anywhere from this site and you can only go to your neighbor's house because there's no other use involved. I think in tactually when you're closer to Breyer Creek you're closer to, you're closer to things. There's also from what I can tell them no transportation, public transportation that can get you to this unless you can walk yourself to T.W. Alexander and I wouldn't suggest anybody walk along the side of the road to do that. So it is better than the last one as far as location. I still don't think it's great. I'm not honestly not sure how I'm putting on it. Thanks Commissioner Durkin. So if there are no other commissioners with comments or questions I will entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair then with regard to case Z20 Oh my goodness, a whole bunch of zeros one concerning the 3016 Page Road Town Homes I move that we send this forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. So Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner Johnson seconded and they will clean up the number of zeros in the motion after the fact. It's progressive lenses. It makes it very, very difficult. We will have a roll call vote please. Yes. Commissioner Amandalia. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Cameron. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. How was that yes? I think so. Okay. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear very well. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Kanchin. Yes. Commissioner Landfried. Yes. Commissioner Loeb. Yes. Commissioner MacIver. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. Okay. It passes 13-0. This was one of the cases I want to bring to your attention that was submitted prior to July I said, technically has a flim amendment with it, but we could probably move it forward without even any action on the flim case because we have a new staff report template where we're doing all of the coming soon where we're going to do all of the analysis in one staff report. However, let me get a motion on the flim case just in case I need it before we go to city council if you don't mind. That's A-20-0-0-0-2. Okay. Well, thank you, Grace, because I was just noticing that that our staff report, if I'm not mistaken, has the two cases, two case numbers. It does. We're in the process of trying to change templates and I think we just got ahead of ourselves. So, yeah. Well, then regarding with the A case and the number that Grace just recited in connection with the Page Road townhomes, the move will send that case forward to the city council with a favorable report. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. So, Commissioner Miller moved. Commissioner Johnson seconded. The motion is on case A-25-0-2. Correct. Okay. We'll have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Emondoya? Yes. Commissioner Baker? Yes. Chair Busby? Yes. Commissioner Cameron? Yes. Commissioner Durkin? Yes. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Vice-chair Kenshin? Yes. Commissioner Landfried? Yes. Commissioner Lowe? Ha-ha-ha. Commissioner MacGyver? All right. Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Morgan? Yes. And Commissioner Williams? Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Sorry for the confusion. No problem. Thank you. Our next case is case Z-2 quadruple-010 and that is Chandler Run. And we'll start with the staff report. Good evening, Chair Busby and commissioners. Thank you again. Good evening. And thanks for having me. I'll be presenting on the Chandler Run case. This is just a zoning map change case, Z-20-0-010. This is from Tony Whitaker of Civil Consultants on behalf of an individual property owner. The location is in between Chandler Run and Plained Road, with inside the city limits. It's about 25 acres, assembled parcels. I believe it's about 86 parcels altogether. This development here is suburban. The existing zoning is three different zonings. There's residential suburban 8, residential suburban 10, and a Plain Development Residential 8.5, which is a legacy case from 1973. The rezoning request is to put all three of these zonings into Plain Development Residential 3.118, PDR 3.118. The flum designation is a low density residential. The proposal here is up to 66 single family detached, single family attached, and or duplex units. There's a little bit of history with this case. In this site, I mean, the eastern portion of the site was the Greenway subdivision that was platted as 53 town home lots. Essentially, this is the same area that was previously zoned for the 120 multifamily units. The western portion of the property, also known as Arborstone, was platted around 31 single family lots. You can see the aerial map that the eastern portion is where it was platted for Greenway, and the western portion was platted for Arborstone. Area photos show that the context of the area is, again, heavily treed with surrounding single family residential units abutting the site parcels. For zoning context, if you look at the left, the case area is both the, it's the blue area, and on the right is the PDR 3.118, is the zoning designation they're looking to change to. Again, that's two to four dwelling units and acre. The future land use map as well. There is a key commitment that the applicant has provided a five foot additional asphalt width for future bicycle lane. This is along the site frontage of Chandler Road. There are some graphic commitments as well from the applicant. This includes location of tree coverage areas, site access points, 20 foot average project boundary buffers, 25 foot wetland buffer, and 10 foot no build lines. As you can see on the proposed site conditions, you can see the buffers listed on here. You can see Chandler Road to the road to the left, the intersection of Ross Road at the northwest corner. The tree save required for this is 20%, and the applicant is committing to a preservation amount of a minimum 20% all through the preservation of existing tree coverage. Staff has reviewed this applicant's proposal against comprehensive plan policies, including the suburban development, suburban tier, the low density residential, contiguous development, infrastructure capacity, the school level of service, and transportation level of service. And finally, these are consistent with comprehensive plan policies. The staff does determine that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinance. Staff also does want to point out, well, there are not a lot of robust text commitments in this application. The applicant is an individual owner and has had some troubles trying to sell and develop the land, and would like us to keep that in mind. Staff is now available for questions or comments. Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Cahill. We are gonna open the public hearing and we have three individuals who have signed up with the applicant team, and then there are two other individuals who have also signed up. They did not indicate if they were for or against. So we can move forward under our regular rules of procedure. The applicants are Randy Herman, Tony Whitaker, and Stephen Morrison. And so I'll hand it to you. You can let us know your plan of who would like to speak and you have a maximum of 10 minutes if you need it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Randy Herman. I'm an attorney with the law firm of BA Folk. I'll be doing the main portion of the presentation on behalf of the applicant, but Tony Whitaker, the engineer, and the property owner are also available to answer questions if necessary. So I've submitted some slides and Alex, if you can bring those up for me. And thank you to staff for the presentation. I'm gonna try not to repeat too much of what they've said, but just kind of give some history and background of the site. The basic point being, as Alex has said, that this site has basically been under development since 1972. It was originally approved for apartments in the 70s. That project never manifested more recently in about 2003. The property owner platted it for single family and town home units. So if we can go to the, let's go to the third slide first. This just shows again the context of the property and giving you a little wider view. This is maybe two blocks or so north of 98 on the Chandler Road. At that intersection with 98 is where that, I think it's a Pizza Hut or Domino's, if that helps to get some context as to where this is on 98, it's not nearly as far out as like the Olive Branch Road property in the first one. It's much closer in located between 70 and mineral springs. If we can go to the next slide. So like I said in about 15 years ago or so, the property was platted for town homes and single family homes. This was using that existing zoning, basically legacy zoning from the 70s that exists at that time. Although the property owner no longer considered it appropriate for apartments, using that density that had been allocated, they were able to subdivide it as shown, but that development also has not actually taken place. And if we go, let's see, if we can go two slides after that, on the future line, this will show you why. So the green area shown on the flume as recreation in open space is the area that's within the existing stream buffers. And as you can see, some of the platted roads and platted lots from that earlier subdivision are actually within the stream buffers and within the flume recreation open space and therefore practically can't be built. So basically the proposal tonight is to take those three existing zoning designations. And if you can go to the previous slide, the property is the portion right on Chandler Road is currently zoned RF-8, portions further in, currently zoned RF-10, and the portion further east is currently zoned under that legacy PDR zoning. Basically the idea is to make the zoning uniform across the property, to rationalize it, make it possible for the entire property to be developed in one project. And so it's to be moved into a PDR zoning designation that is appropriate in the context of the surrounding properties and to reap the, one of the commitments under this rezoning would be that the existing right away that's not gonna be used would be abandoned. The platted lots would be replatted under the new zoning designation. And as part of that, there would no longer be any lots or right away within that stream buffer. So taking all the development out of those areas that are environmentally sensitive, which were previously slated to be developed. If we can go two slides after that, next one. So some of the comprehensive plan policies that are implicated, again, this property is in the suburban tier, so it provides development at a low and medium density as the comprehensive plan recommends in the suburban tier. The price point that is expected once development is completed would be single family homes in the mid 200s. So that is in keeping with the price points in properties in that area and would allow for a greater home ownership for modern income households in that area. Although this isn't technically in the field, it is an area that has been difficult to develop previously, even though it has access to utilities and so on, because of the stream buffers and other challenges in that area. And so it is something akin to in the field allowing a challenging site to be developed that would otherwise be left vacant. And as the replatting would take the lots out of the existing floodplain areas, it would help rationalize the flat in the way that would protect floodplains and other environmentally sensitive areas. If we can go to the next slide just for a minute, showing the development plan, like cut off the top part because I think it makes it a little easier to read. The bottom part, especially on the eastern part of the property, there's a lot of kind of overlapping boundaries, but the basic idea is that most of the eastern portion of the property would not be developed. There would be two public accesses to the west onto Chandler Road and then on the south part of the property and to the adjacent property. And then also there would be a private maintenance access at the northwestern portion of the property, also on Chandler Road. The developer has committed to install a bike lane along Chandler Road frontage. And if we go to the next slide, this is my last slide showing the tech commitments, again a maximum of 66 residential units. And before a site plan, it's felt the existing interior lots will be recombined, the existing cladded street right away and easements will be abandoned if they are not needed. And this will be for single family detached, single family attached duplex and allowed accessor uses, including potentially ADUs, all to allow residential development in the way that makes no sense within this property. That's all I have for now. And if the members of the commission have any questions, I'm happy to take them. Technical questions I may need to refer to our engineer who's also on the line. Thank you. And we may have questions following the public hearing. The two other individuals who have signed up are Deborah Mangum and Barbara Elliott. Ms. Mangum, you may offer your comments. Okay, can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay, thank you. I represent my mother who lives at 335 Chandler Road, which is right across the street from the proposed development on Chandler Road. So I have about six questions. So I think some of these may be related to the applicant's zoning request but the proposed plot maps and things that they put forth. So forgive me, I don't understand all the lingo. So I'm trying to work my way through some of these questions. But from 98, if you're looking at 98 going down Ross Road, it talked about adding a water main or main water, providing water down Chandler Road from Finmore to Ross Road. And then which side of the road would that affect if you're putting in water? That's one question. I don't know if you can answer those now or do you want me to hold them up? No, if you don't mind, if you can walk through the questions during your time and then we can, following the hearing, we can work to try to make sure we can address those questions as much as possible. Okay. So and then a follow up to that is if it's, are there gonna be any existing costs, any costs to the existing homeowners for that warming? Okay, I think he showed on that map, the bike lane, I wasn't sure what side of the road the bike lane was gonna go on. And if it was going to impact any existing homeowners on Chandler Road, it was really hard to read the really small print from the application. So I think he answered that. Are were there any sidewalks planned along Chandler Road? I'm assuming that houses would butt up against Chandler from the new development, the backs of those houses. So I wasn't sure if there was any planned sidewalks along Chandler Road. I wasn't clear to me what kind of buffering would be between the houses in Chandler. So, you know, my mom's house would be facing the back of that probably that development. So I didn't know what kind of buffers, landscaping, fences or anything like that would be provided. And are there any proposed turn lanes into this new subdivision from Chandler? And then the, I think it's center on homes that had planned to develop this. Do they have, because I didn't realize the price point was in the mid 200s. Do they have any housing ordinance ordinances or anything that potential homeowners should adhere to in turn at that price point? And that's the extent of my questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. And like we said, we'll work to try to address as many of those questions as we can as we look at this case. Thank you. And Barbara Elliott, are you with us this evening? I am indeed. Great, thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you. I appreciate you letting me speak. And I also want to thank Mr. Cahill for patiently answering the flurry of questions. I became aware of this development just over a week ago when I saw the zoning change sign on Chandler Road. I travel that way almost daily. And that was the first time I had seen the zoning change notice. I also understand that because this plan was submitted prior to July one, that although the applicant was encouraged to request the input from the community that was not required and was not done. So I'm very interested to hear that Ms. Mangum as representing her mother, a resident of the community has quite a few questions. I have, so I have that. That is one of my two comments. I would hope that you would at least delay this until next month to give the community an opportunity to learn more. I just feel, I know I personally didn't know much. My second comment, it may not be immediately apparent why I'm asking or making this point, but bear with me for one minute, if you will. The main entrance, again, I've had this for only about a week and like everyone else, we all have other commitments and I have barely had time to do anything but glance at it. But a thing that struck me, it concerns the entrance of Greenmount Drive. It is directly across the street from an area owned. It's shown on the map is being owned by Alcona properties. That is no longer correct. That property was sold in August or September, probably after this map was made up and now belongs to recycling and salvage services. I live on Alcona Avenue. Alcona Avenue is one block west of Chandler off of Ross. So we can't see it on this map, but it is a 300 foot long gravel city street that ends at a pond and it runs from Ross Road to down towards Fenimore. It does not go all the way through. My concern is that this property has, as I said, just recently been sold to a developer and I'm concerned about any possible effect of the placement of the entrance to the Chandler run development on access to the Alcona properties or down recycling and salvage services property. If you bear with me just one more minute, I'll try to tell you quickly why. Again, this is a developer who has just come in. They bought six acres and currently my house is the last one on Alcona Avenue. It's only two houses on my side. But beyond me, there are two acres that I assume will be developed and Alcona Avenue is a gravel street. And so I'm assuming, I'm guessing, we had the plan has not been filed yet, but I'm guessing that all of this logging, street paving, construction traffic will go right by my door. And I'm concerned that it will be so extensive that it will actually have a very, make life very, very difficult, especially here. I finally reached my retirement age and got my house paid for it. I hope I could enjoy it. So my hope has been that there will be both for construction and perhaps permanently access to this property from Chandler as well. It's difficult to describe without having a picture of Alcona Avenue. But if there is no access to the property that is to be developed from Chandler, then all of this will go right by my door for a very long period of time. And I'm afraid it's going to be so dramatic that I just don't know how I'll survive. So my question is whether the placement of Greenmount Drive, yes, Greenmount Drive, directly across from the property shown, Alcona properties or its successor has frontage on both Chandler and Alcona. And my concern is whether the placement of the access of the Greenmount Drive has any effect on the ability or likelihood that the property I'm concerned about can be accessed from Chandler. Does that make sense? It's difficult to explain, but I felt I had to raise this point now rather than later after there is a plan to be discussed. Does that, do I need to clarify? I'm afraid I haven't done a very good job. No, I think we're fine. And this is the time to raise it. So I'm glad you're here and you're speaking to it. And as you may have seen in previous cases, if we do a follow-up questions, we may ask you to offer additional guidance just to make sure we understand it. But that was very helpful. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Elliott. We appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this case? You can raise your hand. Okay, there's no one else. So we will close the public hearing and commissioners, I see commissioner Miller. I'm gonna start with you with your hand raised. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start off as the staff noted, this is a, let me say, I generally approve of what's happening here. We have impractical zoning that we're turning over to a more practical approach for this property. But the problem is, is that the development plan is scanty. It does not contain what I consider to be the minimum commitments that I wanna see in a development plan. And I'm not, and so I contrast it to the one we just approved, which is roughly the same size piece of property, but with a greater density. But I'm looking for, this provides that the unit types will be limited to three types. It doesn't provide a unit mix. There aren't any design commitments. The things I like to see, and I think would be practical in a project like this are some shared open space layout commitments. There's nothing about garage loading. And I think all of these things could be added. And when I saw that there weren't very many commitments, I thought, well, this is a speculative rezoning. We're rezoning this property to make it more attractive for sale. Something I'm not enthusiastic about. But then I heard one of the speakers suggest that there actually may be a builder in the wings ready to actually develop this piece of property, which is a good thing. But if that developer is there, and if the project that's envisioned for this property has been brought to that level of thinking that additional commitments are possible, I'd like to see the commitments before I vote. I was also concerned when we got the comments today by email and also again today that the developer, although it wasn't required to have a neighborhood meeting, this seems to me the kind of project where a neighborhood meeting would be appropriate. And I wanted to ask the developer if they had considered actually sponsoring a meeting and I know it's difficult by Zoom, but putting that together and getting input from their neighbors, it's much easier for me to vote for a rezoning that is infill in its quality, as the attorney said. When the neighbors surrounding it can say, yes, we've talked with the developer and we've had our say and they've made some changes and we're happy with it. I'm enthusiastic about voting for those projects, but that process hasn't happened here. I would be more comfortable if this were delayed a little while and I know that this property has been sitting for a long time waiting for development. I don't see what difference a few more, a couple of months might make, another 60 days might make. So those are my thoughts. Commissioner Miller, do you have a question for the applicant? You said a few things. I do have a question, would the applicant, I guess my question is, would the applicant consider delaying this for a cycle or two to give them an opportunity to consider how they might beef up their committed elements and how they might meet with the neighbors and talk about making this project fit in and answering the neighbor's questions. And we heard a lot of questions today. Mr. Herman, you're welcome to answer Commissioner Miller's question. Can you hear me? Yes. Apparently I muted myself. So we're definitely interested in meeting with the neighbors and getting their input. I'm not sure it's necessary to delay the vote in order to do that, but we definitely do intend to talk to both of the neighbors that have appeared at this hearing and anyone else they direct this to. I can say the property owner had extensive neighborhood meetings a couple of years ago at the time when they did the current subdivision of the property. At that time, the main concern of the neighbors was the density that was intended for the property. And so considering the fact that the density under this rezoning would be significantly less. Our understanding was that we had addressed most of the concerns of the neighbors that they had expressed a couple of years ago, but we definitely do intend to have further interactions with them. Is there in fact a builder waiting in the wings to build on this property if it's rezoned? Somebody said Simeron was interested. The property owner works for Simeron, but owns the property in his individual name. So it may or may not actually be them that does the building. So I guess more specifically is that the property is your client's intention to put this property on the market. Are they going to find a builder partner and build on it? They intend to find a builder partner and build on it. I'll just tell you that there's a whole lot about this that I really like that I think, and I think that what your client is doing here is good. They just haven't, it's like stopping short of the finish line. And I would like to see some further commitments about how this is going to work. And also, especially with regard to the design of the units and the unit mix. So would you consider delaying in order to refine your plan and bring it up? The whole point of having development plan rezoning is to have, get greater clarity and to have commitments. And this is a minimal commitment development plan. I personally don't like this and frequently vote against them, but I do not want to vote against this one. But so that's why I wanted to delay. Sure. It's a user though, it's not my call. One thing I would say is that our experience, particularly with this property, is that as I said, we've gone through several rounds of attempting to develop it. And one of the issues that we faced was that we believe that the previously rezonings had over committed in terms of the level of detail that they had committed to, such that then when it came time to actually do it, it turned out not to be feasible to do the things that they had committed to do. And that's why it didn't actually end up being developed. So with the kind of environmental and topography issues we're trying to avoid getting into too high of a level of detail and committing to something that we couldn't actually do, which would result in the property being vacant for another 40 years. I appreciate that completely, but I suggest that the response from being too hot is not being too cold. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. I'm gonna ask a question of Mr. Cahill since I don't see any commissioners with their hands raised at this point. And then I will circle around to other commissioners. Mostly Mr. Cahill, we had a series of questions from Ms. Mangum and I tried to capture a bunch of those, but I figure you may have the ability to answer at least some of those. And I'm happy to try to run through them if you missed them, but I know you've been in touch with, with I believe both individuals who spoke this evening. So if you are able to just answer a few of those questions now, that'd be great. Yeah, and so Ms. Mangum, I didn't capture all of them either, but the boundary buffer was one of the questions and the site, the site proposed site conditions does articulate a 20 foot perimeter project boundary buffer between Chandler Road and the site. So I think that was one of your questions. I think some of the other questions were actually for the applicant. And I don't know if you have them, Chair Busby. Yeah, the others, some might be for the applicant, some may be for you. And if you're able to answer them, that'd be great. It was location of the water main, who pays for that bike lane? Does that impact the neighbors? Will there be sidewalks and a proposed turn lane off of Chandler where the others that I caught? Yeah, I will let the applicant speak to the sidewalks and the other questions that were posed. Okay, Mr. Herman, if you're able to answer any of those specific questions that Ms. Mangum had, that would be appreciated. Thank you, Mr. Kale. Sure, so we are not currently proposing to build sidewalks. We are proposing to build a bike lane on specifically the frontage where the property fronts on Chandler Road, but we are not currently proposing any offsite improvements to Chandler Road. In terms of the water main, if it's necessary to build a water main up Chandler Road, it will be located on one side or the other of the road, depending on what makes the most sense based on the terrain. I don't think we're at that level of planning yet that we know exactly where it'll be located, but it would be within that right away and would be accessible to the property owners on either side of Chandler Road. We're not currently proposing to construct a turn lane, but if it becomes necessary to do so, of course we'll do what that. The other question I had written down was whether there will be housing restrictions or like architectural restrictions on the houses because of the size of the development, it will be necessary to have restrictive covenants and to form a homeowner's association to administer those and to manage the common area. So that will be done, but we're not at the point of knowing exactly what those restrictions would be yet. Can I just jump in and add one thing too? At the time of site plan, sidewalks would be required. On the frontage. Yes, thank you. That's important. I will come back, but I wanna recognize Commissioner Williams who has her hand up. Thank you, Chair Busby. I don't have much of a voice so I haven't had much to say tonight, but on this particular development, I am deeply troubled because it appears that it is being presented as something that is better than nothing. And that's essentially what we're getting with this particular development. A lack of sidewalk pedestrian methods of moving, no design commitments, no road improvements, basically whatever is being allowed is what's being done and you don't wanna allow extra time because this project's already been delayed for a number of years and there's been too many commitments before. They couldn't be delivered, but my main concern is the fact that the community that lives in this area though not required has not been engaged. So technically they don't have a voice and that is problematic. That is extremely problematic. And I mean, the fact that you've had to wait or it may be another 40 years, I'm quite sure the wildlife in this area wouldn't mind another 40 years to settle in and figure out how things are gonna work. So I am 100% against this for the lack of community engagement and to say that the community was engaged a few years ago, who knows if those people even still reside in that area given the demographics in Durham have changed dramatically within the last six to eight months, not to mention the last few years. And I think the one resident and her concerns are quite valid and the fact that she learned about the zoning change just because she drove down the street is concerning. And I think that more effort needs to be placed in this because what you're going to build and develop will directly impact both those who live in this area around this area and travel through this area. Not to mention there's heavily, this actually is going to be impacted greatly once the east end connector is done. There's going to be a lot of travel in this area. There may be costly ramifications that you can't see because you can't see the forest for the trees. But in actuality between Chandler, Ross, Junction Road, Joylin Avenue, a lot of neighborhoods that are in this area coming off of 98, the traffic on 98 alone has increased not that that's a major impact, but this will be adding to it because 98 has become a thoroughfare to get to North Rock where you pick up and you can pick up 540 and bypass a lot of 40 traffic. You can even cross over from 70 through all the branch pick up 98 and you're on this other side of town. Highway 70, Cheek Road, Highway 15 coming out of Roxbury. There's a lot of connections and a lot of thoroughfares that may make this area attractive. There's not a whole lot on the table right now in terms of design commitments so we can't even begin to have a conversation in terms of price point. But we are having a conversation about HOAs where people will have demands made on them about the color of their mailbox and the length of their grass, but they won't have sidewalks in order to travel and walk and exercise in their neighborhood until you get your design commitments and site plan review. I have extreme concerns about this project as it's presented. Though it is drawn up well, I think it is a skeleton and we very much so need potatoes with this. We need muscles, we need ligaments, we need a whole lot. And I am against this project for those very reasons. Thanks, Commissioner Williams. Other commissioners, any additional comments? Commissioner Baker. Real quick. I think Commissioner Williams brought us some good points. I would echo the comments of Commissioner Miller. I want to vote for this because I want to see the existing plated the existing design of the current flat subdivision go away and something new to come in it's a little bit better under the current standards and regulations. So I think that's a good thing. I think this is going in the right direction, but in agreement with my other commissioners, it feels like we just aren't quite there and we just need to get a little bit further for, I mean, for support. So yeah, I don't typically, I don't like to delay items unless they're very large items, unless they have a lot of issues. Otherwise, I don't like to delay items, but I think that there's a pretty strong case for if the applicant in this case is willing to think about some more commitments, I think there's a pretty strong case for delaying an item like this. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. I'll note I'm on the same boat. So if this is going to move forward tonight, I'm going to vote no. If there is the interest in a two cycle delay, that would I think would be appropriate to allow more conversation. And either way, I do hope that the applicants will be able to continue to work with Ms. Mangum and Ms. Elliott to address their questions and potential concerns. I did just want to ask one last time and I do see that there are multiple hands raised of many of the individuals who have spoken already. I will note the public hearing has closed. So everyone who has spoken has had their opportunity to speak, but Mr. Herman, I know you've addressed it before, but just to put the question to you one final time, is this a case you would like us to vote on this evening or are you willing to entertain a cycle or two cycle delay to allow time to work with the neighbors and to potentially add additional items to this proposal? I'll leave it up to the discretion of the commission. Either way, I'll be reaching out to the property owners tomorrow and seeing what we can do in terms of talking to them. So that's going to be regardless of whether this vote is delayed or whether that's between now and to the council. Thank you. Commissioners, I will remind you, this is in our purview. So the proponents have, that last answer said to me, they're not opposed to this and they'll be willing to work with us. So this is completely within our purview. I will leave it up to commissioners to determine what's the appropriate motion to make it this time. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion. Please. Because one of the things at least I'm expecting out of a delay is a more robust set of commitments including design commitments and knowing that our staff will need time to review those. It is my motion that this particular rezoning case be continued on our calendar until our regularly scheduled meeting in January of 2021. And my intention there is to create something akin to a 60-day delay. Is that correct, Grace? If it's November now, it would be January? I'm checking the actual date. The meeting date will be January the 12th. So that we continue it until our January 12th meeting date. And again, I would love to know that we could do it faster but I have the staff in mind. I know that there's a lot happening in the development world and I also know that we have the holidays upon us. So my motion is for that January 12 continuous. Seconded. So moved by commissioner Miller, seconded by commissioner Morgan and Ms. Smith, any additional comments or you were just coming on for the roll call vote? Okay, great. We'll have a roll call vote on the motion of a two cycle continuance. Commissioner Emondola. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Cameron. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice-chair Kenchin. Yes. Commissioner Landfried. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner MacIver. Yes. No. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner MacIver was a yes, I believe him. Okay. Sorry about that. It sounded no. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Williams. Yes. Unanimous 13-0. Thank you. And commissioner MacIver, I have that right, correct? Okay. Sorry about that. I usually try to give you a little bit of a heads up but this case was a little different. The staff has requested and we've done this with meetings that have run longer that we take a 10 minute break right now. And so I would like to go ahead and have that that we just take a brief 10 minute break and then we will reconvene for our final two cases. So it is 8.06, so if we wanna reconvene at 8.16 we can then continue our final two cases of the evening. We'll see you in 10. So we will start back up and I'll just give it a moment for the commissioners to come back on to video to make sure we have a quorum. Commissioner MacIver, we will, I'll recognize you before we start this case. Yes, I would just need to recuse myself from case Z2000012 due to a conflict of interest and the applicant is my employer. Mr. Chairman, if a motion is required, I move that the commission disqualify Mr. MacIver for participating in the case. Under the rules that govern the commission's conflicts of interest. That is an appropriate motion. If we have a second. Okay, Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. And we'll have a roll call vote on the motion. Yes, Commissioner Amandoya. I'm sorry, I missed the motion. Oh, sorry, it's to recuse Commissioner MacIver from the next case because he actually works with the firm that's the applicant. Yes. Commissioner Baker, don't know if he's back yet. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Cameron. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Kanchin. Yes. Commissioner Landfrey. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Ah. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan and Commissioner Williams. Yes. If passes non-zero. Great, and Grace, that's good enough in this scenario. Yes, it's fine. Okay, thank you. Commissioner MacIver, we have voted for your recusal from this case. So we will see you when we finish this case and move to the next case. And so we will now move to our next case, which is case Z2 quadruple zero one two. This is the forest at Duke, and we will begin with the staff report. Thank you, Chair and Planning Commissures, Michael Stock with the Planning Department. Case Z200012 is a development plan amendment for the forest at Duke. The agent is Katie Hamilton of Stewart on behalf of the forest at Duke. The site is located at 2701 Pickett Road within the city. The zoning is a PDR 0.000, which I know is odd, but that's what they did back in the 80s. It's a suburban tier of flume designations, medium density residential, and the request again is to amend the development plan for that PDR. The proposal is to add a maximum height allowance of 78 feet for buildings within the forest at Duke drive loop. The aerial map shows the current location of the forest at Duke, south side of Pickett Road, north behind the commercial development along 15501 business. The next maps are showing just the context area with commercial to the south and residential to the north and on either east and west also. And the future lands use designation too, which actually, if you do the math with the units that were allowed per that P88-31 development plan conforms to that medium density residential designation. So there is the copy of the current development plan approved back in 1988, I believe. It's also in your packet. The cover, the sheet proposed before you tonight has basically one item on it and it is to allow for 78 feet buildings with 70 feet maximum height within the loop for forest at Duke drive. The that is allowed to be requested per the current ordinance at 611-3C3 height, where it states that you can go up to 90 feet in height, but any height above 35 feet needs to be identified on the development plan. No other changes are proposed. Staff determines that the plan is consistent with the company's plan and ethical policies and ordinances. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Stock. We will open the public hearing. We have two individuals who signed up, Stuart Hamilton and Anita Holt. So I'm not sure what your plan is, but you may proceed with your comments. I thank you, Chair Busby. This is Katie Hamilton with Stuart at 101 West Main Street in Durham. I am representing the forest at Duke as the agent on this zoning. Thank you all for taking the time to hear our proposal tonight. As Mr. Stock mentioned, this proposal is a text change to the approved development plan, and we are seeking to modify the zoning for the PDR to allow buildings up to 78 feet in height within the existing forest at Duke Drive. Of note, the existing 50-foot buffers, entry locations and unit count in the original zoning will remain in effect. If you are asking yourself why the forest at Duke is seeking this text change, the forest at Duke is a continuing care facility offering a wide range of living and care options, including independent living and memory care facilities. As the forest at Duke continues to seek to expand their offerings for current and future residents, the additional height allowance will allow us to continue to provide the highest quality state-of-the-art facilities within the existing campus footprint, rather than requiring us to expand horizontally. Of note, we have to say that while 78 feet might seem high at first glance, the existing topography of the site falls from an elevation of 376 at the entry drive on Pickett Road to a low point of 322 on the forest at Duke Drive. So that is 54 feet of grain change across the site. And with the remaining commitment to the 50-foot buffer along Pickett Road, we believe the 78-feet height allowance will have a minimal impact on our residential neighbors and that the forest at Duke will continue to maintain the feeling of the building being nestled within the forest that currently exist on site today. With that, we are available for any questions and we appreciate your time. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item tonight? You can raise your hand. There is no one else, so we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions or comments? Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'll begin with questions for the applicant. So it's everything inside the loop. Can you tell me what it is you actually plan to do? Yes, we have a proposed site plan under review. We are demolishing a number of... Katie, could you get closer to your microphone? Okay, yeah, I apologize. Yes, we have a site plan under review currently with the city of Durham. And... And you're gonna demolish your building. Can somebody show us the old site plan, which actually shows the buildings very conveniently? It might be more prudent to do a Google map, if that would be allowable just because of what the site conditions are today versus the 1988. All right. We don't have an aerial with this site plans. I mean, with this staff report. But so which building? So you've got a whole bunch of cottages and things like that around the loop. And then in the center, there are larger buildings that look like they're in a combination of one to three stories tall. Is that right? I'm sorry, my connection dropped for a second there. Can you repeat that question? So in the forest of Duke, all around the peripheral, there are cottages and one story residences, I suppose some of them are duplexes and that kind of thing. But in the center, there is a large multi-bay, multi-wing building that looks like it may be as tall as three stories tall. What building is it that you plan to replace? So what we plan to do is there are existing cottages within the loop on the west side. And there's also a western wing of that central large building. And in two phases, because we will have residents on site throughout the entire phasing of the construction of this site plan, we will be building in two phases. First, we will demolish the cottages within the forest of Duke's Drive. Internal to the loop, build a new facility for the residents on site to relocate to. And then we will be demolishing the western portion of that large building on site that you mentioned, which is the healthcare facility and rebuilding that as the site face. So I'm sorry. Now that we actually have a very lovely aerial, can you show us again? Yeah, sure. So on the left side of the screen there, you'll see those cottages exactly where that arrow is pointing. All of those. Not all of them, but the majority of the ones within the forest of Duke Drive. Yes. And so you're gonna demolish those and then what will you build there? And then we'll be building a new independent living and memory care facility in that location. And that could be up to 78 feet tall, which when I do my math is six stories. Yes, but as I mentioned, the topography changes quite significantly. So yeah, two of those stories will be, you know, basement conditions from the northern side. Right, so it'll be one height on one side and as much as two levels taller on the southern side. Is that right? Correct, yes. And then what part of the larger buildings you plan to demolish? So do you see the, it's directly adjacent to those cottages, that facility with the, you know, there we go. Thank you very much. It's really quite handy. I'm very impressed. That will be the next phase of the construction once we have built the first phase. This is your immediate plan, but you're going to ask for a 78 foot height limit everywhere within the loop, which will enable you when you're ready to do similar work. It sounds like you might be eliminating cottages from your scheme. So outside of the Forest at Duke Drive, there are a large number of cottages that will remain and the reason we wanted to do the 78 foot height within the Forest at Duke Drive is actually that a lot of that existing building is taller than the 35 feet currently allowed within the PDR zoning. So this allows us to have a little bit more flexibility in the future if we go in to renovate those buildings that exist that are taller than 35 feet that we're not having come back again for another zoning for that east side is the thought here. And how will these improvements affect your total number of, I don't know, residents? Let's call them residents. When you're completed with your immediately envisioned projects, will you serve the same number of residents in new facilities or will you serve an increased number of residents? It'll be increasing by approximately 59 units within the independent living care and memory care facility. Thank you, those are my questions. And then I have a comment for staff that something that worries me a little bit. The way I read the ordinance, it says maximum building height shall be 90 feet. Any building over 35 feet shall be identified on the development plan submitted for approval. To me, that means that the actual buildings that will be taller than 35 feet have to be shown on the development plan and that it isn't sufficient to show an area or a bubble, but the plan must contemplate the specific and individual buildings that will rise above 35 feet. Obviously the staff doesn't see it that way, but I believe that that's what those words mean. We did have that discussion and we're taking this request, I'm sorry, Michael Stock with the planning department as to mean that any building, so they are identifying all buildings within the loop as possibly going up to 78 feet. So that's within the prerogative and- Yeah, I can see that's the position you're taking, but I believe that the words mean that the actual buildings have to be- That was discussed- The development plan says a building here and a building there. That was discussed and that was determined to be an acceptable language. All right, thank you very, I disagree with you, but I see where you're coming from. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Other commissioners, questions or comments on this case? Commissioner Baker. Just one quick question for the applicant. I'm wondering if we can expect there to be green or sustainable building elements as part of any redevelopment, renewable energy, energy efficiency, LEED, anything like that? I think she wanted to take it. This proposal will meet and exceed the existing building code for green compliance as it's currently proposed. Follow-up, Commissioner Baker. No, okay. Thank you. I don't see any other questions. I think we're ready for a motion for a vote. Mr. Chairman, then in connection with case Z2000012, the Forest of Duke Development Plan Amendment, I move that we send this case forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. So moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and we'll have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Amondalea. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Cameron. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice-Chair Kenshin. Yes. Commissioner Lanford. Yes. Commissioner Low. Yes. Commissioner McIver. He's recused on this case. Oh, that's right. I apologize. You're right. Commissioner Miller. No, but for the reasons I said. Okay. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. Passes 11-1. Thank you. So as we welcome Commissioner McIver back, we will move to the final case this evening, and it is T-2-0-0-0-0-4. So I wish Commissioner Miller good luck with his motion on this case in a little bit. This is the 160D updates, and we'll start with the staff report. Thank you very much. Michael Stock again with the planning department. Before you tonight is a, basically an omnibus type of text amendment due to changes to the state statutes under chapter 160D. It provides revisions to various provisions to unify development ordinance in order to comply with those statutory revisions. And they identify corrections, clarifications, reorganization, other minor changes to comply with 160D. There are also just some minor technical changes for clarity or to remove some redundancies while we're under the hood. Basically, and to be short, as you may be aware or maybe you're not, up until this point, the state has operated under two sets of planning and zoning enabling legislation, one for the counties, which was under chapter 153A and one for cities and other municipalities under 160A. The legislature last year voted to combine those and also make some changes to those enabling legislations, combined 153A and 160A under a new chapter called 160D. It was further, quote unquote, refined under the last summer session. And it basically becomes applicable by July 1st, 2021. It is recommended that we make our changes ahead of that time. And once we do, we would be under full jurisdiction of those of 160D. Again, most of the changes are technical in nature. I will point out a couple, again, quote unquote, substantial changes, such as we are switching the allowance to take appeals from Certificate of Appropriateness decisions from the Historic Planning Commission, straight to Superior Court as any appeal would be from a quasi-judicial decision. Currently, it would have to go to the Board of Adjustment. The 160D changes allows that to happen. Another change is to require recording of special use permits that have been approved and trying to think of any other, just updates and clarifications to the vested rights provisions that are approved under also 160D. Again, there are other changes. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Stock. So we will open a public hearing and no one signed up to speak on this item, but I do want to provide the opportunity if anyone would like to speak. This is the moment where you can raise your hand. So I don't see anyone. So we will close the public hearing and Commissioner Miller, I see your hand is raised. So I recognize you. Thank you. Michael, what's the effective date of these changes if they're adopted by the city council and the Board of Commissioners? The effective date would be, I haven't set the effective date yet because I don't know exactly what month they're going to. Normally we would set the effective date to the beginning of the following month. So it's essentially upon approval. Essentially. You're not moving it to correspond to the effective date of this 160D changes. No, no. In fact, it's not required. So does 160D, and I actually took the course on this and I've forgotten what I learned. Does 160D allow you to make changes in advance of its own effective date? Yes. If it does, then Mr. Chairman, you may call on me for a motion when the time comes. Thank you. I'll just say that I'm fine with these changes. I think they make a lot of sense. So I plan to vote for them. If any other commissioners would like to ask questions or make comments, you can raise your hand. I don't see anyone else. So Commissioner Miller, I'll recognize you to make a motion. Mr. Chairman, then with regard to the changes proposed in TC2504, I recommend that we send this case forward to the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners for the favorable recommendation. Second. Thank you. So moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Cameron, and we will have a roll call vote. Commissioner Amandalia. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Cameron. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Kanchin. Yes. Commissioner Landfried. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Commissioner McIver. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. All right, it passes 13-0. Thank you. So that's it for this evening. Grace, I don't know if you have any final updates to share with us this evening. No, we will send out the decision forms probably on Thursday because tomorrow is a holiday and we are closed. I sent out an assignment via email earlier today or right before the meeting. If you have time to complete that before the retreat, that would be great. And I will send out the agenda for the retreat either Thursday or Friday of this week and we look forward to seeing everyone next week. That's great. And just a reminder, the Planning Commission retreat, we haven't had one since we had to go remote. It's next Wednesday, November 18th. That's from four to six. It'll be by Zoom and Vice Chair Kanchin and I were able to meet with the staff so we appreciate that they've put together an agenda that represents the things we are hoping that we can spend time on. So look forward to spending that time with all of you next Wednesday. If there is nothing else, this meeting is adjourned. I hope you all have a good evening. Good night. Good night. Thank you. Thank you.