 I don't think I've said that right before. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those of you who wish to speak, please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium. Please speak clearly and into the microphone. Each side, those speaking in favor of an item and those speaking in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes to present for each side. The time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative, so if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. I do want to also add that this is being broadcast on Spectrum, AT&T, U-Verse, Frontier, Google Fiber. It is also streamed on the City's YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter accounts. Needless to say, we are live. Thank you, roll call please. Commissioner Williams? Here. Commissioner Morgan is excused. Commissioner, or requesting excused. Mr. Johnson? Present. Mr. Brine? Here. Mr. Jerican? Here. Commissioner Alturk? Here. Vice Chair Busby? Here. Chair Hyman? Present. Commissioner Miller? Here. Commissioner Ketchum? Here. Mr. Santiago? Here. Commissioner Baker? Here. Commissioner Lowe? Present. And Commissioner MacGyver? Here. Thank you. Madam Chair? Yes. I move an excused absence for Commissioner Morgan. Second. Thank you. It has been moved and properly seconded that Commissioner Morgan be granted an excused absence motion by Commissioner Brine and seconded by Commissioner Johnson. All in favor of this action, let it be known by raising your right hand. The next item, the approval of the minutes and consistency statement for the October 15 minutes. I'd like to recognize Commissioner Brine. Madam Chair, I have a correction to the minutes on page 3. The top of the page, this is the motion regarding the Olive Branch Road case. I think it should say recommend the approval of case Z1A0015 with two additional committed elements, because the applicant did offer us two committed elements during the public hearing. Thank you. Then if those adjustments can be made, I'd like to request a motion to approve Commissioner Miller. Would you like to be recognized? Yes, please. OK. So I'm a little confused about the Olive Branch Road. Motion to action records in the minutes. So in the future land use amendment, it says Morgan, Durkin, San Diego, Baker, Loeb, and MacArthur voted no. I voted no. Are you speaking of Olive Branch or the flum for our sales? OK. I'm sorry. I am. I've got myself mixed up. OK. So we're good on that? OK. Everything's fine. All right, great. Thank you. OK. I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes and consistency statement from October 15, 2019 with adjustments as presented. So moved. Second. OK. Motion by the motion. Motion by Commissioner Brine and second by Commissioner Altur. It's like, we'll get this together. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. Adjustments to the agenda. Good evening, Grace Smith with the Planning Department. The staff would like to add one item under new business. It should only take a moment. We need to have the commission review an amended meeting scheduled for 2020. We had a conflict for this room for the September date. So we need to push our meeting out one week. City Council is actually going to need this room, the date that we thought we would use this room. So we're not going to be bumping City Council out of their chambers. And so when the appropriate time later in the evening, I would like to review that and have that approved. Mr. Miller. Madam Chair. Yes. Since we've just discussed it, I move that we adjust our adopted meeting schedule for 2020 by moving the scheduled meeting date for the September meeting back to one week later to the Tuesday following the currently scheduled Tuesday. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Miller. Second by Commissioner Brine. That means we make the appropriate adjustment as presented. All in favor of this action, let it be known by raising your right hand. OK. So there's no need for us to get into the meeting. I appreciate that. One last thing staff would like to affirm for the record that all notice requirements were carried out in accordance with state and local law. And those affidavits are all filed in the planning department. Thank you. OK. So it looks like we have no adjustments to the agenda. So we can move to the next item, which is our public hearing. I don't have the sign up sheets. The sign up sheets, please. Madam Chair, while we're getting the sign up sheets today, I'd just like to move approval of the agenda as presented. Thank you, Commissioner Brine. Motion by Commissioner Brine and second by Commissioner Altur that we then approve the agenda as presented. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. All opposed? OK. All right. Now we're ready for the staff report and the first item. Good evening, Emily Stothers for the planning department. I will now present case C190004600 North Roxborough. The case summary should be showing up on the screen shortly. The applicant is Tim Syvers with Horvath Associates. This 0.707 acre site is located at 600 North Roxborough Street and is located within the city limits. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from residential urban multifamily to residential urban multifamily with a development plan in order to increase the allowable density. The proposed property is designated medium-high density residential on the future land use map, which is consistent with the zoning request. The proposal consists of a maximum of 14 multifamily residential units using the apartment housing type. The aerial map here shows the site in red at the corner of North Roxborough Street and Mallard Avenue in the urban development tier. The property previously contained a one-storey building and service parking used for a place of worship. The structure has recently been demolished. A site plan has been recently approved for eight multifamily units using the apartment housing type. The site is adjacent to the downtown development tier to the south. The Cleveland Historic District to the west and Holloway Historic District to the east. The surrounding area includes a mix of single family houses, duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings, and proposed townhouses. The site is presently-zoned residential urban multifamily. The applicant proposes to keep this designation but add a development plan, making it RUMD. Changing the zoning to allow the additional density is permitted by UDO section 641. The future land use map here shows that the property is designated medium high density on the future land use map, which is consistent with the rezoning request. Development plan provides site access points, building and parking envelopes, project boundary buffers, and maximum impervious surface limits. Key commitments include a maximum of 14 multifamily units utilizing the apartment housing type. Transit improvements as required at the time of site plan. And design commitments, including brick-ended sidewalks. The proposed RUMD zoning designation complies with the current medium high density residential designation on the future land use map and applicable policies. It is consistent with policy 212D, 231A, 232A, and 1111A. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances. And staff is available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go at this time open the public hearing. I do have two individuals who have signed up to speak. The first name is Tim Cyvers, followed by James Bradford. Thank you, Madam Chair. Tim Cyvers with Poor Bath Associates. Thank you, Emily, for your report and your work on this project. As Emily mentioned, this request in front of you is for a rezoning from RUM, which allows the 12 units per acre, to RUMD for a maximum of 20 units per acre. Section 641 of the ordinance requires that in excess of the 12 units per acre, a development plan is approved. And that maximum is the 20 units per acre. The project area is just under 3 quarters of a site, 0.7 acres, allows eight units as it currently sits. And this request is to increase it to 14 units, a total of six units for the increase. We did hold a voluntary neighborhood meeting for this project. It was held on September 23rd at the Durham Convention Center. We did have two neighbors show up. There were a couple other neighbors that reached out to me that were not able to be in attendance. Both the neighbors that did show up, that was a couple. So it was one owner, as well as the adjacent properties owners that reached out to me, were all in the approval of the project. The development plan illustrates commitments to bus stops, architectural design elements, landscape buffers, building and parking setbacks, 70% impervious area, maximum of 14 units, as well as access points on both Roxboro and Mallard Avenue. The plan also commits to upgrading the sidewalks and constructing brick-banding long portions of the sidewalk. In addition to these commitments that are on the development plan, I'd like to provide some additional commitments tonight. And I've sent these to Planning, and they have reviewed these as well. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, provide a one-time $1,500 contribution to the Durham Public Schools. Second one would be prior to issuance of a CO. Provide a one-time $1,400 contribution to the Durham Affordable Housing Fund. I did have a chance to meet with a few of you, and I appreciate the time that you took out of your schedule to meet with me. I'm sorry I couldn't get to all of you, but if you guys do have any questions, I'm available for further questions, as well as the developer is here tonight too. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. James Bradford. Good evening. James Bradford 7616 Herndon Road. My partner and I, we own the project adjacent to this project, the townhomes, Elliott Square. We met the developers some months ago, and we'd just like to support their project. Thank you. Are there any other individuals who would like to speak on the 600 North Rocksboro project? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. I'm going to start with Commissioner Baker, would like to make a statement at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to let everyone know, disclosed that I live across the street, but I am a renter, and so I did not receive a letter. And my landlord did, and so I did check with staff and make sure that there aren't, that there is no reason that I should be up here voting. And they did confirm that I should be up here and should take a vote. Thank you. Thank you. It was determined that a recusal was not necessary for Commissioner Baker, and we wanted to basically state that from the beginning, transparency. Thank you. Now, do I have commissioners who would like to speak to this issue? I'm going to start with Commissioner Brine and Commissioner Durkin. Thank you. This is a question for staff. There are commitments to not mass grade and to not clear cut, which normally I'd be excited about, except on this particular site. I'm not sure they have a whole lot of meaning, but my understanding is that this enables the applicant to be exempt from the required tree coverage. Is that correct? That's correct. The required tree coverage does not apply, provided that forceful means to verify those elements are provided, and so they're doing that by way of the text commitment. OK, thank you. Just personally for the applicant, I would defer to have seen the tree coverage. Another question, and either staff or the applicant can answer this, but could we have used the affordable housing density bonus on this? We're starting with 12 units. Do 15%, you get 1.8, which I'm hoping we could round up to 2. Do you get 14 units? 2 of them would be affordable, and to me, having some affordable housing in this location so close to the downtown tier would be very desirable. So could it have been used? The affordable housing density bonus is allowable in this area. I can't speak to if the applicant intends on using that or not. OK, well, then the question comes to the applicant. No, so we're not going to use that density of bonuses this time, so that's why we came to the rezoning process to increase the density. OK, well, let me look at this from a different perspective if you'll stay at the microphone. How many dwelling units will be in each apartment building? So there's, I'm not committing to a number of buildings. There would be either one or two buildings. Total of 14 units. Right now, we have a site plan, as staff said, that has an approval for eight units in that building. So we may increase that to a total of 12 units and provide another building with larger units, or we provide a second building that'll have a total of the six units that we're here for tonight requested. OK, would you consider making any of the dwellings in these buildings affordable? Not at this time, sir. Why not? It comes down to the goal that this client is trying to reach, and the intended targets are, these are going to be higher end condos. So those locations of those should be down in the closer to the downtown tier. I understand your request, but right here we're directly adjacent to downtown tier, but we're looking for the higher end condos in this area. Well, you see, we just passed a $95 million bond. And part of the reasoning behind that is the difference between Fair Market Day and affordable housing was recognized so that that difference could be made up from some of this bond money once the city figures out how they're going to administer everything. So it seems to me you're not going to lose any money if you put in a few units of affordable housing. I understand that, sir, but you hit the nail in the head there until the city figures that out. It's not been fully figured out yet. I will discuss this with my clients, but for right now, I'd like to proceed with hazards. Thank you for that. May I? Sure, go ahead. To add on to Commissioner Bryan's questions, I do have a question for staff related to this. So if this rezoning was approved to allow for 14 dwelling units, could they then also use affordable housing density bonus to further increase that number? Did you say that one more time? So we're rezoning to 14, would they have the option of using the affordable housing density bonus and going above 14? Yes. So then going back to the applicant, then that we would, I personally would prefer that that was considered. I think $1,400 for an affordable housing program in lieu of adding actual affordable units is really it's not comparable and really not sufficient to a location that's so close to downtown. If you wanted to respond to that with the option of increasing the units, then be happy to hear what you have to say. I want to clarify. I think it is what you asked, but I think I just want to clarify it so it's clear to the audience as well that the affordable housing density bonus can be added on following the rezoning. So it's done by right. They can do it on top of what is permitted by this proposed rezoning. OK, great. Thank you. Yes. Tim Syvers again, Horvath Associates. We'll look at that. I had a 30-second conversation with that along with the client. We'll take a look at that as an addition to the 14 units. Tonight is for an increase in the 14, but we'll take a look at if that density is approved or is requested to go above the 14. We'll take a look at see if the affordable housing is a possibility. OK. For me right now, given your response to the prior questions, I know until that answer is resolved, because just having that as an open thing doesn't. You're not committing to anything, which I understand. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. The other commissioners from our right, Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chairwoman. Commissioner, OK. Question for the applicant, thank you. You mentioned that these are intended to be high-end residences. Do you have a price point that you're targeting for these towns? They'll be similar to the LA Square across the street, which has been approved now, which is in the 300 range, 300,000. So the LA Square, for you familiar with, so it's been programmed out with some of the other impression that that price point was actually higher than $300,000. I'm not involved with that project. It may be higher than that, but it'll be equivalent to that project. Right. OK, per square foot. Right. So it's helpful. So that's going to be some price point. Yes. Please, I'm going to put it. Commissioner Al Turk. Yes, thank you, Chair. I'll just echo what Commissioner Brian and Commissioner Durkin said. I think this is a parcel that is adjacent to a national historic district, a local historic district, and an area that's already gentrified and already seen skyrocket housing prices. And I think adding six units or adding 14 units total is not enough to supply that we need to really reduce the long-term affordability issue that we have in Durham. And I think a real commitment would be the way to go. So I'm also leading toward voting no, unless I hear from my other commissioners on something convincing to sway me another way. So thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. So I have a question for staff. Visiting again the availability of the affordable housing density bonus, if this rezoning is passed, this is a fairly small site. It's only a record as an acre. We're putting 14 units on it. I'm assuming that to do that, we're going to build a probably four or five-story building that's going to sit on putting in parking. Doesn't have to, but I'm assuming that that's in order to get all those units in there. There's a volume that is associated with RUM. And I'm assuming that to get these 14 units in there on so small a site, we're going to use up all the available volume. Assuming that that's what's going to happen, will that constrain the ability of the applicant to add affordable units, even if the density bonus would allow it? In other words, with the density bonus, are there, is there relief from the dimension requirements that would be imposed without affordable units? They would still need to meet the dimensional standards, regardless. So they wouldn't be able to go up a floor in order to add affordable units if they were already at the maximum height? They are allowed to. Sorry, I think I'm, let me check the ordinance before I speak next time. Looking at the height here, it says when the affordable housing density bonus is utilized, an additional 15 feet of height shall be allowed. So they would get essentially one residential level. Correct. All right, very good. That helps a lot. My concern with the project, quite frankly, has to do with its design. And I've discussed this with the developer who has been very patient with me. One way to build this building or buildings is to, and I believe they most likely way, is to locate the residential dwelling units up one level on top of a parking podium, which means that the Roxburgh Street facade of the building would essentially be parking. And I don't want to have a major corridor lined with buildings, not that this is necessarily going to represent a trend. But let's face it, these buildings, just like this one, are going up. Oh, I can't even keep track of them. The first one or two are novelties. Now they're springing up everywhere I can. I'm beginning to lose my mental image of what this part of town looks like because of the changes. So I would like for there to be some sort of human scale architectural feature at the ground level on facing Roxburgh Street. So that people who are either used the building, drive past the building, walk past the building, have something that indicates that this is people's space, that isn't all located above. And I think that some of the buildings like the building I anticipate will be built here, don't really advertise their scale, that without a tree or a person standing next to them, you don't know whether they're two stories or 10 stories. And I think that's bad design and bad architecture. And I think in the development plan process that we have with this rezoning, we can, if the developers willing to commit to it, introduce some sort of human scale architectural features at the street level. And so I'm gonna ask publicly the developer if they would be willing to work with staff between now and the time that Council comes along to add a committed element that, and the one I'm thinking about is, is that a prominent entryway, one that would be framed, located on Roxburgh Street, at least one for each building, would be there so that the people who walk past on the sidewalk will realize that this is a building for people and they're not all located above. And I think that will, I think it's too much to expect them to put their windows and all of those kind of things. But something like that to say, this is the scale of the building, it's a human occupied building and it engages the street. We're not putting people up above the street, even though that's probably what will happen on the inside. And I was wondering if you would be willing to work with the staff to include something like that for this project. Tim Syvers, Horvath Associates. Yes, absolutely. We can, and you did hand me this, I think this is fine. I'd like to review this from the architect who's not here tonight. But yeah, absolutely. I think the human scale, something on the human scale to bring that down to on the first floor of both buildings. Well, I'm assuming you're gonna have doors anyway. That's exactly correct. There's gonna be doors. There's gonna be doors of dressing those doors up a little bit so that they show that they're not hidden. That's, yes. Thank you. And I imagine the staff will have some comments on that and then I'd also like to follow back on the affordable housing comment if possible. And because it's a fairly small request if you're willing to do it, I don't see any reason to delay the project if your assurance is sufficient for me. And so with that, I'm gonna vote in favor of this one. However, I have to say it would be lovely to have a couple of affordable units for a project this small, I'm not going to insist on it. I'm gonna recognize the staff at this time. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm that staff is comfortable working with the applicant on that text comment you've indicated. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Baker. I wanted to echo my fellow commissioners, in particular the commissioners that are concerned about affordable housing and how important that is and wanting to promote that in this project and in other projects. I also commend the applicant just now for making a commitment to foster a human scale on the ground floor that's incredibly important. And if there were to be only parking or only a brick wall on the frontage, that would be very concerning. I also had one quick question actually for transportation. And this relates to this project but it's a little bit higher level as well. I had the privilege of meeting with the applicant and going over some of the site plan. And you mentioned that North Carolina and transportation makes it very difficult or impossible to put street trees in the right way. Is that true or is it difficult? Is it does an NCDOT not allow street trees in the right way? Erling Thomas, transportation. He can speak directly to what their policy is. I do know, I will say that it becomes a maintenance issue for them. So it just depends on what those plantings and types of things are proposed. Do we tend to ask for street trees with the NCDOT? I know our ordinance requires it like in the downtown areas and the DOT has allowed those things. Outside of that, I'm not certain what their policy is. Thank you, that's all. Okay, Commissioner Baker. Mr. Seithers, we wanted to respond to your affordable housing comments. So I'm going to let him speak at this time. Thank you, Chair. After discussion, we'll further with the applicant. We would like to provide, if we do go for the affordable housing density bonus, those would be affordable housing units. So anything above that 14 would then be an affordable housing unit. We have to review that with staff from a final text commitment. So we would have to work with the applicant between now and City Council to exactly get that wording nailed down and make sure it's legal and enforceable. I'm not exactly sure what you're proposing. So if we're going to work with you on the architectural design commitment, it's better, I'd rather you not proffer those things tonight and try us to work those out at the mic because we would ask for continuance here. But we do have time between now and Council to go back and try to meet with the applicant to do that between now and Council. But we would not be able to work that out tonight, I don't believe. Okay, which is fine. The Chair recognizes, thank you. The Chair recognizes Commissioner Durkin and then Commissioner Miller and then Commissioner Buzzfeed. Just going back to what the applicant just said, my concern is not in if, because based on the number, if we're permitting 14, anything above 14 would have to be affordable because you'd have to comply with the density bonus if you're going above 14. So in if doesn't really get us where I would like us to go because I would like a commitment, not just an if. And then one point of clarification in the staff report, it refers to apartment units, which to me means rental, but in response to the question about price, you mentioned for sale prices. So can you clarify whether this is a rental project or a for sale conduct project? This is a for sale project. Sorry, I don't know if I was in the, Tim Syvers, for sale project is the ultimate design. Staff may want to follow up, answer that concerning the apartment designation. Okay. It doesn't impact my stance in the affordable housing point, but it is, I was confused. To me, apartment is a rental. Sure, it's definitely clarification worth noting. Relying on the housing types outlined in our ordinance, there's not a condo type, it's broken down by form as opposed to how it's broken down by form. So the apartment housing type is your multiple units potentially stacked. I can just ask for clarification on the next question. Sure, it's certainly a confusing element. I agree. Commissioner Miller, I think. So two points. If I understand it correctly, if this rezoning goes through as it's been requested without any further commitments with regard to affordability, the affordable housing density bonus is available. And so, and right now, what would that bonus be for this property situated where it is in this zone? What would be the maximum bonus? I would have to run that math, which I have not done. What's the ratio? Pulling that up right now, one second here. So in the urban tier, a minimum of at least 15% of the maximum number of units permitted within the base density are required to use the affordable housing dwelling bonus. And then from there, for each affordable housing dwelling unit that is constructed, a bonus of two additional dwelling units can be constructed. It's a two to one ratio, but you have to achieve to get any bonus at all. It's got to be 15% or more of the units. Correct. All right, very good. So I'm just thinking through the concept that Mr. Savers presented in terms of units more than 14 might be affordable. It actually seems to me that since the density bonus is by right and that the bonus allows them to have an extra level for each building, that they're better off without any kind of commitment since it was a conditional commitment just to go with the bonus just like it is. If they added two units that were affordable, is it 15% of the total or is it 15% of the base? 15% of the maximum number of units permitted with the base density. With the base, so two would then run them over the, well, even one would run them over the 15% and then they could get two additional units. And if they kept going that way until they filled up that extra level, that extra 15 feet they get, it seems to me that I don't see how a commitment could actually improve their situation over what the big density bonus would allow anyway. So I throw that observation out and I forgot what my other one was, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Commissioner Busby. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Mr. Savers, I know you're wearing a cap up here, but most I had a similar analysis to Commissioner Miller, so I just wanted to check with you to make sure, do you mind repeating your commitment and then I just wanna make sure I understand the intent of your commitment because I think you're intending to make a commitment to us tonight, but it sounds like I heard it as a commitment that is basically you're already allowed to do that by right. So I wanted to hear what you were offering us just to make sure I understood it. That's correct and I apologize for that confusion. So what we'd be saying is that the by right situation. Okay, great, thank you. And we'll work that out with staff, but obviously it's not a text commitment, but it's something that we can discuss with staff as well. Right, so just to make sure I'm understanding it and for the other commissioners, you're saying you're willing to explore what is already available to you as opposed to anything that's above and beyond what is already an available option? That's correct. Okay, thank you. And I'll just add that I appreciate the design commitments. I like this project, but I share the same concerns on affordability. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you. So I just wanted to run some quick map because we're talking about affordable, the affordable ability issue, I'm sorry. And so the applicant stated that the anticipated cost is around $300 per square feet. And so for like a 1500 square feet unit, it's $450,000 for 2000 square foot unit, it's like $600,000. And so even when we were talking about we just passed the bond, I think the question is, is that the best use of limited resources to make something affordable that, how do you make a $600,000 unit affordable even if you subsidize it? And when we're thinking about what we're trying to do here in Durham and like affordability is about, how do you incentive out and encourage like interlevel home ownership, the first wrong of economic empowerment, et cetera, et cetera. This is not the model for how we accomplish that. And so I think that trying to make this project as it is somehow affordable is wishful thinking in the sense that it's not really accomplishing what we say we want to do. So I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. I'm gonna try to recognize some other individuals who've not had an opportunity to speak. I think we are commissioner. All right, then commissioner Durkin. Just to go off of what commissioner John said, I would say not doing anything is also not achieving our goal. And so using the affordable housing density bonus is one of the tools we have and it should be actually utilized. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. I remembered my other point and it was simply that we talked about the kind of units that would be here whether they would be rental or purchase units. As I read the development plan, there was nothing in there that committed the developer to any particular type of unit. It could be for sale or for rental. We don't normally have commitments for rental or for sale. So I just want to make sure that people didn't vote expecting this to be one way or the other when in fact it can be either way and we can't constrain it. Are the other questioners who would like to speak? If not, I think I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to move that we send case Z19000004 concerning 600 North Roxburgh Road forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Do I have a question? Yes. There's some unreadiness. So Commissioner Bryan have a question. At the beginning of the public hearing, the applicant told us that he had made two new commitments, both concerning payments one to the public schools and one to affordable housing. And question, are those commitments acceptable to staff? Hi, Gray Smith, I'm close to the mic so I'll answer that. Yes, they were vetted ahead of time and approved. Okay. So I'll move my motion. The motion leads to the three proffers that were made tonight, the two firm ones and the one Lucy Goosey one on architecture. Those are included in my motion. Well, there's a fourth one out there that seems Lucy Goosey to me too and that's about whether or not there's actually gonna be any affordable housing or not. They weren't making any commision. I'd like to clarify, the applicant has only proffered the two that were approved and vetted ahead of time and then the others would, they weren't actually proffered tonight because we had not vetted those and they've not been checked for legal and legality and enforceability. So the motion should be with the two that were proffered and vetted ahead of time and then we can work out the others with the applicant between now and council if that's agreeable with the planning commission. That's why I would have to handle that. That's what I meant, my motion. Okay, so the motion does include, did I get a second? Commissioner Alter did provide a second. We went back and forth so I wasn't sure. I have a motion and a second that we send item number Z01900004, 600 North Rocksboro forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. All in favor of this motion, I'm gonna ask for a roll call, please. Are you on a motion? Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Brine. No. Commissioner Durkin. No. Commissioner Alter. No. Vice Chair Busby. Yes. Chair Hyman. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Ketchin. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. No. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. And Commissioner MacGyver. Yes. Motion passes nine to four. Thank you. Let's move to the next item on our agenda. Staff report for Hebron Village Police. Good evening. Emily Struthers again with the planning department. I will now be presenting case Z1900016 Hebron Village. The applicant is Tim Sivers. This 31.267 acre site is located at 224, sorry, 4728 Denifield Street. This site is located within the city limits. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from residential suburban 20, RS 20, and residential suburban 10, RS 10, to plan development residential PDR 5.117. The property is designated low-medium residential on the Future Land Use map, which is consistent with the zoning request. The proposal consists of a maximum of 160 units. Per the current tax commitment, the units may be single family, townhouse, or combination none to exceed 149 peak hour trips. The applicant has spoken with staff about a potential change to the housing type commitment. I will let the applicant speak to that later. This aerial map shows the site in red, located off of Denifield Street and Hebron Road in the suburban development here. Property contains forests, a small area of wetlands, and a few existing buildings. The site is being developed. The site is adjacent to a mix of housing types, including single family detached and attached, townhouses, and apartments. There are also a couple of places of worship adjacent to the site. The site is presently zoned, RS 20 and RS 10. The applicant proposes to change this designation to PDR 5.117. This site is located within both the Eno River District B and Falls Jordan District B watershed protection overlays. The property is designated low-medium residential on the future land use map, which is consistent with the rezoning request. Development plan provides site access points, building and parking envelopes, project-boundary buffers, and maximum impervious surface. Key commitments include a maximum of 160 residential units of single family, townhouse, or combination of those housing types. A minimum of 20% tree preservation area, transportation improvements, including dedicated right-of-way, left turn lanes, and additional asphalt to allow for future bicycle lanes. Site access points, location of building and parking envelopes, tree preservation areas, project-boundary buffer areas, and a maximum of 50% impervious surface are shown graphically. Design commitments related to building material, roofs, and distinctive architectural features are included. The proposed PDR 5.117 zoning designation implies with the current low-medium designation on the future land use map and applicable policies. It is consistent with policy 2.12C, 2.31A, 2.32A, and 11.1.1A. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances and staff is available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I do have two individuals who have signed up to speak before and three against. I'm going to call the first two individuals, Tim Cybers, Cybers, and Frank Bullock. Good evening, Chair, again, Tim Cybers, four Bath Associates, 16 Consonants Place. Again, thanks to staff for the report on this project. This project is a rezoning request from RS10 and RS20 to a PDR 5.117. The project area is a little over 31 acres, and the PDR 5.117 will allow 160 units. The PDR 5.117 is also within the current future land use map that the city has set aside for the development of between four to eight units. We did hold another voluntary meeting, voluntary neighborhood meeting for this project. It was held at Duke's Chapel United Methodist Church. We did have about 20 neighbors come out to this. So it was a pretty good showing. And at that neighborhood meeting, there was two primary concerns that were brought up. First was access into the existing subdivision to the east, and the second one was landscape buffering to the adjacent properties, to the adjacent existing homes, excuse me. I did discuss the neighbors and tried to explain to them that the street stub to the existing subdivision was a requirement of transportation and the city ordinance, and I also explained to them that the PDR, the adjacent property to the east and northeast is a PDR development of approximately, off the top of my head, I believe it's about 4.7 units. That does not require a buffer between our proposed PDR and the adjacent PDR. However, we worked with the adjacent property owners there and on our development plan have committed, graphically committed to a 20-foot buffer along those adjacent properties that back up against those existing homes. And again, that is shown on our development plan that's in front of you tonight as a graphic commitment. Since we did hold that meeting back in July, I did send an email out at times informing the neighbors of the process of the progress of the project. I also wanted to make sure that all those neighbors that signed up and gave me their email address was aware of the meeting tonight, so I informed them of that, just in case they didn't get the meeting from the city. The development plan does illustrate commitments to the right-of-way dedication, landscape buffers, as we've discussed, 20% tree preservation area, 50% impervious area as a maximum, maximum of 160 units, as well as access points on Hebron and Summer Field, excuse me, Summer Breeze Drive. An optional access point is also shown on Denfield. Road improvements will be constructed on Hebron to provide left turn lanes in both eastbound and westbound movement, as well as providing the bike lanes. In addition to these commitments, once again, I'd like to provide the following additional and revised commitments as staff mentioned. I provided these to Planning last week, so they've reviewed these as well. A revision to text commitment number one, as Emily mentioned earlier, the proposed development shall be a maximum of 160 units. The units may be townhouse or a combination of single family and townhouse, not to exceed 149 peak hour trips. So the key item there that we've changed is we have removed the ability for this to be a 100% single family development. It will not be 100% single family development, and we're committing to that. Prior to the issuance of a CO, provide a one-time $11,000 contribution to the Durham Public Schools. And prior to the issuance of a CO, provide a one-time $16,000 contribution to the City of Durham Affordable Housing Fund. I did have the ability to meet with some of you again. So if there are any other further questions I'm available, thank you for your time. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Bullock. Thank you, everyone. My name is Frank Bullock. I am an attorney with the law firm, Haywood Denian Miller, located here in Durham, North Carolina. I also represent George Miller, who's the Public Administrator of Durham County. We have a property that would be affected by the zoning change is forward to Hebron Road, and it is part of the estate of Sadie B. Lloyd, with regard to the zoning change, the Office of the Public Administrator has no objections. Thank you. Thank you. I have three other individuals who have signed up to speak against. Julius Bartell, Diane Bartell. I'm Julius Bartell, my wife Diane Bartell. We live at 4911 Dentville Street. And when y'all done some of the matters, my property was not fledged. Since y'all done some of the matters, my property floods. And with this property here doing, I'm gonna lose three fourths of my property. Right now I've been lost over half of it. The retention pond that they plan on building will not hold the water back. Although they'll let it out. We checked with this stormwater runoff of Durham. They said, nothing they can do about it. It's the only thing that's coming off that property they're concerned with. You're not concerned about the water that's running off. It goes on somebody else's property, Reno River. I've got trenches backed by Reno River that I can walk through that was never there before. The church next to me has been flooded out. They've had their heritage unit replaced twice because it's been under water three times. Luckily, I haven't had that much water in my house by my properties. And the traffic problem on Hebron Road with the new Northern's High School that you're gonna build across the street between Dentville and Roxborough Road is gonna increase traffic tremendously. You cannot get out at Duke Street and Roxborough Road on Hebron without waiting four or five lights because all the traffic is trying to go straight down Hebron off of Roxborough Road. You're gonna need traffic lights at Hebron Road and Dan Hughes Road. You'll need traffic lights at Dentville Street and Hebron. Monk Road, you're gonna need traffic lights. Monk Road and Roxborough Road, you're gonna need traffic lights. And the traffic is gonna be tremendous for the people that live there. Thank you, all over to my wife. Next, it's Diane Bartell. Okay, my name's Diane Bartell. I live at 4911 Dentville Street and we're not used to the equipment. Just hold there with us please. Okay, Hazen and Sawyer did a thing about the raw water storage for the whole city of Durham. And I don't think that should be, have a whole lot of excess water because the intakes that they're wanting to do at a later date from the Eno River, they're wanting to pump into the quarry and where this property he's wanting to do plus where the school at Northern High comes in, it goes across onto behind our property and straight down and within before the intake to even take it from the Eno. So you're gonna have a whole lot of contaminants rolling off of parking lots from schools from his 160 houses on the other side and they're gonna be contaminating, being pulling into the quarry that's gonna have to be tended to. And this is for the whole city of Durham for when we start running out of water in a few years. So Hazen and Sawyer, you can look at. This is some more information up here with Hazen and Sawyer about storage development, about the level, if they do 265 foot elevation on the rock quarry for the city of Durham, I don't want bad water going to my people around here. You know? I'll tell you what, so let's do it. Okay, I got this map from the city planning board in Durham a few weeks ago and it shows Hebron Village in the very center. Now they're doing a retention pond on the corner by Summer Matter close to the church and there's already a retention pond that would be right across from it from Summer Matter where they've already got a big one that they have actually had break through several times. That's how the church kept getting flooded. And then if you look on the left side where Northern High School is, the retention pond actually backs up to our property on the backside of our property. It's gonna be much more massive than the one at Summer Matter or the one they're planning. And you're gonna have all this, if these retention ponds is holding all these chemicals bust, it's gonna go right before the intake for the city of Durham drinking water. And it's Northern High they're planning there. So y'all can check with the city and county and all that. Now, let's see, it's like selection. Okay, can you go smaller on it? No. Or you wanna go smaller? Smaller, it's smaller. I mean, not the other way. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right, it has my number on it to contact me if you need to discuss anything on it. It also mentions about the lights. We need one on Denfield and Hebron. Monk and Roxburgh. We need a special protective turn lights where it comes up to Captain D's on Denfield and Roxburgh Street. Cause there's no turn light. Even the cops, I've seen go two cars, blocking that intersection if they gotta go turn left to go to the hospital or the city of Durham. Because they know that they would never go on certain times of the day, which when if the school got developed out there too, there needs to be turn lanes and they've already told us they can't even do turn lanes. Cause there's not enough room without taking massive buildings like Captain D's and the advanced auto store. So we're in a quandary on that. So, and then this is also what I said, you know, like the lights needed, this piece of paper actually lists all the different lights, except it doesn't mention the light that's needed at Danube and Hebron. Also of all the buildings and stuff. And see when they built the Carver Street extension through there, what you don't know, and unless you've checked recently, there's several new developers looking to buy massive amounts of land. Some have already bought and from a neighbor on the Oxford Road side. So it's gonna be 1500 homes or more through that extension where they buy that vacant land that was in between that it freed up. That's gonna be like four blocks away from where his development is. So, and even on Denfield, we need speed bumps. We need them before weeping willow because they come out of that subdivision already where they come two or three cars at a time and they don't even stop to look to see dump truck traffic, let alone us. There's actually dump trucks out of hit cars coming through there already at several occasions plus other types of wrecks. Also need speed bump on that sharp curve just at the top of the hill on Denfield right around where the school would be and his subdivision that he wants to build. So we are inundated with being flooded, so many cars on the road, so many much dangerous traffic with dump trucks. It's really a bad, bad mix. So I want y'all to look at all this information. If they will allow, we'll give you, have copies made for everybody on here and the city council. I'll be fine with that. Everyone needs to see and study this. Thank you. Thank you. I have one other individual who has signed up. Cassandra, I apologize for not being able to make out the last name. Is it, if you could help me with the? Salaman. Cassandra Salaman. Okay, Salaman. On behalf of my community and my neighborhood, I live on Monk. Please state your address, your name and address and then. I'm Cassandra Salaman, I'm at 200 Monk Road. And on behalf of my neighbors and my community, I'm asking the planning committee, could they look at a stoplight to be put out on Monk in Brotsboro because within the last week, there has been at least four accidents and it's an accident home area anyway. So it will be safe and better if they will put a stoplight at that location. And also due to the heavy development that they are doing around the Monk Road area, the Hebron and Denfield, this was causing a lot of traffic. So if they would look at that, on behalf of me as a property owner and other neighbors around, we would like for the planning community to look at that to put a stoplight at the corner of Monk and Brotsboro Road. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have other individuals who would like to speak to, I do not have any others who have signed up. Do I have other individuals who would like to speak to the Hebron Village case before I close the public hearing? I will need you to come forward and then state your name and address and then sign your name on our listing. Hi, my name is Yolanda Williams. I live at 406 Summer Breeze Drive. I live in Summer Meadow subdivision. And I just wanted to reiterate what everyone else had said. We do have a lot of concerns with the traffic. We will need traffic lights. I did attend the meeting in July, held at the church with Mr. Severs. The majority of my neighbors do have a lot of concerns with that subdivision. One issue was the barrier if that would be taken care of. But the major concerns is that one of the main entrances or the main entrance will come through my subdivision. It will literally come right down my street past my house, which currently is a, it is a barrier itself. It is just a wall. And in speaking with the flooding, I don't know exactly where this lady and her husband live, but I can attest to some of the flooding. I have a neighbor that lives at that end who is currently selling her home. She had to take her own money and build rocks next to her property to combat some of the flooding coming down in our backyards. So I just want you to take that into consideration when it comes to this new development. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no other individuals who would like to speak, I'm going to close the public hearing and give out. Yes. There's one more. Please come to the, please come to the microphone. There's one more situation that he hasn't mentioned about that property they want to develop. It's about a 40 degree angle for about 600 feet coming down to where they would want to do the retention pond. The force of that water, if it was heavy rain like we're getting more and more of, could really bust through the dam and it could go flooding everywhere. Thank you. Those are additional comments from this Diane Bartell. If there are no other individuals who would like to speak, I'm going to close the public hearing and give commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. I'm going to start with commissioner Busby and commissioner Brian. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think my first question, I'll start with staff and this is my only question to start but it was mentioned the connection on Carver Road and I've heard this elsewhere as well that this will likely lead to a series of development proposals. And I'm just, can the staff share, are there any other proposals coming in this area to help give us a picture of what to expect because we're just looking at this by itself but I understand there's a lot more coming in the pipeline. Yeah, that's what they were saying. While we wait, I was going to ask Mr. Sivers if he could share anything as well. So I was hoping to have the staff go first if they have a response. Good evening, Jamie Soniak with the planning department. So Carver Street is not shown on your aerial so it's hard to give you some context but there is an application that is under review. It's Carver Street assemblage. It is, I don't want to misquote the number of units but it's in the 500, 600 range mix of single family and apartments. I believe the applicant, Tim Sivers is here so he can speak as well. But that is a case that is under review. There are adjacent to that. There's another case that just was recently submitted also for residential adjacent to the Carver Street assemblage site. Great, thank you. And Mr. Sivers, if you could expand on that or offer any additional input. So yes, the area I believe you're asking about is along Carver Street extension. So the road that's just been reopened or newly opened within the last 30 to 45 days. I am the applicant for a project that has been submitted in that area. It's on both the North and South side of Carver Street extension. It includes town home single and apartments for rent. In the 650 unit range, I'm also aware of another development near the intersection of Carver, Oxford, Hamlin. That's also residential. That is a town home and single family mix. I'm not the applicant on that. However, I'm familiar with the project. I'm also working on two other developments that are at that same intersection for commercial developments. Okay, that's great, thank you. That's all for now. I just wanted to make sure we had a sense of what we're expecting to see in this area, especially given the input that the neighbors have raised. I know we don't get all that here and I know that's a critique many of us have, but I know I'm certainly trying to keep that in mind as we deliberate on this item in front of us tonight. But that's it for the moment. Thank you. Commissioner Bryan. Thank you. I wanna start with question for staff. By my count, we have three new committed elements. The $11,000 payment to the public schools, $16,000 payment to affordable housing. And then if I understood correctly, a slight change in the housing will have up to 160 units, but the new commitment would be, or the revised commitment would be, it would be a combination of single family and town homes. My understanding is that it would be town homes or a combination of town homes and single family. Okay, please clarify if you would, sir. Yes, the staff is correct. It's either town homes or a combination of town homes and single family. Okay, and while you're at the microphone, there was a limitation that whatever's out there, you're not going to exceed 149 peak hour trips. And I'm just curious, where did that come from? So there's a couple items where that came from and transportation maybe would be able to assist with me on that, but the 149 peak hour trips comes from really two items in this case. One, it eliminates the need for a traffic study for this project. However, I'll iterate that 160 units as a quick calculation of if it was all town homes would be approximately 80 to 90 trips. So we're well under that 149 peak hour trips. So I don't want that to be misconstrued as we did 149 to get out of a traffic study. The number of units that would be able to be put on the site would not even be close to that peak hour trips. Why that's included is because it was a common correlation with transportation that they asked we include that for clear. Okay, fine. While you're there, I have a few more questions. When was the last time you went down summer breeze drive? I drove that area through that neighborhood during when I went up for the neighborhood meeting whenever that date was. July 30th was when we had me. And I'm sure you noticed that there's about a 10 to 12 foot elevation difference. Yes, sir. Yes. 13 feet. 13? 13 feet. So it's gonna to make that connection it seems like there's gonna have to be a little dirt moved considering the topology of that site. It seemed to me that it's most likely to be a clear cut and masqueraded, is that a fair assumption? Most likely, yes, sir. So you're gonna provide 20% tree coverage but considering that it's a heavily wooded site, the other side of that coin, it'd be 80% tree loss, tree coverage loss, which you will not, I know you'll have to replant some trees but I don't think you're gonna make up for the 80% loss. Text commitment number eight, I had a question about that. This was in response to a bike ped request about having bike lanes on a Denfield. And the way the text commitment reads is if access point number three is constructed then you will provide the additional asphalt. That's correct. My question is, will you provide bike lanes along Denfield irrespective of that third access point? No, I'd like to keep that commitment as is for now. If primarily because of the necessary road improvements for that, if we make that access to Denfield will potentially be improvements to Denfield for the access, which would then include the bike lanes. Okay, from my perspective, that third access point would seem to be one that's needed because if you don't have that third access point, you have two access points but one of them comes through already developed neighborhood. And if something happens to the access point off of Hebron Road and you have an emergency out there, you know, emergency vehicles are gonna be coming through an adjacent neighborhood. I think coming down Denfield would have an access point off of Denfield would be very good and would help provide access to the people up in the Northwest Point part of the development. And it also looks to me like an access point there would be easier to construct because the level of the road and the level of your site are pretty much even. Right, which is exactly why we showed it as an optional. So in this case, we're actually working for the property owner who's trying to sell the property. It's Java group. They own a lot of property throughout Durham. We're working with them on this and then because there's not a developer set in place for this, we wanted to provide that as an option but didn't want to provide it as a commitment as a full requirement to provide the developer whoever that is in the future an option to make that connection. The main access is on Hebron. The yes, the connection to summer breeze is a requirement because of the existing subdivision made that street stub. And yes, unfortunately, there is a large topography difference between right at the back of those homes which is also why during the neighborhood meeting we were actually some of the neighbors spoke up and said, our realtor told us we were gonna have a buffer back there. Well, I'm sorry, the ordinance doesn't actually require that which is why we wanted to work with these neighbors and say, hey, we'll provide the buffer. I'm sorry that wasn't the case but we'll go ahead and step up and provide that buffer for you. So yes, that's an access point but the primary access point will be on Hebron where we're providing the road improvements for it. And assuming from the way Hebron is curved on the development plan, I'm assuming that you guys will be constructing the realigned portion that's on your property that should eventually be extended over to Roxburgh. So that school site? That is a right away dedication. We're not committing to construct that portion. In the future, yes, the school site and there'll be a connection over to Roxburgh but we're providing, we're giving that right away, giving that land for the future connection, for the future construction. So we're committing to the right away dedication but not the construction of that. Okay, thank you for that clarification. And one final question. Do you have any idea what sort of amenities would be provided for the residents of this year? Again, because there's not a developer involved, I don't. The ordinance does require active open space and open space amenities because of the density will be, I believe it's either 15 or 16% of the site has to remain in open space and a third of that has to be active, meaning soccer fields tot lots, something to that effect. So something like that will be included as it is a requirement. So it's not something I can commit to tonight because it is a UDO requirement. Okay, thank you very much. You're welcome. Do you commission or Durkin followed by commission or Johnson? Since there's not a developer, I will refrain from asking my affordable housing density bonus question, but I do have a question for staff. So you're off the hook. For the concerns about the retainage pond and the kind of environmental concerns, where was there an EIS that was required or at what point would that be required if it hasn't been done yet? So stormwater reviewed the development plan at the development plan stage. There's very little information related to stormwater information that's primarily reviewed during site plan. So the details of what would be needed to treat or manage stormwater would be fleshed out at the site plan level. Commission or Johnson? Thank you. So maybe staff can help me clarify this. So I heard the applicant state and commissioner Brian state that the maximum units of 160, but when I'm looking at say the transportation impact and the maximum impact use, you have 135 single family residences and 19 townhouses. So that's 154 units. So is there a reason for that discrepancy or is it 160 or 154? I'm going to consult with transportation, but my understanding is that's tied to the maximum peak hour trips, but I want to verify with them both. Merlene Thomas, transportation. I believe that was tied to the original mix of units that the applicant was considering to get the determination of whether or not a TIA was needed, but at that time, there was not a commitment to a unit mix, which is why we require the statement regarding the limited to 149 peak hour trips, but the applicant has revised the text commitment to say that there will be a unit mix and that could vary, but cannot exceed that 149 peak hour trips. What's the peak hour trips that are basically driving the final number? Correct, correct. And so to the applicant, in acknowledging the concerns, particularly when it rains and all the water that collects on the roads and stuff, is I'm sure, am I correct in that, in assuming that this was brought up when you met with the community and presented whatnot, what is your response to the current reality and then the project that you're presenting tonight, which is basically cutting and masquerading and the pipeline projects that you mentioned that will likely entail more masquerading when you're cutting down trees. And so what's your response to the reality now and the potential impact of this project in particular on possibly contributing more to the negative impact that the existing community is experiencing. And if it's a case of your retention system that your program in the site is viable and relevant enough to address it, like how can you assure that the community, surrounding community that in fact is the case? Okay, a couple of questions and a couple of answers there. First, I do wanna clarify, it is the 160 units. So I know the report did fall with the maximum of the says the 154 there for the 135 and 19, but our proposal does have the 160, okay. As for the stormwater, thank you for asking that. I was hoping that question would come up so I'd have the ability to speak to the concerns of the neighbors. I would like to note that the neighbors, and I apologize, is your name was Martel, the Martel family. They are located, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe in the upper, let's see, northwest corner of our property on the other side of Denfield, almost across from Weeping Hill, right up in here. Yeah, okay. That's the church, this is not for me to go on here. Okay, and speaking with the neighbor here, the church is directly across from Weeping Hill. They are directly to the north is where their property is. And if you notice on the existing conditions plan, the topography in that area, yes, the existing, there's existing low area that drains to that northwest corner almost pointed directly at their home. Our site will be regraded, there is a good amount of topography changes on this. So our site will be regraded, and whether there's a stormwater facility in that location, or if that area is brought to a different location and treated, I'm not sure at this time, those details haven't been designed yet because there's not a developer involved. However, I would like to point out that the stormwater orange does require that whatever's flowing off site now, we cannot increase that. So there's a, for example, if you think about peak hour, there's amount of water in a rainstorm that flows off of the existing property now. We will not be able to increase that. We actually have to hold that water and slow that down and over a three to five day period, release that back down to the existing channel. So their property, yes, does, there is some existing stormwater that runs from this property to that. And if that does contain, it will not be increased. As for existing flooding issues, they live there, they're the ones that are aware of this. I haven't been made aware. It was discussed at the neighborhood meeting, I should say. But as for the project, the existing development to the right or to the east, the same applies there. We'll have a stormwater facility that will not only treat, but it will hold that water back and help treat that water and hold that water to slow the release of a downstream. So if I heard you correctly, what you've articulated to me and reflect it back to the concerned neighbors is that your responsibility per what's required when you get to site planning, is that they can only expect their bad situation to remain bad. You won't make their bad situation worse. That's correct. Based off of city and state regulations. Thank you. Are the other commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Baker and then Commissioner Miller. I'd like to ask my commissioners to look at the aerial of the site because it's an awkward site. It's bordered on the south and on the west by Denfield and Hebron and on the east and on the north by other residential development. To the north, to the east, there's only one connection that can be made. To the north, there are no connections that can be made. We did that. We continue to do that. That is the DNA that we have in place to build the city is disconnected low density residential subdivisions. We will continue to be doing that. They're currently developing that way, whether it comes before us or not. And so we need to be demanding better from developers and from ourselves. I am not gonna be voting for this. This is an easy note for me. There are a lot of things that would need to change for me to be able to support that. I don't think that the developer would be willing to make the number of commitments that I would request. One of those commitments being to follow the comprehensive plan policy 222D, suburban tier mix use which encourages elements of traditional neighborhood design, including pedestrian or infocal node of activity appropriate mix of land uses that are physically and functionally integrated development patterns and intensities that are supportive of a wide range of housing options, employment opportunities, community functions, transportation choices. These are things that need to be incorporated in new developments. It's in the comprehensive plans, very clear. Policy 421G sustainability incorporating best practices, sustainable features, 425D, increasing use of solar power, wind power. You've heard me say these things before and then 422A, varied housing and new development, having a variety of housing types. We heard a laudable commitment to potentially have two options for housing, but most likely have one. And I don't think that that's good enough for us to be recommending approval of. Important features and best practices that I think need to be incorporated, not just into this development, but into developments that come for us. You've heard me say these before again, compact dense, integrated variety of housing types, connected streets with short walkable blocks. We've talked about what those blocks actually might look like in practice, having sidewalks and street trees between the sidewalk and the curb, having a variety of accessible and appropriate uses for employment and services, having centralized public, civic and open spaces and uses, houses at front onto that open space and create civic places, protection of and access to green space and small scale agriculture, anticipating potential future bus transit. I could go on and on with the list and these are definitely encouraged in the comprehensive plan. They're also consistent with best practices. It's of course our job up here. This is a discretionary decision. It's our job up here to determine if development proposal promotes health, safety and welfare for Durham. If it makes Durham a better place, Commissioner Brian pointed out will be that this could lead to 80% reduction of trees. I would argue that we should be concerned about that and that if we're going to do that, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that. If we're going to do that, then it better be good and it better make Durham a better place. So I will not be supporting this. I will be voting to, I will be voting to recommend denial to city council on this. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. So thank you, Madam Chairman. I wanted to ask Ms. Bartell if she'd come back up to the microphone just to make sure I understand. And I believe the staff cut off the overhead. Can we cut that back on again? Cause you had a map that I think was more instructive than the one we have. There you go. What's the map you want for? You had a map showing where the school proposal. And I'm not interested in it so much for the school proposal, but because it demonstrates one, if you could put your finger on your property just to make sure it's all right, it's that one. So if I'm driving north on Denfield there, I'd just pass. This is P-shaped problem, it's sitting right there. Right, so I pass Weeping Willow and then yours is going to be the next one on the left. And. The church, this is not probably right here. Kind of a triangle shape. Right, right. It's seven acres. And you've got that church that's right there opposite Weeping Willow. That's immediately to your side. And so I was just looking at the topo in the existing conditions map that Mr. Cyvers directed us to. And this is in our packet. The site has two high spots. One is, and it's got this interesting watershed division line in it. So one of the high spots is where Summer Breeze Drive. Great, great jump. And presumably that's the way the developer of that subdivision graded that out, created that kind of wall there. And the other one is the hill that's down kind of in the lower center. And then the property goes, then there's a ridge that runs over towards Weeping Willow. And you've got kind of a chute of water that runs right up towards the Bartel's property. And then there's another chute that runs the other direction on the other side of the ridge line. And I'm just looking from the top of that hill, which looks like it's at about 396, down to what I'm guessing the topo is when it hits your property, which is somewhere around 340 something, that's a 50 foot drop. You'd have to do a lot of grading to change the way the water would flow in that area. And- I don't know if that's the point, but the opening fund for the school is right here. It's right there, it's about property and wealth. And it's a lot bigger than any of the other two that they're scheduling or some amount of has put together. That's even bigger. So, and then there is, so I'm just, I wanted to make sure I understood what you were telling us about where the water goes. And I was, have I got it right? That blue line is where the water goes to. All right. So, it's 27,154 gallons of rain water runoff per acre or one inch of rain. And we do have a concern. We asked the developer when he was at Duke's Chapel with us what like inch, how many inches of rain per hour the retention pond would hold. And no one has ever got back with us on that. And really with this, all this global warming and stuff the whole city and county of Durham it needs to rethink how much retention water, you know, inches per hour because we need to increase that. So other neighborhoods being developed later won't be flooded out. It needs to be increased. You're talking over six million gallons of water just from this subdivision coming down my property. What do you agree to up? Thank you. Thank you very much. I just want to make sure that I was getting the picture. And so I thought about this project and to each meeting Mr. Baker persuades me more and more that we need to expect more and more of suburban development because it is where the people are going to go. We're not going to shoehorn them back into the urban tier. We are, when they come we're going to put them in the suburban tier and we need to be more deliberate about what we approve in the suburban tier. And we might fight on this project or that project about mix of units and numbers of units and densities and all of that. But I do think that we need to be more deliberate. And I know that we have a pattern up here of when the real developer of a piece of property is standing at the microphone and then we ask for all kinds of commitments. But when somebody who is seeking to rezone a piece of property is not the real developer but wants to put the property up for sale we use a different standard saying, no, they can't commit so we won't ask for commitments. I think that's inverted. If anything, since it's our last shot at trying to influence development towards the good we should expect more. I'm going to try to be more deliberate in the time I have left on the commission about evaluating suburban developments of size and 30 acres is a big one still now these days. And also be less likely to give the speculative applicant a pass that I would never give to the actual builder developer. And so based on that and because I do think I think this property should be developed. I think it should be developed correctly and sensitively and I think it needs the development plan. That's the great thing about a PDR it has to have a development plan. It's our chance to use the UDO to get the things that the comprehensive plan says we want. We have one shot at it. And so I want this piece of property to be developed a mix of the right mix of single family homes and townhouses could sell me, but I don't know if this is the right mix because we don't have the development commitments that would make me feel good about it. It could be 156 single family homes and four townhouses. It's unlikely, but townhouses have to come in blocks of four. So if there has to be a mix, that's not a real mix. And I don't think that any developer would develop it that way, but I'd like to have a better expression of mix and there's a way to do that that still gives plenty of flexibility. I like this idea of integrating housing types for variety. Something that our comprehensive plan has anticipated since we adopted it in 2006 and I've hardly ever seen it. Maybe it's time to... And so I think because we don't see it, we don't take it seriously. Maybe it's time to start taking it seriously. So I'm going to join Mr. Baker in a no vote on this one, but it's not because I don't think this property shouldn't have 160 dwelling units. And with the right PDR proposal with good development plan commitments from somebody who's ready to follow through with them and one of those development commitments, I'd like to see, although we have pushed site plan review, I'd like to see a commitment to something better than the standards, stormwater, catchment, retention. That is possible to put in a developmental plan and I don't know why we shouldn't expect it more frequently. So I'll be joining Mr. Baker in a no vote on this one. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Lowe. Yes, this question is for the applicant. I believe I heard you say that the project would not increase the runoff to the artel property or would not make it worse. I believe I understand you just say that. That is correct. What assurance could you give them that it would not be made worse? Is that there's no 100% guarantee, I guess. Is there like 80% sure it would not make it worse? Well, that statement is based off the stormwater regulations that are put in place by the city and the state. At the time of site plan, we have to follow those regulations. So as a percentage of a guarantee, everyone's opinion of worse and everyone's opinion of a flooding is different definitions, but as the law states, the regulations that we have to follow are a full requirement and that requires that at the property line we cannot increase the flow that crosses that property line. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Are there any commission or Alturk? Thank you, Chairwoman. I have a couple of questions for staff. I'll start with transportation. So currently the assumptions are 135 single family lots and 19 townhomes, but let's say that it is 160 townhomes, which is a possibility now, right? Would that be fewer? Would that be less traffic or more traffic? Be less, right? I would have to run the numbers to say what, with certainty, what the amount would be, but in general, townhomes generate less trips than single family homes. So you would expect it to be less if it were more townhomes and less single family. Thank you. On the development plan, there is a commissioner of Brian mentioned optional access point number three. And it says on there it's contingent on NCDOT approval. So what is that approval for? Generally, I mean, any connection to the state highway system would have to be approved by DOT and subsequent improvements made if required, such as turn lanes. However, the access point is up to the applicant, whether or not it's implemented, it's not required by ordinance. Okay, thank you. I have a couple of questions for Emily, I guess, or staff more generally. So we, you know, we often talk about the impacts on stormwater and traffic. And sometimes we talk about impacts on schools, but, you know, when we talk about schools, it kind of gets papered over because typically or always in our staff report, we say that the school system has the capacity to absorb however many students. But that is based on a system-wide, those are based on system-wide numbers. Now, when I was first on, when I got on the commission about three, over three years ago, there used to be, from what I remember, our numbers of the local, the schools that are nearby. Is there a reason that we don't have any, you know, we can't assess the impact on local schools of development? This is just a general comment too. My understanding is that the school system has requested that we look at it in whole. I will check with my supervisor. Good evening, I'm Scott White, one of the planning department. So the reason why we use the system-wide is that's what the comprehensive plan policy references. And there's a lot of reasons for that. It's not the one I contradict my colleague, but it's not because that's what the school system prefers, but it's because, you know, during public schools, we have a lot of magnet programs. The closest school to this site is a magnet. The closest elementary school. We have overlapping year-round schools. So it is really hard to determine that one student who is living in one of these townhouses is going to go to which school. So- But we could probably use some historical data to kind of give some estimate of where, or the distribution, right? Or no, couldn't do that. It's probably some data out there that might help come close, but it's really hard to do. Yeah, it just seems to me that, you know, if we're talking about impact on traffic, we don't talk about traffic at the county level. We talk about local traffic. So I would just, I don't know, talk to maybe the school system and try to reassess that. It seems to me to make more sense, but I take your point. So I appreciate that. One last question, I guess, for staff. You know, Commissioner Baker mentioned a number of comprehensive plan policies that he does not think that this, this development is consistent with. So why, I guess, you know, why pick, you know, we often get these particular policies in attachment six, you know, suburban tier defined, contiguous development, enough capacity, but there are a lot of policies in the comprehensive plan that we don't, you know, get to see and whether, and we don't see whether they're consistent with those policies or not. I'm increasingly convinced by Commissioner Baker that there are a number of policies in the comprehensive plan that, you know, these developments are not consistent with is, you know, I would like to see a little bit more, I guess, on those policies that he's, that he has highlighted in the last few months in staff report and whether, and I would like your opinion on whether he, you know, he's correct of whether they're consistent or not with those policies. Yeah, thank you. Good evening, Sarah Young with the Planning Department. I wanted to remind the commission that a lot of the policies in the comprehensive plan, including many of the ones that Commissioner Baker often refers to, start with the phrase through the UDO. And that means that that is a homework assignment for the staff to develop either a set of regulations or a plan or some development guidance to put in place. Those were never intended and are not to be applied to development projects as they come through the pipeline. And this is a topic that we've touched on, I believe repeatedly in various sessions. So I just want to put that out there to not confuse folks that any time a policy starts with that, that is essentially a project for planning staff or some other departmental staff to work on. And those policies are not to be applied to individual development projects. Okay, that is helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Commissioner Busby. I said I'd be back. Here I am. I do have just two questions. One is for staff. And I just hadn't been thinking of this beforehand. Knowing that this is adjacent to the likely future site of Northern High School, are there any additional standards that need to be met? And because I'm thinking this development will be in the walk zone for the new high school at some point. So are there any additional standards that we need to meet because of that? We know that in advance. I don't believe there are any other policies related to that or ordinance requirements specific to the school location. Okay, thank you. I would submit, I would hope that we would think about that from the development standpoint as we move forward. I'm of a similar mind to Commissioner Miller. I think this is an appropriate site to develop given that Durham is growing and where it's located. But I do have concerns about some of the issues in this particular proposal this evening. My second question was for Mr. Severs, if you would entertain us one last time. I know you had made the additional commitment on the townhouses as a committed element, potentially with single family. And it will be 160 total units not to exceed the 149 peak hour trips. Are you willing to make additional commitments on numbers this evening? And I'll say, I'm glad to see the commitment to the mix, the mix of townhomes and single family, but it's still a pretty wide range that we're looking at. And are there numbers that you're comfortable making a commitment in terms of a level of certainty for the neighbors and for the community? Tim Severs, our vast associates. Yeah, so the revised tax commitment took out the ability to have a complete single family development. We still include, and for clarity, we do still include the ability to construct a complete townhome development, which would be less traffic as transportation stated. If this would suffice and staff would be willing to work with us, I would be willing to commit to a minimum townhome number, but I don't know if that quite gets you to what you're looking for. Some of the, some of the developer, this has been put out, some of the developers that are looking at this are looking for a mix. Some others are looking for a townhome development. So the ability for my client to be able to sell this, I don't feel comfortable committing to an absolute combination of both, but I would be willing to commit to a certain percentage of townhomes, but I don't know if that quite gets you what you're looking for. I'm not sure it does. Mostly I'm interested in just the most clarity possible that you're willing to commit in writing at this point. And so there's not a number that I have in mind. I actually prefer having some mix personally, but I just wanted to get a sense of how far you were willing to make a commitment this evening. So I'm not expecting anything. Okay, thank you. All right, thanks. Thank you. Are there other commissioners who would like to speak to this issue? If not, I will entertain a motion. Madam Chairman, I move in case Z19, 0, 0, 0, 1, 6 concerning development of Hebron Village that the Planning Commission send that forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation also including the additional commitments that were proffered tonight, which I believe relate to schools, affordable, a contribution to the affordable housing fund and also a commitment that there will be a mix of townhouses and single family residences. Second. Just for clarification, it wasn't- Why still? It was not a commitment for a mix. It was a commitment that it would be townhomes or a mix of single family towns. Oh, pardon me, that's correct. That it would be, it would not be all single family. That it would either be all townhomes or a mix. Okay. Forgive me, that's my bad. Okay, I just need to be clear that the staff is clear on the commitments that were made and included. That was meant to be comprehensive, even if it wasn't. Yes, staff has reviewed the proposed commitments and it's comfortable with them moving forward. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Miller and second by Commissioner Alter that we move item number Z 1, 9, 0, 0, 0, 1, 6, Hebron Village forward to the City Council with favorable recommendations including commitments, proffered commitments that have been recorded. I'm gonna call for a roll call vote please. Commissioner Williams? No. Commissioner Johnson? No. Commissioner Bryan? No. Commissioner Durkin? No. Commissioner Alturk? No. Vice Chair Busby? No. Chair Hyman? No. Commissioner Miller? No. Commissioner Ketchin? No. Commissioner Santiago? No. Commissioner Baker? No. Commissioner Lowe? No. And Commissioner MacGyver? No. Motion fails, 13-0. Thank you. 13. We're ready to move to the next public hearing. Glen Road Town Homes, we're ready for the staff report please. I'm gonna make it, yes, thank you. Good evening, I'm Jamie Sonjak with the Planning Department. I will be presenting case number Z1900018 Glen Road Town Homes. The applicant is Charlie Oakley from McAdams. The property is located at 3516 Glen Road. It is currently located within the county jurisdiction pending annexation application. The site is approximately 52 acres. The request is to rezone the property from rural residential to planned development residential with a density of 7.046. The future land use designation is currently medium density residential and there's no change to that. The applicant is proposing up to 279 townhouse units. This slide shows the property highlighted in red. It is located within the suburban tier, the Neuse River Basin and the Falls Jordan Watershed Protection Overlay District. Over half of the property is located within the major transportation core overlay I-85. The property is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. There's an existing pond, several areas of wetlands and riparian features located on the site. Single family residential development but the property to the north, the south and west. Additional lands to the east and west are undeveloped. Interstate 85, commercial shopping and transit services are located less than one half mile along Glen School Road. This slide shows the existing and proposed zoning. On the left, the property is shown in yellow which is rural residential. And again, the property the applicant proposes to change the zoning to a planned development residential district with a density of 7.046. Future land use map, as mentioned before, it is medium density residential which is consistent with the zoning request. As shown on this map, this location serves as a buffer between the low density residential future land use designation to the north that's in yellow. The office future land use designation to the west and the industrial future land use designation to the south and east. And the red area is the commercial future land use designation that is to the south and east as well. The development plan shown here provides site access points, project boundary buffers, riparian buffers and crossings, the 10 foot no build zones, the building and parking envelope, free coverage areas and the maximum impervious coverage. Key commitments on the development plan include limiting the development to townhouse units, limiting the number of units up to 279, including additional asphalt for the construction of a future bicycle lane and dedicated right away. In addition, the development plan shows the graphic commitments for various roof types, building materials and architectural features. In terms of consistency with the comprehensive plan and its policies, the proposal, if approved, would increase the density and commit to residential while still remaining consistent with the future land use designation of medium density residential. In terms of policy 212C, the proposed development plan would allow for more units and generally a more affordable unit type, multifamily as opposed to single family, accommodating additional growth within the suburban tier. And as mentioned, the property is less than a half mile from Interstate 85, an existing bus route along Glen School Road and retail shopping. The proposal supports orderly development patterns in that it would expand upon the existing development patterns to the north, south and west. The townhouse development does create an appropriate buffer and transition between those single family neighborhoods, the office and industrial future land use designation, then nearby highway, shopping and the commercial future land use map designation. Existing infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer capacity are sufficient to accommodate the potential impacts. And the proposed development plan is consistent with policy 11. Oops, sorry, there's some typos on this slide. So just follow along with what I'm saying. The proposed development plan is consistent with the policies related to schools as there's sufficient capacity within the school system to accommodate the additional growth. And that's policy 11, 1, 1B. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. I have three people who have signed up to speak for and to against. I'm gonna open the public hearing and start down. The names I have listed are Charlie Yokely, Bob Mischler and Bahati Matissia. Are you okay? Okay, thank you. Just state your name and address when you come forward. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the commission. My name is Bahati Matissia with Parker Poe Adams and Bernstein at 301 Vable Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. The land use attorney for this rezoning and with me is the developer builder, Ashton Woods and with representative for him is Mr. Bob Mischler. And also with us is Charlie Yokely with McAdams. Thank you, Jamie, for a wonderful summary of our request. I'd like to just add some additional information that I think would be helpful for the commission. So as Jamie mentioned, we are requesting a rezoning of 52.5 acres on Glen Road from rural residential to a PDR maximum density of 7.046 units per acre for a 279 unit town home development. On this slide, I just wanted to point out we think that this location is a great location for this type of development given that it is its proximity to the I-85 corridor and which would give the future residents access to jobs and other services in Durham. Additionally, there's a commercial node just to the south of the site. And it will provide a nice buffer between the residential developments to the north and that I-85 corridor and commercial node to the south. Looking at the land use pattern existing zoning map, the site is currently zoned RR. But as I mentioned, there's a commercial node to the south and the homes that are to the north of the site are zoned RR as well, mostly single family. By providing town homes here would be adding variety to the area and again providing a nice transition between those homes to the north and that commercial node and that I-85 to the south. Jamie also mentioned that the designation for the site is moderate density residential. That allows six to 12 units per acre. And so we wanted to make sure that we stayed within that designation. We initially were considering single family homes for this development, but with the pond that's on the site and the other riparian features on the site, there are some site constraints and the single family plan that we initially came up with was not allowing us to get to that higher density to be within the six to 12 units that we wanted to be consistent with for the flume. So that's where we ended up going to a full town homes development, which keeps us within that range and keeps us consistent with the future land use map and also allows us to provide additional units to meet Durham's growing housing demand. Jamie also mentioned what our key text commitments are, maximizing the number of units to 279 and committing them to them being town homes. The maximum impervious surface area will not exceed 70%. We are gonna be dedicating additional right of way to the realignment of Glen School Road, which is in the image on the screen, it's gonna be the lower right hand corner of the site. So that extension is gonna come through the site there and we're gonna dedicate right away for that to help with making transportation in the area a little bit easier. We're also gonna include an eastbound left turn lane along Glen School Road at that access point that will also help with some of the traffic congestion so that we have people exclusively in that turn lane getting out of the lane so that we don't have a lot of traffic backed up there. And then we're also gonna offer a minimum of five feet of additional asphalt for a bike lane. So we're gonna be exceeding the UDO requirements there. Actually, I wanna go back. But using this image, I also wanted to point out that we have multiple access points on the site to help with access and connectivity in the area. The two access points that are along the, which is actually the eastern boundary line of the site, but is the, what it looked like to be the northern boundary line on this image, those are likely gonna be planned to be stubs that could be built out to be full connection connecting points. So if something is developed on the eastern side of the property, we could have connections there. As Jamie mentioned, we do have a pond on the site and some repairing features we wanna maintain the pond there and clean up some of the vegetation around it so it can be somewhat of an amenity on the site for the residents there. So we also will be meeting the 20% TCA requirement and the 17% open space requirement. So about 37% of the site will be either open space or TCA. And generally speaking, we aim to keep the lot sizes relatively small on the development so that would hopefully keep the price point relatively low. We were looking at a price point between 200 to 300,000 but we're trying to keep it to the lower 200 and for affordability reasons. And in terms of design, we're also looking at a variety of design styles which would include craftsman like style, traditional colonial neoclassical style buildings and those particular words that I just mentioned are design commitments and the goal with having the various styles for the units is to make sure that we don't have a monotonous town home development but there's some variety in the look of the homes. And we had a neighborhood meeting on August 21st. It was a voluntary neighborhood meeting. We were not required to do one because we're not amending the flume. One of the main comments that were mentioned at the meeting was the neighbors would like to see lower density single family homes but we explained to them the same thing I just mentioned about the desire of wanting to stay within that moderate density residential six to 12 unit per acre density to meet the growing housing demand in Durham and they also mentioned that they were concerned about traffic but as mentioned by staff earlier by transportation earlier single family homes yield more traffic trips than town homes do. We mentioned, we talked to them about where the access points are. They raised questions about what type of stormwater mechanisms we would have on the site and we mentioned that we'll do the proper studies to make sure that we are not increasing stormwater or making adverse impacts on surrounding developments. We explained to them that we will have open space on the site as well as TCA and we also mentioned that we will be preserving the pond. I spoke with a neighbor who mentioned that that was a feeding ground for our animal neighbors and so we wanna make sure that she knew that we were gonna be preserving that area and of course we also discussed the price point. So the criteria that's before the planning commission today we think we meet all four of these bullet points here compatible with the nearby property. There's other residential in the area we'd be adding a variety of a product type to the area but of course it is in a good location for residential given this proximity to I-85 and the commercial node. It is a site that is suitable for residential use as stated in the staff report. It doesn't meet a specific demand, the housing demand that is in Durham and of course a staff report also mentions that the infrastructure is available and sufficient to support this use on this site. And we wanted to also just highlight the other comprehensive plan policies that staff mentioned in the staff report. Within the suburban tier higher density is appropriate and so that's why we're aiming to put higher density here. Affordability is also something that we've heard the commission speak about and it is an important issue. As I mentioned before, we're aiming to keep the lot sizes relatively small to keep the price point relatively low. But also we will be making a contribution to the affordable housing fund of $41,850 with regard to the contiguous and how it fits into the area. Again, being near the I-85 corridor, providing that transition between the homes to the north and the commercial node and having those two stubs that could be built out to be connected to other development that may be built on the eastern side of the property. Infrastructure and capacity and school capacity. The staff report indicates that the site does have sufficient infrastructure and that the student yield for this development is nine students, but we will be making a contribution to the school fund of $4,500 for that to contribute to that cause. And we had the opportunity to meet with several members of the commission and we thank you for your time and for those that we did not get a chance to meet with. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to meet with everybody. We heard a lot of wonderful comments that we agree with and we are working on trying to figure out how we can get the right language for additional commitments and we're gonna work with staff for that, but we're not able to commit specifically to the development, to those commitments tonight, but we did take your comments into consideration and we're working on that language and I'm sure you might have questions that will bring those up and we can discuss those at the time if you like. Thank you. You have left very little time for your colleagues, but they are welcome to use the next minute. You guys, do you have additional? You can have my one here. Well, they will use their time. We're good on that. All right, thank you. So those are the individuals that I have listed to speak for that would be, now I have two individuals who have signed up to speak against William Hernandez and Alina Hernandez. My name is William Hernandez, 3724 Glen Road. I like it, my wife is speaking in kids. Thank you. Since we're all much from the other town, Tom, is there any way we can deliver this? Well, your time is different because those were individuals who were speaking for, now you have 10 minutes. Okay, all right. So my name is Nina Hernandez. My address is 3724 Glen Road, Durham, North Carolina. It is actually the property that is right connected beside to this property that they are trying to put on. If you go down Glen Road from the stop sign, I'm the very first property that you hit before this big piece of land. I've got several concerns. One of them is a traffic on that road. I know they're talking about turning lanes and everything, but even though their timeout is connected to 85, you've got to think of all the traffic that's coming down Cold Mill Road also to get to that development. There's an extremely sharp term down there that even with the minimum traffic that we have now, there has been very close calls because it's such a sharp term coming down the opposite way. The other concern is I know they spoke about the school systems being able to manage all the school and students coming in. Our district is Northern High School. They are building a new high school due to overload of the students. And then you're bringing in more developments for that high school. And then I'm hearing even tonight, there's more developments at other properties also close to Northern High School, the new one, that's gonna also be additional students to the new high school they're about to build. So that's a little concern that I'm listening that I'm getting from tonight. Let's see what else. I know they stated that having the town homes would also be a buffer from a residential to the commercials. But as I've sat here tonight, I've listened that y'all have spoken about combination of town homes and single homes. I prefer to have single homes beside of me since we're all of a community of single homes. But is there any way they would even consider having a mix of single homes and town homes just to make it more of a community fluent from all the single homes that we do have in this area? I know they spoke about the runoff from and them trying to keep all the runoff at a minimum due to the regulations. My one concern is we have already a lot of development across from the road back in the back that a lot of that drain storms comes down on the side of my property where there is an actual stream that runs right at the back of my property that all that rainwater runs into. Which is a concern because once you got more of the concrete, more of the development that just means there's coming more into that stream. And if there's more there, it's gonna back up into my property eventually. Let me see. I know there's a question about the traffic also. My property is right beside that building that they're about to build. I've had multiple cars flipped in my yard because we are county and they're gonna try to become city. The other night we waited almost two hours for the sheriff to come out for us to be able to get the car out of my yard that had flipped because that's how the speed limit is through that area. So that speed limit from Coal Mill Road all the way down will have to be at least decreased from 45 miles an hour to 35 to be able to compromise for all the traffic that's gonna come in and out of that complex that they're about to build. Sorry, this first time I've done this, so I'm trying to get all my thoughts together. Please take your time. You still have some additional time left. There's also a question. There's only a stop sign right there at Glen School Road into Glen Road. There is no light there. There has been very close calls right there with the traffic that we do have coming from the developments further down Glen Road. There would, I'm questioning, is there gonna be a stop light there? Because even coming back from Gear Road as you're coming down, as you come down Glen Road, that traffic can speed up quickly and there's no stop light there and there's just a stop sign with all that traffic coming in is gonna cause another point of accidents also. That's all I've got right now. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other individuals who would like to speak? Well, at this point against this issue because we have very little time left on the other side. If not, I'm going to close the public hearing and give the commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. I'll start to my right. Commissioner Brine and then commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Johnson, did you also have your hand up? Okay, thank you. So we'll start with, and I'm pronouncing the name so that the audio is able to follow you visually. So if I start saying your name, it is because the camera is going to be focused on you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, a question for staff just to make sure that I heard things right. I heard two additional committed elements offered 41,000 to affordable housing and 4,500 to school. Am I correct in that? Boom. 850. Oh, 850, thank you. Jamie Sanyak with the Planning Department. I'm sorry, I only heard one of the proffers and I was going to ask the applicant to clarify that. So maybe a hottie can come back up. But what I heard was 41,850 towards the affordable housing fund. And I didn't hear the second one. Yes, hi, Bahati Matissier. Yes, 41,850 to the affordable housing fund and 4,500 to the public schools. Okay. Okay. And those are additional. All right. Thank you. Oh. Pardon me. And so staff, typically when we see these proffers and commitments to the affordable housing fund and school fund, we also need to put in a timing commitment for that. So the staff would only suggest language including that the contributions would be required prior to the first CEO. And I'll have to confer with my client and then we'll work on that language with you to make sure that we get that clarified before. So if you're proffering those commitments tonight, we'll need to know if that's acceptable. Otherwise, if you're not, then we can work with you on the language. But that's my understanding is you're proffering it tonight. We'll work with you on the language. Okay. So then not additional proffers tonight. We'll work with staff on the language and have to proffer them before council. Okay. While you're at the microphone. Yes. Our staff may also need to come in on that, but I had a question about something that BikePed raised about a text commitment to dedicated trail easement for a paved greenway trail. And the transportation response was the applicant has already included a pro offer for right away dedication. I didn't see that on the development plan. So I admit I'm old in my eyes or not as good, but. Erlene Thomas transportation. I don't know if all of the response was included in the report, but the trail actually follows the right of way alignment for the proposed roadway Northern Durham Parkway. So that right of way is included with what's being dedicated. Okay. In fact, they are actually offering a little bit more. Okay. In that corner. And while you're at the microphone, there is going to be a future Glen School Road realignment at some time. That is a part of the future Northern Durham Parkway. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you for that. I noticed that you have two entrances. I think the number four, number five off of Glen Road itself, but you have no current lanes for those entrances. I don't believe that was required by our conversation with transportation staff. Did you want to, that was not required when we spoke with transportation, but if you want to add any more. Okay. Well, I personally have a problem with that because as it stands now, the traffic estimation, you're going to be generating 1,400 more trips per day. And if you have three main entrances that are going to be used right away, I would say maybe two thirds of that's going to come into Glen Road. So that's adding over 900 trips a day to Glen Road. And you've already heard concerns about traffic on Glen Road. So I think the fact that if you don't have any turn lanes there, you may be able to get by for a little bit, but I think it's going to be a big problem in the future if this does go forward. So, and I also believe that if you want to facilitate people getting around the bicycle lane on Glen Road would be useful. And I noticed that you had on the development plan a site access point, number six, I think it was, which looks to me like it's centered right on the Hernandez property. Oh, that's going to be moved. We will be moving. Sorry. You're going to be removing that. That will be moved. We'll be moving it. Yes. East. Okay. So it'll be coming off of that RSM piece. Yes. Okay. Correct. All right. I apologize for not mentioning that earlier. And you had an interesting context statement on your development plan, which the last two sentences, the proposed medium density development will continue the existing development pattern in this area. The two and our three story building heights will be similar to adjacent residential development. And I respectfully disagree with that statement because when I drove around in the existing residential development, I saw only two story houses. Everything else was single story. And I can't see how two and three story buildings are really going to be that compatible with the adjacent residential development, especially where the adjacent residential development abuts the development. So I don't know if you want to comment on that or not, but... Well, I'll say that the exact height of the town homes is not determined at this time. But I believe, and I may have to check with staff on this about whether the zoning for those homes allows two to three stories. I think that made the intention. So the maximum building height, unless you're identifying it on the development plan would be 35 feet currently. So you're held to that. Right, I'm saying for the zoning, for the single family homes to the north, if they're allowed to have two to three stories within that zone. Yeah, I'll double check, but the building height would be 35. Okay. It goes by feet, not stories. Okay. Madam Chair, that's all I have at the moment, but I may ask to speak again. All right, thank you. Commissioner Durkin. I just had a question for the applicant about whether you thought about utilizing the affordable housing density bonus from this project. We did not, my understanding is that the goal for making the development more affordable was to limit the lot size, having smaller lot sizes to keep the price point lower. And so that was the goal that we were going into with this development. Is there, but no consideration for actually taking advantage of the bonus, which would have done and require that you commit a certain number to be defined as affordable? Yeah, and at this time, we're not able to commit to something like that at this time, but we will, among other things that we're considering, we'll consider that, but I don't think we're able to do that at this time. Okay. Commissioner Busby. Madam Chair, can staff had a couple of clarification we wanted to make real quick if you didn't mind? Yes, go right ahead. Thank you. Erlene Thomas, Transportation. I just wanted to respond to Commissioner Bryan's question regarding the turn lane requirements on Glen Road. So this is a state maintain road. They, NCDOT did not require the turn lanes at the time of the development plan. However, they reserve the right to make additional requirements at the time of site plan, depending upon spacing and internal site layout. So I just wanted to point that out. Thank you very much for that. It doesn't change my opinion that I think they're needed. And staff heard mention of shifting site access number six. So we just wanted some additional clarification exactly what that means. Yeah, this actually came out of the neighborhood meeting. It's pointed directly at the Hernandez's house, which we think is a pretty bad idea. So it just be shifting east enough so that it's not pointed at their house. I mean, just we weren't able to get that in with the schedule we were on to get to this hearing tonight, but it is our intention to shift that to the east. It's not a big shift, just so it's not pointed at their house. So staff just suggests or requires that you work with us on trying to identify where that is going to go. We'll be talking a lot after this meeting. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Alturk and then Commissioner Miller. You recognize me? Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. I don't mind if Alturk goes first though. Go ahead. All right, I resemble that. Great, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. One just quick question for staff. So on the first page, this says that this is currently in the county and that it's proposed to go into the city. So I didn't see it in the report. I assume there'll be a concurrent annexation. Oh, yes. For it's going to city council. Correct. There is an associated annexation case tied to this. So it will be consolidated to city council. Great, thank you. And then I'll just say that Ms. Hernandez raised this. And I think it's a good point of just considering a mix of housing is always something that I think is appropriate. I personally like that we're going to see a fair amount of townhouses, but that's something that I think would be worth considering as we look at the proposal. And then I did just want to make sure I understood it correctly that the proffers that were made earlier have been taken off the table this evening. Is that correct? I just want to make sure I understood. I couldn't tell if you're saying you're willing to work with the staff tonight or if you're saying you're willing to work with the staff moving forward, but not this evening. I have a hot team in city. Yes, moving forward staff to make sure we get the language correct. I don't know if we'll be able to get that tonight. So, are you, we could just have one second. Sure. I just got clarification. So we are fine with the timing of the proffers that we made having it be at the time of the first CEO. So we can keep those. If staff is comfortable with that language, then we can put those on the table tonight and we can leave them on the table tonight. That's great. Thank you for the clarification. And then my final question, and I even with that clarity, which I think is really helpful and I appreciate that. I'm not convinced we're ready. I'm not ready to vote on this tonight. And I think the back and forth we just had about the site access number six is a good example of the work that I think needs to happen. And I just want to hear from you that often leads to us deferring a proposal for one or two cycles, one month or two months. Tell us about your timing constraints because if I had to vote on this tonight, just given the level of uncertainty, I'm likely going to vote no, but I would like to give this the time so that when I do vote, I have more certainty about what's on the site plan, some of the details that you've talked to myself and others about, I'm just not comfortable to vote and send it forward and then find out later, well, some of it worked and some of it didn't. So tell us about your timing constraints. Yes, thank you for that consideration. And given we do have some timing constraints, we're under contract and pushing it back 30 or 60 days would really hurt the process at this time. So we would not be comfortable with any type of continuance tonight. Okay. So that means I'm going to vote no, but just so you know, that's how this is going to work. I understand. Thank you. Okay. And I do want to clarify, but I believe earlier I mentioned that lot sizes would be smaller. It's the unit sizes that would be smaller, not necessarily the lot sizes, but we're looking at keeping the unit sizes smaller in order to keep the price points low. Thank you. Then commissioner Alturk and then commissioner Durkin. Thank you, chair. You know, a lot of ways this application is not very different from the last one and we voted unanimously against it. So I just throwing that out there, but I do think, because I've spoken with the applicant that there are, and you have mentioned in your report to us or your, yeah, your report to us that you're thinking about a lot of different things in terms of housing types, in terms of keeping the town homes affordable. And then we have some issues that commissioner Busby has mentioned and I, so I'm with him that I would like to see, I mean, if it was up to me, I would also vote no, but I would like to see something, you know, something go here. And I think you all have proposed a number of things in private that I would like to see be commitments. In the past, I think we have said, well, let's, we'll pass it and we'll see what city council says, or we'll, you know, we'll pass it contingent on the developer doing something. I think that we're starting to do that less so on the commission. And I like that we're doing that less so. I think it's nice for us to have commitments, firm commitments. So I'm with commissioner Busby. I would like to see something here. I think it has potential, it's two months. I'd like you to think about that. I know you've said that you don't, you don't want the continuance, but I think some changes here and there would be beneficial. That's all I'd say. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Baker. Probably don't even need to say this, but I agree with my fellow commissioners and the things that they've said and wanting to see this commitments tonight and otherwise voting no, the inconsistencies with multiple policies. Also, I think that this is inconsistent with 231A contiguous development, which is to support orderly development patterns that take advantage of existing urban services. And this is not actually contiguous with the city limits. So that would also sort of play into my thinking on this. That's all. Thank you. Are the other commissioners who would like to speak, if not, and thank you, if not commissioner Johnson. So to the applicant, what is the likelihood that if you were to go back, even though you express a desire not to, that you would, there's a possibility that you could come back with say a programming of the site that included single family and townhouses. I don't understand you said that the density issue was a concern. And when we met you all highlighted this, but just hearing some of the feedback and from both the side and the audience members, is that essentially a not a viable programming based on what you've tried to do with this site thus far? So that's accurate. We've looked at, as I mentioned, we started looking at single family, all single family. We didn't look at a mix of single family and town homes. And then we ultimately ended up going with all town homes in order to meet that density. But in order to consider it being not a completely monotonous development, we did look at the design commitments of having some varied design styles in order to go to that point. But we are considering other, I wanna just highlight some of the other things that we're considering making some of them alley loaded. So that's that will also add some variety and also have the possibility of having some ADUs given that there will be some alleys in there. We just can't commit to the specific percentage at that point at this point. It's likely maybe around 20%. But again, I would have to get the language straight with staff for us so we can't make that profit tonight. But we are considering having some alley loaded development or some of the homes being alley loaded. And when I mentioned the square footage of the actual units, a good number of them will likely not exceed 1600 square feet, which would also help with the affordability. We're looking at making the block lengths a maximum of 700 feet. That will help with the walkability and making it accessible and livable for people of all ages. But again, we have to work on the language and so that's the only reason why we're not able to make those proffers tonight. So, but in terms of the actual mix, we've looked at that and what our team has come back with is that it would have to be all townhomes. And so just for the sake of clarity is, so when I met with your team, I was more inclined to support a project like this. But then I went and drove the site. So I read the application, I drove the site. And so, I think it was Commissioner Bryan or someone said that you went and drove it and it's not a contiguous flow of the existing neighborhoods, which is true. And one could possibly make the argument that it could be a transition development, but it would be something new or slightly different. And so when thinking about bringing something like that to an existing neighborhood, I think clarity more than grayish is more preferable so that not only the commissioners and me, but the neighbors can have a better understanding of what they will see. And I know that you stated when I met with you that the developer is able to design a product to meet what you're trying to achieve with that particular site. And so it's a moral defense now in the sense that I too agree with the notion of maybe taking a continuance, which I know you also stated that it's not a desire, but in the sense that I think that you don't, there's not enough support from this side to feel comfortable about what will actually be the final component. And you may wanna take your chances and send it on to the council. But I think for the sake of all the stakeholders that it may be a good thing to consider, maybe a continuance so that there can be greater clarity and less grayish areas that may be barriers that could come up beyond this panel here. So that's just my comments. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Are the other commissioners who would like to speak not Commissioner Bryan? One of the things that really strikes me about this is that you have rural residential zoning in the area right now, and you're gonna put a PDR7 plus next to it in some cases. And to me, that's a very big jump in density. And I think it doesn't fit well with what's out there. Now, having density and even having town homes on this site, that I can live with, but I think you're too dense for the area. That's my big concern. And there's a big piece of undeveloped land sort of on the Southwest side of that. And if you put something this dense on this site, then I predict that these other pieces on the West side of Glen Road will probably develop at a much higher density than rural residential. And that again puts pressure on the existing rural residential development that's already on the ground. And I know that you're stuck with what the flume says. And to me, the flume in this area is bad. But you can't do anything about that right now unless you wanna ask for a change in the flume. But I just, I think something this dense doesn't fit. And that's gonna be my main reason for voting against it. Thank you, Commissioner Bryan. Are there other commissioners who would like to speak? If not, I'd like to entertain a motion. Madam Chairman, with regard to Z1900018 Glen Road Town Homes, I move that we send this forward to the city council, pardon me, with a favorable recommendation. And that, and you'll all have to help me with this, that would include the proffers that we heard tonight about Affordable Housing Fund and School Fund. But realizing that there are other commitments in the express one that I will name is moving the access point number six east, that those will be unresolved and the developer will work with staff between now and the time this goes to council. There's some unreadiness. Chair, I think the applicant has a question. I know this is not usual, but I think she may have a question for you. Well, cheese. We do have a question. Okay. With regard to the continuance option, is it possible to request a continuance of 30 days instead of the 60? Is that a possibility? Absolutely. I mean, as far as the staff. It's up to the staff. We don't have a concern that 30 days would be appropriate, but we need to probably dispose of the motion on the floor. Well, it wasn't seconded. No, it wasn't your right. So yeah, or you could amend it to. Okay. So the maker of the motion. Well, I'm willing to withdraw the motion, but before I vote in favor of it, I'd like to know it was four. Okay. Well, what are we gonna be doing in the 30 days? And I think it might just be useful for staff to understand it too. I hope it's, you know, if it's just for access six, I trust you guys to work that out. If it's for other things, I wanna know what they are. Correct, and I agree with Commissioner Miller. However, there were several things that were discussed and the few things that I heard earlier, 30 days would be appropriate, but we would like to hear a summary of what they're thinking. So thank you, Commissioner Miller. Thank you very much. So, and within the 30 days, we would like to clarify the language and hopefully work on adding commitments that would be related to adding alley loaded. What percentage of the homes would be alley loaded? What percentage of the homes would be under a certain square footage? We're making sure we have the correct language regarding the maximum block length so that it's more walkable and livable space. We also wanna considering adding some commitments regarding the setbacks to make the frontage of the homes more walkable, but we need to work on the language for that as well. In addition to that, we will work on moving the access point. And I believe that summarizes the different, the areas that we would be working on trying to add commitments for. So it doesn't include a change in the mix for John. Thank you. I'll be interested to hear how staff responds to their time needs on that, because it's a pretty short cycle. And it wouldn't be 30 days, it would be to the December meeting, which may be 30 days. Just over three weeks. So I just wanna clarify for the record, 30 days is achievable. However, we really only have about 10 working days to work all this out before we have to package it back up to come back next month. So I just wanna make sure the applicant understands that. Yes. And we think we can make that. I mean, we're willing to try to work with you, but 10 days is aggressive and just wanted to make sure you knew that. Commissioner Miller is the floor, but I was just looking to be recognized when he was finished. Well, I was gonna make a motion, but if you... Okay, you still have an additional question. I don't have a question, I appreciate that. I think that's, I will vote for the 30 day continuance. I mean, to be clear, I heard a lot of good things in there, I'm not sure if it's enough, but I think it's always better to take the time to get the details in writing and to then give us an opportunity to look at your most deliberate full opportunity to put something in front of us. So I really appreciate that. I think that was a very helpful offer. So I will vote for the 30 day continuance when the motion is made. Let me ask one additional question of the applicant. I want to be sure that one of the things that's not being considered is town homes and single family homes. So it's still strictly town homes. Thank you. The chair recognizes Commissioner Johnson. Before Commissioner Miller makes his motion, in the event that the applicant tries to make this next cycle turn around, but they can't, what happens if they can't meet the next? The commission hypothetically would continue this 30 days. If you vote to do that and it passes to continue for 30 days, that's a date specific. We have to come back because that's a date specific hearing. We have to open the hearing back up. And then at that point, the applicant would have to explain what they did accomplish or did not accomplish at that time. And it could be continued again because we'd still be within the 90 days. Exactly. But we would have to open it up regardless of what they've accomplished. Thank you. Okay. And if I could ask a question. Yes. Sorry. Is it continuing for 30 days or is it continuing just to the next date? To the next regular meeting. We have to do a date specific. Second Tuesday of December. Second Tuesday of December. This is the 10th, December 10th. So, Madam Chair, shall I make the motion? We're waiting for our applicant to let us know that you're done. Thank you. Thank you. Then I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move that we continue this case until the commission's regularly scheduled meeting in December, which I believe will be the second Tuesday of December. Grace, can you tell me what the actual date is? The 10th. The 10th day of December. And having made that motion and before anybody seconds it, I will say that I want to give these applicants every opportunity to convince the commission members that the project is something we should vote for. However, I have to agree with Mr. Busby. There are some things, especially about unit makes that I would like to see and might be disappointed if it's not included in the package. Okay, motion by Commissioner Miller. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Brine that we have a one cycle continuance until the next meeting scheduled for December 10 on the Glen Road Townhouse, Townholmes Project, all in favor of this motion. Let's have a roll call, please. Commissioner Williams. No. Commissioner Morgan, excuse me, is it absent, Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Commissioner Brine. No. Commissioner Darkin. I have to admit, I need clarity on, am I voting for the continuance? Yes, I'm voting yes for the continuance. Thank you. Commissioner Altark. Yes. Commissioner, Vice Chair Busby. Yes. Chair Hyman. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Cajun. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner McIver. Yes. Eight passes 11 to two. Thank you. Thank you. The next item we have, public hearing, text amendments, outdoor lighting. Staff report, please. Thank you. Hello, my name is Carl Colosna. This is my first time here with the planning department. Please be nice or? We promise to be nice. Great, JCCPC did the same thing for me. Thank you. So this is a text amendment, text amendment TC190002. This is a privately initiated text amendment to amend unified development ordinance. So article 7.4.2p.2 of the unified development ordinance controls the applicability of the outdoor lighting section. And article 7.4 in general is what regulates outdoor lighting. So it does so by setting standards for height that lights can be and also foot candle limitations at certain parts of the site. So what currently with the ordinance, article 7.4.2p.2, outdoor lighting that is used exclusively for recreational activities is at least 100 feet from residential uses and is not illuminated during late hours. And late hours are defined as 1 a.m. to 8 a.m. on Friday and Saturday and midnight to 8 a.m. on all other days. If it meets those criteria, it is exempt from the lighting standards that place in the rest of 7.4. So what this amendment would do where it passed would allow lighting that operates during those late hours that I mentioned to maintain exemption. It would also have to keep the 100 foot separation and the exclusively recreational use. But it would be allowed to be exempted from those hours of operation provided that a minor special use permit was issued. And the per the text of the language that's been provided to us by the applicant, the review criteria related to that minor special use permit includes the review criteria for looking at lighting. So that's basically the amendment. I think in a short nutshell, this went to JCCPC on October 2nd. There were no major comments for it then and staff recommends approval of this text amendment. And I'm here for questions and I believe the applicant is here as well and we'll have comments. Thank you. Since this is a public hearing, has anyone signed up to speak? You should be too. Apparently there is. Thank you. Sorry, that's the part where I don't know what's going on. Yeah. Thank you. I do have three people who have signed up to speak. Todd Waldo, Eric Jackson and Keith Burns can come in fact. Please state your name and your address. Certainly. Madam Chair, I'm Keith Burns. I'm a longtime Durham resident and a member of the Durham bar, but unfortunately office in Raleigh with the next and Pruitt law firm. Thank you all for having us tonight. Thanks Carl and welcome to your first meeting. We've worked hard with staff to get to something that we all could live with. This started out as a text amendment that requested a blanket exemption to allow for late hour lighting in industrial zones. Staff concluded that that was too broad and came back to us for the request that we modify that. So we submitted a modification that really seeks just the opportunity to apply through a special use permit process for late hour lighting. So long as it relates to sporting and other outdoor activities. So I really am here as the attorney to answer questions about the text of this. I know that you're all wondering why we would be asking for this. And I know that that's probably not something we want to get too far into because this really is about the ability to come back and ask for permission later through that special use permit. But we are going to answer the question why at the risk of going down a rabbit hole. So Eric will come up. Eric is the developer for a site that is at the intersection of Page Road and I-40. So out more in the park area and certainly has the buffers in place not much residential anywhere around it. And he'll speak very briefly to that and then Todd will come up. Todd is the major user who has the need for outdoor lighting and he'll speak to the reason that we need late hour outdoor lighting. And so with that, Eric. My name is Eric Jackson. I'm with RealtyLink. I represent the developer for the property. Really here more for moral support. We have one of our tenants, Todd who will speak here in a little bit. But as Keith alluded to, the property is located at I-40 in Page Road bounded by the Neusch River and the interstate. So not a lot of residential around. Yeah, I mean, that's pretty much where we stand on. Let Todd come up and speak more to the specifics of what we're asking for. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Todd Waldo with Topgolf, 8750 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas. We're very excited about the opportunity to bring the first Topgolf to the research triangle and more importantly to the city of Durham. I don't know if everyone's familiar with Topgolf, but it's a premier golf entertainment venue with a best in class operation. We are proposing to bring a new concept to Durham, more of a family friendly concept complete with a full service restaurant and bar, a golf driving range, miniature golf and other outdoor gaming activities. This text amendment is critical to us based on the late hours of the operation so they would more coincide with the gaming options available at the venue and also the maintenance operations that would occur after hours at the venue as well. This is about a 64 acre mixed use development. We've been looking in Durham for quite some time and feel this is the best fit for us. The site has a lot of challenges, a lot of constraints. It's very much an engineering exercise that we're going through right now with trying to design the site to effectively accommodate not only the Topgolf venue, but the other tenants and users that will be part of this, so very critical to the success of the project and hoping that for your favorable support tonight and open any questions you may have. Thank you. We still have one other, so that's all three. You got all three. Okay, all right, thank you. Madam Chair, if I could just one or two things in conclusion on that. Topgolf operates into the evening like so many entertainment venues and after those regular evening hours are concluded at midnight 2 a.m., they then have to send their maintenance facilities out into the field to perform maintenance operations so they're ready to operate the next day. And it's that maintenance operation that really dictates that there'd be an ability to keep lighting on there to clean up and to prepare after the end of it. So it's critically important to Topgolf's golf operations that they have these additional hours. And the other thing that I just would stress again is that we're not asking for approval for any particular use or any particular site tonight. We're merely asking for a text amendment that would allow us to come back and prove in connection with a special use permit that this really is a good idea for these hours at this site. So again, it's just tonight's about the ability to come back in and make a formal request later. Okay, thank you. Are the other individuals who would like to speak to this issue during the public hearing? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. I'll start to my left this time. Are there any commissioners who would like to ask questions? Then the chair recognizes Tom Miller. So if I can ask Mr. Walder to come back up. When we talk about extra hours, how many extra hours? Yes, so the typical hours of operation for the Topgolf venue is Sunday through Thursday, 8 a.m. to midnight. We have extended hours on the weekend, Friday and Saturdays extends to 2 a.m. And after the close of business, there are some maintenance operations that occur within the outfield area, the playing surface that are associated with collecting the golf balls from the day, repairing some of the electronics within the outfield. How much time? Two to three hours or so. So if you closed it too, you'd want to be open until four? Close that too, we want the lights to stay on an extra two to three hours after close. Until the sun comes up the next day. Unlike this time of year, obviously it gets dark earlier and the hour is a little bit different than the daylight savings time in, so yes. The lights, our orientation of this building would face away from any residential or pretty isolated in this area with a lot of vegetation that would remain around the perimeter. So we feel there is little to no impact to any offsite users or roadways or things of that sort. Thank you. So I have a couple of problems. First with the way this is drafted. One, I noticed that, and this is a problem that exists today with the existing thing. So I'm looking at the draft here. It's, we have substantive rules in a section that's identified as applicability. Normally when it's just a matter of code writing when you identify a section as applicability, you can find what's in it to the scope of applicability and don't put the substantive rules in there. We already have substantive rules in there because we limit the hours of operation. What I don't understand is, so we have, here's the rule and here are the exceptions. And the exceptions are in the UC2 or downtown tier. And then with the additional language and as authorized by a minor special use permit. And then we talk about what the standards would be for the minor special use permit. I wish there was a way to recodify the whole section, one that cured the applicability issue and also structured the thing more clearly as to the base rule, the exceptions, and then the use permit rather than to run it all together in a particularly long sentence. So that would be one thing, but my other problem with it is, is a use permit has to have some sort of outward ceiling in it. A use permit that is wide open, in other words, unlimited hours. That's not a use permit. That's not what the statute has in mind for use permits. In other words, the way a use permit works is, here's the base zoning in this zone, you can do A, B, C, and D. And with a use permit, if you can satisfy these standards, you can have E too. The problem here is, is that E is open-ended. And so it's not an E, it's more like a variance. And that's a different process with different standards. And I think that we're mixing the variance approach with the use permit needs to have a cap on it. A couple of extra hours or three extra hours or something like that. Then it's got to have a hard ceiling on it. If it doesn't have a hard ceiling, then in my opinion, it's not competent under North Carolina statutes. So those are my technical objections to the thing, but I will say that I have a policy objection and that's changing the whole UDO for everybody for one particular use on one particular piece of property. And that's what we're being asked to do. Now, the applicant's legal counsel said, yes, we're asking to change it generally. And that's true, but the applicant sees it as this one piece of property. And I don't like changing the zoning for everybody in order to accommodate a particular use. And I don't have anything against Topgolf or any of those other, or any of the things that it does. But I do not like to change the rules from Rougemont all the way down to Chatham County so that the 164 acre parcel can be used by one tenant of one landlord in a particular way. I just, if we are going to make, if we're going to rend the zoning ordinance to let somebody through, then I want it to be the smallest possible tear. So I'm gonna vote no against this on the broad policy issue, even if we were to fix what I think considered to be technical problems. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Are the other commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Bryan and then Commissioner Al Turk. Well, Commissioner Miller has already touched on my concern and he expressed it far better than I probably could, but it seems to me that what we're trying to do here is specifically for one piece of property, but by making this change, we affect or make it possible to affect multiple locations elsewhere. And I agree with Commissioner Miller, I don't particularly like doing that. Commissioner Al Turk. Thank you, Chair. This is a question to Commissioner Miller, if you will. So you say on a, from a policy perspective, you don't like this. So what is a different approach, I guess, if you could? I'm not sure there is a different approach and this particular application that I would approve of. We're going through a process now that has not been notified, but we're creating an exception for all kinds of recreational uses that could be applied everywhere in the county. There are people out there who want to sleep at night in their homes, who don't know that we're talking about this because they didn't get a notice, but their neighbors who might want to set up light poles and stay up, run lights late at night for recreational purpose will have a process available to them that as a result of this, in other words, the process that we're creating isn't going to just help top golf. It's going to be everybody else. And I know that we've got things built in the code, but they're not particularly, in my opinion, if you had a house next door to a recreational facility that had a light pole 100 feet away, I would want the damn lights to be off at least between 12 and eight, 100 feet. My lot is 110 feet wide. It's no distance at all. And I think even if we were going to consider this, I would like to have a more robust process. It went to JCCPC. I'm sure all the proper notices were published in the paper and now it's to the Planning Commission and then it's going to go off to the city council and board of county commissioners. And the people who are going to be most impacted by this have no idea that this is even being talked about. I just don't think this is the right way of doing it. If you could come to us and demonstrate that our current standards for lighting, for recreational purposes, we're creating problems all over the place for high school and middle school football games and those kinds of things, then we need to look at the rules. But that's not what's happening here. The rules have been in place for a long time. Now we have one user who is a tenant of an owner on one 64 acre piece of property, which as they pointed out, that one may be a long way away from any residential, from what I would think would be the ostensible other side of this question. But that's not what we're being asked to do. We're not looking at one parcel, we're looking at the whole county. So I just don't think this is the way to go. I mean, there might be another way to go, but I can't craft it sitting here. There might be a way to fix this so that these folks, if you, I think you could solve the technical problem by saying that you could add two extra hours to the limited hours here, but it may not satisfy top golf because they may need three out. First of all, they need an extra hour to be open on Saturday night, which is beyond the, because they wanna go to two when we stop at one, and then they want two to three hours after that. I mean, is there a way to fix this that I might vote for it? Yeah, a clever person can probably do that. I'm not that person tonight. Thank you, that's helpful. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you. So of course I was hoping that this conversation played out because I was trying to get clarity on what should I really be focusing on. So I think the one thing that came to mind as I've commissioned is Miller's comments is that what's being, what would be allowed with this, what's being asked is that someone could come near or in your community with something that has not been there before and that someone who wants to go to sleep at midnight with no lights coming on, all of a sudden they have any enterprise or individual, you say it's recreational activities and say something's owned as recreational. And so this comes to their community neighborhood or whatnot and they're like, oh, how did this happen? And we've already said that this is now the new standard and they had no input into recognizing what the implications is. So I agree with Commissioner Miller's logic and thinking like, well, this has broader ramifications. I was curious when I was rereading this, it was like, did you consider the applicant taking the approach of just trying to get the existing language just to add another, a couple, add hours, extend the hours within how it's situated now versus this more what is essentially a broader application of the change. Thank you. And is that even allowed? Just to be clear, this standard would allow them to seek a special use permit that would increase those hours which would require a public hearing for each case. So if this were approved, they could request that out of public hearing. It would not allow everyone in the county to increase the time their lighting is on by right. Thank you. All right, well, Commissioner Santiago had his hand up for you first. Yeah, I just thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to clarify this text amendment. Is this the absolute only way for this applicant to achieve what they wanna do long-term or is there any other process? There's probably lots of different ways that it could happen. But I will agree with Commissioner Miller that don't know what that is at this particular, off the top of my head. Thank you. Commissioner Durkin. So for clarification, if this was enacted and they sought a minor special use permit, then their neighbors would be noticed and have the opportunity to come out and speak against it or what can you elaborate on the process because I'm probably not the only one that doesn't know that process. So a minor special use permit is a quasi-dutritional hearing where evidence is required to be submitted by the applicant and any opponents. It would be a minor special use permit heard by the Board of Adjustment, which is a citizen body, much like the one they use it on. And there are, they do, all their hearings are public hearings and there's notice provided and it's typically 300 feet, I think. And so for each case where the lighting, the applicant was requesting this extended lighting time, there would be a public hearing held. We actually have a member of our commission who should know this process very well. I don't know if commissioner Lowe, because you were on the Board of Adjustments, right? If you, do you have anything to add that we shall know, sorry to put you on the spot, but I know that you were on that board before. No, that's quite all right. But no, I do not have anything to add because what he said a minute ago is accurate. We have that quasi-judicial Board of Adjustments committee that must go there and be voted upon. And do you find that the public comes to those meetings in the same rate that they come to ours? Absolutely, after the public shows up at those meetings. That's helpful. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. But I do want to point out, it's different. This is a legislative, you can come and give your opinion because we're talking about changing the law, everything that we do here, the Board of Adjustments is such as a judicial body. First of all, not anybody can come speak. You have to have standing. Standing rules in North Carolina are constantly shifting as court decisions come down and it can be difficult. And I've heard people complain even recently that they have been shut out by applicants, attorneys, plus people don't have standing. Then you have to present evidence. You can't give an opinion. You have to give evidence relating to the standards. This is sometimes harder for people to do than just coming to the mic and saying, I live next door and I don't want these lights to be on. I'm not saying it was the best alternative. So I'm just asking questions. No, but it is the way that this would be done. And there are plenty of times when I think a special use permit is a great way to manage special situations and still have meaningful public involvement and so I'm not criticizing the special use approach. I do think that the way the language is written needs to be different even to accomplish it. But I still don't like it here because it's kind of a big change for one person. Commissioner Ailterk. I just wanted to clarify the process again. So if someone asks for a minor special use permit, everyone within 300 feet of this property would get a notice that there's going to be a Board of Adjustments meeting, right? And they could come, but as Commissioner Miller is pointing out, they don't all have the opportunity to speak, is that correct? I think they all have the opportunity to speak. Whether or not you have standing if we're challenging court is a more complicated issue where, for example, at the Planning Commission, anyone who signs up to speak has standing to give you their opinion. And we have a major special use permit process? We do have a major special use permit process. It's the same process with the same findings. It just goes to the governing body instead of the Board of Adjustments. City Council sitting is the Board of Adjustments. And is there a reason that in this particular case you went with the minor rather than the major? Just, yeah. Just give it to me. We reserve only the, for the lack of a better term, the juiciest. Very big stuff. Very big stuff for major special use permits. Okay. Thank you. Is that a legal term, Commissioner Miller? Yes, it is. Commissioner Bride. I have a question for the applicant. Does the development that you're talking about still have to go through a rezoning? Oh my God. Commissioner Bride, there is no rezoning required there, but there will be a special use permit application process and so there's a substantial amount of entitlement work to be done on the development as a whole. Okay. Well, you've answered my question. Don't need any rezoning, that's all. Certainly. And just to one of the points that Mr. Miller raised, we're happy to accept a three hour cap on the extension that might be granted through a quasi-judicial process as an amendment to the text that we've proposed. And the other point that I would make while I've got the mic for a second is that at the quasi-judicial hearing, the burden is on the applicant to prove that in fact this is an appropriate use of the property and that the extended hours would be appropriate on that site. Thank you. If I may just add that. Of the chair recognizes commissioner Lowe. Thank you, I'm stuck. On the Board of Adjustments, the question came up, would they wouldn't be allowed to speak on the Board of Adjustments? They are. I just want to make that clear, just kind of make that clear there. It was signed up just like we do here and their name is on the roster and the chair would allow them to speak, everyone that signs to speak. Thank you. Any other commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Busby. I would just like to say, I appreciate the proffer for the three hours. I don't even know if that's a proffer necessarily, but the comfort with the three hours, I'm planning to vote for it regardless. I understand the arguments and I understand the discomfort, but also no one has given a better alternative. So I do plan to vote for it as is. I do hope that as it moves forward, the three hour language could be worked in. I think that makes it better and it does give some clarity, certainty, guardrails as we move forward. But I'm not thinking we need to make a motion tonight to include that because I think the staff needs a little time to work with the applicant as it moves forward. That's my thinking. Okay. Commissioner Brot. A question for staff. Would it be feasible for the applicant to seek a variance that would be specific to his site? They certainly could seek a variance. The standards for the variance for variances are typically harder to meet than a special use permit. And in particular, they'd have to show there was some sort of hardship based on the land. And I have a hard time imagining how you'd prove that not having your lights on until 5 a.m. is a hardship. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Yes, commissioner Santiago. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask real quick, in terms of the process and writing a text amendment, is there any way to maybe draw up some design standards in terms of something like this? I've been to multiple top call locations, those lights are very tall. So I wonder if there's any way to design the site itself in a way to limit the distance that the light affects to surrounding properties, even if the 100 foot buffer is there. If I could respond to that, the process on this was we started with an initial conversation with staff about the issue that we faced and the problem we're trying to solve. We discussed the variance option and concluded that was not a good option. We proffered texts that would allow for after hours lighting in every industrial zone. And staff said, gee, I really think that's too broad. And we said, okay, well, let's talk about what another alternative might be. And we and staff, after looking at this for some amount of time, settled on the special use permit as the best alternative to achieve what the applicants trying to achieve at this site while protecting the city and the county interest in not creating something that applied indiscriminately across the entire county. And to your question about standards, those standards are a part of the special use process. So the special use process requires us to appear and prove that it's not gonna have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. And there are a whole list of things there. They are the things that I think that you would expect to be there and would want to be there. And the comfort that I would hope that you would draw from the way we're trying to approach this is to understand that when this comes back to the Board of Adjustments, they will be looking for us to prove that we've met those standards and that the people in the area are protected. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. How is the property that your client has now currently zoned? Industrial or? Industrial or industrial light? Industrial light, I think. IP zoning district, planned industrial zoning district. Oh, it's planned industry. So an extra layer of limitation that could be put here. So their approach was let's approach it by zone and change the standards. The staff's response to too broad, I agree. Let's do it by use permit. We could combine both approaches and say in certain zones with a use permit with specialized standards like this one does, like this one has, and that cap, you could get a lot closer to something I might vote for. But I would still want to study the map a little bit to see what we were getting people in for. Are there additional questions? No, I was gonna move. Okay. Oh, great, okay. Well then, Commissioner Al-Turk. I move that we send case TC-19002 to the city council and the county commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Second. It has moved by Commissioner Al-Turk and second by Commissioner Busby that we send item number TC-19000002 outdoor lighting forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. All in favor of this motion, let us have a roll call, please. Commissioner Williams. No. Mr. Johnson. No. Mr. Brine. No. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Al-Turk. Yes. Vice Chair Busby. Yes. Chair Hyman. Yes. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Ketchin. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. And Commissioner MacGyver. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Nine to four. Thank you. We're ready for the next item, text amendment affordable housing dwelling unit definition. Thank you. Michael Stock with the planning department. Text amendment TC-1905 would amend the current definition of affordable housing dwelling unit found in section 17.3 of the unified development ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to reflect differences between rental and for sale units, allow flexibility for residents to remain in units as their income increases to a certain extent and to also be consistent with new policies and procedures being established by the community development department as they develop those procedures for tracking affordable housing units built, pursuant to any of the incentives allowed through the UDO, the affordable housing density bonus, any parking allowances and such. This was developed in conjunction with the community development department and through the city attorney's office. I also reviewed this. It was also sent out to a number of non-profits and also market rate providers to get input and feedback on. And it was also sent to the Coalition for affordable housing and transit to get their feedback on. The amendment would remain consistent with the charter provisions of the city that allows for the affordable housing density bonus and that it remains a low income incentive definition as established by HUD. So the definition that is provided will meet that requirement as does the current definition. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. We do have Karen Lotto with the community development department that has a lot more knowledge and background about affordable housing than I do and is here to answer any questions as long as. So as do I. Thank you very much. Thank you. I do have two individuals who have signed up to speak. They did not indicate for or against. So I'm going to start with these four. Okay, this may be against. Okay, we'll start with Dick Hales. Good evening members of the commission. Thank you for your service. I am an active member of the Coalition on affordable housing and transit and back when we were we try and advocate for three main things, reserving publicly owned land for affordable housing, putting more money into affordable housing, which certainly has had a big boost lately and also trying to figure out ways of encouraging more added housing staff such as through the expanded housing choices initiative. While that was going on and we along with you all were active in trying to sift our way through that. It was brought to our attention that several of the major nonprofit affordable housing providers in town said, by the way, we also need to amend this definition of low moderate income affordable housing to be more workable. And the concern was particularly on the side of affordable housing for sale. At that time, it was during the closing stages of the EHC and there was not an actual draft that Habitat and the Land Trust and others had put together and reviewed. And so we endorsed at that time trying to make this a priority to come back because they felt like it was a specific problem they'd have in trying to make full use of the hopefully approval of the bond funds and other things to produce more affordable housing in town. So we're, so I'm speaking in advocacy for the nonprofits that requested this change. And we think it's one small thing that can be beneficial in helping to produce more affordable housing in town. Thanks. Thank you. The next individual I have is listed as Julius Bartel. I'm not forward or against, I just, all right, my definition of affordable housing is somebody that's looking $600 a month on social security has a place to rent. The housings around here now are not period, but they can be more travel trailers. I'll live five years in a travel trailer to get on my feet when my wife and I first got married. From that on property in South Carolina, on property here in North Carolina is Wendell. But that trailer gave me a chance to get on my feet as a man, I was a 20 years old, my wife was 20 years old. If you had a mobile home park, which trailers run anywhere from eight to $23,000 to put people in it, homeless people, you can charge them $100 a month rent. They'll help pay for the trailers and after you get done with the trailers, you can sell the trailers back to people that won't travel trailers, go on trips with this, that and the other, or they might even want to buy them. But I suggest travel trailers to help with the homeless problem we have as well as affordable housing because you can buy a trailer with $20,000, or you can build, and these come complete, we have furniture with couches, beds, refrigerators, stoves, heaters, sinks, commodes, you build a house to $70,000, you still gotta put another $20,000 into it. And then after that, you know, but it's be hard to get, travel trailers is about thinking with help without the situation and immediate firm, you can take nine months to build a house, or you can take 30 days to put in water and sewer and a lot and pull the trailers in there and park them and put people in them that need to be put in. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have any other individuals who have signed up to speak. So I'm going to close the public hearing and give commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. Commissioner Durkin. I have a question for staff and it might be better suited for Karen. No offense, Michael. Even Karen, a lot of community development. I had a question about how this, the rents for these units and the income levels tied together because my concern is that the definition doesn't include a rental requirement. So typically an affordable unit would be 30% of the applicable AMI. And so you could put anybody who's at 60% in a unit but the rent, it doesn't mean that the rent is affordable. So it doesn't make it an affordable unit. So that's a very good question. And going along with this UDO definition, there is actually a set of program regulations that the community development department and planning have been working together for right now the only, because right now this definition applies to the density bonus. That is the one kind of UDO affordable housing program. We are going to be bringing forward a set of regulations for the density bonus to city council, to this body. Wait, what's the process? I don't generally go to planning commission so I'm not totally sure what the process is. Are we going straight to council? Or are we? For the regulations? For your regulations? Yes. Straight to council. So my apologies, you don't get to see them but we are actually going to have a whole detailed set of regulations that will lay out all of this. How is income calculated? How is rent calculated? What is maximum rent? Similarly on the fore sale side, how is the fore sale price? What is the maximum fore sale price? That will all be laid out in the regulations that we will ask council to approve. So how, but how do we make it clear that those regulations, I mean it says we'll follow the policies and procedures of. The department, that's the reference right there. So that this will be the policies and procedures of the department of community development. I guess my concern really is just that they're not tied in the definition and so it does not make having a 60% AMI tenant in a unit where they're paying 70% of their income towards the rent is in zero way of an affordable unit. But there are a whole lot of other things that you can only put so much into the definition. Right. And so that's why there has to be a much more, we have 15, 20 pages of regulations that go with how this actually rolls out. And that will all be laid out in the regulations, how all this is calculated. But without having those regulations, this definition doesn't mean anything to me and I can't vote for it as it's written without having the bigger context. And you could have a definition that ties the rent to it and it'd be concise and make sense. And the regulatory agreements are full of what it means to have an affordable rent and just adding the fact that it... I mean, I hear what you're saying but without having the larger context, the definition doesn't really do a lot. Well, this is the definition that's in the UDO. I mean, this is a refinement of the definition that's in the UDO now. Right, I don't think that definition works. But I think the important thing to define here is this is not the definition for affordable housing for the city of Durham as a whole. This is the definition of affordable housing for programs using affordable provisions within the UDO. And those programs have policies and procedures associated with them. So it's not, you could not go and use the density bonus and just say, well, I'm going to provide units that 60% of AMI but people have to spend 70% of their income for housing because that's not how the program is set up. You actually have to negotiate a contract with the city. You have to put, and that contract will specify the affordability levels of your units, how they are distributed, what the rents can be, how you'll calculate income, what documents you're expected to have in the tenant file, how the city, how community development department will monitor those units, what reporting will be required, you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So there isn't an option right now where you can go and just do what you want and say that it meets the density bonus because in order to do that, you have to be in compliance with our regulations. So there are regulations in place for the density bonus? That's what we're taking through council. That's what we're going to be taking through council in the coming weeks. Okay, I guess it just seems like a backward way to do it then if they're... Well, we can't actually take regulations for that say that 80% AMI is the fore sale rule if it's not in the definition of the UDO right now. So as Karen was alluding to, we wanted to run these concurrently. So council is gonna see those regulations and procedures that Karen's department is developing at the same time they're gonna see the text amendment. So it's going to run together. So we're just blind to the larger context, unfortunately. Yeah, we needed to explain that a little bit better for you. Okay, I don't like that at all. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. So I have a problem but mine is a legal drafting problem. You are incorporating by reference standards to be made or policies to be adopted. I mean, the word is policies by a city agency that can be changed by the city agency, which will in effect change the applicability of the ordinance because you'll be changing the rules. You can't do that. The city may incorporate by reference an existing standard from an outside agency by identifying it. But you cannot incorporate by reference standards that might be made or changed in the future by an agency of city government. That is a delegation of the legislative function to a city department or official. You can't do that. The general assembly has delegated the legislative function to the city and it has to follow the rules and the city council has to adopt ordinances. The city council cannot in turn say this is the big rule but all the details will be handled by our staff and changeable by them in the form of policies. You just can't do it that way. Not lawful. And so because I also don't understand what these are, but also because I don't believe it's a competent way of adopting law, I have to vote against this too and I really don't want to because when we were talking about the age C and Dick and folks came to us and said we have a definition of affordable housing that doesn't work for Durham. I was all about that, but we need to have and I agree with Karen, you don't necessarily want to put the whole damn thing in the ordinance. You can incorporate by reference and we do. We incorporate things by reference in other places and we can do that here, but it's got to be already existing. It's got to have a date. And when we need to change that, then we have to come back and change the ordinance by the date. That's the way it's done at the municipal level. The only exceptions that are allowed in places, there are places where federal law specifically say you can like future changes to the IRS code and those have been held competent at the state level, but not when you're essentially delegating to a city agency the ability to make the details of the rules. You can't do it. I mean, you can do it, but you can't do it this way. You can't say you can't incorporate future changes. And so I would like to see that change. Do we know, I mean, we're creating these regulations and when we have them done, we'll adopt them somehow. And then in my opinion, so you create the regulations first and then you change this by a specific reference to the regulations adopted by the community development department and dated blah, blah, blah or adopted by council and then it's competent, then you can do it. And I would support that. But I would also, like Ms. Durkin, like to see it first and I would like to hear her explain why it's good or not good because this is her area, not mine. It is my area. And I would like to have that all coming together and have the incorporation by reference to be an appropriate and correct one. And then I have another question, just to make sure I understand, we have a charter provision that expressly contemplates incentives for affordable housing. And I believe, because we've seen other communities try to kind of mess around with their codes and their processes to twist developers' arms and to promises to build affordable housing. And now we're seeing North Carolina courts letting developers out of those promises. Durham has something that the other communities don't have. We have a charter provision that expressly says in Durham, the city can with an affordable housing density bonus or other incentives. We could even have other incentives. Take a developer's promise. And in my opinion, because we have that in the charter, we have something, if somebody takes us to court, we've got law at the state level because a charter is a state law that the others don't have and we'll win. But I wanna make sure that if we change the definition away from 60% AMI that, and we get a developer who promises affordable housing units at 80% AMI, purchase units at 80% AMI, that that will still be the kind of affordability that is contemplated as a minimum in the charter. Does the charter tie us to a 60% 15-year standard or can we make the standard tougher in places, like going to 30 years and relax it in places like going to 80% AMI for purchase units? I just wanna be confident about that. What does the charter say? So in the, my talk with my department, the charter provision discusses low and moderate income, meaning regulations established by HUD. And if they haven't established it, then the city can go ahead and establish what it wants. Right. The 80% is considered low income AMI through HUD. 60% and Karen can get into a little bit more detail is a specialized program, the home program within HUD. So the current definition meets it, the proposed definition also meets it. Because it's contemplated by HUD, we're golden under the charter. Thank you. And then one, if I may, one last thing. So in the text, we talk about a dwelling unit committed for a 30-year term as affordable through covenants or restrictions. I know what a covenant is, and I know what the word restrictions is when it's used in connection with a term of art, covenants, restrictions. I'm worried that we really want to be bigger than that. Is it possible that we could have a development agreement with the developer that includes affordable housing units with an incentive that is negotiated through a city department that isn't run through as a development plan commitment or something like that? I would rather see restrictions taken out and the word agreements put in because I see the city making agreements with people that don't, for affordable housing, that don't necessarily have to be the result of a rezoning. In other words, if I already have the zoning I need for my land, but I want to put affordable housing on there, the city wants it to be affordable, well, there's not gonna necessarily be a commitment or anything like that coming through. I would like to see the word restriction does not convey meaning to me. The word agreements as an alternative to covenants or commitments does. Speaking with Karen, she said that normally look at restrictive covenants or deed restrictions, we have no problem adding the term agreements to that as an additional avenue. All right, I'm cool. So if we could, I would back to what Mr. Erkin was saying, I agree, I would like to see that fixed before I vote yes on this because I really want to vote yes on this. Okay, Commissioner Busby. Great, thank you, Madam Chair. And I hear my fellow commissioners' concerns. I want to move this forward. I think we've put good work into it. There is a trust fall here, but this is, and we just voted on it last week, affordable housing is a core value of this community, 74% of our community, if I think I got the number right, voted for the affordable housing bond. I trust that the staff who is very credible on this issue will get the policy right. And I trust that the city council will look at both of these together. Normally I would understand the concerns that my fellow commissioners are raising, but this is our community's number one priority. I do not want us to hold it up. I would encourage the staff to consider some of Commissioner Durkin and Miller's concerns, just to, if there are things we can do to make this the best possible policy that can strengthen it, that can address some of those issues. I encourage you to do that as it moves forward, but I'm ready to vote for this this evening. Thank you. The other Commissioner Altor. Thank you, Chair. I have a question about the last sentence in the paragraph on rental units. This is probably to Karen. So it says if tenant income after initial occupancy rises above 80%, then the unit will no longer qualify. So can you explain that a little bit more so the unit then just, or what happens to the tenant at that point? And that speaks to the larger regulations of how the larger regulations are going as well. So typically the way we handle this in an affordable housing project is you must initially be eligible at whatever the income level is, 60% of area median income in this particular threshold. Your income can rise up until 80% at which you're no longer considered eligible for an affordable unit. At that point, you have the option, you can negotiate with the landlord with the owner of the property directly to stay in the property as a market rate tenant. But that unit no longer counts as an affordable unit. And the developer has to bring in the owner. So the owner of the property at that point is required to lease, if this is now not in the definition, but in the rules, the owner of that property is now required to lease the next available comparable unit to an income eligible tenant. So because the way the regulations require, you're required to maintain 15% of the units affordable. And the idea behind this is, we didn't want people to, their income is all of a sudden 61% of AMI, you have to leave, you no longer qualify for the unit. We wanted to allow people's income to rise to a place where they were more competitive in the market. So the stock stays the same, and the tenant basically negotiates with the landlord, but we still maintain our 15%. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you. That was great. Mission arrived. I guess this is somewhat of a follow up question, but when we talk about the home ownership, you have to meet a certain level at the time of closing, but then there are no limits on increases in income after closing as long as the unit remains the household's principal residence. So if I went into a house at, say a little below 80% and got a better job or won the lottery or something and suddenly had a whole lot more income, is the unit I am still considered affordable? So it is affordable. You have purchased the unit at that point. What happens to, and as long as you were income eligible at the time you purchased, then our concern is not what happens, our hope is actually that you're gonna go out and because your housing cost is reasonable, you're gonna go out and invest in other things and your income will rise. It is only at the point that you go to sell the home if it's within the 30 year period that the issue is you have to sell to an income eligible household. And it will further indicate in the policy procedures you have to sell at a price at or below the maximum price that the city establishes in that year for a for sale product. And that maximum price will be calculated every year based on mortgage rates and other factors in the market. But no, you're as a homeowner at that point, the only thing we would be monitoring as community development is do you still live in the home? Okay, thank you. I will echo commissioners, my fellow commissioners in that it would be helpful. I think at least for me to see the rules that we're talking about. Yeah. I feel like I'm sort of thinking in a void. Okay. All the other questions. Other commissioners have commissioner Durkin. Just as a, I can't not vote for this. It just is, I feel like I'm in a really conflicting place here being the one who always asks about affordable housing. But I do think in my comments, I agree with commissioner Busby that it is a kind of a trust fall and in my comments that I'll be expanding on what my concerns are, but I will be voting for it, but with a lot of reservations in my comments. Thank you. Any other unreadiness? If not, I am ready for emotional. Madam chair, I move TC-1900005 affordable housing dwelling unit definition forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Motion by commissioner Miller, second by commissioner Al Turk that we move item number TC-19005 affordable housing, dwelling unit definition forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Would it also go to the, goes to the board of commissioners too, right? It will, yes. To both, both elected bodies. Okay, to both elected bodies amending our motion to ensure that it's both. All in favor of this motion, a roll call please. Commissioner Williams. Yes. Mr. Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Bryan. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Al Turk. Yes. Vice chair Busby. Yes. Chair Hyman. Yes. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Ketchum. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. And commissioner MacGyver. Yes. Motion passes 12 to 1. Thank you. We have one. Thank you. We have one other item under new business. It's your presentation, your quarry eno intake presentation. Oh, please chill it. Hello again. Tonight, we're going to present to you about something that's very important, but it doesn't get seen, because mostly it's underground. I would like to introduce my colleague, Sid Miller, from, who's the Senior Water Resources Manager, something like that, at the Water Management Department. We at the City of Durham are posing a new intake along the Eno River, which has implications for the delivery of clean water to the people who live in Durham. And we'll also have some implications to the Watership Protection Overlay District that exists along the Eno River. So Sid will give a presentation first about the intake itself, and then I'll talk about the Eno Watership Protection Overlay. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. I'm not used to, I'm not usually in this room. I'm usually in the committee room. So this is all a little different for me. I should also warn you that I get up at five o'clock in the morning, and we're already approaching my bedtime. I already said well. But you don't need a special use permit to stay up. I can't say. So I'm gonna talk about sort of the first three items here about our water supply in general for the city to provide a little context. I'm gonna talk about Tier Quarry itself, and then what we're seeking, which is a new intake along the Eno River, and I'll explain why. And then Scott will talk about everything else. So we have Lake Mickey, which is one of our primary, whoop, we have Lake Mickey, which is one of our main reservoirs for the city, which was built quite some time ago. And then we also have Little River Reservoir. So both of those two supplies are, I mean, those are our main sources of supply. We've recently increased our allocation out of Jordan Lake. At this point, we don't have an intake ourselves on Jordan Lake. I'll explain more about that. So these are our water supplies that we have, sort of a brief description of them. For Jordan Lake, you see I've crossed that off, and that's basically because we do not have an intake in Jordan Lake at this time. One of our water treatment plants. When you say an intake, you mean like a straw into the water. Exactly. There is an intake in Jordan Lake. It's owned by the Cary and Apex jointly. This is one of our water treatment plants, which I know some of you are quite familiar with. Right. 1917. This is the other, the Wade G. Brown Water Treatment Plant, currently undergoing an expansion. This is just a brief about the two. And then this is where our water supply system interfaces with your work. This is our distribution system. This is where the land use choices you all make have an impact on the water that we deliver and are limited by our abilities to deliver that water to any specific location within the city. So the Western Intake Partnership is something that we actually just recently formed. Includes the City of Durham, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, the town of Pittsburgh and Chatham County. The purpose of the Western Intake Partnership is to develop a new facility on the western side of Jordan Lake, which will include an intake, a large treatment facility and then regional pump station to send treated water to each of the partners. This is our current projection of water supply needs. The dotted green line is the average day demand, which is sort of how we plan for the quantity of water that we have in supply. And then that dashed red line is maximum day demand, which is how we plan the water treatment facilities that we need. So I've shown where our current level of water supply is with that solid green line. That is what we currently have. And as you can see, we're already late in getting Jordan Lake online. Now, we have interconnections with the town of Kerry, which is how we're able to transfer treated water as we need. And that's how we currently access our Jordan Lake water supply storage allocation. But we're limited in how much water we can transfer from the town of Kerry. So this is where Tier Quarry comes in. That's actually a nice picture of Tier Quarry. That's where it's located, which, incidentally, is on Denfield Road. Denfield. So Tier Quarry is essential. We need to bring it online as a raw water storage facility. The thing about Tier Quarry is that it's essentially only filled by rainwater. So it was last used in 2007 during a severe drought. We installed a temporary intake and temporary pumps and pumped water from Tier Quarry into a raw water line that's adjacent to the quarry and sent it down to the Williams Water Treatment Plant. So we need to be able to fill Tier Quarry from either the Eno River or from Lake Mickey. And when I say either, we need to be able to fill it from both. We need to be able to choose what we fill it from when we need to fill it. So going back to here, you can see our existing Eno River intake. We have one which is downstream of the quarry. And I don't really have a way of pointing. So it's the one to the east. The westernmost pin on the map? The easternmost pin. The easternmost pin on the map? That's our existing intake. Okay. So we have one, but it's not near the quarry. No, it's not. One that we would like is the westernmore pin which is closest to the quarry. That's advantageous because, well, for two reasons. One, it's much closer to the quarry. And two, it's at a higher elevation. So if we have an intake there, we can bore a tunnel from the river to the quarry which will allow us to fill a quarry about 60, well, more like 55% full just by gravity. The rest of the storage of the quarry will have to be pumped but for the most part we'll be able to fill it by gravity. The way we're gonna operate the quarry, the intakes is that we will only withdraw water from the Eno River when it is flooding. So there are approximately 12 days during an average year when we would skim water from the Eno River, we would take between 10 and 20% of the flow and pump it or send it by gravity into the quarry. We would also pump water from Lake Mickey. Again, when Lake Mickey is full, we would pump water from Lake Mickey to the quarry. There's a raw water line that's just to the east of the quarry. So in order to build a new intake on the Eno River, that section of the Eno River needs to be classified as a water supply by the state. Once it's classified as a water supply, then there are land use implications. And that's where you come in. So if something is classified as water supply by the state, there are local governments are required to enact watershed protection overlay zoning districts in order to protect the quality of that water. We currently, Durham currently has water supply, watershed overlays for Falls Lake and Jordan Lake, for Lake Mickey, for Little River, and for the Eno. Not for this. There is one for the Eno. Yeah, but not for the quarry. Not for the quarry. There is one for the, at a good point. There's one for the existing emergency intake, the one that's further to the east. There are, I don't know a lot of the details, but there are the state has classifications, WS1 through 4, based on the existing development patterns, how developed it is, which have different requirements for pervious surface limits, water treatment, those sorts of things. The Eno is a WS4, which is the most developed type, which has the least amount of restrictions on new development. There's a, before any of this happens, there's not only the land use implications, I'm gonna talk about, but there's also a lot of other approvals that need to happen through the state. This will also affect a river-based water supply, has a protected area of 10 miles from wherever the intake is. So this, the current Eno overlay affects the city Durham, county of Durham, in Orange County. Extending it would also affect a small bit of the town of Hillsborough. So, Sid has his work cut out for him to work with the state and some of our neighbors to the west. So this kind of visualizes what I just talked about. This over here on the east is the part of Durham where the intake is, it goes all the way down the Eno over here to the town of Hillsborough. And this shows the areas in Orange County and Hillsborough that would be affected. Just more in Orange County than there is in Durham. It's true. So this is the, so one step back. So as part of the watershed overlay, there is a, it's demanded a critical area where the strictest restrictions apply. And then there's the protected area which have less strict restrictions. The minimum the state requires is a half mile critical area. There is an option to, for local governments to select a one mile critical area. For all of Durham's watersheds, we have selected a one mile critical area. So this is the existing critical area. The old emergency intake is over here at the eastern end. The darker areas in the city, the lighter areas are in the county. So if the intake removed, the critical area would need to move as well. The small half circle here with the hatching indicates what a half mile critical area would look like. The larger blue semi-circle is what a mile would look like. So the restrictions in the UDO for the E, the EA is the abbreviation for the critical area. EB is the abbreviation for the protected area. So in the EA, industrial uses and fuel sales are prohibited. There's a 24% impervious surface limit with no exceptions. There's a stream buffers of 150 feet perennial and 50 feet for intermittent. And there's a minimum 20,000 square foot lot size. In the EB, there's no use restrictions. There's a 24% low density option, 70% high density option where additional water quality controls allow you to put more impervious surface. There's a slightly smaller buffer for perennial streams and there's no additional standards for a lot size or things like that. We discussed this at the Joint City County Planning Committee at their June meeting. Some of the things we discussed is that because of the nature of this area, adding the more restrictive one-mile critical area does not give us that much for benefit of water quality because it's primarily developed. So it also would affect a lot more properties if we used a one-mile critical area. It takes in a lot of the property along Roxborough Road and would effectively prohibit a lot of redevelopment along that area. It would cause some existing fuel sales would no longer be admitted. So a kind of compromise solution we talked about with the Joint City Planning Committee was that we would keep the existing one-mile critical area for the existing emergency intake and then establish a half-mile critical area for the new intake. The protected area would still be 10 miles downstream. And there's no option in the middle we couldn't draw. It's half or one? Yeah, it's a, well, yeah. Two choices. So the process going forward, SID and water management have the work they need to do to get this permitted and get agreements from our other localities. Once we know that it's getting close to a go, we plan on bringing a UDO text amendment and a zoning map change for this. We've talked it over with our attorney and they're comfortable with us having it go forward before the state actually approves it and having the effective date of the ordinance. At the time the state approves it, that way councils and commissioners' hands are tied to having to approve a zoning change based on an action of the state. So that, we'd be happy to answer any questions. By all means, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Elter, I thought we would done it. Commissioner Baker, yeah, okay. So you answered my questions about development impact. If we draw water from the Eno River, will we have treatment impacts? In other words, right now we have treatment facilities that are set up to treat what we expect to get out of the water sources that they draw from. If we add the Eno River, which was Durham's original water source many years ago, and not a very good one, because there's a lot of discharge upstream, it's a dirtier source than the others. Will we have to change our treatment at Williams? I guess that's where this water would go. So the short answer is I'm not certain, but more complete answer is that, so you're right that the water within the Eno River is likely different from the water that's in Lake Mickey or Little River Reservoir. What's actually more different is the water that's already now in the quarry. But before we do any of this work, we'll be doing water quality studies and treatability studies. So if there are any required changes in treatment or if there is pre-treatment that's required, all of that will be figured out before anything is pumped. And so will there be based upon the regulatory changes and also the business of constructing these facilities and operating them changes in how impacts on the recreation quality of our Eno River based parks and is there a wildlife impact, which you don't normally hear me ask about, but I'm more worried about it this time. No. So the operating roles that we've come up with, we worked on that in collaboration with the Division of Water Resources, the Wildlife Resources Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Everybody is good with what we've proposed and how we've proposed it. Well, the Eno River Association? I've attended the Eno River Users Group two months ago. The Eno River, there were a number of organizations there and we talked about what we have proposed doing and everyone was okay with it. All right, that's good. That's what I had. Thank you. Commissioner, yeah, it's Al Turk. Thank you. I'm not sure if this is related to what Commissioner Miller just asked, but on that last slide, it sounds like you're gonna propose a half mile right from the critical area from the proposed intake. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Yeah, so has that been discussed with some of the groups that typically, like the Eno River Association and others, another environmental group? It's not been discussed with them yet. This is still pretty early. It's infancy, but yeah, before we move. Okay, so you plan on doing that before you start writing the text movement or kind of between that and the time that we see it? Because I think it'd be nice to have them kind of early or provide some feedback early on. Yeah, certainly, that's a good idea. Yeah, thank you. Commissioner Baker? Yeah, I was just gonna ask if a green roof counts as impervious surface area. So technically that's a stormwater question, which is a whole other department and division. My understanding is green roofs, I don't know how exactly they're treated in terms of credit that's allowed. And typically this has to do with nutrients. As far as impervious surface area, I'm gonna guess that for the purposes of this, it's impervious. Okay. Is it possible to transfer impervious surface area credits from one parcel to another parcel? It is, it has to be within the same watershed classification, so it would have to be within the EA to the EA or the EB to the EB. Okay, and do you think that there could be some sort of similar, something similar with the square foot minimum lot size? If you did something like that, you think that it would be possible? Yeah, and I will say there are a few things that are not state mandated that are in this and that minimum lot size is one of them, the fuel sale prohibition is another. So there are probably options. Don't know what they are standing here at this very moment, but this is certainly reflecting of a older time. Sure, sure. Yeah, I was just, I'm curious because it'd be interesting to explore some standards that... We'll say it inside, the Eno is a, even when this was established 25 years ago, it was already pretty well developed. We're in our other watersheds, which are much bigger and have, are on the fringe where there's a lot less development. We actually get more impervious surface transfers in those areas. There's just fewer opportunities in this one. Any additional questions? Thank you both for an excellent and very informative presentation. Something new and different. Something new and different. And that's our last item, motion to adjourn. Happy thanks.