 Good to see everyone here. That was our first ever cold open and it was very exciting. The city attorney said that she thought it was like the opening of parks and rec and that kind of hurt my feelings. We're really glad to have everyone here tonight and I do want to thank our public affairs staff for that really cool opening. So I'll ask you all first if you would please join me in a moment of silent meditation. Thank you. Councilmember Reece, would you lead us in the place of the flag please? Good evening Mr. Mayor and thank you everyone. This time if you're able to do so and if it's your practice to do so please rise and join us as we say the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, individual with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much Councilmember. Madam Clerk will you please call the roll. Mayor Schuyl, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson, Councilmember Alston, Councilmember Caballero, Councilmember Freeman, Councilmember Middleton, Councilmember East. Here. Councilmember Reece. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I wanted to make a motion on behalf of our colleague, Councilmember Caballero. She is in Charlotte right now attending a funeral and won't return before the end of our meeting. So on that basis I would move that we give the Councilmember Caballero an excused absence for this meeting. Second. Second. The movement is seconded. We give Councilmember Caballero an excused absence. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed no. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much Councilmember Reece. Thank you Mr. Mayor. All righty we're here, we have one ceremonial item today and I'm very excited about it. It's our neighborhood spotlight and I would like to invite Rena Pinnick's to please come forward and as Pinnick's with anyone else that you would like to bring family, friends, anyone from your neighborhood or anyone else you would like to bring up. Come on all the way over here with me. All right. This is the neighborhood spotlight, the neighborhood spotlight for the month of March. Rena Pinnick's is the recipient of the neighbor spotlight for the month of March 2019. The neighbor spotlight award recognizes community members that have gone above and beyond in volunteering their time to serve the community. This month Rena Pinnick's, a resident of Southwest Central Durham was nominated and selected because of the wonderful work she has done in her neighborhood including but not limited to ensuring neighbors get the food they need by partnering with local food banks and starting a community garden, advocating for safe streets for her neighbors which led to a permanent street calming project, caring for her neighbors by listening to them and connecting them with community resources to improve their quality of life. Congratulations Ms. Pinnick's on being the March neighbor spotlight for the city of Durham. Thank you for all the work you do to improve our Durham community. And here is your certificate and I hope now that you will come forward and say a few words. I would like to say thank you all. I enjoy what I do for the elderly people and the children. Somebody need to help take care of them. Why not me? All right. We will now move to announcements by the council. Are there any of my colleagues who have any announcements to see? Any announcements by members of the council? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Reese. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just wanted to make folks aware that earlier this morning I had the opportunity to join some fantastic volunteers to put in the morning of work on behalf of Meals on Wheels of Durham. This is a program that provides hot, nutritious food to seniors living in our area. And a bunch of us were there. Commissioner Brinda Howerton I believe is in the room. Are you here? Commissioner Howerton? Thank you. I'm glad you joined us as they do, Mr. Mayor and council member Caballera before she left for Charlotte. We had a great time putting the meals together and then we sent some time with the executive director of Meals on Wheels Durham to talk about the importance of this institution and this group in our community. I think I remember her saying that they serve about 300 ish 350 hot meals per day to seniors living in Durham. But that the waiting list is much longer than that, much more than they could actually serve. And so I just wanted to put in a plug for folks if you're looking for something to do with your time. Helping out one morning at Meals on Wheels would be a great idea. So I had a great morning with them and I appreciate seeing my colleagues there. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much, council member. Any more announcements? Anybody else have an announcement? Council member Middles. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everyone. Mr. Mayor, as you know, Durham is not only a beacon of progressivism in the south where we lead in just about every metric that one would want to establish for a great city, but we're also a city of champions. So tonight we'd like to congratulate North Carolina Center University men's basketball team on winning the AC championship. Our best goes out to our friend, Coach Moten. We also want to congratulate Coach Kay and the basketball team, Duke University men's basketball team, for winning the ACC championship as well. And we wish them the best as they go on to the NCAA tournament. Finally, Mr. Mayor, I think every part of goodwill on our planet was this made heavy last week with the absolute horror that came out of Christ's Church on New Zealand. On last night I had the opportunity to represent our city in Raleigh at the Islamic Association of Raleigh's Commemoration Service, which was a moving and hopeful and sometimes tearful remembrance of those victims in Christ's Church. But we recognize that the rhetoric has been sounding the same no matter what country or what city. So Mr. Mayor, I just want to reiterate and underscore what you have championed for some time now about our city, that we remain open, we remain inclusive, we remain loving, and we remain safe for all people. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much, Council Member. And thank you for being at the Islamic Association of Raleigh. I was in touch also with one of our local EMAMs, Greg Marrow, from our Rizak, and I'll be putting out a statement with many of the sentiments that you express, Council Member. So I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. So just a couple of weeks ago, I had the humiliating experience of having to wear a UNC hat at this meeting. But today I'm thrilled to be wearing my Eagles cap, so go Eagles. Thank you very much. And now we'll move on to the priority items. Mr. Manager, any priority items? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everyone. No priority items from the City Manager's Office. Thank you very much. Madam Attorney. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. I'm glad to be with you all. The Attorney's Office has no priority items. Thank you. Madam Clerk. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I have no items. Thank you so much. Now we'll move to the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda can be approved by a single vote of the Council. All these items have been previously considered in Council work sessions. An item can be pulled from the Agenda by any member of the public or a member of the Council. And any pulled item is held until the end of the meeting for consideration. I'll now read the Consent Agenda, Item 1, Approval of City Council Minutes. Item 2, Durham Planning Commission Reappointments. Item 4, Durham Performing Arts Center Oversight Committee Reappointments. Item 5, 2019, Unscheduled Pipeline and Pairs Contract, Award of Construction Contract to Carolina Civil Works, Inc. Thank you. Item 6, let me just make sure I don't have any items here that need to be pulled. The clerk has just sent me. Item 6, Unscheduled Pipeline Repairs Contract, Award of Construction Contract to J.F. Wilkerson Contract and Company, Inc. Item 7, 2019, Sewer Repair Project Contract Award to Carolina Civil Works, Inc. Item 8, Bid Term Contract for Ferric Soul Fight Solution, 13%, 9,200 tons. Item 9, Amendment of Cities Cross Connection Control Ordinance to Establish Electronic Filing Fee and Electronic Filing of Backwater Prevention, Test Reports and to Adopt a Separate Ordinance to Establish an Electronic Filing Fee. Item 10, Proposed Lease for Megabus Southeast, LLC at Durham Station, 515 West Pettigrew Street. Item 14, Utility Extension Agreement with Hard Work with a Purpose, LLC to Serve 300 Chandler Road. I'm sorry, thank you. Mr. Manager pointed out I missed item 11. I'm sorry, thank you. Proposed Lease for Greyhound Lines, Inc. at Durham Station, 515 West Pettigrew Street. I read item 14 already. Item 15, Ordinance Amending Specified Sections of Durham City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 70, Article III, Division II and Division III. Item 16, Contract ST 295, Requests for Qualifications, RFQ for Professional Land Surveying with Summit Design and Engineering Services, PLLC. Item 17, Lodge Street Regional Stormwater Improvements Amendment Number 1. You have heard the consent agenda and none of those items has been pulled. And so I will now accept a motion to approve the consent agenda. Move to approve. It's been moved and seconded, we approve the consent agenda. Madam Clerk, would you please open the vote? Please close the vote. The motion passes 7-0. Thank you very much. We'll now move to the first item on our general business agenda, public hearings, which is the FY 2019-20 Budget and Capital Improvement Plan. We're going to be conducting a public hearing to receive comments on the 2019-20 Budget and 2020-25 Capital Improvement Plan. We have a number of speakers who have signed up to speak here. And I will first ask for our report from staff. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Members of Council. Bertha Johnson, Director of Budget and Management Services. As you all aware, Durham County reappraised our property in the city of Durham, County as well this year and set the values of January 2019. These values will be used to set the tax rate for the fiscal year 2019-20 Budget. So before we receive comments, I would like to share the updated values with the public. So just as a reminder, the city is required to set an overall tax rate. Although we do break out the tax rate by fund, it is one rate except for our Business Improvement District. The current tax rate is 57.86 cents this year and a penny on the tax rate is $2.9 million. So here is how the assessed values changed in the new reappraisal in January. You can see we experienced a 20.76% assessed value increase in real property values in the city. We also experienced a 30.66% increase in the Business Improvement District assessed values. So I want to share with you the revenue neutral rate for those of you who may not be aware. The revenue neutral rate is the rate that is required to generate the same amount of revenue in the previous fiscal year plus natural growth. The current fiscal year tax rate is 57.86 cents. The calculated revenue neutral rate is 51.45 cents. And finally, I just want to put it in context for residents. If you look at the 2018 medium home value, 183.769. Our current tax rate again, 57.86 cents, that would generate a bill of $1,063. 2019, the medium home value increased by 25%, $229,246. Even at the revenue neutral rate, the tax bill would be $1,179, which is a $116 increase. Again, the medium value is that midpoint, that midvalue in the assessed values for all properties in the city. That's all I have. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson. Council members, you have heard the report from staff. I'm now going to declare this public hearing open. And I'm going to first ask if there are any questions for the staff. There being none, we're going to go ahead and proceed with the people who signed up to speak. I have 17 people who signed up to speak, and I'm going to give everyone three minutes to speak. And as I call, I'll call the name of the first group of people. And if you would proceed over here to this podium at my right, that would be great. We will begin with Beth Brooke, Jasmine Williams, Aman Abira, Dave Conley, and Andrea Hudson. If you all would make your way over to the side of the room, that would be great. And we'll begin with Beth Brooke. And Ms. Brooke, if you would state your name and address, and you have three minutes, welcome. Thank you all so much. My name is Beth Brooke. I live at 1010 Irondale Street in Durham, North Carolina. Yay. We agree with you. We agree with you. Yep. I am very concerned at the element of the budget proposal that was, I guess, in a PowerPoint showing that for funding for 72 new police officers. On April 16th, 2018, the city council unanimously committed to a vision of a Durham beyond policing, and perhaps what was the least controversial part of that policy statement. I'm asking you tonight to please stay true to that commitment, fund education, fund affordable housing. That's why I voted for so many of you. It was a key component of your platforms, fund participatory budgeting. As mentioned by Commissioner Reese earlier this evening, people here need food and community, I just encourage you to fund programs that will interrupt poverty, that will interrupt mass incarceration, and to not fund any more police officers. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Brooke. We'll now hear from Jasmine Williams. Ms. Williams, welcome. If you could state your name and address, and you have three minutes. Thank you. My name is Jasmine Williams. I currently reside at 914 Gilbert Street here in Durham. I am a Duke graduate, and I've been residing here for five years. I'm here before you on behalf of the demilitarized Durham and the Palestine Coalition, as well as a community within Durham to oppose any allocation of funding to add numbers to the police force within the next few years, and hopefully never. We have watched the addition of the police headquarters drain necessary resources from our public for the sake of safety when we know that Durham has a problem with the over-policing of black and brown people. With no cohesiveness of law enforcement agencies in this community, I think it's critical that we take whatever funds we are working to place in the hands of the police department and instead place it into the hands of the community and invest into community resources such as public housing, transit, jobs, and so forth. We're in need of a city that will go to bat for black and brown folks, poor folks, disabled folks, and all other folks of Durham, especially in the rapid increase of gentrification in the city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Aman Abira, welcome. You have three minutes. Hi, I'm sorry. My name is Aman Abira. I live at Two Little Spring Lane. And I'm a graduate student at Duke University and a resident of Durham for almost four years now. I'm also here as a member of the Demilitarized Durham Outline Coalition. And I want to reiterate Jasmine's comments and Beth's comments to oppose that the Durham City Council budget that proposed spending millions of dollars to hire more police officers. I unequivocally oppose the idea that to improve public safety or reduce crime levels, we should spend more money on policing rather than making investments in the community that address the root causes of crime, including poverty, homelessness, and the lack of access to education and jobs. This would not only be a misallocation of resources by directing public funds away from those kinds of positive investments in the community. But we also increasing police presence can do more harm than good, like Jasmine was just talking about, especially to low income black and brown communities. Many city council members ran on platforms of finding alternatives to policing and last year you boldly voted to end police exchange programs with foreign militaries, including the Israeli military, that reinforce and increase militarized and counterterrorism style policing practice. So I just want to quote from that April 16th statement. You said, our community is working towards a time when we are beyond policing. When everyone has a good job and excellent healthcare and a safe, warm, affordable place to live. You concluded that statement with Black Lives Matter. We can make that phrase real in Durham by rejecting the militarization of our police force in favor of a different kind of policing. So I really hope you all will recommit to upholding this statement and recognize the interest of the community. And oppose that aspect of the proposal to hire additional police officers. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Oberam. And we'll now hear from Dave Connolly. Welcome, Mr. Connolly. You have three minutes. Good evening, I'm Dave Connolly, three bland spring place, Durham 27713. Chair of the Dost, the Durham Open Space and Trails Commission. And we recommend that the city allot $2 million each year toward new trail planning, design, and construction. We believe that multi-use trails are a healthy investment in a walkable, bikeable future for Durham. Trails provide better health, lower medical costs, improved water and air quality, local jobs, transportation choices, and outdoor experiences for all ages, abilities, and incomes. By leveraging federal dollars, Durham's $2 million per year could effectively generate up to $10 million toward new trail construction. I believe the case has already been made for us to catch up on the maintenance backlog of our older existing trails, and we support that. We also asked the city for staffing to begin implementing the Urban Open Space Plan. It's a great plan. Now let's see action upon it. So we thank you for considering this $2 million annual commitment to trails. We also wouldn't turn away a $40 million bond referendum or a second half penny for parks and trails, but perhaps those are conversations for another day. Thanks very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Connolly. I will now hear from Andrea Hudson. Welcome. And while she is speaking, I'll now call the next group of people, if you all could also come over here to my right. Mab Segrist, Denise Hester, Danielle Purifoy, Maria Monsanto, and George Vaughn. If you all could also come over here to my right, that would be great. Thank you very much. Ms. Hudson, welcome. You have three minutes. Thank you. My name is Andrea Hudson. I live at 322 Junction Road, 2703. I'm here in opposition of granting the Durham Police Department approximately $1.7 million to add 72 full-time police officers over the next three years. To put it plainly, DPD has tried to fill a building that hundreds of community members of various communities in Durham didn't want in the first place. We don't need more cops nor want more cops in the streets of Durham. Furthermore, DPS is spending a city who knows how much public dollars advertising in places like Planet Fitness begging for people to apply to their academy. The begging for officers continues with an attractive benefit package that includes an employee assistant program that includes counseling for both family and officers for medical, dental, and health insurance, a take-home vehicle designed to be inconspicuous, paid life insurance, and paid funeral leave. With all these benefits, you'd think there would be plenty of applicants rolling in, but they're simply not the case. Perhaps people don't want more cops because cops are not what keeps Durham residents safe. We, the members of the community, keep us safe. More often than not, cops escalate situations than otherwise. The fact is that crime has been going down consistently in Durham over the past few years, so why would we need more cops? And it's strange in a way that I saw a brand-new 2019 red charger that a police officer gets to take home. And if you've got officers taking home cars like that, I took a picture of it, and I was like, yo, where you get the car from? I didn't know the D cars like that. He was like, oh, they did that when I became an officer. So I mean, I just don't think we need. We could spend that money doing other things. We have other programs that can benefit from that. We can have programs that could benefit second chance for people coming home with reentry. We can have programs for kids where they won't need as many police officers because they have somewhere to go. We can fund boys and girls clubs. We can fund Village of Wisdom. We can fund CIP. There are just so many different organizations that we can fund that would be able to benefit our communities other than giving 72 new police officers over the next three years. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hudson. Well, now here from Mab Segrist. Welcome, Ms. Segrist. You have three minutes. Yes. I live at 1419 Ruffin Street. I'm very glad to be back in Durham after a good many years. And I'm with Southerners on Newground. I'm here also to speak against the proposal to spend $1,729,573 for 72 extra police. One of the things that strikes me is making that unreasonable is the information in the North Carolina independent last week that Jocelyn Josephine Cardevis as DA and now as Superior Court Judge on her last day as DA dismissed 72,441 cases. Now, I think if we can dismiss that many cases in one day, that's a good day's work. Maybe we've had too much police and not too little, or maybe the wrong kind. I'm proud to be back in Durham because y'all are sitting up there electing by the majority of people in Durham to do something different on criminal justice in Durham. And I think this police proposal goes the wrong direction. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We'll now hear from Ms. Denise Hester. Ms. Hester, welcome. Good evening. I'm Denise Hester at 3526 Abercrombie Drive. I'm a member of the Fayetteville Street Planning Group and I'm here tonight because I'm concerned. I'm concerned that long standing requests for a streetscape for Fayetteville Street have not been included in the upcoming budget or CIP as far as I can determine. This is a followup to our most recent requests from June of last year from our original request 14 years ago in 2005 and from requests in interim years in between. Funding for the design, engineering and construction of the streetscape is long overdue. And it's not that the council doesn't have the appetite for streetscape funding as streetscapes for the other three gateways into downtown have all been funded some more than once. Only Fayetteville Street has been left out. Fayetteville Street is one of Durham's longest transportation corridors. It's home to Durham's historic African-American community with landmarks, Hattie Heritage Center, Stanford-Warren, North Carolina Central, Hillside High School, over 100 national and local businesses and the Fayetteville Street Local Historic District and the Stokesdale National Historic District. The Fayetteville Street corridors attributes reflect many of the city's goals. Neighborhood commercial nodes, walkable neighborhoods, historic assets, parks, churches, affordable housing, everything except the money. Now its infrastructure needs have been neglected for far too long, broken granite curves in front of B and Duke Auditorium and along the local historic district, broken sidewalks, awkward intersections such as the one at Lawson, I'm sorry, Linwood and Fayetteville Street. A streetscape plan would correct many of these deficiencies while provided much needed economic development for local businesses and residents. The measurement of a city's commitment is reflected or should be reflected in results, not intentions. Not sharing our city's booming prosperity on infrastructure for Fayetteville Street, I fear will only increase the growing economic divide that threatens our city's future and I think that divide is apparent to everyone in this room as it manifests itself in all kinds of unfortunate ways. We have a chance to do something about it and I hope you all have heard our plea. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hester. And out here from Danielle Purefoy, Ms. Purefoy, welcome and you have three minutes. Thank you. I'm Danielle Purefoy, I live at 2032 Inglewood and I'm here with a group of community members and various grassroots organizations in Durham. My comment also concerns the 2019-2020 budget pertaining to the proposal for increase of 72 police officers. I've been seen, I'm sure, before the city council several times in the past because of some increase in the city council budget for policing over the last three to four years. First, it was the 71 million dollars that was allocated for the new police headquarters. Second, it was the fact that the police were accounting for 60% of the public safety budget and then it was because of a 5% increase in police funding last year and now it's because of this massive proposed increase in police officers. The continued prioritization and promoting of the police as a public safety measure for our community despite all evidence of police abuses in black and brown communities, despite evidence that the police do nothing to address poverty, homelessness, violence or any of the issues that our communities face, we increase support for the police no matter what happens and we particularly credit them when things like crime goes down even when there are other programs that are active in our communities. And we never give credit to those other communities it's always incentivize the police, increase the police. And we don't nearly, and we also don't support other programs in nearly the same way. And as an example, the eviction diversion program got half of what they asked for for this past year's budget. There are other sorts of programs and I could just sort of copy and paste from previous times I've been here for restorative funding, for restorative justice programs to support jail diversion programs to support emergency responders that are not the police. We could have medics and counselors respond to conflict mediation, various disputes. We could have all sorts of alternatives that exist in other cities across this country that would not involve the police. We could support pilot programs for universal basic income. We could give more funding to participatory budgeting. We could support the rehabilitation of housing and other programs. We could support a youth workforce. I could go on and on. The bottom line is that we continue to support police despite any evidence that despite all evidence that they do not keep us safe. There's not an actual nexus between the police and the issues that plague our communities. We have plenty of professionals all across this community, university. We have some of the best and best well-respected professionals in this country that could address a lot of the root causes of these social issues. We would just support them with our funding. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Perufoy. We'll now hear from Maria Monsanto. Ms. Monsanto, welcome. You have three minutes. Hello, hello, City Council. Hello, folks. My name is Maria Monsanto in a relation. I live at 2341 Cherry Creek Drive, and I'm also here to echo the members of my community that I am personally against the increase of 72 police officers over the next three years. Simply put, in the presentation to the public presentation that the public department made in favor of why we need more police, a really centered safety. And for me, that's laughable. To say that the police are responsible for creating safe spaces in Durham is pretentious at worst, and like Irosha at best in terms of the communities actually doing work to keep each other safe. So just again, to echo what Danielle said, funding things, funding places, funding people, putting more money in the community's hands to do things that are gonna keep us safe that make sure we're taking care of each other because time and time again, police will show that that's not the case. So thank you for your time. And I hope you're considering putting that on hold and making sure we get a chance to have us say on our futures and how we keep each other safe. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Monsanto. Mr. Vaughn, while Mr. Vaughn is coming to the podium, I'm gonna ask the next group of people to please come over here to my right. First will be Ellen Pless. Second will be Keisha. Sorry, I'm having a hard time. Maybe Mollett, I'm hoping I'm reading that right. Jose Romero, Ron Barron, and Ideal Ortiz. If you all could make your way over here to the right, that would be great. Mr. Vaughn, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is George Vaughn. I live at 1022 Westwood Drive in Historic Forest Hills. In item 20 of tonight's agenda, there is a request from the planning director for funds to hire a consultant to help with Forest Hills Neighborhood Protective Overlay application. On August 1st, the JCCPC voted to prioritize our application and that has an 18 month lifespan and we're about a third of the way through that. Forest Hills is the quintessential NPO candidate. We tick all the boxes. We have a very strong neighborhood consensus within the tightly defined neighborhood. 64%, when we started this process, 64% of the homeowners signed the petition for the NPO within a four week period. And I think that indicates a pretty strong neighborhood support for the NPO. And the planning department just needs some funds to get the work done within our timeframe. And I think that shows that unlike some of your previous experiences with NPO applications, Oak Valley, we're committed to making this happen and the neighborhood is gonna work very hard working with the planning department to get this done. And I'll quote Patrick Young about, on NPO's, this was a council meeting, May 17th, dealing with the old West Durham NPO. Regarding our position on the NPO, this is really the only tool, the only citizen led tool in the unified development ordinance that is a citizen led process. And we are very respectful of that. At the JCCPC meeting, Councilman Reese, also I can quote, planning is required to provide assistance to neighborhoods that come forward with this kind of proposal. That's their job. The people who live in this neighborhood and who own property in the neighborhood have availed themselves of a process that's written into the UDO to help them preserve the character of our neighborhood. So that's the reason I'm here. We need resources to move this project along and I hope you'll consider that favorably. Thank you, Mr. Pollan. I will now hear from Ellen Pless. Ms. Pless, welcome. You have three minutes. Thank you very much. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to speak with you all tonight. My name is Ellen Pless. I grew up in Durham starting in 1972 and I have lived for the past 20 years in the same house in Durham's Forest Hills neighborhood. In 2017 and 2018, the Forest Hills community came together to discuss the future and environmental responsibilities of their neighborhood, which is a 100 year old cohesive national historic district within that is housed within a vital urban forest. A meaningful neighborhood wide grass roots effort evolved inspired in part by the directions of Ken Salazar and Sally Jewel, the Obama era US secretaries of state who developed the current guidelines for the preservation of national historic districts in the United States. The community decided to pull together and pursue an NPO. As it exists, the NPO is the only citizen led tool made available to us through our current UDO. As such, it is extremely important. Residents conducted numerous meetings. We met with planning staff and engaged in an energetic community outreach process which included going door to door, sometimes many times because people were oftentimes not at home. In June, 2018, Forest Hills residents submitted a formal NPO application to the planning department. The petition associated with that application as Mr. Von just explained was signed by substantially more than 50% of the Forest Hills property owners, which is perhaps the highest percentage of support of any NPO application in the history of Durham. Support for the petition was equally distributed on both sides of Forest Hills. A spirit of stewardship and thoughtful growth has informed our NPO process thus far. Mindful and forward-looking sensitivity to Durham's needs led Forest Hills residents to submit an NPO application supporting the adoption of locally expanded excuse me, ADU guidelines. On August 1st, 2018, the JCCPC voted to prioritize the NPO application. Some of those individuals are present here this evening. That priority status does carry an 18 month lifespan. Today, as George was explaining, somewhere between one third and one half of that time has already passed without further action as the application awaits resources. Our community does eagerly await productive engagement for the next steps in this NPO process. We ask that you, this body, please support Durham's tradition of grassroots community action. It's historic districts that give Durham so much of its sense of place and its environment by funding the budget request for the NPO for the National Historic District of Forest Hills. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Pless. We'll now hear from Keisha Mallette. Welcome, and you have three minutes. Good evening, Mayor Schultz, City Council, other officials represented, and citizens of Durham. My name is Keisha Mallette, and I am a Durham resident living at 3143 Adele Way. I'm here representing Southerners on New Ground, and I'm speaking to oppose the proposed 2019-2020 budget allocation for the hiring of 72 police officers. Earlier this evening, you heard the words that we want our communities to be open, inclusive, loving, and safe for all people. I'd like to make a brief statement about public safety and its significance. Public safety comes from investing in space rather than removing people from it. Public safety does not come from cages. It is compromised by errant systems and beliefs, such as the belief that increased policing makes people more safe. Public safety comes from people's fundamental needs being met. The hiring of 72 police officers will not help meet those needs. The city now has an opportunity to invest in our communities. Please remove this proposal, reject it, and stay true to the vision of making our community truly be one that is open, inclusive, loving, and safe for all people. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Millet. We're now here from Jose Romero. Welcome, you have three minutes. Good evening, City Council. My name is Jose Romero. I live at 1713 Avondale Drive. I have had the pleasure of sharing space with many of you as a member of the Participatory Steering Committee, as a member representing Ward 1. But today I am here speaking to you about data, wearing my song shirt as a proud member of Southerners on New Ground. And I want to interrogate some of the information that you received in the presentation from the police department, justifying an appeal for 72 police officers. Mr. Romero, would you just pull back a little bit from the microphone? We're having a hard time hearing you. Thank you. All right, get a little accelerated. So in the data that you received, you were informed. You're even closer. You got closer. You're informed that attrition in the city of Durham and the police department has increased. Meanwhile, crime has remained at historical lows and averages. So I want to repeat that. There have been less officers and crime has not been statistically affected. So I want to interrogate how this is being used to justify an appeal for 72 more police officers on our city. In 2017, the Haroldson reported that it costs about $55,000 to train a police officer. So for this to be enacted here, that would mean $4 million just to train 72 new officers. And that's to train, not necessarily to retain. The attrition rate in the police academy right now is around 25%. So we don't even know if that money's gonna even stay within the city. Now the annual budget would require 3.8 million to be able to pay for 72 more officers. So that's around 7.8 million just for one or two years of 72 more police officers. We did a survey years ago asking community members what they would want their money to be invested in and all of the reasons that they gave us from small business loans to expungement to pro bono legal services and just demonstrate that increasing police officers on our city would not be a wise choice for any of you. And I wanna also add that while y'all have been discussing whether or not to increase 72 police officers in the police department, we on Southerners on Newground have actually been living a desire to live free from fear by bailing out people who have been living in a treacherous jail by any standard. And if any of y'all want to live free from fear, I invite you to join us at 904 Broad Street. We meet regularly Tuesday evenings and you can join us talking about what it would mean to like actually live and practice public safety. Also, maybe if some of the terror that has been and fear that has been sowed in our community from immigration and customs enforcement was regulated in a more effective administrative way, maybe you wouldn't have these concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Romero, Ron Barron. Welcome and you have three minutes. Good evening. My name is Ron Barron. I live at 208 North Driver Street. Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council members, I'm always inspired to hear you speak, Mr. Mayor. In your mayoral campaign two years ago, I constantly heard the refrain of wishing us to move to a Durham beyond policing. I was inspirational. You spoke then of the need for affordable housing, public education, many other poverty reduction elements necessary to move towards this vision of our shared future. That was inspirational. In the past couple of years, we've made great strides to combat powerful forces working against us. These strides will only be strengthened for the $95 million affordable housing bond and the expanding housing choices program that will hopefully be passed soon. That is inspirational. I've ever heard with dismay the request from Chief Davis for an increase of 72 officers of the Durham Police Department. We lasted an increase of 36 positions at DPD just three years ago. Since then, and despite an attrition in police, we have seen a significant decrease in violent crime. We do not need 72 more cops on the street to continue this trend. We need more affordable housing. We need more kids in public schools. We need support for community organizations like a harm-free zone project. The request for 17 new cops is very clearly a negotiating position. Chief Davis knows full well that a significant proportion of city council is highly skeptical of policing. I'm sure Chief Fully expects city council to approve fewer. I urge you today to approve zero new cops for a DPD. Make a vision of a Durham Beyond Policing more real. I was here just a few weeks ago and was moved to tears by our mayor's son. Give us bread and give us roses. Do not give us yet more heavily armed cops in our neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barron. We'll now hear from Ideal Ortiz. And while Mr. Ortiz is coming to the podium, I'm gonna ask the remaining speakers to please come over here to my right. Shanice Hamilton, Nia Wilson, Aaron Jamal, and Ashley Kennedy. I'm gonna also ask now, is there anyone else? Ashley, you can just hang in your seat until you're done. Yeah. Is there anyone else that would like to be heard on this public hearing item of the budget? Is there anyone else that hasn't signed up yet? This is your chance. If you'd like to sign up to speak at this point on the budget hearing, please come over here to my left and sign up with a clerk, okay? All righty. Ms. Ortiz, welcome. You have three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, City Council. I'm standing here for you to say that I oppose the funding of 72 new police officers in this upcoming budget. For me, I would love to see dollars fund the streetscape on Fayetteville Street that Ms. Hester was talking about, fund revolving loans so that communities that have been historically shut out of residential building can participate, fund equitable engagement so that tax funded plans and designs are actually relevant and useful to the communities that they're meant to serve. And I'm also really fully aware of the historical context in which police have been used to lower property values in neighborhoods that are now rapidly gentrifying. And as an Eastern resident, I wanna share with you a little bit of my own personal experiences with that. I've lived in that neighborhood for a little over 15 years, purchased my house in 2003, and a little bit about Operation Bullseye. When we look at the outcome of that effort, which was headed up first by a PR campaign encouraging residents to call the police for any and every little thing. If the wind blew too hard through your trees and made a strange sound, call the police. And those call numbers did increase the number of patrols that validated that kind of police presence in our neighborhood. And here's what that police presence did for my life personally. I was asked why I would want, when I was stopped erroneously by police, I got stopped several times. It became one of those things were coming in or out of my neighborhood was like stopping at checkpoints. And I was asked, why do you wanna live here when people realized by looking my address that I actually lived in the community I was driving to? Seeing my Carolina sticker on my car, they thought I was incompatible to that community. They asked me, what kind of business was I running in my house when I called them for a car break in? And insinuated that I was a sex worker. I also got to spend a year doing ride-alongs three to four days a week, three to four hours at a time when I was doing my clinical internship at the Center for Child and Family Health. And while riding through my own street, the officer commented that the best thing that could happen to my community was to tear it down and start all over again. Watching multiple cars arrive at the scene of minor infractions only aggravates the situation in a community and demonstrates a heavy-handed approach to what otherwise could be simple interactions. If the police department is this strapped for staff then I don't need to see them at neighborhood barbecues or at bike safety events. They need to stick to the critical things that are in their mission and not be wandering off with mission creep. And so for those reasons and many others, like knowing that my safety comes from community, I ask you to not fund that. Thank you, Ms. Cohen, Ms. Ortiz. And now we'll hear from Shanice Hamilton. Ms. Hamilton, welcome. You have three minutes. Thank you. My name is Shanice Hamilton. I live at 1940 Buffalo Way. When thinking of a Durham for all, ending the over-policing of our black and brown neighborhoods is a vital part of achieving this dream. As a Durham native, I can say firsthand that one resource Durham is not lacking in is police officers. Durham is lacking in resources to decriminalize poverty, mass incarceration, and affordable housing just to name a few. Durham is lacking in proper training for the police officers we currently have to decriminalize our people of color in this community. Our black and brown folk do not feel safe and respected and frankly at times seen or treated as human beings in this city. So let's work to change that. As a soon-to-be mother, it terrifies me to think that raising my black son in a city that is crawling with the police officers. I'm even more terrified that this could possibly be happening in my hometown. So I urge you to consider the effects that this will have on the folks who make up this community. And vote against adding more police presence in this city. Instead, listen to the people working on the ground who've spoken up here today and use those resources to fund organizations and opportunities that are fighting for the real safety and rights of our people. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hamilton. We'll now hear from Nia Wilson. Ms. Wilson, welcome and you have three minutes. Good evening, everyone. Good evening. My name is Nia Wilson. I live at 224 West Trinity Avenue. I've been here before you before for this very reason. So I'm here to speak also, in addition to everyone else who has spoken about not funding the police department. I came up here before, I think it was about two years ago and I presented some of you with photo albums of pictures of people standing with signs talking about what safety meant to them. I asked you to put those photo albums on your desk and to look at them every time you had to consider what you were going to fund and what safety looks like. I am a black woman, I am a black daughter, I am a black mother. What I know is at no point in time in the history of this country has the institution of policing kept the black community safe. I'm gonna say that again so everybody can hear, including the black folks who think because there are folks who live in neighborhoods who are concerned, who have real issues and they think that increasing police officers in their neighborhood is gonna keep them safe. But I would ask any of you to go through the history books and find one time in the history of this country where the institution of policing, I'm not talking about individual police, I'm not talking about individual incidences where the institution has actually kept us safe. You will not find it, I guarantee that you will not find it. Besides beyond asking you not to fund 72 police officers, I'm gonna ask Durham to be as innovative as we are. I'm gonna ask you to fund the alternatives. There is a whole body of people here who have been working on this issue, including Spirit House and our harm-free zone program for more than 10 years with absolutely no resources from the city. Instead, what the city has done is to pull people out, pull programs from other places across the country that are not rooted in what the people and the community who are invested here have asked for. So I'm gonna ask you to pull together a task force. I'm gonna ask you to spend a million dollars to hire 72 community members who can be trained in what they need to do to keep their neighborhood, the places that they live, the places that they come back to. Oftentimes, folks who go to prison, they come back home to their neighborhoods. They want to keep their neighborhood safe. And instead, they are targeted, they are rearrested by police officers who arrested them in the first place. So I'm gonna ask you to invest in them. These folks know, these community members know, we know what we need to keep our communities safe. And we can build that kind of a program together. You have the folks sitting here in the room who are prepared, who are ready to do it. What we don't have is the resources. So how about funding the community to do what it is that we need to do? How about giving us health insurance? How about giving us the cars to ride around our neighborhoods? How about giving us the things, the money that we need to feed our families? We can do it. We can do it. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Next, we'll have Aaron Jamal. Mr. Jamal, welcome. You have three minutes. Thank you. My name is Aaron Jamal. I use EM pronouns and I'm an active esteemed member of BYP 100. And I just want to offer a few brief remarks, specifically to the budget item in the 2019-2020 budget that seeks to impose 72 more police officers into our neighborhoods and into our lives. The first point I want to make is the problems in our communities cannot be solved by cops. These are structural issues that predate all of the advances in technology, all of the best ideas and research about how best to police and interact with black people. Issues like gender-based violence, racial injustice, economic exploitation, predate the work that these police officers claim to try and solve with their weapons and guns. These are structural issues that require expertise from counselors and teachers and organizers, not more action with people who want to take our lives. The second point I want to make is I've spoken here once before, just after the historic elections in 2017 here in Durham. And one of the things that was inspiring about that election was that we decided as a people that we wanted to have a city council that represented our interests. We were not interested in a city council that was gonna make decisions against our children's lives. And so this is not a demand. This is not a demand. I expect you to vote the right way on that budget item. I want to finish these brief comments with the statement that the role of a good society is to nurture each of us, to reach our full dignity and to reach our destiny. The role of the police is to protect and serve violence. Make the right decision and for your futures. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jamal. We'll now hear from Ashley Kennedy. Welcome, Ms. Kennedy, and you have three minutes. It's not in time yet, I'm getting up there. I'm Ashley Kennedy, I live at 9D Ridgway Avenue, which is McDougal Terrace. And I sit on several organizations in Durham, but I'm not coming here today sitting on any organization. I'm coming today as a parent and as a person who has had several meetings in my community and several other communities. As a lot of you know, I stay in McDougal Terrace. And in the last couple months, we've had a lot of issues going on out there in McDougal Terrace, and it isn't just about our safety. We speak about safety, but it's not even safe to live in our own apartments. When we stand in there and you have toilet water running on your head, and it takes two and three months just to fix it because public housing doesn't have the funding. I've had a hole in my roof for the last, since the last hurricane. I was walking through my, well, crushing through my neighborhood, listening to the residents complain about the feces that we have to step on in our backyards because housing authority can't afford to the plumbing fix. We were planting trees the other day and people were like, oh, that's feces. You shouldn't be able to walk through McDougal Terrace and there's feces behind buildings. Today we had three pipes busting McDougal and they're trying to figure out, oh, how are we gonna fix these pipes? So they come and tape and patch things up. How about we use money for that? McDougal has been standing here for years, years and haven't had any construction. And also, as you see, I'm on crutches and the potholes and Durham, the potholes. I stepped off the Durham, the data bus into a pothole and look where I'm at today. And this is the third time this has happened. So instead of funding our police department, let's think about things like that. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kennedy. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard on this item? Is there anyone else before I close the public hearing on the budget that would like to be heard tonight? Alrighty, I'm gonna now declare this public hearing closed and I wanna thank everybody that came out tonight. We appreciate it very much that you all are here, that you all have made your voices heard and I want you to everybody to know that we take it very seriously and we're listening. So thank you very much for being here. All right, we will now move on to item 21, the Oregon Street closing. And I'm gonna first hear from staff. Good evening. I'm Emily Streuthers with the Planning Department. I'd like to state for the record that all planning department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law. And half-davids of all notices are on file in the planning department. Regarding Oregon Street closing, Robert Schenck with Stewart on behalf of Duke University requests to permanently close a 1,794.18 linear foot portion of Oregon Street located between Campus Drive and Irwin Road. The right of way is currently dedicated and improved. If this request is approved, the closed right of way acreage will be added to the adjacent parcels owned by Duke University as shown on the associated street closing flat attachment for. The planning director stated at the work session that staff has been working with the applicant to maintain public access. However, staff would like to clarify that note seven is specifically limited to unimpeded vehicular access for city and county fire and emergency service vehicles. This request meets applicable ordinance requirements. All comments have been addressed, including the conversion of Oregon Street sewer and water to Duke ownership. Staff recommends the permanent closure of Oregon Street. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you very much, Ms. Struthers. You've heard the comments, you've heard the report from staff and I'm gonna now declare this public hearing open. We have one person to speak on this item, Mr. Robert Schenck. We're gonna hear Mr. Schenck and then colleagues, you all will remember that this is the item that we had discussed keeping the continuing of this public hearing to another day. But we'll go ahead and hear Mr. Schenck and if there's anyone else that would like to speak on this and then we'll take that, we'll take that up. Mr. Schenck, first of all, let me just ask, is there anyone else here who would like to be heard on item 21? Anyone who'd like to be heard on item 21? All right, Mr. Schenck, welcome. Good evening. Mr. Mayor, I reside at 26, 27 University Drive here in Durham. I did not come prepared with any specific comments, but here to answer any questions you may have, I understand you just said about wanting to continue the item and I'll leave it at that. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schenck. Colleagues, I'm gonna recommend, as I did at the work session, that we continue this public hearing. This involves the transportation system having to do with Central Campus of Duke University near the light rail. And I'm gonna be recommending that we continue this public hearing. I'll accept any comments at this point from council members if there are any. All right, I'm gonna continue this public hearing. I will keep the public hearing. I'll do a date certain. And we will continue it to manager says a date certain. Let's see what a month from now be. I'll make it the end of April. April, the first meeting in May, which would be May 6th. We're gonna continue this public hearing and keep the hearing open until May the 6th. Mr. Schenck. All right. Anybody else on this? Okay, thank you. We'll now move on to item 22, zoning map change 1228 Carroll Street. Good evening. Emily Struthers again with the planning department. Regarding 1228 Carroll Street, a request for a zoning map change has been received from just Brandus with CASA or a parcel located at 1228 Carroll Street, totaling 5.471 acres. The site is presently zoned residential urban five, RU five and residential urban five with duplexes allowed, RU five two. Ms. Brandus proposes to change this designation to residential urban multifamily with a development plan, RU MD for a maximum of 65 multifamily residential units. Key commitments include limiting the building height, providing a greenway easement and pedestrian improvements. The parcel is currently designated as medium density residential on the future land use map, which is consistent with the proposed zoning change. The Durham Planning Commission at their January 8th, 2019 meeting, recommended approval of the proposed RU MD zoning district by a vote of 13 to zero. Staff determines that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Two motions are required for this application. The first is to adopt a consistency statement and the second is for the zoning ordinance. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Struthers. You have heard the report from staff and I'm now going to declare this public hearing open. And I will first ask if there are questions or comments for staff from members of the council. Ms. Struthers, I have one question. Could you please explain the proffer concerning the entrances to the property? I wasn't quite quite clear on the history of that and where it ended up after I read the material. Sure. So during the planning commission meeting, concerns arose regarding the access, specifically off of Lakewood Avenue. Initially it was considered proposed to be changed to a write-in, write-out, but that after discussion with transportation was decided was not favorable. And so the applicant has instead shifted that access point off of Lakewood, specified as access B, so that it is less of an issue with the adjacent neighbor's windows and then has also specified that as an optional site access. So they will be required to provide access A, which is off of Carroll Street, but the access off of Lakewood is not required and is optional. When you say it's optional, is it optional to the developer? Yes. Okay, so they can choose to do it or not do it and if they do it, that has to be in the position which the proffer indicates. Yes. So you've been worked out in concert with the neighbors. I, that has been worked out through, with transportation and the applicant, I can't speak to the involvement that the neighbors have had in that decision. All right, thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Struthers before we hear from our speakers? All right, thank you. We have two people signed up to speak on this item, both proponents, Jess Brandis and Mary Jane Sada. Is there anyone else that would like to speak either for or against this rezoning? Any proponents or opponents? All right, if not, then we'll hear from our two speakers and we'll start with you, Ms. Brandis. We'll three minutes do it for you? Great, welcome. Good evening, I'm Jess Brandis with CASA. I'm joined by Mary Jane Sada, our CEO, and Dan Joule, who's our site consultant. They're available to answer questions as am I, but are not planning to speak unless we have questions. CASA's very excited to get here tonight. We are an organization that develops affordable housing. We've been doing so in the triangle for 27 years. We've been doing so in Durham for over 10, have 135 units of affordable housing at Durham and are very excited about this development, which will be 65 more homes for Durham families and individuals who have experienced homelessness. It'll be developed over time. I'm really just here to answer questions about that. Thank you, and you have it. Great, Ms. Sada, are you planning to speak as well or are you just here for questions? Okay, great. Thank you, Ms. Brandis. I'll just begin by saying what a great project. I wanna thank our deputy city manager, Keith Chadwell, and the others who helped to drive the process that's got us to where we are. We had to, as many of you all are aware, this land became available, and we had to have a pretty quick turnaround to get applications in from our nonprofits. They had to talk about what their priorities were and affordable housing was prioritized by the federal government as their number one priority, and we were fortunate enough to have many or several very good proposals. And I feel certain that the best one was the one that the city supported, which was the CASA application. So we're very, very excited about this, and I think it's gonna be a great project. And I'm also happy to say that I have talked to many of the neighbors there and they're very supportive as well. So this is great. And just appreciate CASA and all you do in Durham. You all are just a real force for good. So thank you. I'm gonna ask now colleagues. Yeah, Council Member Alston. Thank you, good question. Also very excited about this project. I had heard from a few residents who were concerned about lead abatement. And so I'm sure you did as well. And so I'm just curious if you could kind of describe your level of engagement with them around the requirements that you have to meet to demolish there. Sure, yeah, the property was originally developed in the 60s. So the two buildings, there was four buildings total two were developed in the 60s. So the expectation is that those do have lead. We'll be demolishing all the structures once we retain ownership of the property. And we've committed to doing what's called a wet demolition in terms of minimizing dust and things like that that would cause lead to be in the atmosphere. So we've talked to a abatement contractor. There's also asbestos. So we've talked to our contractors who are used to dealing with those sorts of materials in older buildings and making sure that that's all abated before any demolition occurs so that none of that becomes airborne. Right, and did you communicate that kind of with the folks in that area? Yes. Okay, thank you for doing that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Halston. Any other questions or comments? Council members, colleagues? All right, thank you so much. Is there anyone else that would like to be heard on this item? Is there anyone else that would like to be heard on item 22? If not, I'm going to declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back before the council. We will need to take up two different motions. The first is the motion to adopt a consistency statement. I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the consistency statement. Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Motion passes 61. Thank you so much. I'm sorry. Motion passes 60. Okay, yes. Council Member Caballero is not here. Yeah, great, thank you. And now we will need a motion to adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. So moved. Second. And moved and seconded that we adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. Madam Clerk, would you please open the vote? Please close the vote. And the motion passes 60. Thank you so much. Alrighty, and now we will move to item 23 and congratulations and thank you. We're looking forward to a great, affordable housing project. Thank you so much. And now we'll move to item 23 and this is the zoning map change, revisions to text commitments for Panther Creek, plan development, residential, PDR rezoning. And I will now ask that we can hear from staff. Thank you, Mr. Others, welcome. Certainly, thank you. Emily Struthers again with the planning department and this is regarding the revisions to text commitments for Panther Creek. The city council approved a zoning map change and development plan for Panther Creek on August 7th, 2002. This was legacy case PO 174. This is a 161.162 acre track of land located about northeast Durham on the east side of Burton Road. The legacy case called for a maximum of 272 dwelling units. The first few phases of the development have been completed. The applicant Donald's ever of summit design engineering is requesting revisions to text commitments. The requested text commitment revisions include removing the 50 foot transitional use area and removing connections and improvements to Bragg Road and Mannix Road. A text commitment has been added limiting the maximum number of units to 90 units east of Ardsley Drive until a second access is provided in that area east of Ardsley Drive. No changes are proposed to the rest of the approved development plan. It has come to staff's attention that Burton Road, the site's main connection is located in a flood plain. It is possible that in the event of flooding, access could be limited to Ardsley Drive. Per the unified development ordinance, any revisions to text commitments are considered a significant change and require a new hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission prior to the case being considered by city council. The Durham Planning Commission at their January 3, 2019 meeting recommended denial of the request by a vote of 13 to zero. Staff determines that their requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Two motions are required for this application. The first is required to adopt a consistency statement and the second is for the zoning ordinance. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Others. You've heard the report from staff and I'm gonna declare this public hearing open. And first I'm gonna ask if there are any members of the council that have questions or comments for staff at this time. Hearing none, I'm going to ask now that we hear from the speakers. I have three people who've signed up to speak on this item. One proponent, Don Siever, and two opponents, Don Parrish and Sherman Barnett. Is there anyone else that would like to be heard on item 23? Is there anyone else that would like to be heard on this item? Alrighty. With these three speakers, in our public hearings on rezonings, we give equal time to proponents and opponents. So I'm going to give you, Mr. Siever, six minutes and I'll give each of the opponents three minutes. Welcome, Mr. Siever. Thank you. And sir, you can also reserve some of your time if you'd like. You don't have to use all at once. Good evening, mayors, member of council. My name is Don Siever. I'm a senior project manager with Summit Design and Engineering Headquartered at 503 Metal and Drive, Hillsborough. I'd like to briefly talk about the Panther Creek three and four text amendments. We have three text amendments change request. One is the city gross change from 60 to 90 lots. The second is also a city gross remove manager, Bragg wrote access and modify the 50 foot transition buffer. Excuse me, Mr. Siever. Can I just interrupt you for one second? All right, these proffers that you're making now that are different from what you said to Planning Commission. I'm not sure exactly what you're telling us about this point. At the previous meeting. Yes, sir. Planning Commission was voted 13-0 against because there wasn't clarity on what we're asking for. Yes, sir. So we asked for some exhibits to show to just further explain it. And at the end, we will be making a proffer for the transition buffers. Okay, thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. No problem. For the request one, city gross 60 versus 90 lots. The notes 10 and 11 on the approved development plan listed a maximum of 60 building permits before a connection to Manix or Bragg Road is made. We added note 22, which is a maximum of 90 units east of Ardsley will be permitted until access is provided. Our justification is because the current EDO requires a second egress after 90 certificate of occupancy is for issue. With the added note 22, we exceed the EDO requirements with three egress points, Burton, Ardsley, and likely Manix. Ardsley Road is not in the flood plain and allows egress separately from Burton Road, which is in the flood plain. This, the Panther Creek parcel was highlighted in red. A large portion of the property is bounded by flood plain from Panther Creek on the northern part of the site. On the right side is where Burton Road is. Ardsley is in the middle left and Manix and Bragg Roads are to the right. Our second request is to remove the mandatory Bragg Road access. We want to modify our note 12, which is removing references to connect into Bragg Road, but keep Ardsley Road commitments. Our justification is the current EDO allows for alternate means of egress when environmental factors are present. Making a connection to Bragg Road would require significant impacts to wetlands and streams, especially because such connectivity would be at a 90 or a 45 degree angle versus perpendicular. Right away will be dedicated in the event that a future connection is warranted. The wetland map shows a large portion of the site that is in jurisdictional wetlands. Our plan is to avoid the majority of the wetlands by building a roadway crossing in the middle. This is in between the wetlands and the Duke energy power line towers. In summary, we propose to make the connection east of Ardsley, but once the flexibility of connecting to either Manix or Redwood Road, depending upon how negotiations go with the adjacent property owners. The development plan is showing the entrance road in the 100 foot stream buffer and lots within the 100 year floodplain and wetlands. The site is bisected by the Duke power line that is 200 foot wide easement. We will talk about the 54 transition buffers in a moment. This sketch shows the revised layout and possible connections. On the right hand side is where Manix Road is and we're showing three possible access point locations. This is just a graphics. We're not committing to any of these, but we're just showing what our various options are that we would like to proceed with. The right-of-way dedication on Brad Road in the middle is something that we are committing to is part of the overall site plan. The last request that we have is to modify the 50 foot transitional buffer. The committed element is the transitional use area from 50 foot to either 10 foot or 30 foot depending upon the location or justification is the current UDO provides for either a 10 foot or no buffer between different residential uses. Largely lots would be a zero foot buffer and Manix lots would be 10 foot buffer. Our proposal for a 10 foot buffer is in order to fit a roadway and lots adjacent to person road access. No houses are currently in these areas. The proposal was for a 50, excuse me, the proposal was for a 30 foot buffer everywhere else. This quick graphic shows that in green is where based on the current UDO, the 10 foot buffer is required and in yellow is where the R20 zoning or no buffer is required. What we're proposing is on the area from Burt Road up to Ardsley Road to do a 10 foot buffer and everywhere else to do a 30 foot buffer. This is all we have and I would like to hold in your remaining time for rebuttal comments. Thank you. Mr. Sever, I do have questions but I think I'm sure my colleagues do as well but I think we'll hear now from the opponents and we appreciate you being here. And now we'll hear from, we have two opponents, John Parrish and Sherman Barnett. You each have three minutes and I'll begin first with Mr. Parrish. Welcome, Mr. Parrish. Thank you. I'm John Parrish, 2704 Burt Road. My property adjoins this property to be developed. And thank you guys for inviting us in and letting us speak tonight. We're opposing this buffer. They want to change the buffer, it was a 50 foot buffer everywhere undisturbed and they want to drop it down to 30 foot. This is very, very wet property. We have flooding on Burton Road and the water running off of Burton Road goes back down Panther Creek to the other road here. And they don't have an access to get out of this. They want to be going to build 90 houses and they don't have an access to get out of this area. And so they need to build a road to come out of this area in case it floods during the building and buying and selling. Of course you can't get back out of Burton Road because it floods up waist deep. Sheriff's Department can verify that for you. They go out and put flares out when this area is flooded. And also, it won't largely drive. They say in the largely drive it's not in the flood zone but largely drive does flood down at Panther Creek. Partially drive runs straight into Panther Creek and where they want to bring all the traffic out, largely drive until they can get an additional exit to come out of the property. Well, largely drive floods, Burton Road floods and they want to do managed drive it's going to take a lot of work to do managed drive. And Burton, Bragg Road is going to require a bridge that does environmentally problems. And so we're opposing this because we feel that the runoff if they take the buffer from 50 foot to 30 foot it's going to cause more runoff. This is wet, wet, wet property. And we don't care how many houses this man builds he wants to build 300, he can build 300. I think he's dropped it down to 130. But we don't, we're not opposing him. We just want these people, this is not our property but this is our neighborhood. So we want these people to be able to get out of this wet zone when heavy rains come. And the only way they can do it is to put an additional road out to the Redwood Road area and the Redwood Road area runs straight to interstate 85 which is all great roads and there's very little traffic on it. So we just oppose it currently what he's trying to do at this time. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Thank you. You may have questions for you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And we'll now hear from Mr. Barnett. Mr. Barnett, welcome. If you could give us your name and address and you also have three minutes. Ladies, gentlemen, I'm Sherman Barnett. I've lived on ours for 50 years. Burton Road is getting very congested. In the mornings, afternoon, you can't hardly get out. If you go down Burton Road, it deads into a gistry. If you want to make a left to come to town, the traffic coming off for 85, you have maybe 20 or 30 cars lined up that you can't turn left. Burton Road dead ends at Gistry. And if you decide to go to town, you got a problem. At the developed entrance came, if the developed entrance comes off of Redwood where traffic is not as heavy, it wouldn't be, would be much better. If you go down Maddox in the morning, up down Burton in the morning in the evening, you got a problem. Redwood Road, I can leave my house in Lawrence and drive to the trash dump, and you don't see but two or three cars. It's like John stated, Redwood Road runs straight to 85. It's not heavily trafficked. They just put in a new bridge down there. If you did a study of the traffic congestion on Burton Road, you would not allow Burton Road to be the entrance to the developer. Burton Road deads in Redwood does not dead yet. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burnett. I'm gonna now ask, is there anyone else here who would like to be heard on this item? Is there anyone else that would like to be heard on this item? Okay. Council members, questions and comments at this point? Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Samir. I have a question for the applicant. Thank you. So in your presentation when you gave us the justifications for each of your requests, the justifications were just that the UDO allows you to do a different thing, but I'm not clear on why or what benefit you're trying to receive by changing these things. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? Yes. Can we call up this one slide that I have up? Yeah, we can see your slideshow. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. What this is showing is where the floodplains are. And as a gentleman, he was concerned about Ardsley being flooded. Ardsley Drive is higher than the Panther Creek is. So that with us making a connection into Ardsley Drive in the event that Burton Road becomes flooded, then we would have that secondary access to get out. Bragg Road itself, in the development plan there was a commitment to physically connect in Bragg Road. There are a lot of environmental constraints, mainly a stream that's running in there, that will preclude us from making that particular connection. So with this particular text amendment, what we were asking for was the connection in the Bragg Road be removed for environmental purposes. It also made a commitment to physically connect into Mannix Road. What we wanted to do was just to have the flexibility to connect either to Mannix Road or to Redwood Road, depending upon how negotiations would go with those individual property owners. The other thing that we mentioned was with the 50-foot transition buffer that Ares was pointed out in what's kind of shown on this particular slide, a large portion of the site is in environmental constraints, wetlands and floodplains. Over 35% of the 110 acres is in wetlands or floodplains. So by providing a reduction in the buffer from 50-foot down to 30-foot, the 30-foot would still be an undisturbed buffer, but that would just allow us to move the roadways out of either the stream buffer or just move everything a little bit away from the environmentally sensitive areas so all of our lots would be outside those zones. Okay. When this was approved originally in 2002, were those environmental concerns discussed? It's hard to say because it's back in 2002 and I can't specifically state that. Since then, there are new stream buffer requirements, the 100-foot stream buffer and other city of door requirements that are impacting the site. Okay, so the current development plan is not in compliance with our updated stream buffer requirements. As best we can, can tell. The original plan, this was the level of detail that's on this plan and it's really difficult to see. Okay, okay. And you're not prepared to make a commitment about those additional access points you wanna wait and decide at some future point where those access points would be? Correct, what we would like to propose is that East of Ardsley Road, prior to the 90 CO, that we would make a connection either to Manics or to Redwood Drive. But like I said, we really don't wanna commit it right now because we haven't negotiated with any of the adjacent property owners. There's no right-of-way right now that is dedicated from this particular parcel to Manics Drive, so we would have to get some private easements for that. What are you committed to now? I'm sorry, I'm getting the road names confused. If you were to build this project right now under the current zoning and development plan, what connections are you required to do? Right now, we're required to Burton Road, Ardsley Road, Rye Road, and to Manics. Okay. Four points. Okay. So you're saying you would still do one of them you're just not gonna tell us which one? That's correct. Okay, thank you. Well, you would do more than one of them. What would you be doing now? What are you committing to now in terms of those connections? I'm confused. I'm sorry. To Bragg or to Burton Road, which is the main access, to Ardsley Drive, which is connection of the existing right-of-way, and a third access point somewhere east of the power line, either to Manics or to Redwood. Okay, so three out of the four. That's correct. Okay. All right, thank you. And thank you, Madam President. Good questions. Other comments and questions at this point, either for the applicant or the opponents or for staff. I have a question, Mr. Others. Could you characterize for me? I've read the Planning Commission, I read the Planning Commission comments. And I wondered though, if you could characterize for me the, how you would, let's just say, so for Mr. Sever, it's unusual that we get a 13 to nothing vote at the Planning Commission against the project. And so I'm trying to understand the situation that led to that. Hang on, let me just ask Mr. Others. I wondered if you would, Mr. Others, if you would like to characterize for me, what your, how do you think that the Planning Commission saw this and what was the underlying problem or problems? My understanding of the issues raised by the Planning Commission were concerns related to the access, as it relates to the environmental with the reduced buffer, as well as just kind of the access focused off of Burton, as well as the, they were concerned of the uncertainty of where that third access point would go. I would say those were the main issues. They sort of relate to each other, but are also separate. And what would you say and from what you heard from Mr. Sever, do you feel like he has solved any of those issues to the, would you say that the Planning Commission raised, is there important issues? Are you asking if, so it seems like he's doing the exact same thing you brought to the Planning Commission vis-a-vis the access points. So yeah, so access points have not changed. I guess a clarification on the connection for MANIX as shown on the existing development plan, there's not a right-of-way that they can directly connect to along MANIX. And so there is certainly that uncertainty between would they connect to MANIX or would they connect to Redwood because of needing to sort those things out. How about the buffer? So it sounds like he's proffering 10 or 30, depending on the location of a buffer as opposed to none, versus the previously approved 50 feet. Yeah, and so, but you have no sense of the Planning Commission's thoughts about the size of the buffer and that sort of thing. We didn't discuss the size of the buffer at that time. Okay, thank you. Mr. Sever, so talk to me about this vote at the Planning Commission, and I noticed you were anxious to do so, so maybe. Yeah, at the Planning Commission meeting, we didn't have any graphics at all. And what had happened was, they were just talking, it's very confusing without seeing the overall plan for the development plan, where Brad Road was, where MANIX Road was, so that we were trying to explain to them, but without an actual graphic, they wouldn't be able to see it. When we prepared this presentation this evening, we'd work with staff to say that, this is graphics only, we're not making any commitments to this because if we're making a commitment to this then we had to go through a different procedure than just the text amendment. So what we try to do is just to clarify everything that shows, okay, we understand what the city wants, and we talked with the Transportation Department, and they were fine with what we're proposing here, but it's just a matter of getting the text cleaned up from this particular development plan to allow us to do what we would like. So I'm gonna ask the opponents, I'm gonna ask Mr. Parrish and Mr. Barnett if y'all could come back for a minute. I'm gonna read you a comment from one of our planning commissioners, Tom Miller. I encourage the city council either to deny this is a rezoning request or to postpone it, so the developer can work with the neighbors and with his planners and engineers to create a new development plan to provide better detail on how the connections, whether they ultimately be three or four will work. Such a plan can show some of the buffer area might be redeployed to make the project's Burton Road connection flood proof, and how some of the buffer area might be retained to diminish the neighbor's anxiety about the project. So I just would like a comment from you, Mr. Parrish. I heard you say you weren't opposed to the housing, but your concern is about the access to the egress and the flood. Yes, sir. And there's not four exits to that thing. They're telling you Bragg Road, Manich Road, Arsley Drive, and Burton Road, that's not an all those are not option, Burton Road floods, Arsley Drive and Arsley Drive floods. Manich Road is, they make, they make and use that. Bragg Road, they got to build a bridge on that to use that and it's an environmental problem and that's out. So I mean, they're misleading you a little bit here. So I'm trying to tell you exactly what I know, but they can't use Bragg Road, but they can use the Manich Road. So that would be the outlet, the only outlet that these people would have in a heavy rain or storm, hurricane or anything like that, these people would only have one outlet to get out of this division and that would be the Manich Road. And that's gonna take a lot of improvement to just upgrade that to where it can be used. Okay, Mr. Barnett, could you comment? You've heard the developer, I wanna just get your sense of, Mr. Parr said he's not opposed his development, his problem is with the access, the egress, the flooding and so forth. Is that also your position? Right, now Burton Road, if y'all would go out and look at it and they would do some study, Burton Road is getting congested to start with. And coming off of 85, you can go down Burton Road, you're dead in. You got traffic, come off 85, sometime it's 20 cars lined up. And if you decide to go to Durham, you'll set 10, 15 minutes. Now, checking out Redwood Road, I'll take the garbage off about once a week. You won't make three cars. If coming off of Redwood Road, I don't think you'd have a problem by spending some more money. But they stopped that many cars on it and then Redwood goes straight to 85. That's not a dead end. Our problem is Burton Road, if this happens and it comes out on Burton Road, you're gonna have a big mess. All right, thank you. It's not against building a house, it's the mess you get in. I appreciate it. And if you do some studies like that, you'll see something. Thank you. I just wanted to be clear on that, thank you. Maybe Mr. Judge, Mr. Judge, welcome. What are your, could you tell us your thoughts about the access and egress to this proposed development and your thoughts on that? So yes, Bill Judge, transportation. So we did discuss with the applicant before the Planning Commission meeting of the proposed changes. And as they indicated, right now the commitment in 2002 limited the area to basically 60 units prior to an additional point of access with the changes that were adopted with the UDO. That was the policy or the procedure at the time. We now allow up to 90. So that's the reason for the change that they're requesting from 60 to 90 because the ordinance now allows more than was allowed in 2002. So we limited that at Ardsley. The existing development plan, it's a little difficult to read, but it shows basically the connection at Bragg, which they're indicating there are a stream crossing that would present a problem. And the stream's actually, I believe, just off the site where the crossing is. The existing Bragg doesn't stub to the property. They would have to build a portion of Bragg offsite on the adjacent property within the existing right away, get that stream crossing and provide that point. So that's where the applicant has indicated that they don't believe that connection is feasible. The connection that was more in the center directly to Mannex, it stubs directly to an existing small single family lot. So in order to connect directly to Mannex at that location, they would have to buy an offsite property. The third one further to the north that a lot of folks have referred to as Redwood, that stubs to a larger property, but still doesn't stub to an existing street. So that's why we recommend it to them to craft the note in a way that basically just said, you'll have to provide one of those once you go above 90, not knowing which one might be the most viable for them, given those three constraints. Thank you very much. Other comments and questions, Council Member Friedman? Yes, the question would be for staff, specifically around what would happen if the development was, the development moved forward and the street that was mentioned, that's higher than, I think it was Ardmore. If that street were to flood and the houses around it were to flood, who would be responsible? Comes to Calvary. Mr. Judge may have to help me with this. This is Pat Young with the Planning Department. Thank you for your question, Council Member Friedman. Burton Road is an NCDOT road. Ardsley Drive is also, to the best of our knowledge, an NCDOT road. Tonight is the first time we're hearing about flooding on Ardsley Road. We have no information or evidence, certainly not questioning the speaker, but our best assessment is that Ardsley Road would be accessible from the subject site if there was high water on Burton. And so any improvements or modifications to either Ardsley or Burton would be a responsibility of DOT. And how successful are we getting DOT to alleviate that flooding? Yeah, Bill Judge, transportation. I don't know the specifics of this location because it is in the county. DOT does have maintenance programs where they replace culverts and other measures, I guess, to address flooding, but where this would be in their priority or need, I really don't know at this point. So could I ask if it would be, if you felt like based on that information in the best interest of the surrounding community that would be flooding or would be subjected to that flooding if you thought it was a good idea? I really can't answer that because I really don't know the extent of the flooding at this location. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Mr. Saver. Yes, I would like to respond to the flooding question that you had. The City of Durham had updated the FEMA maps and that went into, I think it was September of last year. And so they've got a current 100-year floodplain boundary. And what we're proposing to do is to keep all the roadway and all the lots outside the 100-year boundary that was changed recently. Is there any conversation around how much impervious surface would be decreased? Overall, the project is going to be less than 24% impervious by the regulation. And what we're looking at was around 16% impervious based on our calculations right now. Thank you. Let me just, I'll tell you what I'm struggling with, colleagues and applicant and neighbors, which is I have not heard that the neighbors opposed the developments. They're concerned with the access in the egress. And that is the same thing I read in the planning commission comments. And I'll tell you that I don't feel right now personally and my colleagues may differ equipped to make a wise decision about this if there's the potential for something to be worked out where the development can go forward but the access in egress problems can be solved. And I will tell you, I think this, to me, this is a much more of a planning commission kind of decision and something that they need to advise us on. They've already advised us by 13 to nothing vote. But on the other hand, several of the commissioners, I read the comments and I hear the comments from staff that this is something that could potentially be worked out. You came to them with no drawings apparently. I understand maybe you didn't want to have them be committed elements but we've got some drawings now and I'm just wondering if, I'll just ask the applicant if you felt like going back to the planning commission would be a useful endeavor and that you could work with the neighbors to try to work something out that was mutually agreeable and beneficial. So Mr. Sever, do you want to comment on that? We would respectfully decline. We would just really like to vote on it now. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And I'll finally, my final question is for staff and then I'll get you, Council Member Middleton which is just Mrs. Struthers. So if we don't approve these changes, then what would be, what are the rights of the applicant existing on the property now? They would be able to develop as the existing development plan indicates. And why don't you describe a little bit, a few of the features of that for me. Sure, so those text commitments listed on the cover sheet are the primary elements of the development plan that are committed. So the design elements as well as the general site notes. So their maximum units have been set. Those connections as they have indicated those would be required tied to the 60 building permits. And then same thing with the the trans-use area would remain as initially shown. Okay, thank you very much. All right, Council Member Middleton. I'll withdraw the request, Mr. Mayor. Okay, any other questions or comments at this point? Anyone else like to be heard on this item? Alrighty, I'm gonna now declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back before the council. Let me find the item in a second here. Mr. Mayor. Council Member Rice. I am happy to make a motion to adopt a consistency statement as required by statute for the purposes of making a motion on that matter. Alrighty, there's a motion that we adopt a consistency statement. It's been seconded. With the intent to not approve. All right, thank you very much. Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote on the motion to adopt the consistency statement? Close the vote. The motion fails. Five to one with Council Member Middleton voting in favor. Thank you. And now we'll have motion two to adopt an ordinance amending the UDO. I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. The motion fails, six zero. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Thank you for being here. I call all of you all. Alrighty, we'll now move to item 24, consolidated annexation item. Ellis Road, phase three. Ms. Sunyak, welcome. Good evening, Jamie Sunyak with the Planning Department. Request for a utility extension agreement and voluntary annexation have been received from Patrick Biker Morningstar Law Group for a 108 acre parcel of land located generally at 3714 Angier Avenue. Excuse me, Ms. Sunyak, just one second. Folks, we're trying to have another public hearing here. All right, thank you very much. Go ahead, Ms. Sunyak. Should I start over? No, you're good. Thank you. The annexation is for a contiguous expansion of city limits. However, there will be a 17 acre donut hall created to the west. Approval of the annexation petition and zoning would become effective on March 31st, 2019. In addition, the applicant has applied for a future land use map amendment for 137 acres of land from industrial to low density residential and a zoning map change from rural residential and industrial light to plan development residential 3.575 for 100 acres with an associated development plan which would allow up to 350 residential units. Map 1B in the staff report depicts the locations of each of these different applications. Key commitments include limiting the number of residential units, limiting the impervious surface to 70%, various transportation improvements as identified by NCDOT and DDOT in accordance with the TIA. The Durham Planning Commission at their January 8th, 2019 meeting recommended approval of the proposed by a vote of 12 to one. Staff recommends approval of the extensions of the utility with the annexation because the project is deemed revenue positive by the Budget Management Service Department and there have been no operational impacts identified with providing services. The Public Works and Water Management Departments have determined that the existing water mains have the capacity for the proposed development. Staff recommends that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Four motions are required for this application. The first would be to adopt an ordinance annexing the property and entering into a utility extension agreement. The second would be to adopt a resolution amending the future land use map. The third to adopt a consistency statement and the fourth would be for the zoning ordinance. I will be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you very much, Ms. Soniak. You've heard the report from staff and I'm now gonna declare this public hearing open and I'll first ask if there are any questions for staff by members of the council. Any questions for staff? Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You mentioned the 17 acre donut hole. What is in that hole? Jamie Soniak, it is currently vacant. Thanks. Thank you. I always wonder what people that listen to our meetings wonder when we talk about donut holes. 17 acre donut hole, this is also my dear. And of course it's empty, it's a donut hole. Right, exactly. Thank you, Ms. Soniak and Ms. Druthers. I just wanna appreciate the great job you all do. Thank you so much. We have two people who are signed up to speak on this item. One is Mr. Patrick Biker and the other is Ms. Teresa Jones. Both are proponents. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on item 24? Is anyone else here tonight who would like to speak on item 24? Alrighty. Mr. Biker, I'm gonna give you and Ms. Jones together six minutes. And if more than that is needed, we can discuss it. It won't be necessary. Good evening, Mayor Schuhl, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson, members of the city council. My name is Patrick Biker. I'm with Morningstar Law Group. I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm here tonight representing Ellis Road, W-E-H-L-P for Ellis Road, phase three. Along with me tonight are Ryan Akers and Stephen Dorn of McAdams, their site design and engineering firm. Rhino Stevenson of Raimi Kemp, our traffic engineer, and Eric Rifkin, the assistant vice president for Ellis Road, W-E-H. This agenda item that's before you tonight represents the last 100 acre phase of a master plan development that consists of commercial apartments, townhouses, and single family homes. All within a new 350 acre neighborhood for Durham. The apartments along Ellis Road are built and fully leased up. The commercial sites are ready to go and the other residential sections are approved and moving forward with construction. It is important to note that this Ellis Road neighborhood today is providing quality housing affordable for what is sometimes referred to as the missing middle. As the townhouses here are priced starting at $220,000 and the single family homes are priced starting at $280,000. Phase three will allow us to continue our strong efforts to expand the housing supply for this important market segment. And what really makes phase three important for Durham's growth, in addition to the overall neighborhood, is its central location with convenient commutes to downtown, Duke, and RTP. Since about 20 people move to Durham every day, it is imperative to keep our housing supply increasing, especially when, as is the case here, we are creating workforce housing that is located near our core employment centers. This development checks that box and is a very positive achievement for Durham. Last of all, I wanna thank Jamie for an outstanding staff report on this item and we respectfully ask for your approval. Our team will be happy to answer any questions you may have and we thank you for your time tonight. Thank you very much, Mr. Biker. And now we will hear from Teresa Jones. And Ms. Jones, you have three minutes. Is that sufficient? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Teresa and Skow Jones. I live currently at 1010 East Oak Drive, but my home that I grew up in is on the corner of Glover Road and the access that this development is supposed to put out onto Glover Road. My parents built a house there in 1965 and it is a road beside it, but it had been an undeveloped road since they built the home until now. So it just went to their back door to the most part of the back of their lot and that's where the road ended. So it really became a driveway. But the concern that we had is that my 92 year old father still lives in that home and he every day goes into work, five days a week, so he drives and he is self-sufficient, he lives alone, he's in good health. Our problem was when this first came to light that that was where they were planning to put access, was I concerned that that cuts no longer is it a driveway, it will be a road and it makes his patio be the only access onto that road where he parks his car. Our main concern was that he would have to back into that traffic to come out. So we have Patrick and Mr. Ryan. What's his last name? Anyway, they have met with us on several occasions about our concerns of his safety in that situation and we have talked about they've given us the diagram of the landscaping that they're gonna do in that area, which is very beautiful, but the main concern was the driveway. So we have talked to them about and they have agreed to putting in a half circle drive so he can pull out frontwards and not back into that area. So with that concern, we no longer have any concerns for his safety, we are in support of the project as they have outlined it to us and we are very thankful for the many times that they have met with us and I just wanted the council to know that. Thank you very much, Ms. Jones. I appreciate you coming down to say that. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard on item 24? Anyone else who would like to be heard on item 24? Alrighty, I'm now gonna ask if there are any questions or comments by members of the council. Just one comment. That's member Freeman. It has taken us so long to get to this point where you actually talk to the neighbors and figure out what might be the issue. And I really appreciate Morningstar Law Group moving ahead with that process and making sure to note what the main issue was and not being the development, but access to a driveway that, it just makes such sense. I'm so thankful. I figured out a while ago, there's a reason why we have two of these and one of these. Got that down. Thank you. Thank you, council member. Any other questions or comments? Council member Reese. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanna thank the applicant for going through this process in a way that was respectful of the concerns of the folks that live nearby. I also wanna thank staff for their hard work in getting this to us. I also wanna call out two of our planning commissioners for what I thought were just truly extraordinary comments. First, the one that really rang a lot of bells with me and second, the one that I'm ultimately gonna vote in accord with. The first is Commissioner Baker who wrote, I thought a good warning for us as a council and as a city about where we're going and the kinds of things we need to keep in mind as we move forward. He called out the fact that this rezoning would tear down on 100 acres of forest for building 350 single family units and this at a time when our planning commission is considering a proposal that would in many parts of our city free up developers to build lots of different kinds of housing of different types of densities to meet the needs for our growing city. Commissioner Baker called it sprawl which I think for the reasons that, excuse me, commissioner Miller indicated is probably not necessarily that accurate but I truly respect having that voice on our planning commission who will tell us that version of our story so that we can pay attention to it and keep it in mind as we go forward. Having said that, I thought commissioner Miller had the better of the argument in this particular situation. Most intriguing was his last paragraph which I have to admit I'd never fully considered the implications of what's happening at RTP or what he referred to as RTP city or even RTP bill in his comments which I thought was interesting. The fact is RTP will soon begin to look very, very different than it does now and will need to accommodate all sorts of residential development both within it and around its borders. And this particular project is well positioned and in fact I suspect intentionally positioned to give that kind of residential option to those folks. And for that reason and because the proposed zoning designation is much more amenable than the one where we're at now, I intend to vote for the measure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. I'll just say that I had, I appreciate there that your comments, council member Reese, I had written in my notes as well particularly interesting comments by two planning commissioners and was planning to cite some of those which you did and I appreciate it. I thought they were exceptionally thoughtful and interesting and not opposed to each other but took a different position on this item. I guess I would just say that I was particularly interested in Nate Baker's comments about the, as we think about the UDO, this mix of housing types that he discusses and there are other aspects of the development that he discusses, not just of this development but of the kind of development that we wanted in general that I thought was really excellent and I'm sure our planning staff is thinking about these things and also agree that what you said about Tom Miller's comments about RTPville and what I noticed that note that he also said something very important about it which it's, it is tax-privileged. That is to say we aren't able to annex it if it's inside the RTP area by state law and it's going to be very interesting to see what challenges this creates for us in the future as well as opportunities. Mr. Beiker, I note that this development is adding 86 children to Durham Public Schools and as you know, it's often customary for our developers to consider proffers of $500 per child to our Durham Public Schools. I wondered if you all had, if your plan had considered that. Yes, Mayor, thank you for asking. This development is definitely targeted to attract families with children to the single family homes and to create the recreational amenities and so our team would like to proffer a donation to Durham Public Schools in the amount of, if I have the math right, $43,000 based on $500 per new student. So I'll word Smith that and get it to the planning department in the morning. We appreciate that. Thank you and have you considered as well the proffer to the Affordable Housing Fund? They're adding 350 residential units and I just wondered if you would, if you're, you all had considered that proffer as well. We did consider it. We're not in a position to proffer in that regard. Mayor Schuyl, this, one of the most difficult things to do is not the most difficult thing to do is to create this housing for the missing middle because if you think about it, the infrastructure, the impact fees, it's all the same for the house whether you sell it for $280,000 or $480,000 or even more. And so given the infrastructure and the need to hit this price point, we're not able to proffer for the affordable housing fund but we're proud to be providing housing for the missing middle as I mentioned in my comments. Thank you. All right. Are there any other comments? Anyone else like to be heard on this item? Are there any other comments or questions by members of the council? If not, I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back before the council. This will take four motions. First, we'll need a motion to adopt an ordinance annexing Ellis Road three, aka Ellis Road phase three. So moved. We moved and seconded that we adopt the ordinance for the annexation. Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. The motion passes 6-0. Thank you. Now we need a motion to adopt the resolution of many of the future land use map. So moved. It's been moved and seconded that we amend the future land use map. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. Motion passes 6-0. Thank you. Now we'll need a motion to adopt the consistency stateless. So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the consistency stateless. Madam Clerk, would you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Motion passes 6-0. Thank you. And finally, we need a motion to adopt the ordinance of many of the UDO. So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the UDO. Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. And the motion passes 6-0. Great, thank you. Thank you very much for being here. And we look forward to a good development. And now I will go to Adam 5, consolidated item 3920 South Alston Avenue. Good evening, Jamie Sanyak with the Planning Department. Request for a zoning map change and future land use map amendment have been received from Dan Jewel, Culture Jewel Thames for a 1.863 acre parcel of land located at 3920 South Austin Avenue. The applicant proposes to change the zone from office and institutional light with a development plan. The development plan associated with this request limits the building size for the site at 12,000 square feet and sets the maximum building height of 50 feet. Additional text commitments include providing asphalt for a future bicycle lane and extending the waterline from Cornwallis Road along Austin Avenue or providing an alternative fire flow. The request is being made without any commitment pertaining to use, which means that any use permitted within the zoning district would be allowed. The property is currently designated as office on the future land use map. And the applicant has requested a future land use map amendment to industrial to coincide with the request. The Planning Commission at 3rd January 8th, 2019 meeting recommended approval of the proposed by a vote of 13 to 0. Staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Your motions are required for this application. The first is to adopt a resolution amending the future land use map. The second is to adopt a consistency statement and the third would be for the zoning ordinance. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you, Ms. Soniak. You've heard the report from staff. I'm going to declare this public hearing open. We have one speaker signed up to speak on this item, Mr. Dan Jewel. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on item 25? If not, Mr. Jewel, welcome. Would three minutes be sufficient? Yes, I will, sir. Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. I am Dan Jewel with Culture Jewel Thames, 111 Main Street, West Main. I'm here at the request of our client, Peter Piercini. He's President and CEO of ZenBio, just to tell you a little bit. This building was built only about 10 years ago as the Elks Lodge of South Durham. It opened 10 years ago and it closed about three years ago. Many of you know there's a general decline in social and civic organizations. I have a copy of a great book called Bowling Alone that was written years ago that I'd be happy to lend anybody if you're interested in that. This rezoning will allow our client who's already based in Durham to repurpose this existing building of about 7,200 square feet. They assemble lab kits for use in research. Just like when you go to the doctor's office, there's a suture kit or something kit already made up. They do that for research. In fact, my wife who works at NIEHS says, oh yeah, we have kits from ZenBio to do these experiments that we do, that sort of thing. There's an existing industrial character in this neighborhood. If you've been out there, actually much more in keeping with the Elks Lodge that had been built there. Primarily warehouses and small manufacturing facilities. There's two existing old farmhouses immediately south. They're owned by the ship and Madron families and we held a neighborhood meeting just about a year ago. They attended and they had no questions whatsoever about when were we gonna start and how quickly we were gonna move ahead. We've proposed a modest increase in the existing floor area with the hope that ZenBio will continue to be successful and be able to expand some point in the near future. But for the time being, he just wants to occupy the building as is. We are committing to widening Alston Avenue along the frontage to accommodate a future bike lane and where the existing parking encroaches into the landscape buffer. We're committing to beef that buffer up for now, put some more plants in. And of course, if the site is redeveloped in the future, we would remove all that paving and put things in per city UDO standards. The staff finds consistency with our request and the Planning Commission voted 13-0 in favor of this request back in January. And we would hope that you would find the opportunity to do the same. So thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Joule. Council members, any questions or comments from Mr. Joule or for staff at this point? Any questions or comments from Mr. Joule or for staff? Is there anyone else that would like to be heard on item 25? If not, I'm going to declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back for the council. We will take three motions on this item. The first is to adopt the resolution implementing the future land use map. So moved. It's moved and second that we adopt the amendment of future land use map. Madam Clerk, we please open the vote. Please close the vote. The motion passes 6-0. Thank you. We'll now need a motion to adopt a consistency statement. So moved. It's been moved that we adopt a consistency statement. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. Motion passes 6-0. And third, to adopt an ordinance amending the UDO. So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the motion, adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. Thank you. The motion passes 6-0. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Joule. And now we'll move to item 26, Consolidate Annexation 301, Atkins Heights Boulevard. And we'll now hear the report from staff. Good evening, Jamie Sanyak with the Planning Department. Request for utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation and initial zoning map change have been received from Charlie Yookley, Mike Adams for two parcels of land totaling 67 acres located at 7605 Fayetteville Road and 301 Atkins Heights Boulevard. The site is presently zoned, rural residential, and the staff recommends an exact translation of this zoning district. The parcel is designated as low density residential on the future land use map, which is consistent with the zoning request, which is consistent with the zoning, existing zoning. While this annexation is for a contiguous expansion of the city limits, it will create a donut hole to the north and south. Approval of the annexation petition and zoning, I'm sorry, yes, approval of the annexation position and zoning direct translation zoning would become effective on March 31st, 2019. The proposed annexation includes the creation of a new road connecting the properties to Fayetteville Road, which is consistent with an associated site plan that is currently under review. Staff recommends approval of the annexation because the project is deemed revenue positive by the budget management services department and there have been no operational impacts identified with the providing services. The public works and water management departments have determined that the existing water mains have the capacity for the proposed development. Staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Three motions are required for this application. The first is to adopt an ordinance annexing the property and entering into any utility extension agreement. The second is to adopt a consistency statement and the third would be for the zoning ordinance. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you, Ms. Sonia. Yes, sir, city manager. Ms. Sonia, could you clarify the map? I'm not quite sure. We talk about creating the additional donahole appears that of the new road that's going to be created, that there's a, is that correct that there's a section that would be south of there that would be unincorporated? That's correct. If you look at attachment 1A, which is the annexation overview, the right of way with the new road extends out from the development site to Fayetteville Road. And there's two parcels that are shown in white south of the right of way. And those would be unincorporated. And so it's not, it's not splitting up a property. The new road is not splitting that property. That it's not splitting those properties. There would be a property to the north that would. But that's a differently owned property. Correct. And then will there be utilities in that road that's being extended? That is, that is my understanding. So will the properties to the south be allowed to connect to those utilities? Not without annexation. Thank you. Don't believe I've opened the public hearing yet, but I'm going to now open the public hearing and I'm going to ask if there are any other questions for staff, any council, any colleagues have any questions for staff at this point? All right, if not, we have several speakers on this item. We have one, we have six proponents. I see two speakers have signed up and I'm just going to ask here because they checked neither proponent nor oponent, Dixie Heyman and Jessica Agelhardt. Are you all, would you characterize yourself, Ms. Agelhardt as an oponent or a proponent? Opponent, okay. And Ms. Heyman, is she here? You're an oponent as well, okay. So thank you very much. Mr. Gosch, I'm assuming you're going to lead off for the proponents, is that correct? All right, that's great. So we have six speakers. I'm going to give the proponents a total of 12 minutes. So I'm going to ask each of the proponents if you could limit yourself to two minutes. Sorry. And that means that Ms. Agelhardt and Ms. Heyman, you all together also have 12 minutes. Let me just say for sure that you don't have to take that long, but you can certainly, you would certainly have that right. Is that arrow there? I just changed it. So see, I'm clicking over here. All right, so Madam Clerk, just to be clear, we have 12 minutes for the proponents and 12 minutes for the oponents. Thank you very much. All right, thank you. My name is Sarah Shagaris. My current address is 2518 Levi Lane. I'm here as the legal representative of the Higher Family Trust due to my parents' recent passing away. The Higher Trust has chosen a developer that is sensitive to the land, sensitive to the neighbors, and sensitive to the larger community. The EBCON community's plan that we are presenting for your approval is for an age-targeted community that includes a dedicated access via Fayetteville Road, and it also includes preserved open spaces. The proposed community will have, as its dedicated entrance, a connection to Fayetteville Road that takes all of our neighbors into consideration, those of the Oakhaven neighborhood and those on Fayetteville Road. Age-targeted communities generate significantly less traffic with EBCON reporting one half of average traffic impact. This type of community also contributes to the tax base without any significant increase in use of public schools. Thank you for your time, and if there's any questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Garris. Mr. Ghosh, I'm reading a novel. My favorite novelist these days is a novelist named Amitav Ghosh. Are you familiar with him? I'm not. He writes wonderful novels about the 19th century opium trade between India and China, and I recommend them to you. The opium or the book? That's a good one. Mr. Ghosh, you know better than that. I apologize. Fair enough. My name is Neil Ghosh. I'm an attorney with the Morningstar Law Group, and I'm here tonight representing EBCON communities in relation to their support for this annexation application. You've just heard from Ms. Shakira, who is the representative of the trust that own this property. Some of you, maybe three of you, might recognize her from an application in 2017 for annexation of this very same property. And at that time, when she first applied for that, her mother was alive, and her father was alive. Her mother, unfortunately, passed before that hearing, and her father recently passed. But ultimately, while they were alive, they were trying to sell this property, and unfortunately, her parents won't be able to reap the benefits of that. But meanwhile, Sarah has taken the feedback that you all gave her at that hearing to heart and has sought out, as she told you, a developer that she felt, and her family felt, would address the concerns raised at that hearing. One of the main concerns, and one of the main differences of this project, as compared to that one, is that this project has a point of access out to Fayetteville Road, which was a very important point that was made at the 2017 hearing. Now, to be honest with you, EBCON communities, my client, they, when they looked at this property, they actually were not interested in this property unless and until they were able to confirm that they would be able to get an access out to Fayetteville Road to them, that is the most important access point for this property. And so they spent a lot of time trying to do that. You all are probably aware, there is a road out there called Ackon Heights Boulevard. Calling it a road is generous. It's kind of a dirt pathway. And it is not up to city standards, and it's also not in a very good location. And so EBCON has taken the time to study that and see if there's a better way that they can make that. There's a stream crossing there. So they looked to see if there was a better way they could make that crossing. And in doing that, they became friends with the New Hope Church, because what they determined was that there was a better place to make the stream crossing. It would have less environmental impacts. And that's basically by shifting that existing Ackon Heights Boulevard up about 200 feet. But in order to do that, we had to get friendly with the folks at the New Hope Church. Now, some of you all received an email, or probably all of you all received an email from the New Hope Church today about their support for this project. And we're very proud of that. We've worked very hard with them to try to make this a good situation for them and for us as well. And also so that there's less environmental impacts at that stream crossing. And so we're happy to have their support. Now, we're aware and acknowledged that there has been, there was also a concern raised in the 2017 case, which neither Morningstar nor EPCON communities was involved with, about the connection out to Marchary Road. And we looked at that in depth as well. Ultimately, we determined that there are a lot of benefits to that connection. I think for us, the most pressing benefit was the decrease in response time that such a connection would have for the delivery of emergency services, if you would need that. And EPCON communities, if you're not familiar with their product, they 100% of what they build is age targeted. And most of it is age restricted. And in those types of communities, generally they experience a higher volume of calls for emergency services, as you might expect in a traditional neighborhood. And so when we looked at the data, we felt like it was a very good connection, important connection to be made. That having been said, we also recognize that people live here and people are going to live in the EPCON community and providing a connection between Fayetteville and Herndon Road. While it does decrease response time, it also could provide as a cut through. And we want it to be, we want to be very careful on how we plan that. And I sent each of you a page from the site plan, which Shane referred to you, showing the proposed layout for the development. And the way it's developed, the way we've planned it is with a four-way stop so that it's not convenient as a cut through. It also is circuitous in that you'd have to come to that stop and then you wouldn't just go straight through that intersection to continue out to Fayetteville. You'd have to turn, well, depending where you're going, if you're coming from Herndon, you'd have to turn right and there were curves around ultimately and reaches back to Fayetteville, vice versa, you know, if you're coming from Fayetteville. And hopefully those design features will act as traffic deterrents or traffic calming devices and deterrents for cut through traffic. Ultimately, we think that this is a very important project in the city of Durham. There was, the staff report mentioned, and you guys were just discussing donut holes. One thing to recognize, and I'm sure you all do, is that this property is in an existing donut hole, a very large one. And this annexation is cutting that donut hole down significantly. And ultimately, this is going, you know, I would imagine that the rest of that donut hole over time, just like this property is, will ultimately apply for an annexation to get access to city water and sewer. And that's the last point I wanted to make. That this is an annexation and that's all that it is. We're not requesting a rezoning, where we are sticking with the same exact zoning. And that is because the current zoning is consistent with the future land use map. And the way we're planning to develop it also is consistent with the future land use map. But in order to develop this property with the recommended densities of the future land use map, the annexation is absolutely necessary. It's critical. Because without that annexation's property would not have access to city water and sewer. And therefore would have to be developed on a well-incepted. And I'll be honest with you, we have not done any park tests, so I couldn't tell you how many lots we would be able to get in that. But one thing is very clear. We would not be able to develop it at the densities that are suggested by the future land use map for this property without access to city water and sewer. And that's the main reason that we're asking for this annexation. So I hope you all will support our project. I'd like to reserve the remainder of our time for a buttle. I know we have some neighbors signed up to speak. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gush. And now we'll hear from Jason Coffey. Yeah, there was a number of other individuals who signed up. Jason Coffey, I think he is a representative with EPCON communities. We also had the folks from McAdams who are the engineering firm for this project. They also signed up. So I'd like to reserve all of that time. Okay, so let me just make sure, Mr. Gush, that there are no ones here who'd like to speak who signed up. Absolutely. Ryan Akers, Steven Dorn, William Harris. Who are here for questions, Your Honor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harris. And then, okay, so that's it for the proponents and you can reserve the rest of your time, Mr. Gush. And now we'll hear from the opponents and we'll start with Dixie Heyman and then we'll go with Jessica Iglehart. Ms. Heyman, welcome. Oh, I'm sorry. My fault. Okay, I misheard you. I apologize. That's all right. You can go ahead and speak. Yes, my name is Dixie Heyman. I have a house at 5201 Shagbark Drive in Durham. I'm a real estate agent. I work for Cali Williams Realty and I'm in support of this development on Atkins Heights, near South Point for the mature agent community. Being in real estate, I drive past this location daily, every day. And it's just a great need for these communities. I also work for a lot of sellers who are downsizing and it's hard to find places like this for them to live in. So I'm in very support of this type of community. It also provides a higher tax base for the city of Durham to benefit everybody. It's less traffic than your large communities that have lots of kids. And also the location is everything. It is close to medical facilities. It's close to shopping and it's also set off the road so it's gonna be private and sort of secluded for people who live there. And I just wanna ask that you approve this tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much. And now we'll hear from Ms. Jessica Iglehart. Ms. Iglehart, welcome. You have 12 minutes. Thank you. Hopefully I don't need that long. Hello, my name is Jessica Iglehart. I am one of the 43 homeowners in our small community in Southern Durham. I have lived in my home on Marchie Road for over 14 years. I am here today representing our neighborhood, Oakhaven. Oakhaven is our home. When I walk out my front door, if I see a car, it's a friendly face. Children ride their bicycles, dogs and their owners walking by, babies and strollers. We even have a cat that follows one of our owners as they walk down the street. We have neighborhood cookouts, gatherings and our annual neighborhood egg hunt on Marchie Road. The kids gather in the street and front yard as parents and neighbors catch up. Currently, we do not have to worry about traffic. But with the extension of Marchie Road, our community functions would become extremely unsafe. We have been welcoming our new neighbors in Herndon Trace, the 45 single family home neighborhood being built just north of us. The new neighbors walk with their pets and friends, ride their bikes through our streets. We did not oppose the extension of the roads to Herndon Trace as it did not cause negative impacts to our communities. We are requesting the city of Durham deny the extension of Marchie Road. By connecting our neighborhoods, it will turn Marchie Road into a thoroughfare, possibly allowing hundreds to thousands of vehicles driving through our neighborhoods daily. This will threaten the safety of our residents, our children, pets and guests. The hazardous increase of traffic and speed of vehicles will greatly diminish the safety of our neighborhood. Having a stop sign as the only traffic calming measure is not a sufficient solution. There are over 800 homes in just our immediate neighborhoods alone. If you average two cars a household, that is over 1,600 vehicles in just these few neighborhoods. That is over 1,600 vehicles that will be able to use the thoroughfare for a quicker route to the mall, shopping, highway 40 and more. Unfortunately, the typical driver these days are not attentive. They speed, text, talk on the phone, which is extremely dangerous and can result in tragic accidents. The width of our roads cannot accommodate the increase of traffic. Here you can see this blue truck parked against the curb, but the garbage truck still could not get up the street. He had to ask the homeowner to move their pail so he could get up the road. Emergency vehicles already have challenges maneuvering through our neighborhood. Our streets are 22 feet back to back. Emergency vehicles should have an unobstructed width of no less than 20 feet. A fire engine is more than eight feet wide. In response to what, sorry, Neil, I forget your last name, I apologize, said to the emergency vehicles, the benefit for connecting our roads. I did a quick Google map search and the difference from Parkwood Fire Department is 3.1 miles from their fire department to the entrance of the neighborhood they're looking to build compared to 2.8 miles, which would be going through our streets to get to the end of Marchie Road, which wouldn't get into there, so it'd be a little longer than that. The width of our roads cannot handle the immense increase of vehicles by extending Marchie Road. The condition of our roads are in need of maintenance, repair and repaving as they currently exist. Adding a thoroughfare will greatly increase the need for more frequent repairs and repaving. We the residents of Oakhaven are not asking to stop the annexation of EPCOM properties. We are asking the city of Durham to deny connecting the stub at the end of Marchie Road. Durham Walks Pedestrian Plan states, the city conducts and implements several traffic calming studies each year that analyze and recommend appropriate treatment to slow vehicles and discourage high cut through traffic volumes of cars and trucks. So by denying the extension of Marchie Road, it will eliminate the cut through traffic along with saving our city an extensive amount of money. The 2019 budget, Durham budget shows about $7.7 million allocated for public roadway maintenance, street paving, alley maintenance and sidewalk maintenance within the city. The average price to repair a four lane road is $1.25 million a mile. Marchie Road is about 0.2 miles, so it costs approximately $125,000 for a paved Marchie Road. Also, according to the city of Durham's traffic calming guidelines, chicane's range from five to $15,000 per set, depending on the design element. There would be additional costs as well for the services provided, including field surveys, utility location, engineering design, acquisition of permits, contract management, project management, project consulting and public hearings on the proposed projects. According to the city of Durham's public works budget issue for the 2018-2019, it states requests from citizens from street and sidewalk improvements continue to grow. Additional funding will be required to support these requests. If Marchie Road will be extended and connected to Apcon properties, we are looking for additional calming measures as a stop sign is not sufficient. Chicanes force motorists to slow down by narrowing the street with curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other, forming an S-curved road. Also, if Marchie Road is extended, we would like Apcon properties to make the connection less direct so it discourages our surrounding neighbors from the thoroughfare. I changed the map slightly as to what the path they had chosen to what this one is, by the way. And we had spoken, our community went to the meeting on August 15th and spoke in depth to Apcon properties and McAdams and asked for them to make the road less direct. I do not feel one stop sign and a cut through and then one turn is anything that's going to deter vehicles from coming through. Thank you for taking your time and taking our viewpoint into consideration. Having our concerns represented at the city level reaffirms that Durham cares about its residents and is committed to pursue growth in a responsible manner. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Agelhardt. Welcome. Thank you for sending us your slides earlier. You're welcome. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to be heard on this item? Is there anyone else present who would like to be heard on this item? Mr. Ghost, you have some remaining time. Would you like to? Again, this is Neil Ghost with the Morningstar Law Group. Thank you, Jessica, for your presentation. I will admit it was very thorough. And some of the points she made in her presentation, I think are exactly some of the reasons why a connection between these two roads is necessary. She mentioned that in this area there are over 800 homes and the only connection between Herndon Road and Fayetteville Road are Scott King and Massey Chapel. Those roads are about 1.7 miles apart, which a typical block is not going to be that long. And right now, the connectivity in that area is not very good. Adding an intermediate point of connection between Herndon and Fayetteville would increase connectivity, but probably not to where it needs to be for a city that is growing at the rate that Durham is. One of the slides she showed showed an alternate route for the connection, or I guess the path through the EPCON community from Marshall Road. And I couldn't tell you anything about that specific design that she presented. But the design that we've presented on our site plan, as I've shown there, I can tell you is compliant with the city standards for road connection, including the amount of curvature that you're allowed to have in a road. And generally, you don't want connections that would require you to basically turn your car as far as you can go. That's not the way that city roads are designed. And so the design that we've looked at is a circuitous route, in our opinion, and does offer that four-way stop to hopefully to deter people from using this as a cut-through. I can appreciate that there may be some other ways to design a road. However, we do think that the one that we've provided is a good way to design it and will provide a safe connection, which I think is probably the most important thing. Again, we hope to have your support and we're here to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to be heard on this item? Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to be heard on this item? All right, I'm now going to ask council colleagues if you have any questions or comments. I'm Mr. Manager. Mr. Judge, could you come up for a second, please? Could, would you clarify, I guess, procedurally from this point, what the transportation department, how you would be evaluating a road such as being proposed and its impact in terms of connection to Machry Road, assuming that the council agreed with the annexation as its property was being considered for subdivision, et cetera. Yes, so, Bill Judge, transportation. The unified development ordinance would require connection to Machry Road from this proposed development. So as part of the subdivision site plan, we would review the proposed road layout to make sure it met all city standards. We do have a number of traffic calming devices that could be utilized if the developer chose. If they had concerns about cut-through traffic, we would have to coordinate with the fire department on the impact of those before we would approve that. But those could be incorporated if the developer chose. And so the alignments or any of the configurations that were graphically shown tonight are, I assume, not anything that the transportation department has already reviewed and approved. Oh, no, nothing shown by the opponents. Well, the applicant has submitted a, the proponents have submitted a, I guess at least I don't remember if it was formally submitted or at least shared with us a draft site plan as described by Mr. Goche that we have reviewed. But that's not been approved by the department yet. That has not been approved at this point. Thank you. And then in terms of though, you said the Maltry Drive, that's something that still would have to be evaluated in terms of emergency vehicle access and any requirements for street widths and parking on streets and those kinds of things. Yes, so the, I mean, the connection is required if there were to be any traffic calming devices or other things, we would need to coordinate that through with emergency responses before approving those. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Mr. Judge, I just want to note that the memo from the staff, staff understands there's maybe questions relative to eliminating the connection to Maltry Road, which has not been considered as part of the San Excelsior request. However, staff would not support a street closing application for Maltry Road is submitted since closing that stub would result in the violation of the UDO. Contrary to the comprehensive plan and the UDO provisions require roadway connectivity that could impact delivery of emergency services, utilities and solid waste services. So just wanted to note that that is also part of this memo. Yes. Okay. Council members, questions, comments? Anybody? I'm happy to make a few remarks, Mr. Mayor. Council member Reese. Perfectly willing to be into the breach. I want to first thank staff for their work in making sure that we had all the information we needed on this. I thought the staff work on this, especially the memo was excellent. I also want to appreciate the fact that the property owner took the comments of council members at the last annexation, processed heart and sought a new developer for the project that was interested and eager to address the problems that the city council identified with the proposed annexation in 2017. And I especially want to thank the folks who live on or near Maltry Road, especially Ms. Segelhardt, who has been very active and vocal in reaching out to many of us in the council about her and her neighbor's concerns about the proposed connection between this new development and Maltry Road. This is one of those difficult situations in which what a particular neighborhood located in the city of Durham wants from the city council is difficult, if not impossible for us to do, given the policies around growth and connectivity that our comprehensive plan seeks to have us put into effect. And my objection to the annexation when it came in 2017 was in part because the opponents to that annexation were especially clear about the impact that it would have on their neighborhood. But more importantly, because I did not feel it was appropriate to create this development without access to Fayetteville. I said that when in voting against the annexation, and as I mentioned, the property owner and the new developer have addressed that significant problem. Now the problem is not that the 90 units, the people that live in these 90 units that are gonna be built here will that their only access will be out through Maltry. The concern is rather that lots of other vehicles will now be using part three to cut through to Fayetteville. And I totally appreciate that concern. But ultimately, the property itself as currently constituted and as planned by the proponent or the applicant does include the connection to Fayetteville that I thought this project needed to be viable. And regardless of the very real concerns of the folks that live on March 3rd in and around March 3rd and are part of that neighborhood, this street was always designed to connect through to that property. And the fact that the folks who live there now and have lived there for a number of years have come to appreciate the fact that that connection does not exist. Doesn't change the fact that it was designed that way and that our policies require the connection. That is not withstanding any future effort that the people who live in that area might take to come to the planning department with an application to close the street. As you know, I've given the neighbors that information and was happy to pass that along. We'll make if that were to come before us the city council will make our own determination. Staff has already indicated how they're likely to advise us on that. But I think given the nature of the development as it currently exists, the connection with Fayetteville and the clear plan, both in terms of layout and in our comprehensive plan to make sure that parts of our city have different ways to get to them. I intend to support the measure tonight. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much council member. Any other comments or questions at this point? I'll also appreciate those comments and also our planning to support this application. I think one of the things about Martery, the thing that's gonna be traffic calming on Martery is exactly what your slides point out, which is Martery is not going to be a good thoroughfare. It's a street that is narrow and narrow-ish and has cars parked in the same way that your slides point out. And I think that that in itself is a genuine traffic calming measure. I'm sure there'll be more, there'll be some cutting through, but I don't think that you're, it's my belief that you're, let's just say your worst fears won't be realized, Ms. Eichelhardt. And I also wanna appreciate your advocacy and the time and the care that you took to advocate for your neighbors. And I'm sure that they appreciate it very much. And it's always great when we have active residents who are out there fighting the good fight. And so I just wanna appreciate you for that. All right, council members, any other questions or comments? If not, I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back before the council. There'll be three motions necessary. The first is to adopt an ordinance and annexing 301 Atkins Heights Boulevard. So moved. Second. It's been moved and second that we annex, we adopt the ordinance, annexing 301 Atkins Heights Boulevard. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. The motion passes four to, no, the motion passes six zero. Thank you. And then a motion two to adopt a consistency statement. One more. Second. The moved and seconded. We adopt the consistency statement. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. The motion passes six zero. Thank you. And motion three to adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. So moved. Second. The moved and seconded. We amend the UDO. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. And please close the vote. Motion passes six zero. Thank you. Thank you all very much for being here. And now we'll move to item 27, the Durham Raleigh Annexation Agreement. And we will hear from staff. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Grace Smith with the Planning Department. The city of Durham and city of Raleigh entered into an annexation agreement back in March of 1999 as permitted by state statute. The agreement includes the area of Southeastern Durham County and Northwestern Wake County where the boundaries converge. The agreement expired on March 2nd, 2019 just recently after 20 years was just the maximum period for an agreement to be in effect per state law. Staff began working with the city of Raleigh, our peers over there, our early last fall to identify any issues or items in the agreement that might need updating. As a result, there have been a few very slight modifications made, mostly to correct locations of rights away that were not finalized by North Carolina Department of Transportation at the time that the agreement was adopted in 1999. The city of Raleigh has reviewed the draft agreement and agrees with the terms of the agreement as well as the proposed annexation boundary map that you can find in Attachment One. It's actually called Attachment A as a part of Attachment One. The city of Raleigh will consider this at their public hearing, the same agreement at their public hearing on April 2nd is what I've been told by their Raleigh staff and there's one motion required to approve this item to adopt an ordinance authorizing the mayor to execute the agreement between Raleigh and Durham for sanitary and water service areas in the annexation boundary agreement. Thank you very much, Ms. Smith. Staff is available if you have any questions. Thank you. You've heard a report from staff. I'm now gonna clear this public hearing open. I'm gonna ask if there are any questions by members of the council for our staff. If not, I'm gonna ask if there's anyone. I'm sorry, there is someone here to speak on this item. Nelson Paul. Mr. Paul, are you a opponent or a proponent? Okay, please come forward and we'll three minutes be sufficient. I hope so, I think so, sure. Okay, thank you, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Nelson Paul. I'm a real estate agent. I live at Morrisville. My wife and I run our company. She's here this evening. And also with me this evening is Pastor David Newell. He's with River of Life Church and I'm appearing here on behalf of River of Life Church also. The property that I wanna talk about tonight is located at 7326 Leesville Road in the new proposed annexation agreement between the city of Durham and the city of Raleigh. This property is on the city of Durham's side of the new proposed annexation agreement. As exhibits will show, there's physical evidence that the city of Raleigh already has water and sewer infrastructure on this property. I've provided exhibits that I gave to the clerk, I suppose she passed them on. But exhibit A shows the property location that shows how it's situated and it's at the corner of the intersection of Leesville Road and Shady Grove Road. Exhibit B shows the position of the property relative to the existing annexation agreement which I believe is gonna be the same line that was adopted 20 years ago. The property across Leesville Road to the north is in the Raleigh jurisdiction. The property across Shady Grove Road to the east is also in Raleigh jurisdiction. This property is the only property in this intersection that's not in Raleigh jurisdiction. And exhibit C also illustrates that there's a fire hydrant and sewer manhole on the property. You can, in exhibit C, if you y'all probably don't see this in the copy that you have, but in the digital copy, you can zoom in and the manhole cover actually says sewer on top of the manhole cover. City of Raleigh is the only provider of water and sewer services in that particular locality location there. If the property remains in the city of Durham jurisdiction, any developer of the property will have to spend thousands of dollars unnecessarily to duplicate service that already exists there. In view of the evidence that's available to us on the site, one can only logically conclude that the original intent was this property to be in the city of Raleigh jurisdiction. Because of this, I'm respectfully requesting that this property be released to the city of Raleigh jurisdiction in the new proposed annexation agreement. Thank you, Mr. Paul. I appreciate that. Of course, it's hard for me to imagine why anyone would want to be in the city of Raleigh who could be in the city of Durham, but I expected that to happen. I'm gonna ask the staff, have you had a chance to review this, Smith, and could you make some comments on this? We have been in close cooperation and communication with the city of Raleigh staff, and I actually have a memo they shared with us that was written to their city manager from the development services manager with public utilities, and it's dated the 26th of February. And the quote, quoting out of their memo is that, excuse me, Smith, public utilities, what is public utilities? Public utilities is a section of their development services department. Mr. Sorrell is the one that drafted the memo. City of Raleigh to the city manager in Raleigh. And this is what they're saying. They're to explain what Mr. Paul was just speaking about. Raleigh does own and maintain a water main in the NCDOT right of way of Shady Grove Road adjacent to the parcel. This water main has been in place since 2004 and is intended to serve the Raleigh side of the boundary line. Raleigh sewer is not currently available to the property located at 7326 Leesville Road. One of the photos that Mr. Paul will present to council does not show a sanitary sewer manhole cover on this property. Oh, it does show a sanitary sewer manhole cover on this property. However, this manhole houses a water main air release valve and they have asked that the cover be changed because it was labeled incorrectly is what they told us. Furthermore, the Raleigh's recommendation is to take no action to move the line at this time to leave it as it is. The jurisdiction, the properties in the jurisdiction of the city and county of Durham and because of this annexation agreement and the lack of sanitary sewer availability in Raleigh and the current connection policy would not support new water and sewer connections to that property is what Raleigh is telling us. And they spent quite a bit of time with us looking at several properties in this area. We had questions from other people too about utilities and how would they be served? And we have not proposed to move the line based on the information we received from Raleigh. Let me just see if I can clarify. There is no sanitary sewer from Raleigh to this area. That's what this memo says. There is none. And what does it say about water? It says there is a water main in the right-of-way of Shady Grove Road, but it serves the other side, which is in the Raleigh jurisdiction. According to this memo. All right. Mr. Claw. Well, you have pictures in front of you. The pictures, the manhole cover clearly said sewer. And when you have a fire hydrant on a property, I'm sure the fire department would be very confused if they responded to a fire out there and found that that fire hydrant wasn't working for some reason. The fire hydrant is physically on the property regardless of what the memo says with the city of Raleigh. Now, as far as what's in the manhole, whether it's sewer or not, I can't speak to that, but I'll have to take what was on the site. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Any questions or comments? Anyone else like to be heard on this item? I understand your position. It seems like our staff has done a lot of work with the Raleigh staff, and it seems like both the Durham and Raleigh staffs concur that this ought to be on the Durham side of the line. And there have been any other issues that came up, Ms. Smith with this property, we've missed. No, sir, mayor. No, I mean, I've talked to Raleigh several times about this situation and they're pretty adamant that they don't want to change the boundary during this particular parcel. Sir, they don't want you, but we'd love to have you. And we welcome you to Durham, and you'll be real glad you lived here. It's a heck of a great place compared to that other place. Raleigh is a great place to live 20 miles away from. Okay. Now, we'll need to adopt the ordinance, and so I'll take a motion on that. So moved. Second. Move to second. We adopt the ordinance. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. The motion passes 6-0. Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here, sir. Don't forget your jacket there. I'm an all-purpose mayor. I do it, I do it all. Okay. Item 28, chapter 62, Article II, Division III, updates to allow for the acceptance of developer-built trails for city ownership and maintenance. Mr. Joyner, welcome. Robert Joyner, Public Works Department. Parks and Recreation Department, City Attorney's Office and the Public Works Department work together to draft proposed revisions to the City of Durham Code of Ordinances. The change in this ordinance will allow for a private developer to dedicate a trail, easement to construct the trail, and then for city council to formally accept the trail for maintenance if it is constructed to City of Durham standards and specifications. The trail process will follow the exact same development process where private developers build streets and other infrastructures to City of Durham standards and specifications and request that the city council accept the infrastructure for maintenance. City council may choose at its discretion whether to accept the infrastructure for maintenance in all cases. Thank you very much, Mr. Joyner. You've heard the report from staff. I'm going to declare this public hearing open. First asks, is there anyone here who'd like to speak on this item? And I'd say apparently not. Questions or comments by members of the council? I have a question, Mr. Mayor. Is the intent behind this so that it would encourage developers to build trails if they knew that they weren't, that the Homeowners Association or whoever moving forward wouldn't have to deal with the maintenance of it? That is correct. And we actually have a developer in the process that is in consideration of this. So we are paving the way to create opportunities or a partnership to exist whereby folks can utilize the resources to add to the city inventory and increase development in that respect. Would the trail then be considered publicly owned? That is correct. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. Other questions or comments? If not, I'm going to declare this public hearing open. Mr. Joyner, thank you for being here. It's nice to see you appeared in a talk about something other than a failed and struggling development. All right, this public hearing is now closed and I'm going to accept a motion to adopt the ordinance amending chapter 62. So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. The ordinance passes 6-0. Thank you very much. There being no other business to come before this body, I'm going to declare this meeting adjourned at 10-01. Thanks everybody. Yeah. A lot of public hearings.