 Great. Tonight. Correct. Yeah, since we do have a closed captioner time, we will be needing a two hour break at the two hour mark. At this time, I'll ask that the screen share stop and that commissioners please turn their video cameras on. The live stream has started. We are a minute and 10 seconds from air. Mike, Chris, just looking right now, it looks like we do not have quorum. Will we start without quorum? I'll need Mike or Grace to comment on that. 30 seconds to air. You can, you know, start the meeting. It's just you can't take any actions. You can't even open a public hearing. So you may want to open it. The anime is starting. And then you may want to just. Chris, are we live? You're live. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome to the February meeting of the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the city council and the county board of commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final vote on any issue before us tonight. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom virtual meeting platform. In this virtual meeting platform, public participants do not have any ability to talk or be seen on video by default. To maintain meeting to quorum 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 in the meeting. If you have pre-registered, your name will be called for you to make your comments, just like in an in-person public hearing. If you called in before the meeting started and staff was able to get your information, your name will also be called to speak at the appropriate time as normal. You may also call in during the meeting tonight by dialing 1-301-715-8592. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the public hearing you are interested in starts. After all the pre-registered speakers have shared their comments, I will ask if there's anyone else wishing to speak. At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. And when recognized, state your name and address and make your public comments. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is not favorable. Thank you. I'm looking around. Okay, we have quorum now. So, Mike, I'm gonna go ahead and ask for the roll call. And, Mike, before you do a roll call, I do know that commissioners Baker, Latista and McIver will not be joining us tonight. I'm feeling you to do excused absences for them. Yeah, can we go ahead and have the roll call? Okay, thank you. Emondola. Here. Baker, no. Latista, no. Busbee. Here. Cameron. Here. Cut right. Here. Durkin. Here. Harrod. Here. Low. I do not have a response from Low. McIver is not here. Morgan. Here. Cease. Here. Carmen Williams. And Zuri Williams. Here. And I see Carmen Williams just popped on. Is that correct? Carmen Williams. You're here. I'm here. Sorry I'm late, guys. Excellent. All right, so there is Commissioner Low. I did not get a message or anything from Commissioner Low, but I did get correspondence from Batista and McIver and Chair Emondola, you also said you got, and maybe I'm overlooking it, correspondence from Baker. So we want to handle the excused absences or handle it later when we know about Commissioner Low, that is your prerogative. I'm gonna say let's go ahead and do excused absences now and if we need to return to Commissioner Low later, we will want to try and front load as much as we can. So I would take a motion at this time to excuse commissioners Baker, Batista and McIver. Yes, Chair, I make that motion to excuse the three commissioners that you mentioned. I second, Commissioner Cameron. Okay, moved by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Vice Chair Cameron. If we have a roll call vote. Emondola. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Right. Yes. Durkin. Yeah. Herod. Yes. Low is not here, McIver's not here. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Carmen Williams. Yes. And Zuri Williams. Yes. Yeah, passes unanimously. Thank you. We do not have any minutes to review for this meeting since it's pretty quick since our last meeting will review the January minutes, I assume, in March. Does staff have any adjustments to the agenda? I am not aware of any. I have no adjustments either. And so with that, we can go ahead and move towards our public hearings. So we have four cases tonight. We will need to take breaks every couple of hours for our closed captioners, but we're gonna try and move quickly while giving everyone a chance, an equitable chance to speak, just acknowledging that we have a lot on tonight's agenda. I wanna get everyone to bed at a decent time. So we're gonna go ahead and start with case Z20 quadruple zero nine, 1110 Old Oxford Road. And we'll begin with the staff report. Good evening. Can everyone hear me? I apologize, I was having some internet issues before. My name is Leah Larkins with the Planning Department. This request is for zoning map change Z20-0009, 1110 Old Oxford Road has been received from Tim Cybers of Pourbath Associates for one parcel located at 1110 Old Oxford Road, totaling 4.491 acres. The site is within the county's jurisdiction and in the suburban development tier. There is an associated annexation case which proposes to bring this parcel into the city boundaries. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from Residential Suburban 20 or RS20 to Commercial General with Development Plan or CGD to allow for the construction of up to 8,000 square feet of commercial building area. On the future land use map, oh, I'm not sharing screen. Oh gosh, let me share. Okay. Can we see now? And I will go here. Okay. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from Residential Suburban 20 to Commercial General with Development Plan to allow for the construction of up to 8,000 square feet of commercial building area. On the future land use map or FLUM, the parcel is designated as commercial. The proposed zoning map change is consistent with the existing FLUM designation. The context map shows that the site is currently zoned RS20. The property is surrounded by RS20 zoning to the south and east industrial light to the north and southwest and neighborhood commercial to the west. The aerial map shows the boundary lines of the subject property as well as the site's proximity to existing residential development and light industrial uses. Also undeveloped wooded parcels. The current aerial photography shows the site was previously developed. The remnant concrete pads from the now demolished general store and an athletic field are visible. The tree line on the eastern boundary of the property follows the railroad easement that is the site of the proposed Roxboro Rail Trail. The development plan associated with this rezoning prohibits residential uses, bar nightclub uses and indoor firing ranges on the parcel. The plan also includes pedestrian, bicycle and roadway improvements, including additional asphalt on old Oxford and Hamlin roads for a bicycle lane, construction of site access and turn lanes and construction of a median and or driveway island. Finally, the planning includes design commitments such as interconnected buildings with sidewalks and crosswalks, additional offsite sidewalks and crosswalks to ensure connectivity and architectural design elements. An engagement meeting for this project was held prior to the adoption of current neighborhood meeting requirements. Questions from community members in attendance centered on utility connections, traffic, sidewalks, buffering and the preservation of the Catsburg General Store. Finally, staff determines that this request is consistent with 15 of the 15 community goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan that were analyzed. Three of the three retained policies from the 2005 comprehensive plan, the future land use map designation and other adopted ordinances and policies. Thank you, staff is available to answer any questions if needed. Thank you. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. We're gonna begin with the applicant report. I know Tim Cybers is listed for the applicant team. I'm gonna give the applicant 10 minutes to present. Tim, you may begin and let me know if there's anyone else on your team with you tonight. Thank you, Chair Amondolia. Leah, if you can go ahead and share the PowerPoint presentation, please. No, just be myself speaking tonight. Perfect, thank you. Good evening, Chair Amondolia, members of the Plenty Commission. I'm Tim Cybers, I'm here representing the landowner, M.M. Fowler for this proposed rezoning of 1110 Old Oxford Road. Next slide, please. First, I do wanna thank each of you for your support of the residential project at the previous hearing shown here in yellow, which will bring over 800 residential units to the Braggtown community, including 198 income-restricted units. I have a unique opportunity to also be representing the two adjacent commercial developments shown on the map in front of you. Tonight is the public hearing for the smaller commercial project highlighting in orange, while next month is this board will have the opportunity to hear the proposal for the project illustrated in light blue on this map. Not only will these commercial developments provide the necessary services for current and future residents, but they also provide jobs right in the heart of Braggtown. Next slide, please. This slide provides a closer image of the project area and also shows the Carver Street extension under construction, which we all know is now and open to the public. Next slide. The project is 4.49 acres in size, located in the suburban tier. The existing future land use map already proposes commercial for this parcel. And tonight we're requesting a rezoning from RS 20 to CG, as well as the annexation of this parcel. Site characteristics include an evergreen forest to the south and east, existing athletic field, gravel parking with areas of concrete. The Katzberg store previously stood on this site. Next slide, please. Through graphic and text commitments, this development will include a maximum of 8,000 square feet of floor area, 11% tree preservation area, right-of-way dedication, sidewalks, crosswalks for pedestrian connections to the west, sidewalk connection to the future greenway trail, which is planned along the eastern property line in the railroad right-of-way, as well as road improvements on both Old Oxford and Hamlin Road. Next slide, please. My final slide this evening is the enlarged development. This plan highlights the natural 50-foot buffer in green along the adjacent residential parcel. The cross hatch along the Old Oxford Road identifies the right-of-way dedication, which ranges from 25 to 35 feet. Site access one is shown with the blue arrow with the graphic improvements on the left of your screen showing the construction of a right and left turn lane in addition to the five-foot bike lane and sidewalks. The location of site access two is shown in orange and on the right of your screen. This access point will provide a left turn lane on Hamlin Road and limit exiting the site to only right turns through the construction of a median and or driveway aisle. In closing, I ask for your support of this commercial development, which will help improve both vehicular and pedestrian traffic at this intersection with opportunities, with job opportunities right in the heart of Braxton. Thank you, I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Tim. We also have a few people signed up to speak as opponents. We're gonna give two minutes to each person. We're gonna begin with the first three people who signed up to speak who indicated they definitely wanted to speak tonight. That's Helena Craig, Constance Wright and Celeste Richie. Helena, you may begin, and reminder to please say your name, address, and then you'll have two minutes to make your statement. Thank you, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, good evening, Commissioner Amondola and fellow commissioners. My name is Helena Craig. My property is 1016 Old Oxford Road, which is directly contiguous to the application property to the cell. I am opposed and really I'm asking for respectfully for you all to consider deferring a vote on this application. The applicant's own stated goals for communication and engagement within the community were to quote unquote be accessible, transparent, equitable, and ongoing and representative of a community input that leads to equitable outcomes. And I would say that it's not happened at all. My wife and I own this property and only received notice late last week. My neighbors directly across the street at 1017 Old Oxford have never received any communication either via this public notice, which was only 600 feet, which given that every surrounding property is over an acre meant only two properties really, we're gonna get notice and one didn't receive it. Nobody that I've spoken to recalls having participated in the engagement that's documented in the application. And from best I can tell it probably happened back in 2019. As you well know, we in Braggtown have had our hands full working with the developers of the Carver Street Assemblage and this particular application was never really in the discussions. We're proud to have come out of the previous Carver Street Assemblage project with what we think is a successful model of actually actively involving community engagement. And that's what we'd like to see in this case. I spoke to our chairperson of the Braggtown Community Association, Vanessa Mason. And she unfortunately couldn't attend tonight because she literally did not receive notice in order to make it tonight. So she did make time to schedule a meeting with the community with Mr. Cybers and that's gonna happen this Saturday. But clearly that would be after any vote tonight. And lastly, the main thing that I wanna point out is there is active high-risk petroleum contamination on the subject property that has not been noted that to the best of all public records I can find the applicant has not worked with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality even though that petroleum has actively contaminated our well and has been monitored for at least six adjacent properties residentially since 1990. Thank you, Elena. Constance Wright. Good afternoon. Yeah, my name is Constance Wright and I live at 2605 DeMille Street. And I am also asking for the planning commission to delay the approval of this rezoning of the property because what it is is reminiscent of how we first learned about the Carver Street assemblage a couple of years ago and the full-on scale that they were planning on building all the houses without much community input. So I am joining in and asking for delay in the approval of this property because of the rezoning of this property because of possibly the full impact of what they are planning on building there. Like Ms. Craig was saying, there's soil contamination and we know from other experiences and hearing on the news and all about how communities are built and businesses are built on contaminated soil causing sickness to residents in the area. You know, again, cutting down the trees is gonna cause a lot of pollution and all coming in, especially with the impact of the heavy traffic and all. And because Katzberg store was there and there was a gas station there, the likelihood of the soil being contaminated is very high. So I am joining with the community residents and asking for delay until Mr. Syvers can explain to us you know, how he is gonna make it safe for the residents of Bradtown if this rezoning goes into effect. Thank you. Thank you, Constance. Celeste Ritchie. Hi, good evening. Thank you, commissioners. I'm also gonna join in stand in solidarity with the Bradtown Community Association and other community members who've spoken tonight and asking for a delay on the vote on this project. This one also caught me quick and I try to stay on top of these things. I would say things, you know, based on reviewing the application, things that are concerning to me would be around environmental issues. So we're moving those trees, going down to just 11% tree save, putting in a gas station, which, you know, as we've heard, there's already pollution on the site, but it has major implications for long-term soil, groundwater and air pollution for the people of Bradtown. And I would say that the proposed businesses, you know, those are not, I work in kind of public workforce world. Those are not really known for high-quality jobs, right? And I think that we've seen the management of other similar types of businesses by the same developer and I would say that is borne out. We're not seeing high-quality jobs not providing kind of community space or other benefits. So, but I think the main issue is that, you know, there really wasn't thorough engagement with the community and would really love to see that. Thank you. Thank you. The fallen individuals signed up in advance indicated they were undecided on whether or not they wanted to speak. So I'm gonna go ahead and read out their names. And if you would like to speak, please raise your hand. Again, if you're on the phone, you do that by pressing star nine. Those individuals are Billy D. Anna Brockenbra, Natalie Pickett and Jason Errol. And I see folks have raised their hand in the meeting. So I'm gonna first call on Anna Brockenbra to speak. Hi, yes, thank you for letting me speak. My name is Anna Brockenbra and I live at 1017 Old Oxford Road. So I am the only other residential house that will be directly impacted along with Halina Craig and I appreciate her letting me know about this proposal because I have not received any communication about it since probably 2019. I was just going back through my emails and that was the last correspondence I had regarding any development in this area. So I would just like to have more time to kind of review what they're proposing and how that might impact me. I think my initial concern would be if we're going to put in a gas station and a fast food restaurant or a drive-thru restaurant, the type of increased traffic as well as light and noise pollution that could impact me. And so just kind of wanting to know more about what is planned to be done to keep that it to a minimum. And yeah, so I just like a little more time to review that material. Halina was the one that passed along, the information that she received, I guess she said last week, otherwise I would not have known about it. Thank you. Thank you. Natalie Pickett. Hi, yes, thank you. My name is Natalie Pickett. I'm a homeowner at 1111 Paul Road in Durham. My property borders wanna be adjacent parcels to 1110 Old Oxford. I'm also speaking in opposition to this proposal and I would like to echo that request for the commission to delay their vote on the matter. As you all know, the Bradtown community is very active in communicating with developers when given the chance to participate in authentic community engagement, which has not seemed to be the case with those requests as others have noted. The meeting notes and the engagement summary didn't specify what date that meeting was on, but it seems like based on the content of the notes, it was in 2019 before the cat's brick store was even removed. So this community, like I said, strongly values being at the table throughout the development process, not just once, two years ago. So commissioners, please consider delaying your vote on this proposal until the developer has engaged more with the community they're seeking to move into and impact. Thank you. Thank you. Jason Arrow. This is Chris Pierce. Oh, yeah, there we go. Thanks, sorry. Appreciate you giving me a chance to speak. Good evening, commissioners. I'm here in solidarity with the Bradtown community and the Bradtown community association asking for you all to delay until there has been more robust and authentic community engagement over this project. As other folks have said tonight, we're concerned about environmental impacts. We're also just really wanna make sure that they're getting real feedback from the community. So I'm just gonna leave it at that and that I'm here in solidarity with that group. Thank you so much. Thank you. Are there others who would like to speak at this time? So please indicate by virtually raising your hand. And if you're on the phone, you do so by pressing star nine. Okay, seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'm gonna open it up for comments and questions from commissioners who would like to start. Commissioner Durkin. I'm curious why the community wasn't involved in this conversation, just especially given this parcel and their very engaged involvement on the residential portion, I would have assumed that they'd be brought in the loop on the commercial side. So Tim, if you can speak to that, that would be helpful in knowing how you're going forward. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to answer that question. So one of the neighbors spoke that it kind of snuck up on them as it, to a point as it did us over the last year, we have in my office, we've really been concentrating on that residential piece to make sure that the, and I believe it was commissioner Bosby that I mentioned this to a couple of days ago when we met that we really wanted to concentrate on that and make sure we got that correct. And then that one was originally scheduled for the beginning of January and that two or three week delay really impacted the ability to have good communication with the neighbors prior, right prior to this meeting. So I was able to speak with the president with Vanessa Evans last week and had a meeting with her, explained the project. And I'm not gonna speak for her, but she wasn't able to be here tonight, but I have no problem delaying and look forward to the ability to work out some of these items. But I do believe it really came down to, it was a flip of the coin, if you will. We really thought that the important item was ensuring that we could get those income restricted units for the residential, which if the residential didn't pass or didn't go through, then this was a different situation, right? So only the fact that that case was heard last week, it really hindered our ability to reach out to the community. So I am meeting with the Bractown this Saturday. That's already set and scheduled. I had some emails with Ms. Vanessa Evans today. So I am doing that. We will have these communications, but I went into this meeting tonight anticipating a deferral and have absolutely no problem doing that. Okay, and I'm glad that you started the next event. I think where we're all moving towards, and I appreciate the time crunch and how things have to kind of move in a particular order to make sense. Right, right. So I'm happy to hear that you're open to a delay. I want you to go to the community as they want to be engaged. And so I just want to, are you suggesting how many, how many cycles are you suggesting for a deferral? So I do know the whatever's necessary, I guess. I don't know if probably two cycles, I would think one cycle may be a little short. And knowing depending on what can take place in the next month or so, we may need to delay the next month hearing as well to make sure we can have that true communications with the neighborhood. I see Mr. Stock joined on, I'm okay with a 60 day if that's fine with staff. What do you think? Thank you. 60 day is the minimum. There's no way you have a chock full agenda, even more chock full than this one for March and being able to turn around any revisions, even at that point, we'll be a minimum of 60 days, if not just going for 90. Okay, can I ask Ms. Constance right if 60 days is seen sufficient from her being a representative of the Bradtown Community Association? Is it possible to bring her back on audio or Ms. Craig? From my perspective, starting from ground zero, 90 days feels more appropriate to me. 60 days just doesn't feel like enough time to actively get caught up on what all was intended. And I will defer that to Ms. Craig because I am no longer the vice chair of the Bradtown Community Association. So I wouldn't feel comfortable in answering that, but I think it's so yeah, that'll be fine. Thank you, Beth. I'm gonna step away from commenting, that was it. Thanks. Michael, do you wanna say any more on that? Yeah, and I'm sorry, I probably should have prefaced this before, but even saying 60 days is not really a true 60 days because there is work involved ahead of time to get this onto an agenda. So it's really more half of that. So if there is gonna be true engagement and discussions and time to let that happen and back and forth, 90 days is probably what you're gonna need to consider. Tim, I would love to hear your thinking on 60 versus 90 based on this conversation. Yeah, I'm Tim Syversy and yes, absolutely. I'm fine with 90 days. I definitely wanna have the time to make sure we can have that community involvement as well as make sure staff has their time to prep and notifications and all that stuff. So 90 days is acceptable to me. Okay, thank you, Tim. So I would just acknowledge first from a process standpoint, if we choose to go a 90 day extension, that means when this case comes back to us, we will have to vote that night. If we did a 60, we would have another chance to defer. So I don't know if there's a major preference between those two, but just wanted to state those options for the record. And it seems to me, the way this discussion is going is we're headed towards likely doing a continuance for at least two or three cycles. And so I welcome commissioner comments because this is a great time to state your concerns and for the record and for the applicant to consider as well, but also just wanna keep in mind that this is likely gonna be delayed. I'm gonna call on commissioner Carmen Williams next. Thank you very much, Chair Amondolia. First of all, of course I agree with the lack of community engagement and how that has resulted. Also has some concerns because this is removing a play area, desolate or not that was already there. And we have community concern about whether or not the children will have somewhere to play and something to do in this area in an effort to, I guess, create jobs for the Bragg Tile community with this 8,000 square foot facility. And I have questions in terms of the type of tenants that will be brought to this area. I know that we see that there won't be certain things there. However, I think that this is an opportunity to provide an outlet of more recreation for the youth and the community in that area since the park or at least the baseball field is being removed. I also have concerns about bringing this 8,000 square foot facility to this area given that there is an almost completely vacant commercial area on the corner of Roxburgh Road and Old Oxford Road that is losing tenants daily which is massive in size. And when we go from Brownfields to Greenfields to Blackfields I'm just trying to figure out why this is necessary when there's a development not too far from it that's not being utilized. So those are my concerns going forward. However, if there's an opportunity to delay I'm all for that. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Herrod. Thank you, Chairman Elmer Delling. Tim, I'm just curious. I'll thank you for being willing to delay this, by the way. I'm just curious, I know you do your research well. Is there in fact a designation of this being contaminated soil on this site? Yes, there is. It is contaminated from previous gas stations and we'll dig into that a little bit further but it is, yes, that is correct. Okay, so I mean, is that being taken care of on state level? So there's current monitoring wells on the site that are being monitored annually just like a standard previous gas station location but the tanks from that gas station 20, 30 years ago are no longer there. Okay, thank you for that input. As far as 1690 days, if the community prefers 90, I guess I'm in favor of that. So that's all I had to say. Thank you. Commissioner Busby. Thank you, Chair Mendolia. I was just gonna weigh in with the same thing that Commissioner Herrod just said. I think if the community is looking for 90 days and as Michael Stock shared, it's gonna be less than that given the time staff needs and if Tim's amenable to that, I think the track record of this team working with this community has been positive and I think tonight's offer is good. And so I'm hopeful that we would take the full time and bring something back in three cycles. So that's what I would support. And the only other thing I would add is if there is any information that is available that could be added to our packet about the contaminated soil before the next meeting, I think that'd be really helpful as well. That was news to me, but I think more importantly, I think any information that's available that can be a part of the packet will be really useful for the community to have access to as they're doing engagement with Tim and his team over the next three cycles. So thanks in advance for any information that we can add on that issue. And that's all, Chair Mendolia. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cease. Hi, a couple of questions. Some for staff and some for the applicant. Quickly, there was a reference, Leo, that you made to the Roxboro Rail Court or a rail trail. Can you describe a bit more about what that is? Sure. Try that one more time or maybe- Yes, yes. Maybe else I'm fast, there we go. Okay, okay, there we go, that's better. I'm going to share my screen again and I can show two different images that might be helpful to provide some context. First, I will show the development plan. Well, actually, I'll just show that. Okay, so here we have the proposed conditions on the development plan. You can see the railroad right-of-way, 100 feet in width on the eastern boundary of the property. And then this is the location of the proposed Roxboro Rail Trail following that old railroad easement. The applicant would be responsible for, or may be responsible for providing improvements to that trail as they work with parks and recreation. Tim, I'm not sure if you can weigh in on that. You have your hand raised here. Tim, I'll switch over to you if that's okay. Yes, that's fine. So thank you and I'll lower my hand for now. So we did work those details out with Parks and Rec during the review and they stated that the sidewalk connection from along our frontage over to the trail allows for that connection for the future greenway trail. Okay, thanks. That's a little bit more information. Let me ask you also, just quickly or ballpark, how far is it to the residential that's part of the carver assemblage, the case that was heard last, the last meeting? Say from the intersection, if that's the shortest route. If you will, I don't know if you're asking me, this is Tim Starvers. If you'll give me a minute, I'll get a dimension for you. Okay. And then while he's looking at that, staff, I have a question Leah or Eileen, the list of the head bike comments, bicycle and gesturing advisory committee comments. There's just one item there that's referenced that the head bike, excuse me, bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission requested and let's see, place the crosswalk so that it's parallel to Oaksford and ensure the shortest crossing distance, please provide a pedestrian crossing signal. The planning comment is that that's accommodated, where's that referenced in the development plan or the text commitments? So you should be able to see my screen now. Yep. I believe you're referring to this pedestrian sidewalk and crosswalk location shown here at the intersection of Carver Street and Oaksford. Is that correct? Well, it refers to text commitment four. I was referring specifically to the head bike committee requests and I call it head bike, sorry about that, but bike pad. Okay. We'll go up to text commitment four, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and addition to UDO required sidewalks, additional sidewalks and crosswalks per city of Durham and NC dot standards shall be provided on Old Oaksford Road at Hamlin Road as shown on sheet D 100. Okay. So that's what they're showing now. That's what they're showing. And does that specifically include a pedestrian crossing signal? I'm not sure if that includes a signal as part of the crosswalk. I do know that there is a signalized crossing at the corner of Carver and Old Oaksford is already constructed. That would be here. So I don't know if one of my colleagues knows and Tim also has his hand raised if that crosswalk committed crosswalk would include a signalized crossing. So Tim Syvers for Vastal Sheets. So commissioner Cease, this project because it's only 8,000 square feet is not committing to the pedestrian cross signal. The adjacent project that has about 100,000 square feet of commercial that'll be scheduled to be here in front of this committee next month does include the pedestrian crossing signal as a commitment. Okay. I think that's a very important clarification that staff needs to describe more clearly than the planning analysis that's referenced on here. It's just, these are really details that can get lost quickly. And if it's dependent on another project, I'd prefer to see that referenced in either the applicant's comments or the staff comments. If you look at the attachment eight in our packet, the applicant response says see the revised cover sheet and text commitment and the planning analysis says this comment has been satisfied. But there's nothing in the text commitments of this project or the cover sheet of this project or the development plan of this project that addresses what the bicycle pedestrian and a committee suggested. So again, if I'm missing something there by all means correct me, but I haven't seen it. And so I'm hopeful that when staff says something's been addressed that it's addressed because as someone is popping up on the screen there there's no guarantee of approval for another project. And I think that's the distinction I'm trying to make is that, Tim, I hear you describing that it would be associated with another project. There's nothing in this project that we're hearing tonight that could be characterized in my view as having that bicycle pedestrian advisory committee comment addressed. But it's represented as such. So I think that's just an important distinction because it goes to something that I have been concerned about throughout. Tim, were you able to get the distance from the residential, just ballpark? Yes, it's about a third of a mile from project limits. About a third of a mile. And basically that third of a mile will be covered by the other project on the other side of Carver Street. Is that correct? Can you clarify what you mean by covered? The frontage, like the distance. Is it continuous or are there parcels that are outstanding in between the residential and this project? There's the one parcel that includes that proposal that's in front of you next month, but it's one full project. The existing sidewalk, well, the sidewalk is existing today along Carver Street. Yeah, so from this intersection to the residential, it's just the other commercial project that will be coming before us that is to join those two. That connects the dots. That's correct sir, yes. So these really are, as you stated in your description, projects that are considered to be somewhat related to each other. And in fact, the way in which you described kind of holding off on the community engagement for this particular project was dependent upon how the residential project was heard by our committee, or by this commission at the last meeting. So there's a relationship. And where I'm going with this is the provisions for sidewalks as referenced here are defaulting essentially to NCDOT standards. There is a clarification that states that either sidewalks or crosswalks will be provided to ensure that all buildings on the site are interconnected. But it doesn't say anything about whether that crosswalk extends across 100 feet or 120 feet or 60 feet of gas station, service station, access aisle type areas, a crosswalk that none of us on this call would find ourselves comfortable in. There's nothing that speaks to protecting these crosswalks in a way that in my view is consistent with elevating the needs and desires and wants of the current residents of Braggtown or of the future residents of the Carver Street Assemblage, especially if there are 198 units that are income restricted 800 units overall. That will be a residential neighborhood where there will be presumably children, there will be teenagers, there will be 12 year olds, there will be seniors, there will be people that will walk. And it doesn't matter if this is a fast food station wrapped in a fast food restaurant wrapped into a gas station, this will be a destination. And so what I would encourage you to do, Tim, and what I would encourage staff to do is to be far more cognizant of the ways in which the people who will arrive at this place on foot will navigate both the street crossings and the internal site. And given that it's an 8,000 square foot floor area proposed over what three, four acres of buildable area, once you take out the right-of-way dedication and the 11% tree save and the very narrow buffers about the perimeter, there's absolutely nothing in the application that tells us where the building will be, how the gas pumps will be configured. And therefore, how the pedestrian crosswalks and our sidewalks will connect for all those residents who may be coming here, or maybe just traversing this site to get to the future rail right-of-way. And so I think that it's not necessarily, Tim, your, any, any, I'm not placing fault on anything that you've brought forward to us. I think this is a much larger question in terms of how both planning staff, transportation staff, community at large, and our commission speaks to these issues more comprehensively, especially with a consideration of who's going to be living here in the future. I think that it's not necessarily, Tim, your, any, any, I'm not placing fault on anything that you've brought forward to us. I think this is a much larger question in terms of how we're living here in the future. And so with that, you know, discussion of 60 days, 90 days is, is, you know, it's inconsequential to me. What's, what's more consequential is whether the development plan is sufficiently identifying information to give comfort and clarity around these types of concerns. And, and, you know, just close by saying, you know, those concerns to me from an engineering perspective, from an architecture perspective, it's not about the health safety and welfare to general and public. And nothing could be more important in terms of, you know, ensuring that there's equity and, and accessing even the uses that are proposed. It's not just a gas station. It's more than that. It's a destination for these residents, particularly people who may not have easy access to a car. So with that, I'll, I'll stop it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner C's. Early. I noticed you raised your hand and wanted to give you a chance to respond or provide any insight on commissioner C's questions. Thank you. Early Thomas transportation. I did want to clarify that while not expressly called out on the development plan, the city would require pedestrian signals to be installed for the normal design. So it wouldn't necessarily need to be caught out as a element on the development plan since it would be required. Okay. That's a hugely important clarification. I appreciate you adding that early. A question though is that seems at odds with what the applicant was saying is that it would be required as part of the future parcel or you're saying that it would be required as part of the larger project, not as part of this project. As a part of this project, if the developer commits to installing the crosswalks at the signal, that would be a requirement of safe accommodations in that signal design. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. You're welcome. Thank you. Commissioner Morgan. Thank you, chair. I had a question with regards to the other. Case that we are going to have next month or at least a month of the digital for next month. Would it make sense to delay that one? Two cycles and bring them both in together. I mean, given that there seems like there's some. You know, you know, interconnectivity that they're trying to plan here. I guess I could ask it to staff first or then ask it to Tim to see if that, if they're willing to do that. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That case, we did inform Tim that that case was tentatively scheduled for the next meeting. It is not beneficially. Put on the agenda. It is going through agenda review and. And all the fun stuff that we do in preparing for agendas. So there is no need to do any continuance. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. If it wants to hold off on that case moving forward. It just will not be put on that agenda. And it would actually make sense that he has discussions about both projects at the same time with Bragg town. And not get hung up on a continuance cycle for that second project. But that is up to the, you know, we haven't finalized that that case is ready to go, but it is in preliminary stages for consideration for next month. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Thank you, Tim. Thank you. I think. Anyways, I was thinking the same thing as the community members were speaking. So yes, absolutely. I had already actually wrote myself a note to email. Mr. Stock tomorrow morning and request that same thing. I believe that's a great idea. Yeah, absolutely. Not a problem. So I will work that out with planning staff or the next couple of days, and then we'll have those both come through the 90 days from now, whatever that date. So be it for the, that hearing. That's great. You don't have to email me. I got that right now. Perfect. I think that makes sense. And that'll alleviate the planning commit one item from the plan commissions next meeting agenda. Okay. Great. Thank you. That's, that's what I had. I yield back. Thank you. Did anybody else like to make any comments or ask questions before. Okay. I'm going to briefly recognize Helena Craig. Get her a second to ask any clarifying questions to see she has her hand raised. In light of the last bit of conversation and recognizing what I heard from you earlier, that if it was a 60 day deferral, there would be an opportunity to defer again. I think I would feel. Hard about trying to get to resolution on two projects and 90 days. So. And I say this, not knowing exactly how the process works, but I definitely heard you that if there was a 60 day, it could be deferred again. Sure. I recognize y'alls. Knowledge on that. Yeah. So what will happen is this case, we have to make a decision on this one within 90 days. The second commercial case, we will have to make a decision on it within 90 days of when it first comes to the planning commission. So presumably based off what Tim and staff and commissioners have been discussing, we have to make a decision on it within 90 days of when it first comes to the planning commission. So that would be, this will be coming back to us in May. And that would be the first time we would see the second commercial development at which point we would have an extra 90 days of time that we could continue it. If that other case was not settled in that time. I mean, does that provide more comfort to you? Yes, I think that. Feels more manageable. Thank you. Well, I'll give you a last moment to speak. And then we're going to move forward. Thank you, chair. I did just want to reach out and let the residents that are on the call here know that miss Vanessa Evans does has my, have my contact information. I will look back through our notes to see if I have all of yours. I believe I do. But if not, she has my contact information. So make sure you're getting ahold of her and look forward to speaking with everybody's. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. I'm just going to make a couple of quick comments. Related to my concerns. I'm glad that everybody seemed to be in agreeance about addressing the lack of community engagement. I was headed that direction as well. I'm glad we're thinking about these two commercial developments together. I think that makes a lot of sense. Little weird that we didn't think of them. I'm not going to focus too much on that. I would like to hear more about the baseball field that's currently on this site. It's, I noted in the report. That I think it was where the applicant responds to the community goals and engagement. That there was no like historical or cultural significance found on the site. And I found that a little surprising with. A park there. I would love to hear maybe in some of the meetings that come up with Bracktown, there will be some more learned about that site. I assume that there's going to be some environmental management plan on this site. I'm given the news that we heard for tonight. So I hope to hear, see some more information on that. I mean, this was referenced earlier. This is kind of my, one of my bigger concerns on the site. Is that if we're going to be bringing commercial sites here, I really want them to be bringing quality jobs. And I know that it's hard and it's maybe different to do that through land use and planning decisions, but it's something that I hope is incorporated in the conversations that are had over the next several months. The types of jobs that come with a gas station. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I've had over the next several months. The types of jobs that come with a gas station, like they're not the types of jobs that are going to really help uplift people's wages. And that's what I am interested in with commercial development here. I want to see Bracktown residents who are going to be living near this site. Have access to jobs that provide them. Opportunities to increase their current economic status. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Any kind of. Assurances that could be provided around that would be beneficial. I think, you know, a $15 minimum wage, like we've taken so long to get there where we have gotten there that it really doesn't cut it anymore. And so I think as much as we can be pushing for high quality jobs, we need to, and a gas station does not appeal to me as a place that's available to us. Unless you're bringing in one of these really large. Corporate sites and they usually don't. Locate themselves on smaller commercial sites like this. So. I'm a little bit. Concerned about that. I don't know if I feel comfortable. Moving forward with this case. If it's kind of just. Provide more low wage opportunities for community that really needs. More opportunities to increase their economic status. Yeah. I think that's a good point. Thank you for my thoughts and comments. Tim, I'll give you one. One less second. So you're referring to the park, I believe. Yes, exactly. And I will find provides more information about the jobs and how, you know, this is a rezoning for commercial. Yes. The current owner is a family fair developer. He owns a gas station, but it is a commercial zoning. So there is a potential for him to not build a gas station here and sell it. And it could be any commercial use. So please keep that in mind as you're considering this project over the next 90 days. Those. You know, family fair are franchise owned. So there is the opportunity for locals to come in. And own that and operate it. And they will be able to do that. And they will also have full control over the quality of the, the wages that are paid. Family fair itself does not have any control over that. So, so providing text commitments in that are very difficult. I will note that you talked about them being local. They are a local company. They, their offices host right here in Durham. But they also do require that the franchise owner lives locally. So they're not going to own and operate the site. They are, these franchise owners are in the store every single day. So they're in the store, they're in there working, making sure that they take pride in their ownership. And that they keep a clean site. It's a good looking development at the end of the day. I also want to talk about the parks real quick. Just for a reference. So the, the athletic field hasn't been used in a couple of years. That was used at one point with the bull city little league, but now operates their house off of junction road, which they're looking to expand that junction road facility. So, so that's a simple answer to that. So if there are any other questions, I can take them. I'm available. Obviously everyone knows my contact information. So reach out if there's any other, and I do appreciate the time this evening. Thank you all. Thank you. Okay. This time. I would accept any motions. Missionary Buzby. I would make a motion for a three cycle delay on this case. Second. For continuance. I moved by commissioner Buzby, seconded by commissioner cut, right? I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. And maybe have the roll call vote. Yes. And just for clarity, that would be for the May. Let me look up the. Counter quickly. The May 10th. Meeting. Okay. So for the vote. Amondola. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yeah. Herod. Yes. Low. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. Carmen Williams. Yes. And Zuri Williams. Yes. It passes unanimously. Thank you. Great. Thank you all. Thanks to him and thanks to the community members that showed up to speak on this tonight. Next, we're going to move forward to case Z. 21. The Drupal 04 triangle veterinary clinic. We'll begin with the staff report. Good evening again. This is Leah Larkins with the planning department. The request for a zoning map change. I need to share again. The request for a zoning map change. Zero 21 quadruple 04 triangle veterinary referral hospital has been received from Tony and Whitaker of civil consultants incorporated for one parcel at 608 Maureen road totaling 1.97 acres. The site is within the city's jurisdiction and in the suburban development tier. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from commercial neighborhood and residential suburban 10 to commercial neighborhood with a development plan. A development plan is proposed, which will limit potential land uses on the parcel to veterinary hospital, medical facility, self-contained mobile medical imaging unit and general office. On the future land use map or flung, the parcel is designated as low density residential. If the zoning is approved, staff recommends a change to the flung to designate the property as commercial. The context map shows that the site is zoned commercial neighborhood and residential suburban 10. The property is surrounded by RS 10 zoning with established single family uses. This aerial map shows the boundary lines of the subject property as well as the site's proximity to existing residential development. And current aerial photography shows that the site is developed as a veterinary practice with associated parking and landscaping. The existing sidewalks on Lyndon terrace and Maureen road are designed to accommodate the area. In addition, the site is designed to accommodate the area. This rezoning limits the uses permitted on the property and commits to new building, parking and landscaping improvements. Text commitments include a limitation on the commercial neighborhood uses, the construction of a perimeter buffer and a prohibition on outdoor animal containment. Pedestrian bicycle and roadway improvements, including the dedication of right of way along Maureen road for the area. The site is designed to accommodate the area. The site is designed to accommodate the area and enclosed walkway between the two structures, the screening of a mobile medical imaging unit and a combination of facade materials. A neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with UDO requirements on October 5th, 2021. Four community members were in attendance. There was one comment made on this case through social information. The request was made on October 15, 2021. Finally, except for the flum designation, staff determines that this request is consistent with the community goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan that were analyzed. Three of the three retained policies from the 2005 comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies. Thank you. Staff is available to answer questions if needed. Thank you. I'm going to give the applicant presentation. I see Randy Herman and Tony Whitaker signed up with the applicant team tonight. I'm going to give the applicants 10 minutes to speak. Please let me know if there are other members of your team here with you tonight. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you, chair. I'm in Dolia and members of commission. My name is Randy Herman. I'm an attorney with the law firm of BA folk and I'll answer any questions. Tony Whitaker is present. He's the engineer from civil consultants. Also present, I believe by phone is Barry Hill or architect from MHA works. And the property owners are present as well. If there are any questions for them. So. If we can go to the next slide. Again, this is the parcel of property is 1.97 and is located in a mostly residential area. If we can go forward to, I believe. Okay. So this is a satellite view showing the existing building on the property. So triangle veterinary for a hospital has been operating. This existing building since 2009. Prior to that, it was an appliance warehouse. So it's been zoned commercial since at least 2006. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Possibly earlier. I'm not entirely clear on the records there. And if we can go, I believe the next slide shows the zoning. The main reason for this request is that the current zoning of the property is split. So as you can see, there's this neighborhood commercial zoning. Which follows, looks like the property lines of an old. So this is a, a prior division of this lot. So kind of the central part of the, of the parcel on the corner is owned commercial. And the other two portions of the property are zoned RS 10. And so this split zoning has created some limitations on the property. And so the idea is to rezone the entire parcel to neighborhood commercial. And so the, the city approved development plan. That would give the property owner and also the neighbors. Some certainty about what future uses of property will look like. And then to expand the structure beyond the existing one story building. To add some additional facilities. One thing to note is that this is a veteran area for hospital. This is not like your neighborhood vet. That has local customers just kind of drop in. This is a facility that is specifically for referrals for. Intensive treatment or additional. Evaluations. So they do things like MRIs. That would not be available at your local vet. And so if you bring your pet into a local vet and there's an issue that requires evaluation or treatment beyond what they can handle, that's when it gets referred to this facility. And so that does have some impact on the extent to which the use of the property for this use has impacts on surrounding neighbors. If we can go to the next slide. So this is the, this is the development plan. That is being proposed in connection with this rezoning. So you can see the existing building kind of at the center of the, of the property there on the west side. There is the intent to construct an additional. So there's an existing one story building. The intent is to construct an additional two story building. And the building is there a little under 13,000 square feet. And one of the text commitments that we have committed to in connection with this development plan is. A total of 19,000 square feet maximum. So the new building is intended to be a two story building with a maximum of 6,000 additional square feet. And a maximum height of 28 feet. So we'll see that we're proposing a 30 foot. Preserved. Vegetated buffer around the south side of the lot. Except specifically where there will be additional parking on the east side and there it's a 50 foot. Vegetated buffer. From the parking area. One of the primary concerns that we have gotten from the neighborhoods about the existing. And one of the things that we've been trying to make sure that we have a lot of veterinary use is that parking currently is kind of limited. And therefore there are sometimes issues with. People parking on the street. On Maureen and Lyndon instead of parking on the property. So one of the additions that is proposed with this site plan would be additional parking. To allow those, those clients to be able to park off the street and not have an impact on the neighborhood. So we are proposing additional right away dedication for bike lanes on Maureen road on the west side of Maureen road. Along the frontage. If we can go to the next slide, this is going to have the text commitments. So again, allowed uses would be veterinary hospital medical facility. Self-contained mobile medical imaging unit. That's the MRI trailer. So that would be similar to the ones you might have seen at, for instance, the hospital. And general office. Again, those are all uses associated with the existing veterinary. Structure. Again, the maximum total building floor area would be 19,000 square feet. The existing building is 13,000. So it'd be an additional 6,000. Maximum building height would be 28 feet. Maximum pervious would be 47,000 square feet. So a little under 55%. And the intent is to construct a perimeter buffer. 50 feet wide along the parking area and 30 feet long, 30 feet wide around the rest of the perimeter. And right away will be dedicated for the bike lane. Last slide we have is design commitments. So there are limitations on building exteriors as well as roofs. Supposing architectural tiles, roofing shingles. The primary entry for the proposed building will be from the existing building through this covered walkway. So it'll act essentially as an addition to the existing building. No new source of traffic coming in. And the medical imaging unit, which again is an important part of the project. We located kind of on the back of the building and screen from adjacent properties. I believe that's all we have. If anybody, other members of the team want to add anything and otherwise we will stand open for questions from members of the board. Thank you. We have a few people who registered in advance. First, we will begin with those that registered to speak as yes. We'll start with, we have Janet Mitman and Will Robinson registered. We'll begin with Janet Mitman. Reminder to state your name, address, and then you have two minutes to set your comments. Hello, can you hear me? I can't. Yes. So thanks to the commission for providing this forum for sharing my comments. However, I had not planned to say a lot. And although that has changed, I must admit that I do not feel fully prepared for this meeting. And I mentioned this to explain why some of what I am about to say concerns questions that could have been raised sooner. I will explain that as I thought more about the meeting, I realized that the history of the structure that is now the Triangle Veterinary Referral Hospital in our neighborhood, which I will refer to going forward as the vet hospital, has been a source of stress and discouragement. And then as a consequence, those of us who have been concerned about it have basically settled into a resigned sadness and avoidance about the whole issue, myself included. Hence the delay in planning for this meeting. I know it's weird to bring up an emotional consequence in a meeting of this nature and I realize that is not the normal language of the zoning variance discussion. But as a psychotherapist, I actually think the emotional impact is a profound consideration. And I believe there has not been a more organized community response for exactly those reasons. I've heard a lot of concerns and a lot of positions from neighbors about this proposed variance, but we have not had the kind of needed discussion that would create a unified position. I'd also like to point out that this entire rezoning application has taken place during the pandemic. And as a consequence, it's not been able to fully come together sooner in a way that would have happened otherwise. Of course, you know, there was a way for us to have done so. So it's not just the health logistics at play, but a general overall malaise that I see and basically everyone I know as well as all my clients. Again, I know that's weird to talk about that, but I don't think the pandemic issue is irrelevant here. I also want to imagine that to mention that originally, not a large, but a small group of people who supported the comments I was going to present today have changed because just as of yesterday, because they were divided about a particular piece of this. Some people wanted to completely oppose any new variance. And others didn't for various reasons. So I've therefore limited my comments for the most part to my own opinions and concerns at this time. Except for the way I've heard. Finish your thought and you've reached your two minutes. How many minutes. You had two minutes and you use them up to if you could finish your thought. I didn't know I only had two minutes. All right. Well, largely, I wanted to say that the negative impact of what's already there in the neighborhood and even larger building in the neighborhood and other 6,000 square feet to 28 feet tall. And the loss of all residential space was not a welcome prospect. I'm therefore deeply opposed to any added commercial zoning. However, if the zoning variance is nonetheless approved. Thank you, Janet. Let me just say, I would like certain assurances be written into the variance. Thank you. Next, we have will Robinson. Thanks for letting me speak. I appreciate all of you serving on the planning commission. I am a homeowner at 3910, Linda Terrace, and I live next door to Janet and I've gotten to know all of our neighbors. I don't currently live in the home. I am a landlord now. I've moved out of the neighborhood, but have been a homeowner since 2005 in the neighborhood. What I would like to ask the planning commission and the staff with help with is a way to possibly limit further limit the office space designation for this commercial overlay. And I think it's helpful for the background here is, you know, we started out with a warehouse shell and Jeff and Michael have been great triangle vet. I think they've done a good job, but we started with a 13,000 square square foot warehouse. And prior to that, it was a, it was a restaurant and a barbecue joint. And the way we got from the barbecue restaurant, which was a modest commercial footprint to the warehouse, is that the developer in 2009 took the two residential parcels. You'll see on the map that they showed you and expanded the commercial building footprint to max out the commercial space and use the residential parcels to meet commercial setbacks. And that what it was, ended up being those de facto rezoning of those residential parcels. And now we're faced with, in fact, you know, transition of those residential parcels to commercial parcels. And I know Jeff and Michael, you know, want to expand the footprint and we, it's kind of like the W knows better than when you don't know. It's probably better to have triangle vet clinic here than opening up the property to some, any commercial use in the CN zoning. But I don't like the de facto rezoning that happened in 2009. I don't think the planning commission should support wholeheartedly, something like that for a neighborhood. And I think one way to respond to that would be to say, Jeff and Michael, we appreciate this limitation on a future use to office. But based on our experience, which was awful in 2009, and we know that the office designation can have a lot of different flexible uses. And that's how we ended with the warehouse to start with. So if there's a way that the planning commission might have some suggestions for limiting that office space a little bit, we will be very appreciative. Thank you. We have two more individuals who registered indicate they were undecided on speaking. So I would say their names and give them a chance to speak. And if anyone else would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand. At this time, if you're on the phone reminder that you do that by pressing star nine. The two individuals that registered were Cecilia Eichenberger and Candido Casio Larry. See Cecilia has raised their hand. Cecilia, you have two minutes. Please say your name address and make your statement. My name is Cecilia Eichenberger. I live at 612 Marine Road. And I am directly adjacent to the vet clinic on the. It's my north side, their south side. And actually I just don't feel so negative about them. We went through hell with the warehouse fight and trying to get tenants. And I think we ended up pretty good with having the vet clinic. Now I don't, I wish we could see a picture, you know, an artist's painting of what they're planning. We've never seen that we only see two dimensional diagrams. I'd love to see a picture of what this is going to look like. And I don't mind the plan they have with this additional building. I kind of hate that MRI thing being closer to me. Cause I hear it beeping and chirping and stuff, but yeah, I couldn't live with that. And you know, I understand the need for parking. I just am concerned like, and it sounds like it's pretty safe that it's not ever going to be able to become a gas station, you know, or the family fair, you know, I don't, I don't want to see that happening. And I also don't want some kind of Trojan horse thing that once they get this sewn commercial that they can sneak things in to the green buffer zones. I don't want to see that destroyed. At least we would have trees and grass and make it look pretty dignified. So I don't want to see that violated. And that is my main concern. Otherwise I don't feel that negative about their expansion. You know, it's, they've not been that troublesome to me in terms of cars and traffic and noise. You know, it's acceptable to me, but just a couple of restrictions there to not let that get out of hand. Thank you. Thank you, Cecilia. Would anybody else like to speak? And if so, please raise your hand at this time. It's like Anthony Benson has raised their hand. Anthony, please state your name address and you have two minutes. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. I'm Anthony Benson. I live on in with 3912 inward drive, and I'm the owner of this. Down the hill from Linden Terrace. And my main concern is about water runoff with all the extra impermeable surfaces. That this is going to involve. We already have a marginal flooding situation. And in recent years, we tried to talk to the city about it. And my next door neighbor has had his basement flooded twice. He's been in the basement for a long time. I'm going to close the public hearing. To open it up. Thank you very much. I'm going to say extra runoff that this might involve. It's seeing. No other hands raised at this time. I'm only going to close the public hearing. And open it up for commissioner question and comment. And I see. Randy Herman. That has raised their hand. I'm going to acknowledge Randy. I just wanted to respond quickly to. to Mr. Robinson's request, we would be willing to change that general office to professional office. If that makes him feel better, that really is the intent is to have a professional office as associated with the vet clinic. Michael, do you have thoughts on that? I think the applicant needs to clarify. I'm hearing that there are one offices that are associated with the vet clinic. And if that's the case, that's not necessary to limit their offices associated with a medical facility or a vet clinic are part of the facility. Are they wishing to preserve the right to convert the entire facility to an office building or are they looking to just preserve the right to have offices that are part of the veterinary clinic? Yeah, I believe we want to preserve the right to have professional office as a use on the property. There's no distinction between professional and general office building then. Commissioner Carmen Williams, start with you. Thank you, Chair, Amandolia. Greatly appreciate you being, you recognizing me. I did have some concerns with this project in terms of where it's located and expanding the size and the footprint of the building with this rezoning because it seems to be completely surrounded by residential. So in construction of a parking deck and a commercial building and then another commercial parking area, it will increase runoff. However, how much of a disrupt this is this project going to be to the persons who already live in this area with construction traffic? Because you're gonna have to bring in heavy equipment, you're gonna have to bring in cranes and demolition things and there's gonna be mud, there's gonna be runoff, there's gonna be gravel, there's gonna be site management requirements that will need to be made. I know it will be a disruption to the existing building. However, the construction of these things like in and out to get here is gonna be an impact to this neighborhood. And even long after the construction of crews that are gone, the trails of mud and dirt and residual items and placement of materials that have to be ordered in advance are gonna be a concern. And I don't know that any of that has been fully taken into consideration by the residents. Also had a concern with the need to increase the space for this area because there's a problem with people parking there. And that seems to be more of a scheduling issue for the existing business than it is a problem for the residents because if it's a referral basis only, you know how many spaces you have so then you know how many people you can accommodate. That's neither here nor there. That's just me trying to play the devil's advocate here. I also had questions in terms of the general to professional office because the veterinary building will remain here. So in increasing this, is there a long-term plan perhaps that people with pets will now be bringing their pets to work and this will become a pet sitting area in addition to a pet treatment facility. Just out of sheer convenience, will there be like a dog daycare or a pet daycare or whatever the case may be is that a consideration outside of just creating more parking spaces? Last but not least, it's a mobile MRI unit. So once the mobile MRI portion of it is mobile, what happens to that space back there is that used for additional parking, garbage turned around, facilities, maintenance. I see that there's a 50-foot buffer which isn't a whole lot of space between commercial and residential area. However, if something is better than nothing. So those are my concerns as far as this is concerned are the impacts on the neighborhood as it currently exists and what considerations have been given in terms of the neighbors that will be impacted both through construction and finalization of this project. But those questions are to the applicant. You may, you can respond to those questions at this time. All right, thank you, Chair Amandolia. Thank you, Commissioner Williams. First on the mobile MRI unit, as you can see from the existing site plan the mobile MRI unit is already located on the property currently under a special use permit. The intent under the development panel plan would be to move that from its current location in the parking lot, which essentially was chosen because it's within that existing CN zoned area and move it towards the back of the building where it'd be kind of more out of the way. The reason it's an mobile MRI unit is it's actually much more financially feasible to have a mobile MRI unit even if it's there permanently on site than to install it permanently. You may have seen that similarly at hospitals where they'll have a mobile MRI that sits permanently in the parking lot rather than being in the building. It's just a practical thing. But as I said, that unit is already on the property. It's just going to be relocated to behind the existing building. The buffers and plantings that are being implemented on this plan are a result of our conversations with the neighbors, including Miss Mitman, including Miss Eichenberger about their specific concerns. And so we have implemented additional screening especially for their lots to prevent their, having to have to be impacted by their views of the property and the new parking lot and so on. Make sure, also there was a mention of a parking deck, I believe there's no intent to construct a parking deck. It would be additional surface parking. I can see that maybe is confusing because it's included in the development plan where it indicates the envelope of new two-story building, parking and service facilities. The building will be two stories, the parking will be surface parking. Just to clarify that. Again, in terms of the impact on the neighbors, again, this is an existing use that has been there since 2009. The commercial building has been there and has been used for commercial uses for much longer. The intent of this rezoning is, again, both to slightly expand the building and also to give more certainty for the neighborhood in terms of future uses. So while we are asking for it to construct an additional building, we are also significantly limiting the uses that would be allowed within that CN designation. Under the existing zoning, this could be converted to a gas station tomorrow. So we see it as a reasonable trade-off for the neighborhood that we are both expanding the building but also giving them additional buffering and additional certainty in the future as to what sort of facilities will be located on there by implementing this development plan. This is Tony Whitaker. I would like to add some information to the construction impact on the neighborhood question that was raised. We have been associated with this project for over two years. And during that time, we have seen single-family construction, persistent single-family construction in the neighborhood in close proximity to the site. So we are aware, we have seen how construction activities impact the neighborhood. And we have taken account for that. Some of the things we've considered are to, number one, not add any new driveway for this expansion to use the existing driveways, both permanently and for temporary construction purposes. In addition to that, the existing paved area on the property gives the opportunity for construction staging for the new building to happen on that paved area. There would be some temporary inconvenience to the business in terms of operations as any construction project would. And of course, neighbors would notice construction activities as they currently notice other construction activities going on now in the neighborhood. But we believe that the methodology for how we would stage the construction and the existing characteristics of the site would mitigate those concerns. And most of the buffering that already exists there, and it is quite generous and attractive, virtually all of that buffering would remain during construction. Any that's damaged during construction would be replaced and in fact, supplemented by the development plan that we propose. So we think we've taken good account for that and just wanted to be able to respond. Thank you. Commissioner Carmel Williams, do you have any other comments or questions? Not really. Just addressing the fact that there's already limited parking. So the pad that will be provided for material storage will further limit that parking, but that's about it. Sure, that's the obvious. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Busby. Thanks, Chairman Dolia. Michael, I wanted to circle back to what you said earlier and just make sure I understood. Mr. Robinson was asking if there could be consideration of further limiting uses through a proffer on this site. And so where did we end up on that question? I just wanna make sure that I understood it and that everyone else here understands that as well. My understanding is that they would like to preserve the right to have this site used as a general office, professional office building. Okay, so no changes. No change, no change from what I understand. That's correct. Okay. And then I guess, thank you. And the question for the applicant is that accurate? Is are there any options from your perspective to additionally limit any uses on this property per Mr. Robinson's suggestion? That's correct. I forgot that in Durham there's no distinction between general office and professional office and some jurisdictions there is a distinction there. But otherwise, limiting it to again, veterinary hospital medical facility, the mobile imaging unit and then general office is a significant limitation on what the commercial neighborhood uses would be, which again are the uses that are allowed now under the current zoning. So we believe by approving this rezoning it's going to be significantly more limited than what is currently allowed. Okay. Thank you. That's it for now. Thank you. Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Durkin, your audio is not working. All right, tell them yet. Thanks. I just had one clarification for one of the participants, the neighbor, Mrs. Eichenberger. She just wanted clarification that they couldn't turn around and put a gas station on the property. And I just wanted to clarify for people who can, who don't have a tax commitment in front of them or Mrs. it is restricted to veterinary hospital medical facilities, self-contained mobile medical imaging unit and general office. So there was a deviation from many of those uses. They'd have to come back and get applying, get approval for our deviations in those uses. Thanks. Thank you. Other commissioner comments and questions at this time. Commissioner Cease. Thank you. Appreciate the applicant's description of the project and I appreciate the uniqueness of the use and of Mr. Whitaker's description of the buffers and the care and thoughtfulness with regards to what the construction scenarios would look like. My concern goes back to something that was raised or referenced at least by one of the members of the public who spoke and that is the history of the site. And particularly this as a CN district. Head scratcher is too simple of a description for the comparison between the CN district intent statement and the project description that Mr. Herman provided for us. I can't see those being reconciled. And let me just describe or let me just quote from the UDO, the CN district is established to provide for modest scale commercial centers and close proximity to residential areas that offer limited commercial uses to satisfy the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. It goes on to say that compatibilities facilitated through standards and buffering that is provided here. That provide for walkable pedestrian oriented development that complements nearby residential neighborhoods. That's the intent through which the CN district is crafted in the UDO. Yet the use has always been, it was kind of a, I appreciate that the community members who spoke about needing to essentially retrofit this building with something that was somewhat compatible with the neighborhood. But what it isn't is something that is compatible with the intent statement in my view. And the applicant stated that it's not like your neighborhood that it's a facility specifically for referrals, for MRIs, not available to your local vet. So, I was kind of coming into this meeting thinking how many people from the neighborhood are visitors to this facility? But I think that question was kind of answered not very many or at least on a very limited basis. To me, it's simply not consistent with the CN district. And so for the consideration of adding the development plan, you know, my question and maybe this is as much for staff or the applicant is what other commercial district or mixed use district or whatever district may exist in the UDO could better capture what is occurring today on this site and what is proposed through the expansion. Because it doesn't to me seem to be something that is consistent, you know, today are consistent with the intent as established in the UDO. So I'll cue that one up for staff. And that's my only question. Commissioner C, the CN district is one of the more least intense commercial districts in the UDO, anything more about a mixed use district which is usually for much larger, more intense than the commercial general, which is a much larger, more intense development district, commercial center, which is a much more larger intense development district, the IL district, which is industrial, but also allows for commercial development and I want so this is a use that is in the CN district. Currently, the CN district contemplates veterinary and medical facilities as a community service, what this one is a little more specialized, but the UDO does not make a distinction between that. I appreciate your description. And in fact, the, you know, the commercial center, if not for the minimum parcel size could be something through which a development plan could be a means by better capturing the fact that this is not a neighborhood serving commercial entity. It's not proposed to be a neighborhood serving commercial entity. So if you go through the checklist of what uses are allowed, I guess that's a way to reconcile what is occurring, but that's inconsistent with the intense statement. And so I think the, you know, the concern is in contemplation of the CN district elsewhere in the city or county or wherever it may be considered would give pause to community members, to elected officials and anyone considering whether was this really neighborhood commercial because it's not neighborhood commercial. I'm not talking about the use. This is, you know, this is not a use with an MRI parked out in front of a vet hospital. It's not a neighborhood vet. The applicant said as such, and I'm not criticizing the applicant. I'm criticizing the imprecision that exists in attempting to match our UDO requirements with the intent statements. And so I look forward to years down the road, we get through the comprehensive plan and the zoning rewrite because this is just, you know, this is one of the three kind of memorial examples I would say that have come up in conversation through the year. So where the UDO just really doesn't fit. This is one of those. So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Sees. Randy Herman, I see you have raised your hand. I'd like to give you a chance to speak. This is my graphing. You're I'm one of the owners. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm one of the owners of triangle that are in a referral hospital. I'd have to respectfully disagree with you, sir. The hospital is a 24 hour emergency and referral hospital. There are only a handful of these in the state. We supply or provide 24 hour emergency and referral hospital service to all the neighbors, neighborhoods in the area, in particular Durham and Chapel Hill. And matter of fact, we have people coming from all over the state to come to our hospital because it's so specialized. And we see quite a few emergency and referral cases from the neighborhood. There have been numerous cases that come in. They come in every day, emergency cases, dogs, cats, you name it. And we provide services to them. This is not a family vet. It is a 24 hour emergency and referral. And we currently, one of the big things that we have is space problem because we provide so much service to the area, in particular the Durham area. And we also have a parking limitation. So the parking is a big issue. And one of the big things that we're trying to provide here is get people off the street so we can provide parking because we are a 24 hour hospital. It is not a 12 hour hospital. It's not eight to five. It's 24 hours, seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we've taken care of Cecilia's cats who lives next door. And we've taken care of numerous other clients that live in the neighborhoods around us. So I just wanted to make that clear. This is not just, this is no different. We're in the animal field, but it's no different than Duke being up the street, literally one street up in the middle of a neighborhood. We are that type of facility, but in the veterinary field. So we're specialized. We've got MRI. We have CT. We have specialist. We have oncologists, dermatologists, cardiologists. And these are all specialized to take care of animals in the area. And our main clientele are people that are in Durham and in Chapel Hill. So I just wanted to get that across because that wasn't really coming across. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for clarifying. And I want to be clear. I'm not questioning the value of your use. You said that you wanted to respectfully disagree. And I would say that you actually kind of proved my point. I'm not arguing about the service that you provide to the community as a, I think something like 30 different foster animals have filtered through my family's house over the past calendar year from APS. And I've made many visits to emergency vets. So I don't have that. That's not my conversation. My conversation and the point that I was raising is something that in your comments became clear. This is a destination for people from throughout the state. It's a destination for people from Chapel Hill. It's a destination from a much broader community. And to me, that's inconsistent with the CN district. Intent statement, that's not a comment on your use. That's a comment on the imprecision that exists in our ordinance. And so I just want to make that clear. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Sees. Yeah, and I would like to reflect that we often see cases that reveal the imperfections in our planning system in Durham. And we often, it can easily come across that we are going after a particular application or applicant. And I think it just reveals that each of these cases is an opportunity for us to shed light on some of the things we need to fix. I agree with Commissioner Sees' comments that if there weren't an existing veterinary clinic here, I would think this was a weird place to put one because I would want to see something like a restaurant or a playground where the residents around can walk to and go grab a bite to eat and have their kids play on the playground. Veterinary clinics there now, and I'm glad it exists as the owner of Two Cats did not know that Triangle Veterinary Clinic was where it is. And I'm very happy to know. So I appreciate that for this reason. And I think I would just add, I think one of the distinctions between the veterinary clinic and the Duke Regional Hospital is the location. Duke Regional Hospital is very set off on a campus. And I recognize there are reasons for that like land use and stuff. But just wanting to reflect and highlight, we're not trying to bash this particular application, but point out to mostly the planning staff the work that needs to be done as we're going through this comp plan process and eventual UDO rewrite. I would want to acknowledge Randy Perman and then turn it back to Commissioner Comments. As the attorney, the one other thing I wanted to add to that is that I think partially the reason why commercial neighborhood was chosen as a designation for this rezoning is because it's been operating under a commercial neighborhood zoning. As I said, at least since 2006, I can't find records from earlier, but it certainly was there earlier than that. And so that's the zoning district that it has been in. And so in order to kind of minimize the disruption by changing it, I think that was why we decided to just keep it commercial neighborhood and add the plan, the development plan to that. Thank you. Are there other commissioners who would like to ask questions? Make comments. Commissioner Herod, I saw you raised your hand earlier on. Commissioner Herod, you're still on mute. Commissioner Herod, you're still on mute. Sorry, can you hear me now? Yes. Well, as I say, my comments are much more mundane than the use. But it looks like we're going the right direction. We went for barbecue to warehouse to vet hospital. And it seems like everybody agrees they're good neighbors. Also, I think it's an advantage that was sort of hiding the MRI unit around the corner of the building. I did have a question about water management. One of the neighbors brought that up, because we are adding more impervious surface. Howard, maybe Mr. Whitaker could address, how are we handling that additional water runoff? Sure, I'm happy to. Thank you, Commissioner Herod, for that comment. I did want a chance to address Mr. Vinson's earlier comment. I'm not sure where Mr. Vinson lives, but I assume it's downstream of this property, meaning water from this site will flow down to the area that he's interested in. I will say that there is no current stormwater management, stormwater treatment on the property. That there was an attempt at some of that in the past under old regulations. But those do not meet current Durham standards. And I believe they're not very effective in really mitigating stormwater impacts right now. So what we would definitely do with any new construction is comply fully, minimally, with current city standards, which would require us to go back and treat some of that runoff to mitigate, certainly, the proposed impacts and quite possibly some of the existing impacts, both in a water quality manner and a water quality manner. And so there are various ways that we would do that. This is a limited site. We're not talking about building big stormwater detention areas that would require clearing trees and so forth. But there are some surgical strategic ways that we can introduce some devices into the parking areas, into the fringes that the city allows that will treat and manage the stormwater runoff. And we do certainly anticipate that. The development plan shows two locations and some big bold dots on the plan for where those would occur. Other locations could occur as well. These are just the two locations that we thought about that would be reasonable and the best locations. So we have thought about that. We fully anticipate managing stormwater to meet or exceed minimum city requirements. OK, thank you for that answer. Maybe that'll help alleviate some concerns. That looks like you are in approximately 12, 14 parking spaces, which is pretty significant improvement. But it also does create improving surface. We were talking about employment earlier. Is there just curious, is there going to be any additional employees as a result of this addition? No, sir, we're using, can you hear me? Yes, I hear you. I'm sorry, I apologize. This is my graphing again. No, sir, we plan to use the existing employees that we have. We actually have people working out of closets because we've run out of space. And it's just an expansion of the current employees that we have. And to address another concern, there will be no boarding or anything like that. We don't do that. I mean, our patients are pretty sick and usually in the intensive care unit or tertiary unit right below that. So they're monitored 24-7 by nursing staff. So yeah, we have no boarding or anything like that. And if any employees do bring their pets in, we have our own little area in the hospital. But there's no boarding at all. And there's not very many people that bring their animals in because we just don't have the space. It's only special circumstances. So there's no boarding at all, sir. One's another. Well, no new employees is somewhat positive because that'll mean the parking spaces. We'll actually take people off the street. Yes, sir. OK, that's all the questions I have at this point, Chair. Thank you. So I want to just point out we're coming up on our two-hour mark. We need to take a break soon to give our closed captioners a break every couple of hours. I have one quick question. And I would like to try and knock it out and get a vote quickly before this break. The applicant you just mentioned wanting to go beyond the UDO requirement, he said you would at least meet the UDO requirement for stormwater management and potentially go beyond. So I'm curious if there's any level of stormwater management you're proffering tonight. We often see applicants proffer to address up to the 100-year floodplain. I'm not sure if that makes sense for the site if you've thought about that or any similar commitment, but wanted to give you a chance to address that. Thank you, Chair. Homondolia, for that question, we have been in consultation with the stormwater reviewers with the city's public works department. Typically in these cases, those reviewers know properties that they want to strategically target for additional stormwater management criteria. And they have the discretion to require that by code and by policy. And they often do. And they let us know that in our preliminary conversations. We've had those preliminary conversations with them about this property. And nothing like that has come up as a particular concern for them about any downstream flooding. I mean, there's no 100-year floodplain close to this property. There's not a stream close to the property. So we did not feel like that this property was in need of that kind of treatment. And we feel like a proffer to that effect would just not be that substantive. And it would not be that helpful. So we have not made such a proffer and respectfully declined to do so. But certainly, every time we do these stormwater management techniques, there's always some oversizing, some additional benefit that occurs de facto if it's done well. And we fully intend to do it well. And the city is pretty good at making us do it well, I would say. So thank you for that opportunity to answer that. Thank you. OK, if there's no other questions or comments, I would take a motion at this time. Sure. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we take case numbers Z21 quadruple 04, the Triangle Veterinarian Referral Hospital case forward to the city council for it with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner I would say Busby. Is there any discussion on the motion? And then I want to confirm, Randy, do you have a question or are you seeking to make additional comment? Seeing no muting happening, I'm going to ask for the roll call vote. Chair, before I call for the vote, I believe there were two commitments that were made regarding construction traffic and the staging of construction materials. We have, let me get my notes here, that no new driveway or new temporary construction driveway will be utilized and that they'll utilize the existing driveways that are serving the site and that they'll use the existing impervious surface for staging of materials. Is that correct? Did I capture that correctly? Mr. Herman. Yes, I believe that's correct. Let me make sure. Tony, is that an accurate statement? Yes, it is certainly accurate that there'll be no new driveways, any driveways that we would have or typically required to be shown on a development plan. So we didn't feel the need for an extra proffer or an extra commitment regarding that because it's graphically depicted that way on the development plan. I guess the nuance is that we don't propose any additional temporary construction driveway and I wouldn't think there's any desire on anyone's part to do that. So that's safe ground to say, yes, that's a commitment that we can stand behind. I think the majority of the staging, virtually all, that would be on the existing paved area. But to say that some of the staging may not touch, some non-paved area would be a stretch. So I would rather not put it in a form that it's so rigid, but clearly it is both practically prudent and something that we intend to do to keep the staging on the paved areas, 90% or more. OK, we can work out the wording for that first commitment then, and I hear just the one more commitment. Right. Thank you for clarifying that. We need to make an amended motion. Yeah, I'm happy to amend my motion to include those items. All right. I will take the roll call then. Amandolia. Yes. Busby. No. Cameron. Yes. Right. Yes. Durkin. Yeah. Herod. Yes. Lowe. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. No. Carmen Williams. No. Zuri Williams. Yes. OK, it passes 8 to 3. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks to the applicant. Thanks to the residents for showing up. We're going to take a 10 minute break at this time and reconvene at, let's say, 748. Have you experienced changes in Durham that negatively affect your everyday life? Many in the community have. The City and County of Durham want to correct those issues and ensure the future changes work for the entire community. They're listening and want to hear your ideas for making Durham a place where everyone thrives. That's why the City and County of Durham are inviting all members of the Durham community to take part in the creation of the new comprehensive plan, which will determine the vision for growing Durham over the next 30 years. This collaboration between the City and County of Durham and the Durham community is the result of the New Engaged Durham Initiative, which seeks to ensure that all community stakeholders are involved in the shaping of city and county projects. Help build a Durham that works for everyone. There will soon be a new Chief Financial Officer serving as the head of our finance department. Tim Flora will take over the role at the end of February. Flora will help the City Council, City Manager and City Departments with the management of financial resources and activities. Those include debt and cash management, payroll, vendor payment, financial reporting, purchasing, general billing and revenue collection. Flora has served as the Finance Director for the town of Nightdale since 2019. In that role, he led efforts to develop, execute and manage the town's financial resources, as well as ensure financial integrity and accountability of the town's annual operating budget. Before that, he was the Director of the Buncombe County Government Finance Department. Flora is a certified public accountant, certified internal auditor and a certified government chief information officer. More information about the finance department's important role in our day-to-day operations can be found at durham-n-z.gov slash 456. Chief, I know you said that you think that there's more of a violent element to the shootings that we're having. What did you mean by that? It is the number of shots being fired. One shot is too much, okay? Well, I really do believe that and I think we all do as well, but when we look at the multiple rounds, so when we have 30, 40 rounds of expended casings where bullets have been fired, that is mind-blowing to me. And the fact that this is happening frequently is just, it does indicate that there is an increased level or a higher level of the wanting to get someone. You know, the being really being committed to committing this crime and unfortunately the commitment is there to end the life. Did you know the city of Durham has interpretation and translation services available? The city adopted a language access plan to provide language services and help non-English speakers have access to city services and programs without a language barrier. Through the city's language access plan, residents have the right to request interpretation and translation services free of charge, receive translation of vital documents and emergency communications in Spanish, and submit complaints of language discrimination or on the failure to adequately provide services in accordance with the city's language access plan policy. For more information on the city's language access efforts, visit durhamnc.gov slash language access. Sabía que la ciudad de Durham cuenta con servicios de interpretación y traducción. La ciudad adoptó un plan de acceso al idioma para ofrecer servicios de invícitos y ayudar a que las personas que no hablan inglés puedan tener acceso a los servicios y programas de la ciudad sin la barrera del idioma. Por medio del plan de acceso al idioma, los habitantes tienen derecho a solicitar sin costo alguno servicios de interpretación y traducción, recibir la traducción de documentos importantes y de comunicaciones de emergencia en español, presentar o la denuncia de discriminación por motivos de idioma o por no recibir servicios de manera adecuada en acuerdo con la política del plan de acceso al idioma de la ciudad. Para recibir más información sobre la labor de la ciudad relacionada con el acceso al idioma, visit durhamnc.gov diagonal access. My younger sister was someone that never got involved with bad people. She was a selfless person, and her life was taken away by her boyfriend due to gun violence in front of her three younger kids. I was in my car. I heard loud gunfire, didn't know where. I got shot, was dramatic and experienced. I couldn't, you know, want anybody to live through. Gun violence can happen any given time, anywhere. I'm truly blessed to be alive today. The person that did this to my sister is still in the loose, and we were justice for my sister and for my nephews. We don't want for this to happen to another woman out there. Don't stay quiet. Don't be afraid to talk. I like being there for people. I like when my investigators and I go out there, they were out there with a specific purpose, and that's to try to bring somebody to justice on behalf of a citizen to get a violent criminal off the streets. I'm born and raised in Durham. I still have family members here, classmates, friends. It's personal for me. We see on the news constantly the numbers of shootings. This is in the hundreds. Last year, it's pushing a thousand. So you would think that around every corner, there's somebody with a gun ready to shoot. But through our investigations, we've learned that the percentage of the population that's committing all these shootings is very low compared to the number of shootings were actually happening. Members of the community can help make it safer. If they've seen something in their neighborhood, please call us, let us know. There are creative ways to be able to solve crimes, and that's through anonymous information through avenues such as crime stoppers. Getting that information in the hands of police and investigators, it's critical because a lot of stuff, we can have ideas of what happened, but if we can't prove it in court, justice isn't gonna be served. Just give us the information to help point us in the right direction. Have you noticed more electric cars on the road recently? They're gaining popularity as more models become available and charging infrastructure continues to expand. Let's discuss some basics of electric driving. There are two types of electric vehicles. Battery electric vehicles are powered solely by an electric motor with rechargeable batteries. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are powered by a combination of a gasoline engine and an electric motor with rechargeable batteries. Electric vehicles offer drivers multiple benefits, including fuel and maintenance savings, enhanced vehicle performance, a fun driving experience, and environmental friendliness. There are many types of electric vehicles to choose from, and new models continue to enter the market. For your typical passenger vehicles, there are electric sedans, SUVs, and trucks. For medium and heavy duty vehicles, there are electric vans, buses, tractor trailers, and specialty work trucks. And we can't forget about the two-wheel vehicles. Electric motorcycles and bikes are quickly becoming rider favorites. All of these vehicles get their fuel from the electric grid by plugging in to charge. There are three levels of charging. Level one, level two, and DC fast charge. Level one charging uses an adapter to plug into a standard 120-volt outlet providing around three to five miles of range per hour. Level two charging uses a 240-volt outlet and provides 12 to 60 miles of range per hour. Level two charging stations can be installed at home and are commonly found in public locations, including shopping centers, downtown communities, multifamily housing, and workplaces. DC fast charge stations provide the quickest charge, adding about 60 to 80 miles of range in 20 minutes. DC fast charging is usually located in high traffic public spots and along highway corridors. While drivers tend to do most of their charging at home, there are multiple apps and websites to help locate public charging stations. With electric vehicle and charging options growing daily, drivers are zipping around their communities and traveling the country, cleanly and quietly with plenty of places to plug in along the way. Okay, we're gonna start back up, start free-sus, gonna wait for folks to come back online, make sure we got everyone here. Okay, our next case tonight is case Z21, Quadruple 05, Angera Avenue. We'll begin with the staff report. Thank you very much. I am trying to share my screen. And Chris, can you help me out here? It's not letting me share screen. It's not anticipating that. Let me see if I can email this over to somebody else for them to... Michael, I think that it's still on break. Also apologize, I'm kind of running on fumes tonight. That was at council until 12 o'clock last night. So, okay. Just shared it with some folks so they can run it for me. Oh, now it's letting me share. Okay, well, there it is. Start from the beginning. There we go. All right, is that enabled? Can you see that? Let me try. No. Can you see it? Yes. Yay. Thank you for putting up with me. Michael Stock with the playing department. This case is Z21-0005, Angera Avenue Apartments. The location is that 4% and a small portion of a parcel at 3801 Angera Avenue. The site is in the suburban tier. It is pending annexation, at least portion of the parcel is pending annexation and the total site is just over 35 acres. The current zoning is residential multifamily with a development plan, RSMD and also residential suburban or RS20. The RSMD site was rezoned and which is the predominant portion of the site was rezoned back in 2005 for around 120 single family residences. The current proposal is to include that entire site plus the RS20 site for a different RSMD zoning. The existing flum is low-medium density residential. If the zoning is approved, staff would recommend medium-high residential. It is in within the Falls Jordan watershed, protected district 21 apartments. As you can see, the predominance of the site that's in the dark orange is that RSMD site that was zoned back in 2005 and it does take in that small portion, that small parcel there of RS20 up on the north side that's that small yellow and then there's a small triangular portion that was also included in that RSMD but it's on a different parcel but that was included with this to make the change in that zoning whole and not leaving a remnant portion of the zoning. And as you can see, this area has a smattering of different zoning districts from a PDR to industrial zoning to commercial zoning and also RS20 zoning. And as you can see also through the aerial, there is single family development towards the north and east and some to the west along Glover Road when you get down, you're gonna see more industrial development. There are a number of committed elements, the maximum number of units. It does include phasing commitments and amenity commitments. It does include right-of-way improvements, transit improvements and trail connections. The location of the tree preservations are committed. It does include a range of additional tree preservation. The minimum would be 20%. They are committing to at least a quarter of a percent more up to just over 8% more of tree preservation. The site access points of course are committed as long as are the boundary buffers and the building parking envelopes, the maximum pervious surface that they're proposing is 70% and that's the maximum that is allowed in the watershed overlay and then there are building and architectural commitments. Here you see the site, the existing conditions of the site and you can see streams running through the site north-south and then as you can see there is the, you see three building envelope sections set up by the basically the provision of where the streams are and the site access points, construction of they will have to improve, I believe Laurel Street to those access points and then there was also access along Andrew Avenue at two points in addition and also to Ruritan. There was a neighborhood meeting held in accordance to UVO requirements back in December, 2020 and there was also an engagement plan that is provided in your packet and except for the future land use designation and the housing and neighborhood goals regarding the provision of affordability and also the mix or the variation of housing types. The plan is consistent with the other, if the ordinance, I'm sorry, if the zoning is approved, the Fulham designation would be changed, recommended to be changed to maintain consistency with that zoning. The applicant is here to answer any questions and we'll stop sharing. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. Okay, we're going to open the public hearing and begin with the applicant presentation and let's see, we have, it's like Tom Johnson, Connor Reese, JP Highland, Nolan D, Ben Flood and Jeremy Moss are all listed as the applicant team. I'm not sure exactly who is leading the presentation. It looks like Tom Johnson's gonna lead the presentation and if there's any other members of your team here that didn't just name, please let me know at the beginning but you have 10 minutes. Thank you, Mayor, very much, Mr. Chair. Tom Johnson, I'm an attorney with Williams Mullen at 301 Fayetteville Street, sweet 1700 in Raleigh. And part of my team that's primarily going to speak and is available to speak, there's Jeremy Moss from Bonaventure, the developer of the project and then Dan Papst is the engineer for the project and Drew Draper who's the traffic engineer. So they're all available to be able to speak if needed. But thank you for your time tonight. I know the night is growing long so I won't take up too much of your time. I wanna tell you a little bit about Bonaventure. It's a full-service real estate development investment firm founded in 1999 and they're our best in class multi-family developer with the top 20 multi-family development pipeline across the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast. And Bonaventure holds their projects long-term and all of the development projects that Bonaventure is undertaken are still under Bonaventure management. With respect to this project we actually have and Mike mentioned one neighborhood meeting we actually had two because there were some modifications on the stream crossings of the project we had a second neighborhood meeting. So we had two neighborhood meetings plus we've continued to engage in neighborhood by email and telephone. At those neighborhood meetings really the primary comments from the neighborhood were we won't sewer in our area and this is a way where we will be getting sewer closer to our homes. And so aside from that we really did not hear any concerns. They were happy in this area there is not sewer available. Part of this project's already in the city but the vast majority of it is in the county and of course as Mike mentioned we'll be annexing. We're adding multifamily to an area to increase housing choices. And one part I know there's a concern about meeting the varied housing. I mean, when you look at that goal in the plan comprehensive plan it says we need varied housing with a range of heights units and densities designed to respect and fit into existing neighborhoods which is exactly what we're doing here. We're adding multifamily to an area that has single family to provide some variety. These will go up to four stories in height there will be multiple units available and it gives us more density. And it's a great location for it because there's the DOT project for Glover Road to be an overpass over the railroad as part of the project or as part of DOT's initiative to eliminate at grade crossings on this railroad line and we'll be contributing some right of way to that project at this location. But because of that this is a good location because that overpass will be there located directly where these apartments are being proposed. It's 521 apartments in two phases a phase one of 306 units and phase two of 215. Of course we'd be doing the water and sewer extensions and we've arranged for offsite easements to get the sewer over to the site. There's a transit stop that the developer will be building we'll be building a section of Greenway, bike lanes along Andrew Avenue as well as sidewalks and other transportation improvements including a road along the Northern side of the project. Laurel as was mentioned by Mike will be constructed as a part of this project. This project is accessible to multiple areas because of its proximity to major roads. I mean you can easily get the highway 70 to 40 to 85 to the Durham Freeway and it's very accessible to the Research Triangle Park. And it's also close to amenities restaurants and other amenities that are available. As you see in the staff report there were some pictures of a nearby self storage which is a good amenity to have associated with apartments. On the rent side and Mike I don't know if you can pull up my slide on rents or not I did want to speak a little bit more particularly to that because it was a little bit unclear I think of the staff report about what the anticipated rents would be. Only one kind of comparative project was listed in the staff report and the range of the rents that was listed wasn't just for one bedroom units it kind of applied that and I don't think it was intended to be that way but it certainly wasn't what it meant. The range of rents are from one bedroom will be 1330 to three bedroom being 1650. And we took several projects that are in the area here in the area where this will be developed retreated RTP basically the one bedroom is 1395 up to three bedroom being 1625 a month. The reserve at Ellis crossing nearby again has that same range and artisan at Brightleaf as well. And you see that what we're proposing in terms of the rents that will be at this multifamily development is in line with those that are nearby and in fact a little bit on the lower side of some of these. So I just wanted to point that out and give a little more diversity and this was information from apartments.com. I'm available to answer any questions you may have of me and my team as far as any of the particulars but I do appreciate the opportunity to speak with you here tonight. Okay, thank you. We have just a few people who registered in advance that were not members of the applicant team. They indicated they were undecided on speaking tonight. I'm gonna go ahead and call their names in case they would like to speak. That's Drew Draper, Matches Masterson and Demetri Kahovsky. I don't know if any of you or other folks- Drew Draper is part of our team, so. Okay, great. He wouldn't need to speak unless you had questions. All right, if any of those folks or others would like to speak please virtually raise your hand at this time. If you're on the phone reminder you start at 9 to 2, so. Okay, seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner comment and question. Commissioner Carmen Williams. Oh yes, thank you, Chair Amandolia. My questions actually come from the need to develop this site given the narrowness of Andrew Avenue even though there are other access points that will be available. This area concerns me because there are currently no plans to widen Andrew Avenue because of the railroad track that is in that area and Glover is so already heavily traveled and water runoff due to construction in this area coming off Glover onto area, I'm sorry, onto Andrew Avenue is already so heavily impacted that water is standing on Glover Road regardless of the railroad overpass and the construction site for the single family homes and neighborhoods that aren't completed yet in that area. It's heavily concerning that we will further saturate an area that is not, it does not have the infrastructure to support what's already been funneled through a very narrow exchange in Andrew Avenue not to mention with the completion of the 70 bypass that is there in the closure of East End Avenue that would have made it like a bypass. I have concerns with this neighborhood being there and the impacts to Lynn Road and to Pleasant Road that are still residential neighborhoods and pass-throughs going also to 70. I have tremendous concerns about that and just the amount of construction that's already in this area. And as far as I know, last time we had a neighborhood proposed in this area off of Anzir as well, that one didn't go so well because of the impacts in this area. And you literally without, I guess I can't, I don't have a crystal ball to say anything as far as the future is concerned but a quality of life issue for the people that live in this area being able to widen Anzir Avenue to accommodate getting in and out of your home is just, it's a lot. And as far as I know, the train tracks that run along Anzir are still very active. And there is a mix between commercial and residential. It's just, it's overwhelming and looking at the map and the plan proposal for this type of area, even though it says that we need saturation and we need more housing and things in order to accommodate the need. However, I don't think it's taken into account the number of projects that are currently still in process once that, when that was written that still have not been completed in this area. And I drive this area, I frequent this area crossing from one side of Durham coming from the other, up Roodle Road across Ellis Road to take Glover Road or to take Ellis is terrible. I almost have to leave home at 330 or 345 to get to Highway 98 by five o'clock. And that's because I'm sitting in traffic on either Ellis Road or Glover or Anzir or Lynn or Pleasant. Like it just doesn't make sense to use this lot here when there could be something else that could be put in place there that would serve the community, like zoning commercial for a grocery store or a fitness center or anything that's helpful to the community besides more travel impacts on a already heavily saturated place. That is my main concern. And I know that there's a TIA and however there was no community engagement. Well, besides what you say that there was a second meeting because the last one was held during COVID, December of 2020. So I still would like to know more about how this plans, like how does this impact the neighbors? Like have you considered more than just the fact of adding bikeways in excessive asphalt that's gonna create runoff and Anzir Avenue is not curb and gutter. So you're gonna create more impervious services, more flooding, more issues in areas that can't handle it. It literally cannot handle it. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Carmen Williams. There are other commissioners who would like to speak, ask questions. Let's see, I also see Tom Johnson that's raised there and I'll acknowledge you right now. Okay, thank you. I appreciate Carmen Williams expressed concerns. A couple of things I'll mention to that. Number one, there will be the DOT project for Glover Road that will then do the improvement and should improve drainage and all of that as part of that project. This project in and of itself will provide stormwater management and manage stormwater when it's built so that it will manage it better than today where it's not managed. A Laurel Road will be built as a new road that'll be built to city standards. So it'll provide on the northern part of this project that will come into Glover Road will be a new road. And in addition, there will be turn lanes added on Andrew Avenue, which will allow for turning traffic to get out of the main traffic lanes. So all of that is occurring along with this project. But in addition to that, there's some widening of the pavement on Andrew Avenue that's being provided in order to add a bike lane. So that's part of this project as well. So I understand what you're saying. And then longterm, there are other projects that are going on. There is going to be the upgrade of Highway 70 that will help traffic in general in this area. That's another DOT project that is in the works now. So I just wanted to point those things out. The other Commissioner Busby. Thanks, Chairman Mandalia. This is a question for the applicant as well. I know the staff report noted that they're Commissioner Busby, I'm not sure if you can hear us. To the Dedicated Housing Fund. And then I also noted that this is... Sorry, you cut out for a second, Commissioner Busby. Oh, okay. We can hear you now though. Yes. All right, it said I was unstable and I took that personally. So anyway, my main question to the applicant is the staff report noted no affordable housing units proffered, no proffer to the Affordable Housing Fund. And then I noted that there are 67 students projected to be added to the Durham Public School System as well. And it is rare to see a proposal that doesn't look to address either affordable housing in some way, shape, or form and does not recognize or address a pretty significant increase to the Durham Public School System. So just wanted to ask the applicant, you're thinking there and are there any proffers you are considering to make to address affordable housing and the pretty significant increase in students coming from this development? Well, I'm happy to speak to that. I mean, first of all in terms of the schools, I mean, that's handled as part of the, you know, just with any development the schools do handle that. There's not a method in North Carolina to be able to contribute to the improvement of schools other than the other funds that they have available. Otherwise available for school funding. We did have, you know, we have considered whether or not we contribute to the Affordable Housing Fund. And if that's a concern that the commission has, I think we would consider doing that as part of this and could potentially make a proffer for that. Great. Well, and it'd be useful to hear additional thoughts on that in terms of what might that proffer look like. It's quite common that applicants usually proffer, usually on average, I think $100 per additional student to come into the Durham Public School System as well. And I'll just call on the staff to make sure that I'm getting that correct. That is not a requirement, but that is quite common in the time that I've served on the planning commission. And Michael or a staff member, if you can just confirm that I have that to be accurate. I can't confirm a typical proffer of amounts of different applicants provide to the school district or for affordable housing funds. It does vary, I think, upon applicant proffers, but they are not uncommon to make proffers to the Durham Public Schools in a certain amount per student. Just what that mechanism is, it just does vary per applicant. Thanks, Mike. And Mike, how's that mechanism work? You know, I've really been familiar with that happening. I mean, does that go directly to the school system? That's correct. Because I don't think we had that many new students projected. I mean, it wasn't based on our projections and what I saw in the staff report, it really wasn't that many new students. It may have been a total of, I mean, I think on our figures, we said maybe about 46 elementary school students, 13 middle school and eight high school. So it's not a large number. And so it's not a large burden on the school system. Right. My experience is that's actually a pretty high number for a case through the planning commission. And again, my experience has been, and this is just worth knowing. I don't expect you to address that issue tonight. I'd like to hear you talk a little more about the affordable housing because that's a bigger issue, but I've seen, it's quite common in my experience. I've been on the planning commission seven years for applicants to offer $100 per additional student that's projected to come onto the school system, as Michael said, to be then proffered to the Durham Public School System. Well, and going through this, and again, we've been talking about that, we'd be willing to offer a proffer of $500 per unit for the Affordable Housing Fund and Certificate of Occupancy of the permitted units. So when those units are permitted, we'll make that contribution and be prepared to do $100 per student to the school system. So we can make those proffers tonight. Great, thank you. And that's helpful to just for us to have that information before it moves forward. That's all for me, Chair Amandalia. Thank you. Commissioner Durkin. My concerns are also religious to the lack of affordable housing being provided by this development, especially in this area of Durham. And as it's been discussed, it's located to a lot of transit hubs or transportation hubs on the road. And to have an additional 520 units, 21 units and have none of them be affordable is really not something we as a commission, and actually I take it back, that I personally am not speaking on behalf of the commission and really interested in approving going forward as we've discussed in many recent deals. So my inclination is to deny that application, making it clear that our athletes are vote advisory and doesn't preclude you from then going to the governing body. Thank you, Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Cease. Thank you. I'm in part imagining what Commissioner Baker would be saying tonight if he was on our meeting. I'm not gonna try to channel his thoughts, but I suspect there might be some similar concerns that he would have. This is a large parcel of land. It's 35, 36 acres I think in total, something along those lines. And Commissioner Carmen Williams spoke with great familiarity with regards to some of the issues with traffic in that area. And that is largely related to the limited numbers of connections, limited ways to get through. Am I right, Mr. Johnson, that all the internal vehicular ways are at present proposed to be private? Internal to the project, they would be private, but we're doing a public road on the north side, which is Laurel Road that is not extended now. And so that'll be a new public right of way. And of course we have all the improvements that were required as part of the TIA, including some, including deceleration lanes and some widening of Andrew Avenue to allow for a bike lane and those types of things as I mentioned earlier. So there are several roadway improvements that are being done. Not all the entrances will be on Andrew Avenue. They'll be on some of the side streets as well as shown on the development plan. So any traffic that's there will be just well distributed, but we dealt with it all as I said earlier in the TIA. And the requirements that came back as the TIA so far as how this traffic would be handled. Right, well, I appreciate you identifying that relative to the TIA. And of course there's many locales where the TIA and level of service conditions are not of interest in consideration of development projects precisely because they just propel more traffic. And that's a well-chronical outcome of kind of conventional transportation planning that is rapidly being understood across a lot of cities that are facing a lot of growth pressures. And this is I think a prime example here where if we were to approve a development, a land use and a configuration without a degree of connectivity that corresponds to the intensity of that development and responds to the limited degree of connections that exist in the area present for a project of this size, which again, 36 acres, it's eight or nine city blocks. And if you think about the numbers of streets that might occur across several city blocks to allow many of those trips that are generated to be distributed in a much more efficient way than just loaded on the single intersections. And so several months ago, we heard a great deal of community input and conversation around a project in North Durham and one that had been through the development review cycles in previous years with different mixes of grocery and residential. And a lot of that conversation revolved around, some of it certainly revolved around the provision of affordable housing, but a lot of it revolved around connectivity and limited connectivity. And if this project was to go forward as proposed with zero provision for connectivity in any public degree, that it would only serve to exacerbate all those issues that Commissioner Williams identified. And no transportation plan would adequately provide for connectivity if large chunks of land continue to be ticked off without being able to address that. And I guess where I'm going with this is that the site plan that whether it was included as part of the TIA or the community engagement, it's somewhere in here. And I know it's not part of the development plan, but it's one of the documents that was included in our packet is apartments in a parking lot. And I'm not saying that in an editorial way, that's just what it is. It's apartments in a parking lot. It's residential units that will be solely dependent on automobile connections to access all those things that are in close proximity. And the discussions that the Planning Commission since I've been on it, have been having have sought for ways to provide a better degree of connectivity, provide a better degree of not just connecting people via a five-foot bike lane or connecting people via sidewalk here, but really rethinking how particularly a parcel that's as well located as this collection of parcels is in the larger area can fit better together. So that's my thinking on the project as currently proposed. That's all I have. If I may like to speak to some of the points you made. Number one, as the development plan shows, there's two significant streams or actually two significant streams that cross the property and there were perium buffers and some wetlands and all of that's going to be open. So it's not like all of this is going to be developed. It can't be because that part is being preserved. And in addition to that, we're providing a section of the Glover Greenway Trail. So there's some of that's going to be along these areas that are the lower areas on the site. So we have the connectivity and building part of that trail that's on the City of Durham's plan that will be constructed. In addition, there'll be the bike lane constructed on Andrew Avenue. That will be happening and that's part of this project. So there will be that widening and that bike lane will be done. Sidewalk will of course be done in accordance with the Durham standards. In addition, the access points here aren't from one location. You've got Laurel Road on the north side of the project. You've got Ruritan Road on the south side of the project, both of which provide access. And then of course the Glover Road project in connection with the Laurel Road project will allow for an overpass over the railroad that's already a planned DOT project. So there's a lot of connectivity here. I mean, in addition, this developer is as proffered and is constructing a transit stop so that there will be use of buses instead of just automobiles. So we have bikes, automobiles, Greenway. All of that is being provided here so it doesn't just focus on typical automobile traffic that there are other options here. And as far as a long-term plan, there are other options here. But again, as I stated earlier, not all of this property is being developed because it really can't. And we have some crossings over the creeks but we can't develop those repairing buffers. But a good thing for this neighborhood, and they really, I will tell you, there have been multiple conversations. This neighborhood was really, really interested in getting a sewer extension so that it is closer to the residents. Now, they'll have to take their own steps to make the connection but there's no sewer line extension into this area as it currently exists. There are, where we're coming from the north with some several off-site easements to bring sewer into this development. So that will be made available if at some time the residents decide to do the extensions and the annex into the city so they can get access to sewer. That was primarily what we were hearing from the residents. So there are a lot of positives here that will go on and it'll provide a lot of some density here and some variety. There's single family here but they will also provide some multifamily and rental options for residents in this area of Durham. And that's a good positive thing. But it's set up to handle this traffic concerns. I appreciate you walking us through those other elements and just to try to clarify briefly. I'm not speaking about how residents of this particular project may access the larger transportation network. I'm speaking about connectivity across and through this large assemblage of land which it's not large in X urban or outside suburban areas but it's large in terms of a site that's this well located relative to downtown, relative to RTP, relative to some of the areas. And the proposal at present doesn't include any public connections, notwithstanding the Greenway Tround talking about vehicular connections that can improve our transportation network in this region. And that's a gap that I think really needs to be addressed. Well, we are donating right of way for that Glover project that's a DOT project. So, I mean, that's, and the concern is to allow for, you know, this is on the line that provides passenger service. They're trying to eliminate at grade crossings. And this is right next to the Glover Road Overpass and the donation of right of way will help DOT make that a reality. So that's providing for some definite connectivity that doesn't exist today. So, you know, this does provide that connectivity. I hear you talking about the perimeter and I guess my concern is more about the internal connectivity. Thank you. Well, internal connectivity, you know, we've got the stream crossings built in. If you look at the development plan, they're there and it's going to be easy to get within the site. So that's not a difficult thing. And we're providing connections from the apartment apartments to the Greenway Trail as part of this as well. We had to commit to that. So it will be easy for Commissioner Williams to drive through your project when it's completed or any other per member of the public. Well, I mean, if they want to drive through the apartment complex, I guess they could. But I mean, in reality, they probably won't want to do that. But yeah. Well, and they're in lies. They're in lies, the core issue. Right. Thank you. Thank you both for this discussion there. I acknowledge that Commissioner Sturkin and Carmen Williams have raised their hands. But I'd like to give folks who haven't had a chance to speak yet an opportunity before returning to them, Commissioner Durkin. That's a quick question. Thank you. It's for staff. I know that the Glover Road Overpass Project is a planned DOT project, but is it, are the funds allocated for it? But are we going to pay for it? Carling Thomas Transportation. Yes, that is a funded project that DOT is actively working on. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Miraculous. DOT has funded the projects they planned. Commissioner Carmen Williams. Yes. Thank you for recognizing me, Chair. I just had a few thoughts in terms of the comments made by the presenter. And in terms of the fact that we're creating an overpass to create on-grade crossing, to prevent on-grade crossings for railroad tracks, I guess I don't understand how that helps with connectivity parts, I guess, to keep people from being hit by trains or standing on tracks. Outside of that, I did have questions in terms of, we're creating a bike lane on Anger Avenue. Like, where are these people going on this bike in this sidewalk? Like, Anger Avenue is not a place that you should be riding a bike or walking. And I think through various conversations in other neighborhoods where we've been extremely concerned about having sidewalks and having bike lanes, I think we also can't just write the blank check to say that, okay, well, if a developer decides that they wanna create a bike lane and they wanna create a sidewalk, then that's gonna increase your probability of getting your project approved because it has to make sense. I just don't know where these people are going on these bikes and how safe they're going to be when we've had a massive increase in the number of pedestrian accidents of cars versus pedestrians either on bicycles or like just walking. Like there's several areas in Durham with their sidewalks and people are literally still being run over by cars because of this. And I just think that we need to have a greater consideration for affordable housing, a greater consideration for traffic impacts and not rely on computer models to try to forecast like how many kids are gonna attend during public schools? Like I mean, I don't know how you gonna predict how many kids people are gonna have. Like what if your model only bases it off of whether or not somebody's gonna have two kids and then they end up having quadruplets? Like your whole model is gone. So I'm just, I just think that a common sense approach to actually looking at the area and being frankly more well versed in terms of what Durham is looking for before coming to the mat with a development besides the fact that there's land available would make this a more viable option. And in actually looking at what we as a planning commission has done as well as the residents of Durham are asking for, this project is greatly skewed from that. Outside of the obvious reasons that this is probably just not a good idea for where it's being proposed. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Carmen Williams, a commissioner cut right. Thank you, Chair. I think listening to everyone's comments and looking at this project won't echo, actually I won't elaborate on the details or the specifics that everyone else has already brought up. I think to me what this project points out is how what we're seeing are just marginal projects that are checking the boxes and the burden of responsibility that we all have been expecting to come forth for developers to come to planning commission with. It's not present in this particular project whether it's the responsibility to provide the connectivity that Commissioner Cease talks about or affordable housing that Commissioner Durkin brought up. Those things are expectations for projects now. And I think and Commissioner Durkin brought this up. The expectation is higher. And so we've got to do a little more than check the box and I wrestled with this initially thinking that, not every project needs to have everything but I've sort of changed my mind on that in that it can and that we can push and stretch the expectations for developers. And I think this is a prime example of that where nothing that we've talked about in our previous planning commission calls is being put forth here. It's marginally best and at this moment I'm apt to not approve this project. Thank you. I might have an opportunity to respond at some point. Yeah, I will acknowledge you when it comes when I make my comments. Sure. There hasn't been a question directed at you yet. I'm Commissioner Zuri Williams. Good evening. I have to agree with a lot of the comments already made in regards to affordable housing, also connectivity. I do have a question in regards to construction graphic and if you have figured out how that would be routed throughout this process. And I know that it was mentioned that there would be two phases. So it'd be interesting to hear kind of what the construction timeline is because like Commissioner Williams, Carmen Williams said, these roads are very busy and they are utilized all throughout the day and evening. So it'd just be interesting to hear kind of your thought process with that. And I also have to agree and echo Commissioner Carmen Williams' comment about Andrew just it just does not make sense to have a bike lane on such a heavy, heavily populated road. So those are my comments and question. Tom Mute, your team may respond to those questions. Sure, I'll be glad to respond to those questions. There's talk about the bike lane. The bike lane will be additional pavement. So it's not going to be a bike lane on the existing road itself. We're being required to widen the road to provide that. And in terms of affordable housing, I just made the commitment here tonight that we'll contribute $500 per unit toward the Durham Affordable Housing Fund. So that's a commitment we'll make and as well as a commitment to $100 per additional student in the Durham County Public Schools as a result of this project. So we've made those two commitments. You know, we're also providing the Greenway Trail that is separated, so that will be available. And there are places to bike. If you have a separate bike lane, which you have that separation from the traffic, you have opportunities to go to the other businesses on Miami Boulevard or that are in the area. You do have a chance opportunity to bike for those. Again, the transit stop is going to help in terms of offering that separate option. So we are addressing the affordable. We are addressing the schools. The Glover Road extension is gonna provide more connectivity because as I see it, Erlene can confirm this, but the way I'm looking at it, it's a minor thoroughfare. So this is actually a thoroughfare that will be on the edge of this project. So it's not just the overpass, it actually helps with traffic circulation as well. So that's what I would say in terms of overall. So we're checking those boxes. We're doing those things above and beyond. It's not a requirement to make a contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund. It's not a requirement that we make a contribution to the school system. We're willing to do both of those. And also, there's not always an opportunity to extend the Greenway, a Greenway Trail and have that as part of a project. There are multiple things we're touching with this project that's not just routine. And in addition, in the proffers, as you saw, there are a lot of amenities that are being offered with this complex as well. In terms of the timing, and I'll go to our annexation petition because that's the best way to look at how the proposal is in terms of construction and how things come on board. Right now, we're looking at the first phase, which will be the 306 units coming on board around 2023. This time, since we're getting a little long in the process, it may be 2024, but in the 2023-2024 timeframe, and the phase two is projected to be online in 2026. And that's again, part of our annexation petition that we filed. Construction will be done with consideration of traffic as it always is. It will be done at times that interfere less with traffic. And it will be done with the traveling public in mind, but with this site itself, a lot of the work will be going on on the site itself, not on the roadway, but when the roadway improvements are occurring, again, that will be coordinated with DOT and Durham Transportation to do that in a way that it does not interfere with the traveling public or minimizes interference with the traveling public. Thank you. Would any other commissioners like to make comment or questions, Vice Chair Cameron? I just wanna echo the, I don't know if it's disappointment of the overall project. Yes, the profits were made after we requested them, but we've pushed pretty hard on other developers that have come before this commission that have done a pretty good job of incorporating affordable housing and other sustainable features. And this really has none of those and to allow this to pass without the standards that we set in previous meetings, which has to be a disservice to our work here. That's all I'm gonna say. Thank you, Vice Chair. I meant to go ahead and acknowledge Erling Thomas and would like to acknowledge her at this time. Erling Thomas, Transportation. I just wanted to clarify two items that have been discussed pretty frequently here. One, regarding the Glover Road Extension Project, NCDOT is not constructing that project. It is on the Long Range Transportation Plan that will eventually connect, extend Glover Road over to US 70. That is not a funded project and not being constructed. What DOT has funded and is constructing is the Grave Separation Project, which will extend across Andrew and sort of loop back around into this site and reconnect to Andrew Avenue. So that is what they're constructing. I just wanted to make that clear. The second thing is this project will widen Andrew Avenue to provide the additional five feet of pavement, but a bike lane will certainly not be in place or implemented until there is a more extended section of pavement constructed to accommodate a bike lane. So the pavement will be exist, but there will not be a functioning bike lane along this section of Andrew Avenue. Thank you, Erling. Appreciate it. A commissioner here, Herod. Well, I think I'm a voice in the desert maybe a little bit, but we asked for these things and like bike lanes, greenways, so on and so forth. And I agree that the traffic situation is a problematic. But I'm not sure what we would ask them to do to improve that unless they, oh, no, I'm just not sure what they could do to improve the connectivity. I think they've done what they could. I'm just saying we seem like we're being a little more negative in this situation than we are in other ones. And maybe I'm new to the commission and maybe you shouldn't be expressing these opinions, but we asked for a bike lane to give us a bike lane. We can't criticize it for giving them a bike lane. The thing I'm, because I'm opening up a whole new can of worms, we got this project is defined by streams. And in this overlay, I'm not sure what the buffers are there, but I'm more concerned about environmental issues than I am traffic because we're gonna have traffic whenever we have a housing. And we haven't been concerned about that as much on other projects. So maybe we're evolving into something greater, I hope so. But I'm just coming at it from a different perspective. So that's all I got to say about that, sorry. Thank you. Thank you for that, Commissioner Herrod. Commissioner Cease. Thank you, I just wanted to clarify or attempt to add a comment in response to Commissioner Herrod's observations, since I was the one that raised the question with regards to internal connectivity. Christopher Herrod, you said you didn't know what they could do to improve internal connectivity. In my mind, there are some very simple things that could be done, very simple. And that is a public street access, a public street, or it could be a private street designed to public standards, although that brings up a whole set of questions regarding standards. I'm not talking about that, but a public connection from the north to the south on the eastern side of the creek and a public connection from the north to the south on the western side of the creek would be really, really minimal improvements to the plan, but they would be improvements. And that would be one way of addressing connectivity issues that I raised. One small way, thank you. Commissioner Herrod, would you make a chance to respond? Well, I don't disagree, but with the streams crossing the north and southeast and west, I think you're just opening yourself up for more environmental issues, but- And just to clarify, what I just said would not add any additional stream crossings than what is shown in their present proposal. Okay, okay. Commissioner Morgan. Thank you, Chair. I guess I kind of look at the context of where this particular parcel is. There's a lot going on in there and quite frankly, it's kind of hard to visualize what's going to happen in that area because there's certainly a desire along the US 70 corridor to provide more commercial development along those lines. We're allowing for about 500 more units. We've approved, well, we didn't approve. I guess it, City Council approved a development north of there where there's a lot more development. There's one south of there. So there's a lot of residential housing that's actually being put in place, but it seems to be kind of crowding out the opportunity of doing any kind of commercial development along US 70 in that area, because there's another parcel that's on the other side of 70 there. So when I kind of look at it in context, it is kind of almost, and it's no, nothing against the developer. It's almost kind of like pre-matured for us to really kind of visualize what's really going to go on because US 70 is going to be improved, some of the routing with the DOT projects. And it just seems like the real challenge there is, we're adding 500 more units, more traffic more on there. And I was looking at the traffic study. And if I look at the build, no build type of graphic that's in one of the connections here, a lot of them are still C, E's and F related intersections. So it seems like we're not necessarily improving anything with this development from a traffic perspective. So my concern is, I know there's only so much a developer can do, but where's the planning in context of what does this area, where is this going to go? And I do think that we should have a little more vision from a planning perspective as to what's going on. Not, that's what I'm wanting to look at because we're getting these parcels and these applications. But my big concern is, where is the development going to go? Where's the planning? I know we do a number of things with the new comprehensive plan, but I think there's going to be some things where commercial development's going to be needed. These people have got to go shop somewhere, they got to eat somewhere, and where are they going to go? So that's just my comment along those lines. And again, I appreciate the work that the developers brought to the table, but I guess we really, we have asked for more and we do want more just so that they understand what potentially the vision is for this area. Thank you. Thank you. Before I make my comments, Tom, I said I would acknowledge you again. I think you got a chance to respond, but wanted to give you, I acknowledge you one last time. No, I mean, I can only reiterate what I said earlier. I mean, there are a lot of improvements that are being added. And if you put commercial here, the traffic would be worse. Traffic distribution for commercial is much worse than residential. So that really wouldn't help things in this area. There are a lot of projects on, you know, Commissioner Morgan was correct. There are a lot of projects that are on the drawing board and in progress, including the improvement of Highway 70. I mean, those type of things are going to happen. But in accordance with our TIA, we're not making the situation that exists there worse as a result of this project. We're doing improvements so that it doesn't create any adverse impacts on what's going on there. But the larger long-range projects are going to occur and they're already planned to occur to address traffic in the area. But in this instance, we're not just focusing on automobile traffic. We're, as I said earlier, building a transit stop and in Greenway. Yes, I know the bike lane won't connect, but it'll be that section of Greenway in front of this project. I mean, bike lane in front of this project will be there so that it connects with future development, which is going to happen as far as other projects up and down this area. So this is really a well-planned project. It's respecting the, you know, an environmental side of things, respecting the riparian buffers, respecting the wetlands, putting the Greenway there to enjoy. The outdoors is certainly a very good thing. I know I enjoy the Greenways in my community. So, you know, those are all good things that are going to happen and they can't happen, you know, this is a vacant piece of property that has been vacant for a very long time. This is an opportunity to develop it in a really responsible way and to add some improvements to the community. In this community, when we met with them, they wanted the sewer. They didn't express concerns about anything else. They said just how can we get sewer closer to us? That's the predominant conversation and the ongoing conversation we've had with those residents. So I do want to re-emphasize that again. Thank you. Okay, so I have a few comments. No real questions on all of this. As the first question, I'll kind of bounce off of what Tom was just saying. It is a little bit odd to me that there was a long list of community members notified for this and we didn't hear from any of them. Like, usually with large residential develops like this, you expect that. So I'm not sure how to read that. Maybe everything is just fine and dainty, but looking at the engagement plan, it's pretty, well, first off, it seems like the last meeting that happened was maybe in 2020, which I know time is abstract now, but that was a pretty long time ago. And when you read the engagement plan, the point in the engagement plan is you're writing what you're gonna do for engagement, but it's clearly written in the past tense of what had already been done, which to me, that's concerning. That's not the purpose of the engagement plan. Now, I recognize that's something that we have implemented more recently. And so maybe it was implemented after the fact of the engagement regardless. That's something that stuck out to me. I have a little bit more of a nuanced view on the whole bike lane thing. I think we need the bike lane. I'm not gonna complain about it, but I just also don't think we should boast about connectivity when it's a bike lane that's not connected to any other portion of a bike lane. So I kind of agree with both sides of what's been said there. What really sticks out to me about this is, now we have a draft place type guide or in a draft place type map. So draft is emphasized in the situation and they have not been passed by this body or the council or the county commissioners. So like all of those caveats, but based on our draft place type guide, this would be zoned planned suburban, which includes existing neighborhoods and is not a desired future use in Durham. That's weird to me considering that we're seeing this case right now and it's zoned as it's used that we say or that it's drafted to be zoned as the use we don't think should be happening in Durham moving forward. And immediately north of this parcel is a mixed use development as zoning, draft zoning. So that's one thing that just really sticks out to me is we're already drafting this as something that A has happened when it hasn't. It's just not coming to us. And B is not a desired use for Durham moving forward. So to me, like I look at that and I know that that is not binding that we have not passed those draft plans yet, but I am starting to think in that mindset of like, where are we going? And if we're going in a direction where plan suburban is not a desired place type, and then we shouldn't be zoning this for plan suburban, we should be zoning this for something else. So I recognize the efforts that the applicant has tried to put forward. I echo a lot of this sentiment that we on this commission have really up our standards and we have high standards for what we want to see. We've talked a lot on this commission about how proffers to the affordable housing fund like they result in very few actual affordable units developed. And I think we're hoping to see more affordable units committed through rezoning moving forward because it's such a need. And we believe that we can get more units higher density with more affordability. So those are my thoughts and comments on this. I think that's all I have at this time. If any other commissioners have questions or like to make comments, I welcome it. Apart from that, I would welcome a motion. I do want to make one clarification if I might on the community engagement. We did a community meeting in December of 2020. We did another one in the summer of 2021. The community engagement plan requirement didn't come in until after we had already done those. But what we did is we maintained contact with several of those that had come to both neighborhood meetings and had ongoing conversations with them as part of this project. So I did want to clarify that. That's why that unfolded the way it did. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Chair, if there's no one else going to add, I'll make a motion for case number Z21 quadruple 05 and your avenue apartments with the appropriate proffers and suggestions to be forwarded to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Let's get it lighted. Second. Great. Moved by commissioner Morgan, seconded by commissioner, right? Michael, did you want to clarify anything before we hold the vote? Just to note that we will work out the specific wording for the two proffers that were made, the one for the $500 per unit prior to certificate of occupancy for donation to the affordable housing fund and then $100 per additional student to Durham public schools, again, prior to certificate of occupancy. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Okay, maybe have the roll call vote. Sure. Amandoya. No. Busby. No. Cameron. No. Cut, right. No. Durkin. Herod. Yes. Low. That was a no. No. Okay. Morgan. No. Cease. No. Carmen Williams. No. Amzuri Williams. No. And the motion fails. One to 10. Thank you, Michael. Okay, we're gonna move into our last case up tonight. This is case Z21-EE015 Cedar Trace, and we will begin with the staff report. Thank you, and let me pull up that presentation, and hopefully I'll be able to share, give it a shot. Can you see that? Yes. Excellent. Thank you very much. Michael Stock again with the planning department. Case Z21-005 Cedar Trace is a, considers five parcels off of Carr Road in the suburban tier. It is already in the city, and it's just under 17 acres. It's currently zoned residential suburban eight, and the request is residential suburban multifamily with a development plan, RSMD. The current flum is low-medium density residential, and the recommended flum change, if the zoning were to be approved would be medium density residential. Again, this site is also in the falls, Jordan Watershed, and this is a maximum proposal for 200 apartments. As you can see, it is the collection of parcels off of Carr Road, which is also off of the US 70 service and ramp. And as you can see there, the aerial shows the massive construction for the East End connector going on. It is, Carr Road does dead end, basically to this and other parcels at this section. The only primary access to the site will be from Carr Road and from US 70. Again, it's a maximum of 200 units. This is an affordable housing project. They are committing to 60% AMI for 30 years. The other access points, project boundary buffers and free preservation areas are obviously committed including the parking and building envelopes. The plan is actually very specific in terms of its location of buildings. There's also an amenity building included. The maximum previous service would be 70%, and that's what the maximum allowed by the watershed. Again, here's the site. It's a primarily hardwood mixed hardwood site. And then there is the plan itself, location of the buildings, identifying the heights of the buildings, identifying the minimal, the clubhouse amenity area and the access points. There is a stream that runs along the south. No, I'm sorry. My mistake. And then there was a neighborhood meeting held in accordance to UDO requirements March, 2021. And the social pinpoint comments that were generated through the online site have been provided along with the engagement plan. Staff has determined that it is generally consistent with goals and community goals and objectives and the maintained policies of the current 2005 comprehensive plan. And again, if the zoning project is approved, the flum designation would be amended to maintain consistency with that zoning. And the applicant is here to answer questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. We're going to open the public hearing and we'll begin with the applicant presentation. So we have several members of the applicant team with us tonight. I'm gonna read off everyone that I have and then turn it over to the applicant team. See Josh Leib, Dan Papst, CJA Tyree, Jonathan LeCourt, Toby Coleman and Dustin Mills. I'll turn it over to the applicant team now to do the applicant presentation. You have 10 minutes. Toby, are you prepared for me to show your presentation? Yes. Okay. All right, can y'all hear me? Yes. All right, great. This is Toby Coleman. Apologize for the delay there. This is Toby Coleman. I am a land use lawyer with Smith Anderson here on behalf of the developer Taff Mills Group. Dustin Mills and CJA Tyree are with Taff Mills. I think you also listed Matt Louder with Bowman North Carolina, who's the project engineer. So we have a healthy group of people who can answer any questions that I cannot. If you can go to the next slide, Mike. So as Mike outlined, this is a rezoning of five parcels on the south side of Carr Road off of US 70. This is right above where US 70 and Miami Boulevard split and US 70 becomes a limited access highway. It's also right where the new East End connector is going in and a lot of the improvements that you're seeing in this overhead are related to the East End connector. If you look historically until about four years ago, this portion of Carr Road was a dirt road, pretty much accessible only by a defunct side road that served primarily the industrial properties in the church to the north. Now that you've got the East End connector, it's become a property that's located right off of an exit from US 70. It's about a mile south of Holloway Street and is about 1.3 miles just by Google Maps from a number of amenities, including grocery stores and other things. So close proximity of amenities for residents who have a vehicle. If you go to the next slide, Mike. So as discussed, we're seeking a rezoning from RS8 to RSM with a development plan to facilitate a 200-unit low-income housing tax credit project. I would call it a LIHTEC there on the site. And because it's a 4% LIHTEC's tax credit project and that will be helping to finance the project, the entire project will be income restricted. I do wanna note that the proposed condition is actually 60% of the units affordable for households earning 60% AMI. And we're happy to discuss that a little bit more as needed. But what that means is all the units will be income restricted. There'll be no market rates. Practically, what does that mean? Well, in your staff reports, you get the housing median rentals for the area. And I believe staff reported it was a little over $1,400 was the median rent for a 933-square-foot unit in this general area. CJ or Dustin could give you more details, but they informed me that today, if this project were here today, a 1,035-square-foot two-bedroom apartment in this development would rent for $900. So again, we can go through this and I know that there are members of this board who have a lot of knowledge about this, but there's a lot of affordability and income restriction requirements that would be imposed by covenants of financing partners, including the federal government and potentially if we get gap financing with the city. The tax commitment of 60% of units affordable for households earning 60% AMI is to show our commitment, for Tath Mills to show its commitment for affordable housing. It is not an indication that for some reason it wants to do 40% of the rest of the market rate. It's rather that there's some, as you've I think heard with the Carver Street assemblage, there can be some income averaging and other issues that come into play. And we wanted to make sure that the tax commitments didn't limit the ability to do that because if you can take in some higher incomes in some circumstances, there can be lower income units. A lot of that depends on things that have yet to be determined like gap financing. The project will provide some fundamental improvements to the area, including paving and widening car road. Again, there's portion of car road that's still unpaid and extending water right into the neighborhood along car road. And then Seward is going to be coming into the neighborhood from the South. This is an area that currently doesn't have it. And so what could benefit some of the other properties on the block? If you go to the next slide Mike, I just want to note that this is a project that's proposed by a well-established affordable housing developer, Taff Mills Group. If you haven't heard of them, they're a North Carolina based company based out of Greenville that develops, constructs and manages affordable housing throughout North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. As I've already indicated, CJ and Dustin, I'm going to be turning to them a lot if you ask detailed questions because they know their stuff. This is what they do and this is all they do. Over the last six years, they've built about 900 plus units of affordable housing and the triangle, the triad in Greenville, among other places. And they, you know, they build with an eye towards keeping, owning and operating them. You know, they're not looking to flip them. I will note just in general, you know, because this is a, what I call light tech project, in other words, you know, affordable workforce, whatever terms you want to use and whatever terms the city feels is appropriate. The budget is incredibly tight. So, you know, in terms of stormwater, in terms of tree conservation and other things, Taff Mills Group is proposing what's required by the UDO. It really doesn't have a lot of give in its budget to do a lot more. What it's shooting to do is provide affordable housing for Durham, you know, obviously a very needed thing. Obviously, you know, that may mean that it can't provide extras that you may ask of market that you might typically ask or see from market developers. And we hope you keep that in mind. With that, we're available for questions. Only other thing I'll note is, you know, we did have a couple of neighborhood meetings. There was, we actually had a second one in, I was looking back in September. And in both neighborhood meetings, we really didn't hear much from neighbors. Not sure if anybody signed up, but you know, mostly we heard good things in support. We're available for questions. Thank you. We have one person who signed up to speak that is in attendance. That is James Anthony. James Anthony, I'll give you two minutes to speak. And as a reminder, please say your name and address and make your comments. Hi, I'm Jim Anthony. I'm in Raleigh, North Carolina. And I appreciate the opportunity to present to you all. I am the owner of the property today. We've been working with Taft Mills on a number of projects. They deliver exactly what they say. They're going to deliver. They are trustworthy and high quality folks and projects. We're excited about bringing this project to Durham and really appreciate your support. We think that we've worked really long time to get this right and hopefully you'll agree with us. That's all I wanted to say. You Jim, are there others in attendance who would like to speak? Please so please virtually raise your hand. If you're on the phone, press star nine to do so. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and we're going to move to commissioner question and comment. Commissioner Durkin. Thank you. So I have a couple of questions. I guess it's probably not that surprising. In the staff report and the for the housing section, it does note the 30 year commitment for 60% of AMI. But then the next sentence that the remaining 40% of the units will be offered at market rate. So that's in conflict and what's been described. And I want to make sure that it's crystal clear what the developers plan is. So if they could address that question first and then that will inform how my next question. Yeah, this is totally Coleman. I'm going to hand this off to CJ or Dustin, but I will just say that that, you know, again, we've had conversations with staff. I thank you for highlighting that. You know, we had said throughout the process and I thought that there was an understanding that it would not be, that it is not market rate because of, well, the reasons commissioner Durkin that you know very well, this is a single project. And so it couldn't be under federal, under the arrangements for financing. One thing I will, again, I think probably the issue has come up just because of the 60% for 60. Again, that is really related to how staff members have communicated to us their preferred definitions either under the UTO or otherwise for quote unquote, affordable housing, for quote unquote workforce housing and those sort of things. But with that, I'll hand it over to CJ if he's on. I know he's been listening. So let me make sure. Oh yeah, I think they're bringing him in, okay. Hello. There we go. Okay. I was trying to talk. Thanks, Toby. To expand on that, we had originally, I think, stated in our proposal that it would be 100% affordable but we were leaving a caveat that we may want some units to be affordable at 80% AMI. And you know, Toby can correct me or staff can correct me but my understanding of the dialogue we had with city staff was that 80% affordable isn't considered affordable in the city UDO. And so they didn't want to call the 80% units affordable. And so that's why we changed the terminology to say 60% at 60% or less. We are committed to doing 100% at 80% or less. And the caveat there and the reason we're looking to leave the door open for the 80% is we can potentially offer lower rents to 30% AMI households but in order to do that or not in order to necessarily but it helps to offset that with some 80% units as long as the average is at 60% or less. This is, I know Aaron, I'm sure you're very familiar with this but just for the nuance of it is it's a relatively recent addition to federal law that says you can add 80% units as long as your average is below 60 or at or below 60. And we are trying to, ideally we will have 30% units, 60% units, 80% units, our average will be 60% or less. And that really allows us to target a much wider audience being able to serve both 30% households and 80% households instead of just doing all 60% AMI households. And so we're really trying to maintain some flexibility to be able to target both what we call extremely low income to 30% households and also the 80% households which historically have been underserved in the affordable space because affordable housing is capped at 60% and then there's really nothing that serves as 60 to 80% AMI or really 60 to 100% AMI. So what we're trying to do is have what we call diverse price points and all affordable at 80% or less with our average at 60% or less. And what we tried to do, it's obviously a very long complicated answer but we were trying to say that in a way that would fit within what we understand the city's context within the UDO of how they define affordable housing but we're happy to add whatever text is appropriate that accomplishes in a shorter version of what I just said. So Michael, if you're around if you can come back on is there a way that we can state that the remaining 40% are income restricted without having to tie it to the definition of affordable housing in the UDO and 60% AMI? That was the exact reason I raised my hand. We can work out the commitment to address that directly and I apologize for the confusion that that has caused from staff that was not our intent and that commitment can be worked out. It does not have to be tied to a definition from the UDO. The definition of the UDO really gets to the affordable housing bonus use of that but if an applicant wants to commit to a different range of AMIs, we're not gonna know in order to make use of LiTech that's a commitment that's very easily put on to the development plan. So we can work with the applicant to make that happen. Okay, great. That seems like an easy solution. So that one is solved. CJ, I think the next question is for you. What's the status of your conversations with the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency? And just, I- Yeah, we- Are you doing 4% out of the right if you're doing 4% credits? We're doing 4% credits so they are by right and it is a non-competitive credit historically and again, I won't get into all the nuance but there is some question about whether they will become competitive in the future but the North Carolina has an application deadline in January which we applied for the credits. There were only, I think, 17 applications in the state so we know that they will not be run out of credits basically so it is a by right credit. The application is in. We will formally get the award letter in August is the typical time frame. It's usually between the 10th or 15th of August but as you stated, this is a by right or a by right, it's not a competitive tax credit and the state will not be oversubscribed in this calendar year based on the applications they got in January and as long as you do the outbreak which is what we specialize in you do get those credits. Okay, and I guess what says HFA knows about the project and have you heard anything from staff at all in response even if they haven't formally responded to your application? And so it's nice to know that the entities that we're depending on to fund these things now at least have them in their pipeline. Yeah. They're only in a pipeline. Yeah, the NCHFA has a very, I don't know if transparent's the right word but a very methodical process where they try not to have communications outside of the formal application process. Again, we're familiar. Dustin Mills is my partner and I, we combined have been doing this about 35 years and we know North Carolina well. If you don't mess anything up in the application we will get a formal market study as part of the application process. That would be an opportunity for the agency to say they think the rents are too high or the unit mix isn't right or something like that but that's really the first communication we would expect from them. But again, this is a process we've gone through with them before we're very familiar with. Okay. And did you submit the application for the Durham gap funding for the result in a 30% band? Correct, we did. Okay, great. Those are all of my questions. Happy to support this project. Thank you. Thank you. You commissioner, Carmen Williams. I'll be brief. It's been a long night. Typically I have issues with whether or not you can get in and out of these projects as proposed and what the traffic impact is gonna be. I have none because you're gonna improve car road. I don't want these potential neighborhood people having to drive on a dirt road or rocks or any of that. So write it down. Again, I am for this project. I have no rebuttal. I like it as presented. I look forward to the product that you're going to put out. And in this case as far as traffic is concerned first come first served. Thank you very much for what you're doing. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Bosby. Thanks. I'll just say briefly in the previous case, commissioner Cutwright, I thought spoke really eloquently about Durham and this commission. We've raised our ambitions for what we want. And this case is an example of what we want. And so I'm really excited and look forward to supporting this. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I'm gonna be a little annoying and ask a couple of lie tech questions because I've been very interested in the balance that our state puts on us. So first you said something in your conversation with commissioner Durkin that piques my ears a little bit. You mentioned that there's a possibility the full percent credits may become competitive. Is that, can you elaborate on that? Is that like a- I will try to stay brief because unfortunately this is my hobby and career. So each state it's always been non-competitive only because there are fewer applications. Each state gets what they call a volume cap and there's always been less applications than there has been volume cap. And so we always call the 4% credit non-competitive and that's not by design, that's just by the fact that people haven't been applying for all of the cap that's available. About a year or two years ago there was a tax law change that made 4% deals basically get additional tax credit subsidy available to them and suddenly deals that didn't pencil before as a 4% deal all of a sudden do. And so last year in January, NCHFA got something like 40 or 45, 4% applications which was almost double what they normally get. And so they kind of ran right up to their cap. They weren't, they didn't have to turn anybody away but they were kind of right at the cap. And so there is some question about whether states will start to run out of cap and have to make it competitive. There is also, I will just bore you some more, there is a federal legislative fix potentially in the works that we are as an industry we're lobbying hard for that would basically double that cap that each state gets and effectively ensure that no state runs out of that volume cap. And again, I know Commissioner Durkin does this space well. I don't know if you would agree with everything I said there, but I think that sums it up from our perspective. I agree, I do agree with that. New York has had volume cap issues. And so that's why I was concerned that North Carolina Housing Finance Agency just knew about it, it was in their pipeline. I didn't really think that we had the same volume cap issues that we're dealing with in New York, but it is the same, like projects just get bumped out of the pipeline because there's not enough in cap. That's helpful. Okay, the other question I had, this is like somewhat of an ITAC question, somewhat just a capital stack question. I noticed in your portfolio, you have a couple of complexes that incorporate retail and commercial uses. And I assume that helps provide money elsewhere in the project. What limits you from doing that in this case? Yeah, so two things or three maybe. Taft Mills Group is affiliated with Taft Family Ventures. Taft Family Ventures does all kinds of real estate development. They do student housing, luxury apartments, own commercial buildings, office buildings, warehouse buildings. I believe if you're looking at pictures of something that we have done with that had a commercial component that would have been on our market rate side, we as Taft Mills Group have never done an affordable deal with a commercial component. And it is fairly rare in our space to see that. And the only reason I would say generally that it ever happens is because of a zoning requirement that requires it. And most of the time in my experience, again, my experience is 15 plus years, 40 plus projects, most of the time they actually sit empty. They're net negatives to the project. We have to pay to buy the land and build them and they generally sit empty or rent for very discounted rates unless they are in the corner of Maine and Maine, unless you are in a real already established commercial district. But it's very, very rare. In fact, I can't think of an example. I can tell you it was an affordable deal that had very successful commercial components built into it. Thank you, but Tuple, those are all my questions. I would just say, I've been very excited to see more light deck developments coming to Durham recently. Maybe we see them as frequently as we typically do and they just don't need to rezoning but it's been exciting to get to see some of these cases come through the planning commission and get to support them. And I said this to Kelly development with Carver assemblage like I really welcome this and I hope that I'm not pursuing other opportunities within Durham without running the state of money, but definitely welcome seeing more of this and I'm happy that we're moving this direction. Those are all the comments I have. I would accept a motion at this time unless anyone else has comments or questions. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. I'd like to propose that we use case number Z to one triple zero one five, the Cedar trace apartments to be forwarded, I guess with corrections made to the staff report with corrections be forwarded to the city council for with a favorable recommendation. Second. I moved by commissioner Morgan, seconded by commissioner Carmen Williams. All right, it wasn't the direction of the staff report, but also the clarification on adding to the text commitment about their all income restricted. Right, that commissioner Durkin is exactly right. We will work with the applicant to modify that commitment to match what was just said with the 100% at maximum 80% with an average of 60% and then the staff report can will be adjusted accordingly when it goes to city council. I still second. I'll amend that one. Okay, seconded before the first, so go ahead. Any further discussion on the motion? And I'll take the roll call vote. Great, Amandolia. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Right. Yes. Durkin. Yeah. Harrod. Sorry, yes. Lowe. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. Carmen Williams. Yes. Zuri Williams. Yes. This is unanimously. Thank you. Before we hand out, head out, I just wanted to briefly fill everyone in on the most recent JCCPC meeting. I presented the annual report for the Planning Commission there. I wanted to just reflect some of the comments from elected officials from that as briefly as I can. First thing I wanted to just note upfront, a couple of them noticed or paid extra attention to our attendance numbers and reflected that they would like to see higher attendance numbers. They were not very specific, but they simultaneously acknowledged how much work it takes and how important this is. And I think because of that, we're paying more attention than maybe typically would to attendance. So just wanted to note that. I personally have not thought further about that of like what that means or any implications of that, but just wanted to reflect that to y'all to make everyone aware. Apart from that, they spoke really highly of everything we've been doing. And one thing that I thought was notable that I said I would pass on is that I added some commentary in the annual report about the frequency at which we have this board has recommended denial of cases and elected officials have gone on to approve them. And the kind of like perspective that was brought back to me was that we would be recommended to not just look at the outcome of the vote as a measure of our impact, there are potentially other ways that we are providing impact in our work that does not come through in the end vote. I thought that was a good perspective. It was helpful. And the elected officials did say very clearly that they take our comments, our written comments seriously, they take our voice seriously and they recognize the work that we're doing and the advocacy role that we play. So just wanted to really say that back to y'all. You all can do it, but that way you will, I'm just the messenger, but I thought it would be helpful for everyone to hear that. With that, Michael, do you have anything, any other announcements before we head out? Thank you. Yes, before we head out, we did note that we will send out a doodle poll and I apologize for not sending it out sooner, but a doodle poll for a meeting date adjustment for November since the meeting fall, it's on election day, so please date for your next retreat for with the PUD team with the comp plan. So now for two doodle poll requests, they will be different, but they do want to schedule something with you. Preferably in April. Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. Yep, and just a reminder to do your written comments, they're important and yeah, very useful. And I appreciate you all, you all are rock stars. This meeting is adjourned.