 Yeah, we will no longer have any children at Club Boulevard. Wow. End of an era. Yeah, it is. One minute, one minute to air. You've had kids at Club Boulevard for what, 12 years or something? Yeah, yeah, almost like a decade. Yeah. 30 seconds. Good afternoon. I want to call this special city council meeting to order at three o'clock on June the 10th. I want to welcome everyone who's with us today, whatever way in which you are doing this meeting, and I certainly want to welcome my colleagues. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll? Mayor Schuyl. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Here. Councilmember Caballero. Here. Councilmember Freeman. Present. Councilmember Middleton. Here. Councilmember Reese. Here. Thank you. Thank you, Madam clerk. And let me just say that you came up with a very interesting shade. Blue. That was psychedelic, man. That must have been very hard to achieve, but it looked great. Okay, thank you. We're now going to go to announcements by the council. And I have a couple of things that I want to raise that have attachments here, things that I've talked to you all about before, but just want to make sure that we go over today. I'll go ahead and do mine, and then if there are other announcements, happy to have them. The first is a resolution in support of national action on reparations. I wanted to just, you'll see that it's attached here. I had previously emailed it to you. We have had, DeGreana has also been involved in this, and we've had great discussions with Sandy Darity and Kirsten Mullen, whose book is out. And as you all will remember, I discussed this in my state of the city. The idea here is to support national legislation on reparations, which is currently pending in Congress. And the idea is also not just to support it, but to get other people involved in supporting it and potentially other municipalities and institutions. So I wanted to put that out there. I'm not asking for a vote today, but would like to go ahead and put it on our agenda for June the 15th. I wanted to hear if there was anyone who had any thoughts about that. Councilmember Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate you taking my idea and moving it forward. I just wanted to add that I noted with the splitting out of the conversation that I also would like to bring forward a Juneteenth resolution in recognition of the 1619 project and the work that's been done to highlight the history of African Americans in this country. And so I just want to make sure that I also include that that piece has been pulled out of the reparations resolution and it'll be separate, but the two of them go together. And so that would also be included on Monday. Councilmember, that sounds good. So once you have that, if you'll circulate that to us, that would be great. We can get that on the agenda for the 15th. And without objection, I'm going to have these on consent. Is everybody okay with that? I see some thumbs and good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll move on to the next item, which is also under announcements, which was the email I sent last week prior to our last meeting regarding the housing bond implementation committee. And you all, we discussed this quite a lot prior to COVID-19, but I hadn't taken any action on it after everything was happening. But we've been hearing from a lot of people and our staff that they'd really like us to get going on this. And so I sent you all this outline again last week. And what I'd like to do today is go ahead, suspend the rules and vote and to initiate this process so we can go ahead and get the bylaws written and get all the things needing to happen that need to happen. The key elements of this are that the committee will have a six-year time limit and will sunset after that time unless it's been about the council. That the members of the committee will serve three year terms and each can serve two terms if reappointed. The committee will consist of 13 members, including chairs. The committee will be quarterly. The committee co-chairs will report to the council every six months in a work session. And the committee will consist of the two co-chairs, six at large representatives and five people representing the following categories. You can read these here, but they are DHA resident, another resident of affordable housing, formerly homeless individual, a member with expertise in real estate development, and a member with expertise in housing finance. So that's my recommendation and I would like to go ahead and move that forward so that our attorneys can get thinking about writing the bylaws. And so I am now interested in hearing any discussion or thoughts that you may have. Council Member Freeman and then Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I apologize, I hadn't seen the email until now and I appreciate you putting forth some more around who would be on the committee. I would however like to make sure that it's noted that communities in partnership is also doing affordable housing in Durham and has been very active in Eastern and I would love to see how they could also be included in this conversation. And other than Aliah Rachman has been leading on that front and I don't think she's been included in your conversations around the bond. So I just want to make sure that I do raise that up. I appreciate that. And if you would connect us, that would be great. I appreciate it. Yeah, Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just wanted to weigh in briefly about the representation. Given that DHA properties are a significant chunk of the spending that we're going to do on the bond in the next from the bond in the next few years, I thought it might be helpful to have more than one DHA representative on the board. I don't know if the number of representatives listed like if you feel strongly about the maximum, but maybe we could have one or two more DHA reps come from the six at-large representatives. I don't feel strongly about the number if we wanted to go up to 15. Add a DHA, another DHA resident, and then just another at-large. That would be fine. I would be happy to go either way. I'll propose that we have three DHA residents and four at-large. Three DHA. So I'll tell you that my concern about that is that we have a whole lot of people that are very interested in participating from lots of different constituencies. So I mean, D. Gerona just mentioned somebody. We have, Durham can has been dying to know when the applications come in. The Durham committee has been the same. So I think if we limit ourselves to four at-large, we're not going to be happy. I think we're not going to be getting the representation, the wide representation that we want. Okay. Well, I'll modify that to six at-large and three DHA representatives with a total, so increasing the total size of the board to 15 members. I'm all right with that. And when you say representatives, you mean residents. I mean residents, yeah. Okay. Other thoughts? I appreciate the Mayor Pro Tem's effort to try and make sure that this board is the committees of representative of DHA residents. Thank you. Any other thoughts? Okay. Then I'm going to ask for a motion that we suspend the rules and vote on this. I'll move we suspend the rules and vote. And Mayor Pro Tem and seconded by Councilmember Caballero that we suspend the rules and vote on this item. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Mayor Schull. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. Councilmember Caballero. Aye. Councilmember Freeman. Aye. Councilmember Middleton. Aye. Councilmember Ries. Aye. Thank you. The ayes have it. The motion passes unanimously. Now the item is the same as you will see there in the attachment except that the motion is to include making a 15 member group with three DHA representatives instead of one. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Second. Been moved by count by Mayor Pro Tem and seconded by Councilmember Middleton that we approve this item as I have described it. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Mayor Schull. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. Councilmember Caballero. Aye. Councilmember Freeman. Aye. Councilmember Middleton. Aye. Councilmember Ries. Aye. Thank you. Thank you Madam Clerk. The ayes have it. The motion passes unanimously and Madam Attorney, you and I can talk soon about the bylaws and how you all want to move that ahead. Sounds good Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I do have one more item which is the appointment of our GoTriangle representative. The joint City County GoTriangle representative, as you all know, I have been planning to appoint Stephanie Williams to the seat formally held by Helen Recal. And normally I make all these appointments to GoTriangle and these other boards of our own members but I realized that I really should bring this to you all today because Stephanie is not a member of our council. I hadn't thought about that ahead of time but I did start thinking about it last week. Ellen has resigned from the GoTriangle board effective July 1st and rather than just simply appointing Stephanie just to make sure that we've crossed all the T's and dotted the I's I wanted to bring her a recommendation for her appointment to you all. As you know I'm the city appointment, Wendy is the county appointment and we have one joint appointment. So I'm going to recommend that to you and I'm going to also ask first if there's any discussion and then we'll with your permission we will suspend the rules and vote. Any discussion? All right. Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Middleton. As I just want to for the record say I think Dr. Williams is an excellent choice, I've had opportunity to interface with her a number of times since she's been at Duke. I think I would be remiss because folk in the community are still talking about just a historical I was going to say drama but the historical event we went through regarding transportation are relative to Duke with the light rail and I know that some people are still thinking about that and I just want to I think we should assure the public that Stephanie is is is conversing on how important transportation is to us as a community as a county as a city that she's sensitive to all constituencies that we represent that this isn't just us merely kind of just giving Duke more sway or more influence over our our affairs of the county or city but this is an actual conscientious person who's sensitive who knows the history but it's forward-looking and understands how important our transportation nexus is to us and will will act in our best interests as well so I thought it was just important because people are still talking to me about Duke and transportation you put those two things together and for some folk there's a very visceral response so I think she's an excellent choice and that's when I said it on record. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you Councilmember. Any other comments? Councilmember Freeman. Thank you. I appreciate Councilmember Middleton's comments that won't beat that dead horse but um and I also can speak to the work that Stephanie Williams has been doing in the community. I can appreciate why I can appreciate why you would choose her as a member of the GoTriangle board. I think she would be phenomenal. However I do have a problem with moving it through without having some conversation um or a little bit more conversation I would like it to be something that we actually um share out a little bit more widely than a special meeting um because it seems it just it just seems like this this isn't something that falls into you know into the line of normal business and so it's just a little off I just want to make sure that I've given it the right time so I wouldn't be able to support it today but I understand if everyone else does. Thank you. Thank you Councilmember. Any more comments? Okay um so uh I will entertain a motion that we suspend the rules and vote. Move to suspend. Second. Moved by Councilmember Middleton seconded by Mayor Pro Tem that we suspend the rules and vote. Madam Clerk please call the roll. Mayor Shul. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. Councilmember Caballero. Aye. Councilmember Freeman. Aye. Councilmember Middleton. Aye vote aye. Councilmember Reese. Thank you Madam Mayor. Thank you Madam Clerk the uh the ayes have it the motion passes five to one. Now I'll accept a motion to appoint uh Stephanie Williams to the GoTriangle board. So moved Mr. Mayor with honor. Moved. Been moved by Councilmember Middleton. Is there second? Second. Second by Mayor Pro Tem. Madam Clerk please call the roll. Mayor Shul. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. Councilmember Caballero. Aye. Councilmember Freeman. Aye. Councilmember Middleton. Aye vote aye. Councilmember Reese. Aye. Thank you. Thank you Madam Clerk and thank you everyone uh the motion passes five to one. Um thank you all for indulging me today uh with those items uh it's it's one of these situations where we're um our meetings are different than they used to be and uh appreciate you all. Are there other announcements by members of the council? Councilmember Freeman. I would just like to congratulate um my colleague Councilmember Caballero for being pointed to the MPO board um I think that's a great addition um to the two of you uh being the mayor and Charlie Reese uh on the board and uh appreciate um Councilmember Caballero taking on the additional uh charge to serve on that board. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Councilmember. I'm looking forward to being off of that board when we get our new council appointment but it is a great board. It's just a demanding board uh but thank you very much and I agree. Any other announcements? All right um then we will move to our next item which is priority items by the city manager. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Good afternoon everyone. No priority items from the city manager's office. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Manager. Madam Attorney. Good afternoon Mr. Mayor, Madam Mayor Prattam, members of the city council. The city attorney's office has one priority item today that is a closed session to discuss litigation. Um the closed session exception is NC general statute 143-318.11a3 for attorney client consultation and this relates to an imminent domain case that senior assistant city attorney Fred Lamar is currently handling and he needs guidance from the council. Thank you Madam Attorney. You all have heard the uh priority item by the city attorney. Can I have a motion to approve that item? Move approval. Second. Second. Been moved by Madam Mayor Prattam seconded by Councilmember Freeman. Uh Madam Clerk will you please call the roll? Mayor Schuhl. Aye. Mayor Prattam Johnson. Aye. Councilmember Caballero. Aye. Councilmember Freeman. Aye. Councilmember Middleton. Aye. Councilmember East. Aye. Thank you. Thank you thank you Madam Madam Clerk and thank you Madam Attorney. The ayes have it. The motion passes unanimously and we will take that item up at the end of our meeting. Thank you Madam Clerk. Any priority items? Good afternoon Mayor and city council. The city clerk's office has no items. Thank you very much. We'll now move to our general business agenda item 25 request to initiate a neighborhood protection overlay for forest hills and we'll hear from staff. Good afternoon Mayor and members of council. I am Scott Whiteman from the Durham city county planning department. Um this item is related to a petition submitted by the forest hills neighborhood to initiate a neighborhood protection overlay. The petition was submitted in 2018 and the joint city county planning committee voted to prioritize the application for the 2007 NPO guidelines as it was the only petition the planning department received. The department indicated at that time that due to staff resources needed to work on a new comprehensive plan the NPO cannot be included in the FY 19 department work program and the JCCPC agreed. The department did request $50,000 in the FY 20 budget cycle hire a third party consultant to develop the NPO but those funds were not included in the final adopted budget. The JCCPC voted to reprioritize the application at the neighborhood's request prevented from being administratively withdrawn in December and that would keep it active for another 18 months. Since the comprehensive plan will still be under development for the next two years the department does not believe we will have staff resources available work on the NPO at least until that is finished so funding for a third party consultant would be the only way for any work to begin. The reason for this request is to ask council to determine if the development of this NPO should be a priority and if so to direct the administration to provide the necessary resources. The alternative would be to vote to not initiate the NPO which would withdraw the application and will allow the neighborhood representatives to resubmit it at a later time when we have the resources available to complete it. The planning staff recommends that the council vote to not initiate the NPO for the reasons that we stated in the agenda memo though primarily because the proposed elements to regulate that were provided in the application are in direct conflict with several of the policy directions that we have received from council on some recent decisions. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions council may have. Thank you Mr. Whitemans can see you virtually thank you for your report. I'm going to now you've heard the report from staff but this is actually not a public hearing item is it? I'm hoping a public hearing that doesn't exist but I'll first ask are there questions for our staff okay. Councilmember Middleton did you have a question? I do Mr. Mayor and you said this is not a public hearing so we're not going to be hearing from any residents there. This is GBA and I'm going to ask if Clark if we have anyone speak to this item but I was going to see first if council members wanted to have the questions. I'll be able to say if we do have anybody Mr. Mayor thank you. Sure. Madam Clark do we have anyone who signed up to speak on this item? We have one person who raised their hand and I will unmute them. Thank you. Yes hello council am I able to be heard? Yes I believe this is Ms. Pless. Yes it is hello Mayor Shul and members of council thank you very much. Yes I just wanted to call in I sent in a letter to council on this item addressing how the NPO application and an NPO petition are not the same thing and how that list of elements that was just referred to in staff's memo in fact might not really apply because again the application does not prescribe the parameters of the NPO that would be the business of the petition which we have not yet been permitted to develop so I feel that part of that report is a little bit of a cart before a horse in terms of how it's being looked at and I really just wanted to mention that to council for your consideration. Beyond that I also wanted to highlight the fact that the timing of this is actually rather prescient given that recent global events have highlighted the importance of urban forests and green spaces and their impacts on community mental health and physical health during the pandemic. Forest and stream stewardship are taken very seriously in Forest Hills and our trees and streams are presently under multiple threats from numerous sources. We have a particular text amendment privately initiated text amendment that's moving forward that includes frankly dangerous amounts of tree and green space reduction. We also have texts that are moving forward that involve removing trees from local historic districts. We also happen to be the home of the most polluted stream in Durham County and any tree that is lost anywhere near us impacts us and the community at large in many different ways. We have a very complicated and delicate ecosystem here that we work very hard for the sake of the community to maintain. So we just we would ask for your help and support in allowing us to move forward with this NPO at this time. I know that you have received more than a hundred and eighty written requests from neighborhood residents in the form of the official petition and I would ask please that you honor each one of those requests and the fact that this is the most robustly supported NPO petition in Durham's history. Thank you very much for all of your work during this this time. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Fless and thank you for being such a consistent and and eloquent advocate during this whole process. All right Madam Clark I believe that's the only speaker to the item. Mayor Schull that is the only one who has raised their hand. Thank you. Let me ask now if there's anyone else on this call any one listening to this meeting who would like to be heard if you could raise your hand the clerk will make you heard and until I hear that I'm going to go ahead and call on council members and I'll start with councilmember Middleton for any questions or comments that you may have. Thank you Mr. Mayor and I'm going to thank the staff for the work they've done on this issue I want to thank the caller as well. Colleagues we've been dealing with this issue for a little while now and it's come before us and I sit on the JCCP along with the mayor pro tem and Charlie a councilor Reese. For me it's just a fundamental fairness issue attached to this matter for me and I'm not even going to get into the substantive arguments about the merits of green space in the forest area the actual petition itself I mean that will go through the process and be properly adjudicated if the petition goes forward I wanted to talk about the fairness of the timing of when this first came before us and I appreciate the staff's emphasis on having resources and bandwidth to deal with the petition but when this was when this first came before me on JCCPC the argument was not the primary argument wasn't staff bandwidth it was we were anticipating some changes coming up in the UDEL we had EHC coming up we had some we knew that we were going to be looking at the way we deal with land issues in Durham and in anticipation of that we were going to put the kibosh or was this being considered to put the kibosh on this particular NPL application because we were anticipating new rules although the residents had submitted their application according to the the the deadline and standards that were in force now and I was concerned about some ex post facto type of of of action being taken against the residents who played by the rules that we had in place at that time and I thought there was a fairness issue to penalize them because we were anticipating some new a new landscape coming down the road which we had not codified yet so for that reason I lean heavily towards prioritizing the application I don't I and I heard that we didn't we didn't put money in the budget for the staff and if staff feels that's the only way to continue if we didn't put money in for the staff to to work on it I get that but the primary argument that I recall was not staff bandwidth it was we were anticipating EHC we were anticipating the comp plan and and all other things and for that reason I I'm still concerned because they they they made the cut they they they applied uh under uh rules and standards that we had in place at that time so I still got some issues with fairness I'm curious to hear from my colleagues so I'm I'm uh leaning towards and of the mind to still prioritize this application and whatever the merits of the application are that that to give them their fair chance to have the hearing during you know the the fully uh full vetting education process of an MPO but I am I have a concern about fairness to the residents as far as sales since they did start this process um according to a deadline that we had established played by rules that we had established um so and I know some things have happened since then and for and and for us now to look at some of the decisions we made as a council and talk about the MPO being consistent with decisions we made is precisely the concern I had when this issue first came before us this exposed fact though kind of measuring where this MPO application stands against things we've done since they applied under the original uh rules original standards so those are my concerns I'm I'm I'm curious to hear staff response to that and my colleagues as well and I look forward to the discussion thank you Mr. Mayor thank you council member uh Mr. Whiteman could we ask you to address those concerns certainly and council member Middleton is correct um this application was submitted um that the petitioners did follow all the rules that were in place at the time I think there were yeah there were several several reasons why we as staff told the JCCPC that we couldn't work on it um the having the staff resources was one also that there were some things in the works like Hispanic housing choice um which this would be basically in conflict with and then also um we at the same time were proposing some changes to the MPO process to the UDO which is on later on your agenda today to config some of the issues that we've found with the MPO process through the our experience through the last several MPOs so I think it would be important to discuss in more detail what you put in the memo uh regarding the the ways in which this is in conflict with expanding housing choices I think that uh I see Mr. Young he may also have some comments thank you Mr. Mayor um certainly with coast time what Mr. Whiteman just said but also add um to council member Middleton's question uh or or comments that um we are as you well know in the midst of the comprehensive plan update and of course that's a city-wide look at growth and development issues ensuring that there's an alignment of policy um and that the candidly that the cost and benefits of growth are shared um equally and fairly across the neighborhoods in the community so I think we think that the the love the concerns expressed in the application can be well addressed through the comprehensive plan process and we do feel like there's at least some redundancy of effort that that goes into an MPO process I just wanted to get that in that is in our memo but I wanted to get that on the record in addition to what Mr. Whiteman said thank you Mr. Young and good to see you as well um if we could uh Mr. Whiteman could you describe the specific ways in which you've you've talked about the MPO being conflict with the EHC with expanding housing choices I don't want to use too many initials um but uh if you could describe uh some of those specific ways so in the middle that we received it would limit um the residential use to single-family residences only so that would prohibit duplexes which were now permitted um it would prohibit flag lots which would uh not allow the small house small lot option it would the lot sizes that are in lot widths they are proposing are the exact same as what the current zoning allows so that would actually have no effect um at all um but wood pro has written would prohibit any of the some of the the small lot option as well and um those are the main those are the provisions that would there are some other provisions that wouldn't relate to expanding housing choice but those are the ones that would be affected if they were adopted as submitted thank you very much colleagues other comments and questions counselor freeman thank you um I would just ask um on an evaluation side for this neighborhood exactly how many lots are vacant that we're talking about and um is this limited to new construction like I mean I think is this like is there a is this tied to new construction or existing construction like how does this prohibit I guess expanding housing choices is what I'm getting at I'm not understanding at all so um the nbo can be crafted since the the text isn't crafted yet there's no definitive answer to that I can say that the previous two nbo's that were adopted did apply to both existing development like additions to existing houses and to new development so um if the lot sizes and flag lots were limited um then that would prohibit any new development um that met some of the the options available that were approved under spending housing choice so there are flag lots yeah the the flag lots and the minimum lot sizes in particular and the single family residential use only and would you say that those things could be crap you're saying they could be crafted into the npo and reflective of the e hc or expanded housing choices um and I would just like to say that that my questions and my um understanding of how the neighborhood protection overlays work it's um it is put in the cart before the horse and saying that that it doesn't allow for e for e hc for expanded housing choices and if the community already understands that this is not about preventing duplexes in their neighborhoods then this is more about making sure that as miss plus mentioned that the trees are the trees that are there are protected and there is a green space and that the streams are protected and I think that those are valid points and I really appreciate the jccpc and trying to reprioritize this and bring it back and so I'm looking forward to supporting moving this forward thank you thank you councilmember uh councilmember millison thank you mr mayor um and thank you uh colleagues I I just want to again just reiterate for the record there's no doubt in my mind everything the staff is going to say substantively point by point how this npo may um conflict with the ac whatever is going to be right I know that um I just want to affirm that that's my issue is purely uh one of fairness and purely one of timing I think if we had said if we had issued a moratorium on taking the applications because we knew we were going to be we knew we were doing a comp plan we knew we were doing e hc maybe there'd be some more comfort but we still let folk turn in an application under those rules and and um you know bandwidth is one argument but if we're uh uh holding up an application because we anticipated something coming down the road but we still you know did not cut off um the allowability of turning in applications that just from a fairness point of view that that's what I'm I'm struggling with uh I'm not even going to go into the merits line by line the substance of the application or I'm bracketing that out from my consideration today I'm just talking purely from a fairness point of view to the residents of of farce hills um so that that that's where I am but no doubt the staff's going to be right on everything they say uh you know relative e ac relative to the uh npo npo line by line this is about fairness and timing for me so thank you mr mayor thank you councilmember um we're going to uh miss plus would also like to make another comment and I'm going to ask the clerk if she can let miss plus into the room miss plus welcome again uh yes hello am I being heard yes you are I'm so sorry my connection is very awkward I apologize yes um oh sorry I'm here in reverb uh so yes I simply wanted to point out uh and this was part of my letter as well that at the time that the npo application was submitted that list that is being referred to with such specificity by staff today was presented to us as a required item for the application that was folded in specifically with the understanding that the items on that list would change over time in other words these items are not do or die items for the neighborhood we were told to merely list anything that we might consider working on in the future on that list and so I do feel that it is perhaps a bit of a mischaracterization to try to paint the neighborhood into a position where what is on that list represents the definitive body of what our ultimate npo petition if it is ever allowed to be written would read um please we would ask for fairness we would ask for an opportunity uh we were told to just list everything in the kitchen sink we could think of and now I feel like it's being used as a tool against us and it is difficult um thank you very much bye bye thank you very much miss class mayor pro tem thank you mr mayor I have a question for staff is there anything in our npo process that would give residents the impression that submitting an npo then necessarily leads to staff working on it so there's nothing that says that we will or that we won't I think there's definitely the way the process is set up now um it certainly gives that impression which is one of the reasons why we wanted to uh make the changes that you'll be considering later um it certainly is a huge resource issue for us we never know when we're going to get one and it um you know the old west germ npo took about 1600 staff hours to complete and so um so we're looking for um it's a resource issue so we're looking for guidance from city council to determine um how to best reallocate her or to allocate her resources to either work on in this npo or are you doing what we're doing thank you I'm just trying to I'm trying to parse the fairness question a little bit which is that in in my understanding people submit npo's and then the council decides whether staff will work on the npo there's no and they do that knowing that there's no guarantee that the npo will go forward is that an accurate assessment that is accurate yes it's a we do not start working on it until it's put into our approved work work program which is a separate action thank you um I am going to vote against this item I don't believe that an npo and forest hills meets our current policy direction on uh in this area which is to increase density and to increase affordability in the urban tier um and forest hills is part of the urban tier I don't think it wise to ask staff to do work on um to do work on an item that is expressly in opposition to all the other work that we're um asking them to do with regard to with regard to housing and if this item word I mean if this item were to come to us I don't um again I wouldn't support it so I don't support moving it forward and I'm going to vote against adding it to the work plan thank you thank you madam mayor pro gem councilmember caviano yeah just a clarifying question that I have for staff hi scott um just real quick basically what I'm also hearing is if we voted to approve the the only way that staff sees doing that work would be to outsource it based on your current work plan that has already been adopted that's correct yes we would for the next two fiscal years to be the case and is that where the was the $50,000 is that what your estimation would be to hire said a consulting firm yes that's great thank you thank you councilmember any other questions or comments from Mr. Whiteman councilmember freeman and then councilmember reese thank you I just wanted to ask um how many other actions in the planning department can the neighborhood actually um initiate as a resident in the community the only two that we really have are the npo and the local historic district process and and can you say that the the limitation on that is that by city is it by state is by federal statute um some of it some of it is local decision um some of it as referenced in the memo the state has made it harder and harder for non-property owners to apply for zoning changes um that do not apply to their own property so it's definitely not a federal issue it's more of a local decision about how to real to allocate resources and um state decision to make it hard to um ask for zoning changes on someone else's property and that and that's in regards to just um you know yes what you're saying is the property rights um argument has been made and so folks in the community don't have an don't have an opportunity to ask for or request a neighborhood protection overlap and that that has been an overarching factor in this and why um from 2018 uh I know I've been continuously saying like this is this is you're leaving folks no opportunity to have say so on what their neighborhood looks like and I hear what mayor protem is saying about not agreeing but it's also put in the cart before the horse because no plans have been made about what that MPO would look like and so I hear uh councilmember middleton and saying not going into the details but I feel like it's it's really unfair that the details are what's being used against this neighborhood because if it were a black neighborhood I would be saying the same things in that um it's important to make sure that the people that live around that neighborhood have say so on what it looks like and I want to make sure that it's clear that the limitation has been made through the state and we're carrying it through as if it's the rule here locally and it's kind of it's really concerning and so I um I just want to make sure that that piece is not left out of this conversation thank you thank you councilmember Reese thank you mr. mayor I had a question for mr. white man it was my recollection at joint city county planning that the reason we that the reason we were asked to prioritize the MPO application from by the neighbors was that had we not done that they would have had to reapply under the new rules is that roughly correct it is correct yes right so to my my thank you scott appreciates my mind that was what I recall about the procedural fairness kind of ex post facto concern that I remember from this from being in joint city county planning was that we voted to prioritize the application because to do otherwise would have meant that they didn't that the that the vote that the neighborhood would not have had an opportunity to keep going forward with the process that they began in good faith and I think one of the reasons I voted to prioritize it was because of that basic fairness and process issue that councilmember middleton so rightly brought up but also to I guess hasten the day when we got to this decision point about whether or not to move the application forward and begin the and ask staff to devote time energy and money to developing the npo application or petition and from my perspective it doesn't really matter at this point in time what the npo proposal would eventually complete container not contain I'm completely agnostic about that for me the issue is we are embarking and have already embarked on our new comprehensive plan that work is burdened to a considerable degree by the circumstances we find ourselves in with the global pandemic of COVID-19 right now and to ask our staff to set aside time energy money to work on this when many of those issues are going to be discussed and the council is going to make decisions about that in the context of the comprehensive plan or comprehensive plan creation and for that reason I just think this is absolutely the wrong time to move forward with an npo application in the city as we are embarking on the other important work the the time energy and talent of our planning staff is not infinite if it were there were lots of things we'd ask them to do but it's really important to me that they get this right and I believe that if done right that work around the comprehensive plan will incorporate all of the concerns that are being raised by the forest Hills neighbors right now and that is where I think the city should be focusing its energy and so irrespective of what the what's on the list I just want to make sure it was plus you understand from my perspective that doesn't color my sense of whether or not this should go forward at all one bit it's not about what what might be in a future proposal it's the fact that in my opinion this is exactly the wrong time to be considering any npo as we ask our staff to do the heavy lifting on the comprehensive plan I think that's where we need to focus staff that's where they have told us they need to focus and and I want to support that so that's why I'll be voting against the measure thank you council member are there any more comments by members of the council any more comments by members of the council did I see council member Milton or not no okay any more comments from members of council okay I'll just quickly comment I'm appreciative of the advocacy by miss plus and others in forest Hills and agree that it's that the it's a it's a wonderful it's a beautiful neighborhood as so many of our neighborhood are and I certainly understand her concern about trees and green space and the mentions that she made of future future tax amendments and so forth that we will be asked to consider and I just want to say I hear you about the protecting the trees and the green space and that has absolutely got to be a priority I'm in terms of the in terms of this item I appreciate everybody's comments and I think they're good good good arguments on all sides I do think that I'm convinced by council member Reese's comments and by the mayor pro term I am I think that they for me carry the greater weight but I appreciate everybody's thoughts all right I I'm sorry I'm now going to ask that we've been asked to the action that we are scheduled to take here is to adopt the resolution regarding your quest to initiate a neighborhood protection overlay for forest Hills the resolution that the staff has recommended to us is a resolution that would deny the initiation of the npo process so I will accept a motion on that resolution so moved is there a second second been moved by matter mayor pro term seconded by council member Reese that we passed the resolution recommended by staff to deny the initiation of the npo for forest Hills can I jump in real quick I know in the past we've gotten advice from our attorney not to phrase motions in the negative so I'm wondering if we could get a little clarification yeah madam attorney phrase the motion in the affirmative yes that would be correct so I was the affirmative would be that we move to approve or move to adopt move to approve the resolution presented by our staff correct I want to make it clear that that resolution is uh recommending the denial of the npo so there's a motion on the floor that we approve the motion that we approve the resolution recommended by staff and it's been seconded council member Reese can I just get confirmation from our city attorney that that that's okay that we're we're gonna vote yes in the affirmative on the on the resolution recommended right so so the motion should be stated in the affirmative and what's giving you pause is that the recommendation is stated in the negative is that it yes yeah I mean that's that's fine see you're being to accept okay yes the resolution the recommendation I'm being asked to accept the resolution Mr. Mayor I have a one minor quibble about the resolution and that is the third and fourth whereas is do not comport with my understanding of where this process sits given that that the neighbor the neighbors never got an opportunity to go forward with the process we don't really know what the proposed npo regulations would be and so if it's friendly to the vote to to my mayor pro tem if we could strike the third and fourth whereas is and move forward with just the first two that would be my preference I see I see our planning director may have a comment yeah thank you mr. mayor members of council um so there for your convenience and use there are two alternative resolutions um attachment four is a resolution for approval attachment five is a resolution for denial so I think whoever makes the motion could refer to the the specific there are two separate um resolutions provided for your use and you certainly could amend it as council member Reese suggested I think we should redo the motion does that work that we'll I'm happy to hear your suggestion um I move that we deny the request or I guess that's in the negative right I move that we accept the staff's recommendation to deny the request how's that I think that would be acceptable mr. young you don't need this particular resolution do you I don't I mean and obviously tony repert can weigh in but I think adopting a resolution for denial which is attachment five in your agenda package would would meet the intent of what the mayor pro tem just said however I'm hearing council member Reese wants to get rid of a couple of whereas is in that resolution and I believe that's why the mayor pro tem suggested let's skip the resolutions and just go to we vote to accept the recommendation of the staff I see yeah I there's no um there's no legal reason that that resolution is critical there's a motion on the floor that we reckon by the mayor pro tem that we accept the the recommendation of staff to deny the npo for forest hills is there a second second thank you is there any more discussion discussion councilor milton thank you mr. mayor I want to thank um councilor reese and and mayor pro tem johnson I find their arguments incredibly compelling uh and I agree with them however I'm going to be I guess voting against it because I the threshold for uh my concern about fairness still has not been passed I I don't know what's going to be in this npo this is the same neighborhood by the way that I voted against trying to get into the suburban tier so so I you know I um I'm I'm mindful of our need for density I'm mindful for I need to treat all neighborhoods the same and because I'm mindful that we need to treat all neighborhoods the same uh I'm I'm I'm still concerned about the timing of the application uh process so why I think councilor recent mayor pro tem johnson are right uh 100 I still have a concern about fairness so I uh regrettably will be parting company um with the uh my colleagues on this vote but I think strangely enough the vote is going the right way so thank you mr. mayor thank you councilmember are there any other comments if not uh councilor freeman just a note that it might have just been easier to vote uh uh nay on the affirmative resolution and that would have been a lot simpler that may be true but this is the motion that we have uh and so I'm uh I'm going to go with it um there is a motion on the floor that uh we accept the recommendation of staff to deny the uh to deny the request to initiate the forest hills npo it's been made and seconded a madame clerk will you please call the roll mayor shul hi mayor pro tem johnson hi councilmember caballero hi councilmember freeman councilmember middleton middleton votes nay councilmember east hi thank you thank you madam clerk the motion passes four to two thank you colleagues and uh thank you miss plus and others in forest hills I know this is going to be an ongoing process through the comprehensive plan and we look forward to your participation mr. mayor I have a question in the previous um vote we had to suspend the rules but for this one we didn't is that because it's specifically on gba yes I just want to make sure that that's clear because it looks kind of awkward thank you all right we're now moving to item 23 annexation falls village north conservation and this is a gba um public hearing item and uh now we'll be hearing from staff good afternoon family starters of the planning department I would like to state for the record that all planning department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with the state and local law and affidavits have noticed are on file in the planning department a request for utility extension voluntary annexation and initial zoning map change have been received from Robert Schunk of McAdams for a 209.19 acre parcel located at 739 baptist road and 117 sandy road this annexation petition is for an expansion in existing satellite to the corporate limits the expansion would be away from the current city limits and into the rural tier and critical watershed protection overlay the site is presently zoned residential rural falls jordan watershed protection overlay district b in the suburban tier and residential rural falls jordan watershed protection overlay district a in the rural tier staff recommends an exact translation of the zoning designation based on an administrative site plan currently under review for a conservation subdivision the development isn't anticipated to include 341 single family lots it should be noted uh that a separate from this that separate from this request um applications for rezoning and an amendment to the future land use map have been submitted and are currently under review for a higher density with age restriction a tia is required for the conservation subdivision site plan currently under review uh but if the future rezoning is approved the project would not be subject to the tia identified in the improvements um giving you that information as context so this is just for the annexation petition the city county operational departments such as solid waste fire police and ems have reviewed this request solid waste and the police department identified potential service delivery costs and impacts without adding resources but those resources will be requested in the future through the annual budget process when the time they need for the additional resources has been better identified the public works and water management department performed the utility impact analysis for the utility extension agreement and determined that the existing city of Durham water and seri sewer means have capacity to serve the project after the completion of the southeast regional lift station the city of Durham departments of transportation and public works and city county planning are conducting a conditions and cost assessment related to the ncdot roadways located within east and southeast Durham that are experiencing rapid transition from rural to suburban characteristics this assessment will determine if the roadways meet current and potential future city standards this assessment is underway and a final completion date is not yet identified regarding this request budget management services department performed a fiscal impact analysis which determined that the proposed annexation will become revenue positive immediately upon annexation should the council act favorably approval of the annexation petition and the direct translation of the zoning would become effective on june 30th 2020 staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances three motions are required for this application the first is to adopt an ordinance annexing the property and entering into a utility extension agreement the second is for the consistency statement and the third is to adopt the zoning ordinance thank you and staff is available for any questions thank you mr. others good to see you and appreciate the report you have heard the report from staff colleagues i'm now going to clear this public hearing open first going to ask if there are any questions for members by members of the four staff by members of the council council member free thank you i was just um just double checking i noticed that this case had not gone before the planning commission or there were no planning commission notes and so there was no vote and i was just trying to make sure that it was understood why it wasn't going before the planning commission nor thank you for that question this request is just for the annexation and so it would not be heard by planning commission a future rezoning would be heard by planning commission prior to being heard by city council but for the annexation petition only it does not go to planning commission thank you thank you and i bring that up because what i'm noticing is a continuous evolution of how a development is happening in derm and that this breakout of how these processes are happening is actually circumventing the planning commission and it doesn't feel like it's fully honest in its approach so thank you i um just wanted to make sure that i was clear for the rest of my colleagues mr. mayor may i comment on that briefly yes yes you may mr. young thank you mr. mayor uh councilmember preman to your question certainly mr. others is correct um there was a um a resolution adopted by the planning commission um almost 15 years ago i don't remember the exact year was 2004 five or six um where they agreed to not hear cases where there was a direct translational zoning meaning it's the same zoning designation in the county as it would be in the city so that's the case here and um we can certainly revisit that because it is absolutely true that when a property comes into the city the development potential is much greater because of the availability of utilities so we can revisit that with planning commission but just wanted to let reassure everyone with that we're following um a long-standing resolution that planning commission adopted in this regard and i apologize patrick i appreciate you making the clarification i'm not trying to imply that the staff is um um doing anything to circumvent it just feels a little circumventive and i understand that that's the way it's been set up from 13 years ago and i also understand um there's a lot of dynamics in and the way that uh cases have been handled and as we move forward in this comp plan and the conversations around how our neighborhoods are are developed and the way that developers are turning our urban uh turning our urban tiers suburban and our rural tiers suburban and hopes of trying to um trying to out that whole um density that was spoken about earlier i just wanted to to make sure that it's at the forefront of the conversation or at the forefront and how we're uh looking at these cases because they come forward as annexations which seems simple enough um but there's no way for me to measurably account for just how much it's going to cost the city to have this uh 341 single family lots online in the city limits so this is just becoming harder and harder to say yes that's all that's what i'm saying so thank you thank you councilmember any other questions for staff if not i'm going to ask uh our city clerk to please let me know uh who is present to speak on this item mayor shall we have three speakers um there is a sam rogers jake of anderson and a telephone caller um and i believe two at least our proponents and i'm not sure about the telephone caller and barbara green oh excuse me barbara green just raised her hand she would like to make comments okay um let me just look here for a second robert shunk is making a presentation yeah i was i didn't hear mr shunk's name mentioned i knew he was involved in this okay i'm going to ask the the um folks this is a since this is a public hearing we have certain requirements and i want to ask those folks who have who are speaking on this item or the web raise their hand if you could let the clerk know whether or not you're a proponent or opponent of this item that of course how would they let you know that um they can put it in the chat perhaps all right mr mayor this is robert shunk yes can you hear me yes i understand i believe from the planning commission last week that people that are calling in can hit star nine i think to raise their hand if they're not on the zoom call is that something the clerk can clarify madam clerk is that true i'm not a hundred percent on that yeah i believe it's star nine if you aren't if you are calling in from a telephone okay miss green i see is thank you miss green it says that she's speaking in favor we have mr shunk if the other um folks who are involved in this uh speaking on this item could please um could please let us know if you're in favor of the item in favor of this um annexation or opponents okay are you hearing from anyone madam clerk it looks as if everyone's a proponent all right okay here's what we're going to do mr shunk we're going to give you 10 minutes to make a 10 minutes of time and then um i will give each of the other speakers two minutes and we will see how we go from there so mr shunk welcome you have 10 minutes and you will be timed thank you mr mayor emily thank you for your thorough report mr mayor mayor pro tem all city members of city council good afternoon and good to see you all hope to see you all again in person again real soon uh mr mayor also big thanks to you for your leadership on these unprecedented times most recently uh there's a lot to get uh through here um so let's get started uh madam clerk could you please show the presentation and hopefully my time will start once the presentation is is shown i'll see how i feel and go to slide two please so so uh good afternoon so there's a lot to cover on this uh follow up from what emily had said so the things we're going to cover is the project history what we're voting on today with the conservation subdivision uh we'll also speak to a little bit to the future zoning we're proposing the neighbor neighborhood engagement we've had and why we feel we have why this is a community benefit uh just next slide please so tonight's this afternoon's vote is strictly about the 209 uh acres of annexation as you see on your screen there that does propose 341 uh conservation subdivision lots for the bigger picture i want you to know that the area to the south they're identified by falls village golf course was annexed sometime ago has pletted lots and has an existing golf course next slide please and also it should be noted that on that same screen there before she does switch the blue line there designates the the difference between the fja and the fjb boundary all of our proposed development is in the fjb boundary so on this slide here again this shows the 2003 annexation the planning for this golf course started in 1998 with the plan residential it should be noted that this was Durham's first conservation subdivision in 2007 and that is why we also chose to do a conservation subdivision as well this land area here represents 65 percent open space and i also want to note that from a policy standpoint the cd county planning department and the Durham open space and trails commission dost encourages conservation subdivisions you know in this area of the county so while it might be viewed today as a circumvention you know we looked at the policy and we also looked at the fact that there was an existing conservation subdivision the very first one done in 2007 back in February March we have an we receive an approved erosion control plan for the development you see here in yellow and the cds are pending and we hope to start construction this summer on the area east of baptist road next slide please so again this afternoon's vote is the area in the green this is a conservation subdivision our goal is to ultimately do this as a 55 uh plus active adult community as you heard from emily there will be a future zoning request that will likely come to city council later in later in this year pops early 2021 that will slightly increase the density to about two and a half units an acre next slide please so in this in this slide here it shows the 341 locks on the western side of the site you'll see some areas outlined in pink those are the areas where we'd like to increase the density at the time of the zoning the buffers to the west and the north in the fja a boundary will remain preserved and also the area along baptist road will remain preserved as well limiting the you know the impact to baptist road the the so we're going from three we would be going from 341 to about 310 lots and you can see the mix of lot types there we have at the end of this our goal is still to have 77 of the site in pervious area 53 and open space which translates to you know 23 in pervious what is also important on the slide is to note that we're showing a 100 foot wide stream buffers typically when you're under 23 percent in pervious surface you only need 50 foot stream buffers so we are you know we view this as a compact development preserving a wider stream buffers and also all of this ponds all of the storm ponds you see on that screen are constructed wetlands that provide further treatment for the storm water next slide please this slide here represents shows a lot of the walkability of the neighborhood blue or for sidewalks the red shows the greenway trails there's a street greenway trail along baptist road extending up the greenway along north of the site a greenway easement will be dedicated along the power line easement going further north to one day connect to the the mountains to see trail that's around falls lake you can see we're proposing dog parks we have several pocket parks around the neighborhood and also a community garden that we've been talking to area residents about perhaps managing it as well as you know concert with future residents and then to the bottom there we're proposing a highly monetized 18 000 square foot amenity center that include a pool and tennis bachi pick a ball another indoor and outdoor amenities next slide please this shows you know the whole project the whole neighborhood in context to one another again to the the bottom area is already been approved we have lots that have been platted and right away that's been platted and construction is slated to start later this summer there's about 10 miles of sidewalks five miles of golf cart trails that can double as walking trails in off-peak times about a mile of greenway trails this side shows the clubhouse the existing golf clubhouse to the south near 98 that you know hope to we hope to you know provide sewer there that and they can start fully utilizing the restaurant that they haven't been able to fully use see a couple other notes here so from a from a traffic standpoint too what is very important to point out is that the the act of adult community that we're proposing will generate one third of the traffic of that of the traditional single family neighborhood and that's quite as important as we all know some of the impacts to highway 98 that currently exist we do we will be building turn lanes the various intersections you see their circle in red and hoping to work with the DOT to provide a traffic light once the traffic is warranted lower left-hand corner you'll see the Neil middle school in context next slide please and at this time madam clerk if you could unmute Jacob Anderson please to continue the conversation to continue to continue the presentation hey mayor and council can you hear me clearly yes we can mr. Anderson thank you mayor um i'd just like to say really quickly that we're very proud to be here this site is a bit of a long time coming if there's anyone with staff that can answer the questions falls village golf course and the residential surrounding the golf course has been a bit of a about a about of a 20 year process our team was brought in my name is jake bannerson with alliance group we were brought in about two and a half years ago to try and figure out how to to make this site make it what it needed to be and and luckily we were able to pull off something that's pretty confident is is going to be a very big success for Durham and this region speaking in context obviously the site is at 98 and Baptist road we're about you know 10 to 12 minutes to downtown Durham we're about three to four miles and five minutes to kind of the main retail and briar creek about 20 minutes to rdu airports and rtp and we we are you know near the rolling view marina that's about four miles up the road we'll speak a little bit of that and we're also close to some of the retail and such at Sharon road as well as nil middle school at the corner of Baptist next slide please so as we were kind of thinking of the way to present it to you guys and in a in a way that made you understand that we were thinking about you first as well we put this map together so we were fortunate enough with our project and our team to pull in the Dell web community and this site will be eventually about 785 lots that will eventually be a 55 and over age restricted community which will be housed by Dell web the reason why we put this map together is to show you in context a little bit of what's happened in this eastern Durham area some good some bad we understand there's a lot of growth and pains with that but we feel like Dell web arbors has created a bit of of an interesting context in this area Dell web has really flourished here it was probably the number one subdivision in the history of North Carolina coming out of the downturn they sold 15 to 25 homes a month and it just hit that housing market that the triangle and Durham and other communities are still lacking the senior housing need but what was remarkable about what Dell web did here is it just spawned a bunch of traditional housing townhomes apartments but I think one of the more important things is it it just spurred a bunch of non-residential growth if you go to Briar Creek today I firmly believe that the majority of the northern part of Briar Creek was enhanced by the Dell web arbors I think one of the discouraging things that we saw as we put this map together is that all of the non-residential growth because of access happened to be on the Wake County side of the line and so what we're thinking and what we're seeing with what we're going to provide at highway 98 is we feel like from highway 98 at Baptist Road to Sharon Road to Miami Boulevard to downtown we feel like the same non-residential growth that were happening around Briar Creek will happen very quickly medical office banks apartments you know traditional housing market rate housing every type of non-residential component from retail to etc for services that I think 98 highway desperately needs so if you can go to the next slide please so coming back to how we know Mr. Anderson excuse me a minute how much longer do you have for your all's presentation I think one minute and I'm done sir okay that'd be great thanks I'm coming back to highway 98 at Baptist Road there is a food line there at Sharon I think there's quite a bit of growth that needs to happen I think I think this Falls Village project will give it that stability and that anchor that this quarter needs it'll be a great addition to this East Room Gateway and to Durham we're putting a lot of money into the golf course quite a bit of improvements again like Robert said quite a bit of improvements to the clubhouse and it's actually going to remain a public golf course and we're partnering with them to do something special if you can go to the last slide one of the last things that we did here guys just really quickly so the community will have some private amenities they'll have a larger you know all the amenities that these active adult communities have but we're enhancing the clubhouse we're adding two community gardens one one that we really feel confident should be more of a public provided garden that we're actually working with some private individuals who live on Baptist Road who want to manage that garden we're trying to work through that now so we've got the dog parks the community gardens we've actually reached out to nil middle school as well which is a magnet school and we're hoping to partner with them in some capacity that we think this community would would work well with some of the last things before mayor I have to go we've decided to make a contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund and you know and that at a hundred thousand dollars we're supporting the Freedom Boat Club at the rolling view marina again we've we've brought in access to sewer and water etc to a community out here that really needs it there's a lot of felling systems and I think what we're doing is it's pretty significant upgrade for for the surrounding so we appreciate your time and hope to have your support thank you mr. Anderson um madam clerk I think it would be yeah thanks I was going to suggest you take down the presentation thank you so much we have I believe two other people to speak on this item is that correct madam clerk yes mr. mayor uh miss green and who is the second one it's a telephone caller okay uh we'll we'll start with miss green miss green can you make yourself heard welcome are we able to hear miss green hello miss green this welcome we're glad to have you and you have two minutes can you do it in two minutes okay thank you for your time I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you I'm a small business owner in the bryer creek area and was very involved in the active adult community the launch of the delwa carolina arbor's neighborhood and other active adult communities in that general area and I just wanted to share with you some of the things that we have seen that may go unnoticed because they're not obvious when driving through these and how much I'm just so impressed with what the residents of the carolina arbor's have given back to the Durham community through their volunteer work we have a large group of very talented skilled people easing their way into retirement and have a lot of energy to give back among some of these things is a recent $17,000 donation to the inner food food shuttle they donate consistently to the RSVP retired senior volunteer program the Durham tech food pantry community awareness through school supplies COVID mass time-sensitive charity work they've been very involved in the school spring valley school and it's donated $4,000 to the library recently and at one point this year had 40 volunteers in that school consistently they have built a habitat for humanity home and are funding a second one very active active veterans club involved with the VA hospital and also consistently give to the various programs within Durham associated with the police force about 15 to 17 thousand dollars a year for various programs that they support so I just don't think that that type of thing is often highlighted or perhaps even known when looking at these communities you see the amenities those are very iconic and visual but I'd like to just highlight the the good that these residents have brought to the area and I'm very proud of them and I'd like to see more of it thank you very much Ms. Green I appreciate that thank you for bringing that to us and now I believe we have Mr. Rogers yes yes my name is Sam Rogers and I would just like to say that my grandfather was the owner of this land over a hundred years out there right at the where this project is going on and I'm well in support of it and I appreciate being on the conference call this afternoon thank you very much for your words of Mr. Rogers we appreciate hearing from you Madam clerk is there anyone else that would like to be heard on this item Mr. Mayor that's all I have thank you all right council members any questions or comments for applicant or the staff anyone like to raise their hand for any comments for applicant or questions for applicant or the staff okay I have a I have a question for the staff the associated development plan I'm reading from the memo commits to a maximum of 170 apartment residential units and permanent accessory uses no commercial developments included with the development plan the applicant also proposes to change the future land use map designation one parcel in the site area from medium density residential to commercial we we we have some comments from at least one or two planning commission members concerned about the use of the commercial designation and then and then without any commercial development but rather using it exclusively for the residential development Eric mm-hmm I think you're on the wrong agenda yeah I am I'm on the wrong one thank you I'm on the next one I apologize let me go back to this one do it but you can of course answer that question now no just kidding um but thank you councilmember um let's see hang on let me get my computer up I know my question on one of my questions on this one uh while coming up revolves around the uh the extension of the sewer into the uh the rural tier and the uh the watershed overlay it's my understanding from looking at the map that that is that that the applicant is not planning to do that in terms of their site plan I'm wondering from staff what kind of assurances that we have um on that and how do we get those assurances thank you uh thank you for the question um and if I could also just clarify one item um that was brought up in the applicant's uh presentation regarding a contribution to affordable housing uh that can't be applied at this time through as this is just an annexation petition um so also to answer your question um as it is just an annexation petition at this time um that if the site plan were to fall through or for a future rezoning to to not be approved the site would still be annexed and so I don't believe we would have that assurance so they would need to come to are they going when they they're they're going to come to us again for so the the current construction is on the already annex site so the let's see we've got a site plan under review right now for the subject site they need the annexation in order to get the utility is required to uh develop that site plan um the site plan remains outside of the rules here um they intend to uh move their rezoning forward in order to increase the density in those locations that robert highlighted in his presentation and that would be through the rezoning so without the rezoning they could still do that I think it was 341 um referenced in the the site plan what assurances can we get mr others um short of them coming to us for rezoning where we do have some uh we can get those assurances about the uh not extending the sewer into the rural tier and the water protection overlay is there any assurance we can get I believe a use permit is required to extend um that and I can pull up the staff report to better speak on that you mr mayor mr yang this is pat young with the planning department we would um there are both through a utility extension agreement that would be required um this developer um subsequent to the site plan approval and in the udo there are our prohibitions on them um extending the uh utilities into the rural tier so that that's uh there are at least two means already in place that would preclude them from that I think uh what we've said uh is you know some of the amenities um associated with this development could be in the rural tier but none of the uh development and none of the utilities okay thank you that's that's what I want to understand appreciate it all righty I believe that is my only question on this item are there other questions or comments on this item all right if not I'm going to declare this public hearing closed and the matter is before the council we are asked if approval of this uh would let me get my my info my memo up here iPad's a little slow hang in there it'll be it'll happen in a minute there we go the we would need three motions if we were to approve this item the first would be to adopt an ordinance annexing falls village north the second we do adopt a consistency statement the third would be to adopt the ordinance amending the udo and uh I will accept a motion uh one of this item if you want to like to make a motion to adopt the ordinance annexing falls village north your mayor would this be an appropriate time to make some comments about the proposal absolutely I apologize I'd go for it that's okay you you gave us an opportunity before the public hearing was closed went on after and that's generally when I do that please feel free thank you mr. mayor appreciate that opportunity want to thank staff for putting together the agenda item and answering questions also want to thank the developer for putting together what is quite frankly it looks like a beautiful community plan the amenities would be fantastic the housing looks first rate it's obviously in the growing part of our community and near some commercial areas so I appreciate the thought and the thoughtfulness that go into it I'm going to be voting against this annexation petition today and I want to explain briefly why this is not the first one of these that we've seen come before the city council in the last year or so large tract of land in the county being requested to be annexed into the city for I think what we would all consider to be a pretty big residential development this one is very close to Falls River and I think that's one of the sensitivities I have about this project but more than just where it's located and as close as it is as it is to the floodplain is that yet again the council is being asked to drop a bunch of houses and the cars that come along with them along roads we don't control can't maintain or upgrade and the only way people can get to or from these homes is by having a car that is not a sustainable development and I understand that the developers here again who've done a fantastic job this looks like a great place to live if I were you know old enough to live there but the simple fact is and and and our city is growing we need more housing our aging population is growing especially quickly we need more places for them to live as well understood those are givens but with those givens we have choices on the city council about what we are willing to allow and what we're not and to the extent that we keep allowing these kinds of large single family home developments to be built where in places where we don't control the roads we can't upgrade them and where there is no access to public transit this is what we're going to continue to get and and irrespective of the beauty of this particular development the thoughtfulness that's gone into its creation the support and again I want to thank the folks who called in to support it because their input is important as well I think you know we have these are the choices that we get to make and the fact that the developer did a good job in putting together a project that looks like a lovely place to live and the fact that they have jumped through all the hoops to get to this point doesn't mean that we ought to reward them with the annexation it means that they get in the door to have the conversation with us and I also want to thank the developer for being willing to spend time with me personally twice to have conversation about their their what they're trying to do with this project and think that they deserve all the credit in the world but the problems that I have with this annexation are things the developer can't really do anything about the other piece about this is that I have always been very reluctant to create or expand satellite annexations they pose a unique set of challenges for city infrastructure especially our public safety officers whether it be fire or police and and so those are also considerations for me again I want to thank everybody involved but I'll be voting against the annexation thank you Mr. Mayor thank you councilmember any other council members like to make comments on this item seeing none then we will move to take up the item is there a motion to adopt and ordinance annexing falls village north so moved is there a second is there a second of this item all right ten of voting against okay there's a second with an intent to vote against so it's been moved and seconded is there any further discussion yeah thank you Mr. Mayor just real quick I also plan on voting against I think that I this reminds me very much of the development out on olive branch that we took up that I think came through two different times and I actually voted against the first round and then voted for the second round partly because of some of the commitments that the developer made in hindsight I actually regret that vote that vote flip partly because I want to commend my colleague for a lot of my reticence with this I drive out that way pretty frequently and the traffic and what we're doing in that direction of the county is really alarming I don't see it's exactly the kind of development we all say we don't want we say we don't want we know we can't do it we know it's not sustainable additionally I will say that because we have put infrastructure out there as a city ourselves with the pump station we are also driving a lot of the development we put the pump station out there we know we needed it but we have to me that was kind of like a an alarm for developers to say okay well now we can tie into city infrastructure and when we put that pump station out there we didn't do it cohesively with the transportation plan and with the other things that we need out there and that's our fault and so the only way that we're going to get the development we want is if we get our staff to when we put infrastructure we have to look at holistically we have to think about transportation we have to do it in a sustainable way and so I regret the decision I made on the olive branch vote and I will not be voting I will not be making that mistake again today thank you thank you any more comments mayor pro tem thank you Mr. Mayor um I just wanted to comment that I came into this hearing not really knowing which way I was going to go on this but I find myself swayed by council member Reese's argument against the development um it also though is pointing out to me just a general you know problem with how we like how how we do development right like I feel like we and how and how we make these decisions I feel like this um just this kind of piecemeal approach and we don't really I feel a lack of a holistic strategy around these kinds of broader sustainability questions around where we want different housing types to go what kind of housing we want where like I don't actually know if it's a good idea to put more density in this area in the watershed right so what what should go there I'm sure these are all questions that we're going to be taking up um as we redo our comprehensive plan but it just yeah it's bringing up for me all kinds of conflicts that I don't know I don't think that we're giving developers a good template and we're not really describing well what we want to see so that's just some things that are on my mind um but I'm going to be voting against the sanitization thank you I'm going to make some comments um I'm going to be voting for this I think that this developer has done a lot of things that we want they provided they're they're planning to provide lots of density more density than we usually get uh the regards at at the same time they're providing a lot of they're they're protecting a lot of green space and I think that is unusual um and and I also think that there are a lot of things about the development that are the kinds of things that we hear all the time from our advocates that they want in a developer um also they in terms of this the kind of community that this is I think that they make a great point about the fact that the traffic that'll be generated is less than most other residential communities by a significant amount no question that 98 is a bad situation but that's not the developer's fault there's a lot of work being done now by our transportation folks to think about 198 will be um and how to how to make it better how to improve it and that's going to take a lot of work um but I think that in terms of the satellite issue I understand that but it is contiguous to another part of another satellite and so I don't think it creates there any particular problems so as I say I'll be voting for this development. Councilmember Middleton. Thank you Mr. Mayor um everyone's while I have these moments that remind me of how proud I am to be part of this Council and part of this discussion society and I appreciate Councilor Reese's um um statements and and the Mayor Pro Tem statements um interestingly enough I will be supporting this development precisely because of what Mayor Pro Tem said um we don't have a comprehensive strategy yet and because we don't I don't want to appear capricious by picking a developer here or there where I'm going to assert um what I think that comprehensive strategy should be. The fact that I cannot say today that I'm going to vote consistently the same way for every single developer who comes to us from here or now based upon my concerns about satellite developments my concern listen we've got some work to do on our transportation overall and and we need to be doing that we need to be turning our transportation into one that's accessible and useful to all people that that's on us not developers um and the pump station is out there we put infrastructure out there anticipating a growth or at least its signals that we were anticipating it so the absence of that strategy that the Mayor Pro Tem alludes to makes me um a little uncomfortable with with appearing again capricious picking and choosing which developer on on a particular day I'm going to uh vote for or against uh against the yardstick that we have not codified as of yet I do also want to associate myself with the things you said Mr. Mayor that this developer has done indeed with respect to this project so for those reasons um with with with a clear commitment to developing that strategy and coming to some sense of a cohesive a unified vision moving forward we need to do that but in the absence I'm not I'm not going to make this developer the poster child for the absence of it today so I'll be voting for the development thank you mr. Mayor thank you councilmember all right we have a motion on the floor councilmember freeman thank you I um I anticipated um not this situation but um I really appreciate all the comments that have been made and I just wanted to share that in this case like many cases I um usually have this differential opinion about satellite sites and I really appreciate the context of how councilmember reese laid out exactly what the problem was was urban sprawl and recognizing that um urban sprawl has been an issue since I was on the planning commission and I voted against most cases like this I um I'm always compelled to vote against it um more than than um than four this case is not about the development this case is about an annexation and the annexation is down 98 and I want to make sure that it's clear that this is more so about who lives down 98 right now and who will not be there if we continue to do this urban sprawl model without the transportation or the planning to make sure that the roads uh meet the the necessary requirements because you know what traffic is like there and if we don't have the plans in place and we're not addressing it yet all we're doing is putting those folks at at risk um the pedestrian ability to get down the road the um consistent um issues around um but folks with folks who uh in our community don't have access to a car uh those are all weighing in on this and so as I weigh that against the fact that I still cannot see measurably how much it will cost the city to annex this piece of property I cannot support an annexation this is not about the development this is about an annexation and I can't support an annexation not knowing what it's going to cost the city as a whole um to move forward so thank you thank you council members do we have any other comments all right we have a motion on the floor uh and that motion is to hang on my computers waiting for me again the motion on the floor is to adopt the ordinance annexing falls village north madam clerk will you please call the roll mayor shul hi mayor pro tem johnson nay councilmember caballero nay councilmember freeman okay councilmember middleton I vote yay councilmember reese no thank you uh madam clerk uh the motion fails to i for nay and we will now move on to item 24 I don't believe we need to take up any of the rest of those motions do we mr young uh no no you don't mr mayor and then given the fact that the annexation fails thank you uh we'll now move on to item 24 the one I wanted to be on earlier consolidated annexation for fox crossing and now we'll hear from staff hello again Emily star there's a playing department and this is where the fox crossing item requests for utility extension agreement and voluntary annexation have been received from Kenneth Burnham of fox wood crossing apartments LLC and Tim cybers of poor bath associates for five parcels generally located at 928 south miami boulevard the annexation petition is for a contiguous expansion of the corporate city limits in addition the applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site which also includes areas currently within then city limits from commercial center with a development plan residential suburban 20 and residential urban five to commercial general with a development plan committing to a maximum of 170 apartment residential units and no commercial development there is no change proposed for the existing falls doored watershed protection overlay district B the applicant also proposes to change the future land use map designation of one parcel within the site from medium density residential to commercial the remaining site is currently designated as commercial on the future land use map which is consistent with the rezoning request if approved the annexation petition and associate applications would become effective on June 30th 2020 in addition to the commitments outlined in the staff report and identified on the development plan the applicant proposes to add or revise the following commitments that have been vetted by staff the first a minimum of 10 percent tree preservation area shall be provided and the second a revised fence height from six feet to eight feet where identified adjacent to the waiter's parcel on the development plan city and county operational departments such as solid waste fire police and EMS have reviewed this request the police department identified potential server delivery impacts but otherwise no impacts were identified the public works and water management departments have determined that the existing city of Durham water and Sanity sewer have capacity for the proposed development the budget and management services department determines that the proposed annexation will become revenue positive immediately following annexation additional information can be found in the staff report the Durham planning commission at their december 10 2019 meeting recommended approval to propose zoning and future land use map amendment by a vote of nine to three staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances four motions are required for this application the first is to adopt an ordinance annexing the property and entering into a utility extension agreement the second is to adopt resolution amending the future land use map the third is to adopt a consistency statement and the fourth is for the zoning ordinance thank you and staff is available for any questions thank you mr others you've now heard the report from staff and i'm gonna declare this public hearing open and first to ask if there are other if there are questions by members of the council for staff and i'll start with my mr others which is the we have this commercial development um where we're put it where the applicant is wants to put rather 170 residential units and as i understand it no commercial um and we had some a couple of planning commissioners that commented on this with concern could you speak to that certainly and thank you for the heads up on last item that you'd be asking that um so yes the udo allows for apartment funny mr others allows for apartment residential um on commercial zoned um and commercial plumbed uh land so it's consistent with the udo though it is certainly confusing thank you uh and and and it's not only consistent with the udo but we we it happens this is not the first time we've seen this it happens with a reasonable degree of frequency you would say uh yes we have seen apartment uses come up on commercial um i believe there was one early last year thank you thank you colleagues any questions for mr others at this time thank you uh i'm now going to uh ask the clerk to i'll let us know uh who is speaking on this item marshall we have four speakers could you give us our name their names i can the first is charles hasinger we have after that joshua rynke kenyon bernum and timothy cybers i believe timothy will be going first thank you why don't you unmute mr cybers and i'll discuss this with him okay good afternoon mayor how are you today sir mr cybers welcome um there are four speakers to this item um you are you planning to make a presentation yes sir i need approximately six to seven minutes for my presentation uh charles hasinger is the other consultant um here with us today josh rynke is our traffic consultant with that i'll also be available for questions all right and then there's a fourth person uh are you aware of them or madame clerk can you tell me about the fourth person who wants to speak his name is kenyon bernum all right do we know if mr bernum is a proponent or an opponent yes he's a proponent yes all right all right mr cybers that sounds fine why don't you go ahead and after the speakers we will um we'll give you six or seven minutes we'll give each of the other speakers two minutes if they would like it and then if there are other speakers to the item we'll get them in okay okay thank you sir uh again uh tim cybers with horror vat associates uh 16 consultant place Durham north carolina uh emily thank you for your hard work on this project and all the staff members that have uh devoted time to this project the request in front of you this uh this afternoon uh is a rezoning um to commercial general with the development plan a future land use map amendment as well as an annexation the project area is approximately just over 12 acres the majority of this site was currently zoned as a commercial center based on the development plan back in 1996 that allowed it for 96 500 square feet of commercial development um it included access points onto lin road pleasant drive and us 70 uh and that development plan from 1996 did not accommodate for stream buffers as our plan currently does today the project's located along us 70 um what is now known as the east end connector the this widening project previously taken land from the project area and will also eliminate the access onto us 70 that's shown on the previous development plan in addition to the stream buffers and utility easements have eliminated the potential for a commercial center on this property furthermore ncdot project is proposing to convert us 70 from lin road to out tw alexander as a controlled access freeway even though ncdot is currently have this project on hold there are two development options the northern option has no impact on the project area the southern object southern option does have an impact on the project area but we've discussed this with ncdot and they've allowed um allowed this project to move forward and have fully reviewed this project it is also our team's opinion that the northern route will be chosen um and which will not impact the development um while keeping access to the project area the proposed development include proposed development plan includes rezoning this project area to cg to allow for the development of up to 170 residential units uh residential apartment units commercial designation was chosen for this site since the majority of the site was already zoned commercial um and prior to our submittal in october of two october of 2018 uh this this was reviewed with that decision was reviewed with staff the apartments will vary in size with a mix of one two and three bedroom apartment options the average will be in excess of about a thousand square feet rent forecast obviously will depend on the final market analysis but likely around a dollar around a dollar and 25 a square foot that equates to a thousand square foot apartment running for approximately one thousand two hundred fifty dollars per month the site's location and proposed apartment development provided excuse me provide a great transition and is more compatible between the highly used freeway of us 70 directly to the east and the adjacent single family residential homes to the west and southwest in addition the earlier mentioned stream buffers and power line easements make this site ideal for apartment development the development plan illustrates commitments to right away dedication landscape buffers tree preservation area maximum previous area of 70 percent maximum of the 170 units as well as access points to lin and pleasant drive uh road improvements will be constructed on pleasant drive and provide a left turn lane into the development and construct a three lane section towards us 70 as well as providing a bike lane the developer also constructed bus stop along lin road and or pleasant drive adjacent to the site if required by go Durham uh we've committed to an 18 thousand dollar contribution to the Durham public schools and a 17 thousand dollar contribution to the city of Durham dedicated housing fund uh emily had previously mentioned the additional tax commitments that have been reviewed by staff we are going to commit to a minimum of 10 percent tree preservation area three percent is required with the commercial zone if this was to be rezoned to a residential zone it would be required to have seven percent tree coverage so we want to go above and beyond those requirements and provide that minimum of 10 percent um and as also as uh mr others mentioned that uh we'll we'll be providing or increasing the height of the fence along the adjacent property owners for miss waiters to eight feet um as the applicant i'm providing my verbal consent to the following condition and committed element increase the height of the fence to eight feet currently shown as six feet on the southwest property line as shown on sheet d 100 of the default plan in accordance with this verbal consent i'm agreeing to sign the consent language that will be placed on the approved development plan and that signature will be effective as of the date of this meeting the second application in front of you tonight is for the land use map application um which covers approximately 0.71 acres the portion of the development will not contain apartment units and will not have excuse me will not contain apartment units and will have a maximum building height of 20 feet as shown in the development plan and as was requested by the neighbors a neighborhood meeting was held prior to submittal in september of 2018 uh notices were mailed to the property owners informing them of the commercial rezoning that notice also informed them that even though it was a commercial rezoning it was a proposed residential apartment complex two primary concerns were raised at that meeting uh one the neighbors felt strongly um towards the donation for the affordable housing the second item was the increase in traffic uh in comparison to what exists today the development will increase the traffic and have discussed those appropriate uh improvements for the road construction however when compared to the commercial center that could be constructed without input of neighbors planning commission or the city council traffic will be reduced to certify this josh rikey with ramy camp and associates associates did complete a traffic comparison uh we compared a reasonable in other words what could be developed truly on the site today 50 000 square foot retail center versus the 170 unit apartment complex they found that the apartment complex would generate uh 2900 fewer daily trips during a typical 24 hour work period uh josh is signed in and available for questions on that item if needed planning commission approved this project with a vote of nine to three uh the commissioners who did vote against this project had some academic concerns as well as concerns with views of the adjacent parcels i would like to note that the adjacent parcels do sit above um this site in elevation anywhere from 10 to 30 feet in height and with the existing vegetation on the adjacent parcels in addition to our project boundary buffers the adjacent homes will be well screened from our development um as also the developers committed to additional tree save above the requirements for both a commercial and residential zoning landscape buffers are either equal to or above the opacity that would be required if it was a residential zone also after the planning commission we provided a then six foot now eight foot tall screen fence adjacent to miss waders as she requested uh during the planning commission hearing in closing i asked that you vote in favor of this rezoning to allow proposed development of 170 apartment units on the site that's no longer achievable as a commercial retail center as it's currently zoned it'll provide a great transition between the surrounding neighbors to us 70 and allow an underutilized portion of Durham to be developed as a gateway into our city if there's any questions i'm available thank you thank you mr syvers um mr uh are there other speakers to this item that would like to be heard at this time i know there were three more people it signed up this is tim syvers again uh charles hasinger and um kenyon are here with me today and they've both said they're available for questions thank you thank you and there's one more speaker as well madam clerk could you identify that speaker and make them available to speak his name is joshua rinky and i'm unmuting him thank you mr rinky welcome thank you thank you uh this is joshua rinky tim did a very thorough job and stole a lot of my thunder uh i was the uh transportation engineer that was hired to do a trip generation comparison i work with ramy kemp and associates 5808 fangden place raleigh north carolina we did look at uh the previously approved development plan uh the a very conservative way of looking at that is saying that only 50 000 square feet of retail could be developed and then compared that to 170 apartments uh so well tim indicated it was 2 900 less daily trips it's also a 119 less a m peak hour trips and 141 less p m peak hour trips for compared to what is previously approved uh for that land uh it's also under the threshold to warrant a traffic impact analysis full traffic impact analysis by ncdot or the city uh guidelines and just one of the things that tim also kind of checked off as he approached us and said they were looking to put in a left turn lane that always kind of uh calms my any concerns i have for safety issues at a site driveway when they put in the left turn lane so they are taking care of that even without having to do a traffic impact analysis and i'm available for any questions you have thank you mr ranky colleagues do you have any questions for staff or applicant at this time councilmember freeman i just had a question for the applicant so i recognize that this um well maybe for staff i'm trying to understand if this would qualify for the affordable housing density bonus that we discussed in the previous meeting and and how that would apply in this case like i just want to know what the difference would be if they were using the affordable housing density bonus versus uh what was it 17 000 for the affordable housing fund anyone sorry yes thank you for your question um i'm trying to pull up the ordinance now to um be able to answer that um i just need to confirm whether or not the affordable housing bonus would be permissible um under the commercial zoning is that what you're asking yeah that was what let's see and pat may be able to chime in if he knows um more directly than i do i'm sorry i didn't i didn't think about that when i was looking at this because i didn't know that they were proper they were making the the additional you know offer of 17 000 to the fund but uh yeah i'm sorry councilmember freeman the the affordable housing density bonus can be utilized in and uh commercial districts it can be you said it can be it just needs to be for the residential use but it can be in a commercial district yes and and for the applicant is there a reason you're not using the affordable housing density bonus no ma'am there's not am i missing i'm sorry go ahead councilmember i'm just trying to trying to maybe i'm not uh stayed in the question as clearly as i possibly can but i would like to know what this project would look like if the affordable housing density both bonus was included rather than the 17 000 and i guess how much of a difference that would make on the applicant side um of the conversation i think that's a question for our staff and maybe mr young you could help us there sure good evening again council members about you know the planning department um yeah so the affordable housing density bonus would would require that 15 percent of the units uh be uh affordable um so um i'd have to do some math on what that means for the for the proposal that's before you now um and that they would get a equal number of market rate units so i think the issue and this is where i would have to defer to the applicant is that um the cost of providing the units for most developments you know significantly exceeds the value of the density bonus without some other form of subsidy so but in terms of what it would look like it would be um i'll try to do that math and get back to you all as soon as possible here but i think it's 15 minimum number of units thank you Patrick thank you other questions or comments colleagues calcimer millton thank you mr mayor and thank you colleagues i'm going to support of development i didn't want to say to mr cybers i think this is the first time i've ever heard comments by our planning commission characterizes academic uh in nature uh i assure you their intent is to have a very real world practical uh impact on a decision uh when they when they recommend to vote yay or nay uh so i just what did i just found out it's just kind of characterization that did i want to say that we take very seriously all of the comments uh from our planning commission they're very helpful uh and informing uh our decisions i don't know what that's worth to you moving forward as you appear before other bodies but but i i don't know what academic means but but they're definitely trying to sway the debate in a very real uh world in measurable way so i intend on supporting uh the development thank you mr mayor those are sound comments calcimer millton uh tim you're going to be seeing a lot of them you might want to think about how you characterize the fireworks uh colleagues any more comments questions for the applicant for for the mayor pretend thank you mr mayor i understand that the commercial zoning is allowable under the udo i would just like to get some insight from the applicant as to why they chose a commercial zoning rather than one of the residential options sure this is tim cybers horvath associates um thank you for all your comments um for the one of the main reasons is that this was previously a commercial zone um in discussions with staff prior to our submittal they wanted to keep the commercial node even though the understanding that this was a residential apartment development um so that brought into it but it was mostly because the majority of the site was previously a commercial development but you're not planning on doing any commercial on it now right so i mean i guess that's a question for staff then is what's the what good is a commercial node with no what good is his own commercial node with no commercial why would we want an applicant to keep it hi thank you i can chime in a little bit regarding the future land use map um if the would the change the future land use a change the future land use map would be a an extra step but it would also um change the future land use map so if this were to come back as another rezoning we would then be looking at it as residential as opposed to that a commercial node that had previously been established through the comrades of plan and the future land use map in that location pat did you want to weigh it on that just just to just to state that when with the this policy that policy was being formed back in 2004 and five the conversation centered around the idea that um allowing apartments in the commercial districts would encourage mixed use so that you could have co-located service commercial um you know small grocery stores convenience stores direct cleaning coffee shops etc if it was a larger development um it's a it's fair to say that in every situation that doesn't occur but it um it was allowed to encourage that okay thanks there is there any what advanced is there an advantage to the developer of asking for commercial over residential in this case so that some some of the required um and i'd have to i don't have this at hand but some of the required um setbacks and height limitations and those kind of things are different than some of the residential zones um i i uh the applicant may be able to speak to what uh and then there are some limitations in the development plan in that regard but um generally depending on the district um there there's can be somewhat more permissive in those areas okay thanks that's helpful can we i mean i don't i think i need to think a little bit more about how big a deal this is like i it feels strange to zone something commercial and then not have any commercial but maybe it's something we can flag for follow-up with the in the comp plan conversations thank you ma'am thank you and agreed i i agree that this is you know a lot of times this is useful um in the way that pat described but i hear you all righty uh before councillor cabillero uh is forced to depart i think we'll go ahead and take a vote on this item uh you all have heard i promise not to this may or promise not to take too long there is a speaker raised her hand okay we have a speaker that's raised their hand and then we'll go to councilmember reese her name is wendy dixon all right uh miss dixon um welcome and uh can you make yourself heard yes hi i'm wendy dixon and i actually received a letter about this um i own the house um i'm assuming it is across the highway on pleasant drive um at 415 so what would this mean for me as a as a home owner that it's being rezoned commercial um is miss uh dixon within the rezoning area uh mr others my understanding is that she is not okay uh mr syvers can you speak to that yes this tim syvers whore veth associates i believe uh miss dixon i believe she may have said that she was on the opposite side of us 70 is that correct yes i think i've actually spoken to you on the phone before i i believe so as well yes so so this this is not going to impact your property this is on the other side of of us 70 or or um miami boulevard um and and it'll it'll uh impact so we'll have no impact on your individual property okay thank you miss dixon just just because it feels a little unnerving um when someone says that a development coming on line in a neighborhood near 70 even across the street would have no impact i just want to be clear that it can have impact to her tax value um as um there's development occurring in that area just being clear that this it's not new um impact and that that impact is not determined by the development it's just something to be with be aware of as a property owner thank you councilmember race thank you mr may our problems to be brief i'll be voting against the measure today this use is completely incompatible with surrounding uh homes it's a five-story apartment building for goodness sake um and uh i just i certainly appreciate the desire for additional density and appreciate the developers work to reach out to their neighbors um but the compatibility is one thing and the other thing is just the lack of the the fact that we're talking about putting all these units right against highway 70 um planning commissioner baker submitted uh what may have been some academic references but certainly have real world impacts for the folks that live near a busy roadways and those citations were about the health effects of that so i won't be supporting the measure today thank you mr may thank you um i'll be briefed with my comments as well i will be supporting it i think that uh this is actually a very good place for those residences and i agree that they're tall but i think the topography is very helpful in that regard um and i while i understand the concerns about um air pollution near residences it's just something we're all facing all the time this is a city uh and so i found that unpersuasive okay um any other comments i'm going to now declare this public hearing closed closed and the matter is uh back before the council but i see mr young may have a comment no he just showed up there for a moment mr young do you have a comment i'm sorry it's having technical difficulties i wanted to quickly address councilmember freeman's question for your vote um with the use of the affordable housing density bonus 25 the 170 units would have to be affordable of 15 that would get you a two for one bonus so you get a 50 additional market units for a total of 220 thank you thank you and i think that what we can safely say is that we'll be getting people using the affordable density bonus in places where there is yeah uh higher value uh for each apartment um and that the developer is able to realize a more more profit from that additional density all right um i'm now going to uh let me go back to this item um the first motion necessary would do it up in ordinance annexing false crossing into the city of Durham so it's been moved by madam mayor pro tem seconded by councilmember middleton madam clerk will you please call the roll mere shul hi mere pro tem johnson hi councilmember caballero hi councilmember freeman may councilmember middleton i vote yay councilmember reese no thank you madam clerk i believe the score was a i's have it four to two that is correct uh and now we'll move to the second motion to adopt a resolution amending the future land use map to commercial for the site what was that what was it what was did you're honestly about oh well you know there's people that live there now that won't you know who lives there now and who won't or something out of mr shock you might want to mute yourself a host a host can mute him as well we have thank you several staff as well i would love to hear what they're laughing about with my comments there are all second you have another motion to adopt a resolution amending the future land use map to commercial so moved second moved by councilmember middleton seconded by mayor pro tem madam clerk will you please call the roll mere shul hi mere pro tem johnson hi councilmember caballero hi councilmember freeman may councilmember middleton middleton yay councilmember reese no thank you thank you i believe again that the eyes have it four to two i will now move to motion number three to adopt a consistency statement is required by ncgs 160 a 383 moved to adopt consistency second been moved by councilmember middleton second by the mayor pro tem that we adopt the consistency statement madam clerk please call the roll mere shul hi mere pro tem johnson hi councilmember caballero hi councilmember freeman councilmember middleton i vote i councilmember reese vote yes thank you thank you that motion passes five to one now we'll have a fourth motion to adopt the ordinance of many united unified development ordinance so moved second moved by councilmember middleton seconded by the mayor pro tem madam clerk can you please call the roll mere shul hi mere pro tem johnson hi councilmember caballero hi councilmember freeman may councilmember middleton i vote i councilmember reese vote no thank you thank you the motion passes four to two thank you so much all right i know councilmember caballero has to leave councilmember um i'm i think without an excused absence you'll be voting yes on the next item do you have a high comfort level with that yeah okay thank you uh have a great time at the thank you all good night that sounds like a lot of congratulations to paolo tell him congratulations from all of us all right uh we have one more item before the closed session the unified development ordinance text amendment neighborhood protection overlay revisions and this is a public hearing item we'll now hear from staff good i suppose it's evening now mr mayor and members council this is scott whiteman from the planning department again um this text amendment includes revisions to the neighborhood protection overlay process mostly related to the initiation of npo's the intent of these changes clarify the process for requesting npo's and codify the existing guidelines another key component is to require initiation by the appropriate governing body to determine the level of support and commitment to necessary resources before work on the npo begins though i promise we will sort out the resolution issue before we bring one of those to you again um staff recommends approval of this udo amendment as does the planning commission uh as a reminder this item requires two motions one for a consistency statement and one for the adoption of the ordinance and i'd be happy to answer any questions from the council thank you very much mr whiteman you all have heard the report from staff and i'm declare this public hearing open and first i'm going to ask if there are any questions for the staff by members of the council hearing none madame clerk are there any uh has anyone signed up to speak on this item not to my knowledge mr mayor all right is there anyone who is listening today who would like to speak on this item if so please raise your hand all right uh any comments or questions by members of the council for staff i'm sorry mr mayor but mrs plus has raised her hand okay thank you uh we'll hear from this class yes thank you i apologize for any confusion um no worries yes i i just wanted to uh follow up on a few things here my understanding was that this amendment evolved uh kind of as opposed to mortem on old west Durham um experience with their npo and as a result of that um i just had a few questions and and issues with this i i worry that this amendment which i'm sure is going to pass anyway but i want to point out that um this amendment will encourage the politic the politicization i'm saying that wrong uh of the npo process too early on um as we just saw earlier in this session it forces a vote on an npo before the actual items of the npo have even been developed we just saw that um that seems essentially unfair if we're going to undo npo's perhaps we should just undo npo's rather than continue to have them as a false offering to Durham citizenry as it is um council cannot fairly judge something that has not yet been formed um and and that is essentially what this text amendment does uh the revisions by staff also foster an unbalanced playing field where Durham requires its neighborhood to seek the grace of city council on an embryonic rezoning action when Durham does not require the same from its developers npo's are the only citizen led tool written into our udo and staff's proposed changes risk damaging the very scant and lessening neighborhood rights remaining to Durham citizens um beyond that which respects specifically to the old west Durham situation there was a great deal of damage done to the social fabric of that neighborhood by the resistance that was mounted against them we know a little bit about who mounted that resistance and i have sent that information to you the professional developer class of Durham enjoys many privileges and i think it's very inappropriate for them to organize and beat up on Durham neighborhoods thank you those are my comments thank you miss class thank you miss is there is there a member of our staff that could comment on the first part of mrs miss plus's comment uh mr whiteman yes um this plus is correct with we crafted these after the adoption of the old with Durham npo based on some lessons learned from that experience um one based on the resources as our first discussion this evening um the old with Durham neighborhood did submit a valid application back in 2012 it was 2016 before we had the staff resources to begin that so um we want to set the realistic expectations as to whether or not the the department has the availability to work on npo before um at the time that the neighborhood submits it it's also um i would disagree with miss plus that it was not just the developers in the neighborhood that opposed the old with Durham npo there were a lot of residents who who lived there who also became opponents of the npo it took many many hours of work based on the the um team of residents that were leading the npo and um without having some input from the city council which is as you well know or the only people who can approve or deny a zoning action um there was really they had no idea whether or not the city council be receptive to any of the ideas that were being brought forward i will say that this is similar to the process that we've created for local historic districts which is probably the most similar um type of application that the department has i hope that addresses what miss plus was asking thank you mr wyman all right uh are there any uh questions or comments for staff at this time mr you want to make a comment as well i do if i might quickly mr mayor um as a point of information and of course i would as ever i would refer to the city attorney but um the uh there's some special legislation that pertains to virtual public hearings for these zoning items in a case of an absence it differs from the traditional situation where absence after uh excuse absence of is a uh yes uh absence essentially is counts as no vote so i just um the attorney can verify that but i wanted to get that on the record before you all take action thank you for letting me know that i'd forgotten that i believe that's correct miss reiber that is correct mr mayor thank you brave new world um madam clerk did you have something is there someone else would like to speak um mr mayor mrs plus has her hand raised again all right miss plus you you uh you make yourself hurt i i am so sorry no i was trying to get in earlier and uh sorry i've got the tv on in the background i was trying to get in earlier and press star nine a number of times um and so i apologize no i've i've made my statements i certainly remain available if anyone has any questions um but uh yeah i i i do believe that our professional developer class as i stated before the uh planning commission uh the triangle community coalition did in fact organize against the old west Durham npo effort and so um there certainly was an organized outside effort at play in that event and i do think uh that in a world where our citizens have fewer and fewer devices available to them that when they do make the extraordinary effort to try and access those devices they should not be punished by the developers who already have ever so much influence in our community thank you thank you miss class all right uh any other comments or questions for staff councilman millton thank you mr mayor i it strikes me that this this conversation about npl's keeps coming back to resources and our ability to commit bandwidth and resources to doing them which to me and i'm i'm struck by something the mayor put him said earlier um that it's within our purview it's not guaranteed that you're going to get an affirmative when you apply the mere act of applying um does not guarantee an affirmative response however if we keep talking about resources then to me that does imply that it's a yes when we can afford it if we keep talking about resources and staff bandwidth the message that i would get is when we can get to it we'll do it um and i find this place is arguments compelling in terms of us being placed in a position to appear that we're making a decision on merits when the merits haven't even been presented to us if they never get to a point where we can even look at what's in the npo but we're saying no based upon resources if it truly is about resources then that is a yes when we can afford it and maybe our focus needs to be on uh do we need to have a pot of money aside or or or do we need to do something about putting ourselves in the position to be able to to manage these uh these things when they come up i think it's important that residents do have if it's an option for residents to an impact a development in our city then we ought not it's kind of like voting we ought not problematize it or put barriers to them accessing this disability if we're going to give them this ability then we should make it as accessible and as robust as possible and if this argument hinges on resources then we need to talk about that um i don't want to be in a position where i'm in a de facto way voting on the merits of a of a case that never got a chance to be argued or presented to me so i just want to point that out that if this is about resources then that sounds to me like yes we'll do it when we can afford to do it um and i think that creates certain expectations amongst applicants and and i i just want to put that in record and just let you know that's something that's rattling around you know on my cross as i consider this matter and i'm curious to hear uh input from my colleagues thank you mr mayor thank you councilmember mr yang yeah thank you mr mayor and and thank you councilman middle to middle 10 for those comments um let me let me make clear that i think there are two separate and distinct issues um at play from a staff perspective um the staff's primary um focus area of course is implementing your policy direction and that is a resource issue i think mr whiteman did a very good job of um in both of the npo's we have had and um uh previously adopted um they they were very contentious and it took a lot of communication with neighbors and was um between a thousand and two thousand hours of staff time um so that resource issue is substantial and real i do think there's a separate independent issue which is really a policy issue and that's for you all is the um you know the level of influence that neighborhoods should be able to be granted in um developing these npo's if they're approved uh and what kind of content is in those npo's i've been doing this for work for 25 years and in my experience 100 of the time um these npo's are are promoted by existing uh usually longtime homeowners whose primary interest is ensuring that there's very little change in their neighborhood and as a city i think it's obviously very critical that we continue to allow housing opportunities um in a diversity of location so that there's a diversity of housing for different um incomes and different family types um that is a policy issue that we're trying to attack through the comprehensive plan and you'll hear a lot more from us on that but i just want to frame out that those i think are are separate and distinct um and but they do play together so thank you for the opportunity to comment mr mariff i might as usual pat your comments are very helpful and and i think you put it where it belongs on us i mean to me that that seems to point towards the validity of npo's themselves i mean if we're going to allow this as a an option for residents then but we have a philosophical problem with them or we understand that that they tend to be employed by homeowners and want to keep their neighborhood the same if we know that and we believe that we take that to its logical conclusion then then why entertain them at all i mean if we're going to allow this option to be exercised by residents and i don't want to engage in the theater of of allowing the option but but erecting these barriers uh the fact or otherwise uh to their use i mean let's if if if if they are being used as an instrument to um frustrate our efforts at housing diversity then let let's call it that and treat the option as such but if we're going to allow them and make them available to residents and i think we should do that uh in good faith um and i'm not talking about the staff now i'm talking about uh uh as a council um the only thing i want to be if if i'm being asked to determine whether or not staff we have the resources or bandwidth to do them that's a different consideration than uh opining about the virtue of the actual presentation itself because i haven't seen it yet but if we're already out the gate um making uh uh we're biased or prejudiced against these things because they tend to be used by homeowners to keep their neighborhood the same and we should just say that and and and govern ourselves accordingly so i i want to i just want to you know i'm again in fairness i want to if we're going to do them let's do them and let's make them accessible to our residents and if we're not if we have a problem with them let's say that and govern ourselves accordingly let's go on yeah thank you for those comments council member milton and we'll definitely take that to heart as we look at policy in this area that will be concurrent with the comprehensive plan i think you're exactly right i i agree with you completely i guess i would say my judgment of when that when this tool was adopted by a prior council in 2005 or 2006 there was a political consensus at the time that neighborhoods having special consideration to prevent development or redevelopment was a good an unalloyed good um i think there's a lot a greater diversity of opinion on that at this time so that's exactly what we're examining as staff looking at best practices across the country and most importantly trying to be engaging our community members on over the coming months and years thank you you're muted mr mayor you said council member freeman yes i did i'm sorry council member freeman thank you i i just had a couple questions for patrick as well i appreciate um council member middleton uh kind of hollowing out the the kind of where we are in this and i i just wanted to ask before i said anything how many grants does the planning department apply for um around this type of work and how many other communities across the country um would actually uh look at grants in a planning department i don't think that's a common thing i'm just want to be clear before i say that that's not because i figured you have more expertise in that area sure thank you for your question council member freeman um we have not applied for grants in the area of um uh neighborhood protection overlay um uh assistance or staff support we have in the past for historic preservation overlays which are very similar uh in nature uh hadn't been successful and received those and those have played into getting some of our uh local historic districts developed um that's something we could do but as i tried to allude to my earlier comments that hasn't been a priority for the department i think we're looking at um trying to promote housing inclusivity housing access housing supply so that our um housing affordability crisis doesn't accelerate so that that hasn't been a priority area but it's something we could do there's very limited resources available um in that narrow area uh in the grant uh nonprofit space thank you patrick i think i i just wanted to speak as a as a longtime property owner who has used the tool um as far as the local historic district and recognizing that i'm not a part of the jccpc and i'm not hearing the cases that i used to when i was on the planning commission so when i'm coming at this i'm coming cold kind of so to speak and so it's often um there's a long arc on this on this planning and development work and i think that folks uh have made a good faith effort in trying to make sure to nail down the context around you know the color of um around around the red lining that it's occurred in the past and i feel like the miss has been in acknowledging all the work that we're doing um with expanded housing choices with uh a variety of other housing choice options is that without the actual capital to support people not of color to be able to use these uh tools we're not helping the situation so you're not going to increase housing affordability with more housing i mean san francisco could say they have so much housing i mean that didn't change the the price of rents and it didn't change the cost of of living it's how you're implementing the tools and i consistently bring this up to the council in these cases around how we're not not not constructing the actual tool to impact in the way that we would like so yes i appreciate middleton saying that uh council member middleton saying that if we're not going to do if we're going to stand in a way of people being able to do npo's then we might as well not do them at all and i really appreciate miss plus and saying that acknowledging that as a council this is where we've taken our stand um and we're not supportive of neighborhoods coming forward with their ideas around how their neighborhood should look that's clear i i am however concerned as i note that down 98 and down federal street i'm i'm consistently seeing a shift and that same shift is the same shift that i was seeing in my neighborhood at east germ and in south side and now seeing in bragtown and these considerable shifts are gentrification and we consider that can consistently sit like we're not having impact on those things and you tell and the developer can come in and say well we're not gonna you know impact your property but those things all have impact and the lasting impact is that black and brown people get displaced and i and i consistently push on this aspect because it's not the norm it is not how you look at development but if we don't look at development that way we'll consider we'll continue to do the same things we've been doing in the name of trying to right the wrong with a with a neighborhood that's not of color and it's not working because i'm going to need the tools like an npo or a local historic district to save stokesdale and i'm going to need the tools like an npo or local historic district to save bragtown but if we've wiped out every access point that a that anyone in the community has in order to use it i mean what is the point and and i and i sit i say that all just to make sure that it's i i just don't think we're where we need to be and trying to pretend like we are it just it just it just doesn't set set well with me and i'm and i'm consistently trying to find ways to make it clearer to planning staff and to into council that we have to do things differently and we cannot rely on the tools that were created to keep black and brown people out of the development sphere out of home ownership out of you can't rely on those tools and think that it's going to work just just making little ticks and changes this is why urban sprawl is so lucrative right now i mean it's cheaper to buy the land in a rural area and then develop the mess out of it so that you have uh 300 and some odd houses and then bring in of all these folks and enforce the city to pay for all the all the amenities to bring in the roads of water all i mean it's it's just that's the that's the dynamic and if we're not addressing it in a way that's comprehensive which is i know we're we're on our way to that with the comprehensive plan but in this moment as we're having these conversations if we're not acknowledging those dynamics in it i feel like it's an oversight and i'm i want to be very clear and say that i'm not going to support this impio uh gutting um but i i understand where it comes from i appreciate the aspects that are around it and that there should be housing choice and we want inclusivity and you want a mix of of housing but at the same time i acknowledge that these are the tools that folks in the community are going to need as residents thank you thank you any other comments if not i'm going to declare this public hearing call i'm sorry mayor we have comments declare this public hearing closed may or can you hear me for the council and i'll i'll take a comment first from councilmember reese hi then it counts and then a comment from the mayor pro tem thank you mr mayor um i think the the conversation that council members middleton and freeman are are putting forward is really important for us to have as a body i will i will confess that it's difficult for me to connect that with the with the text amendments that are brought for us today that i think i'll balance for an improvement of the impio process as it currently exists in our udo and that's why i'll be supporting the revisions today just point to the comments of of commissioner miller who is perhaps one of the greatest champions of the impio process currently sitting on the on the planning commission and that's the position that he took i think he would agree that the impio process needs to be revised and i think we're all looking to the comprehensive plan project to to make it clear what our community community's views are on that but i think with respect to these particular revisions i intend to support them that's all i wanted to say mr mayor thank you thank you madam mayor pro tem thank you mr mayor um i also wanted to express my support for the changes i think they make the process a lot clearer and solve a lot of the problems that have come up in the process not just for the um old west orman p o but also for the farce hills impio with regard to the expectations that people have about the process um the confusion that we had a jccpc regarding what prioritization is and isn't um these changes do a lot to make the process clearer and i believe easier for communities to navigate so i wanted to express my support and appreciate the staff's work on that i have a question also for our city attorney as regards the suggestion that we just do away with impios completely is that something that is like is that legally allowed um or are they something that we're like required to offer um madam mayor printem i actually don't know the answer to that question donno tool the deputy city attorney is our land use attorney and he would probably be able to address that question more you know with them more informed the answer to the question at all um would it be okay if i followed up with some complete information about the history of impios and what our legal obligations are with respect to them that would be fabulous thank you so much great thank you if i might weigh in madam mayor printem um not an attorney but i i do know that there's nothing in state law that requires us to have infos most jurisdictions in north carolina don't have those they are authorized but they're not required so we it would require a udo text amendment um to change but uh it's legally permissible thank you i just want to comment for a moment as well we know that in cities nearby us in raleigh and chapel hill npo's have been they've proliferated and they've been used to protect neighborhoods from change they've been used to protect um primarily privileged neighborhoods from having the kind of um housing options and diversity that i know we all support and so that's why i think we've been tried to be very careful in durham when we have instituted in npo's um we've really wanted to make sure that that wasn't a case here and i think we've been right to be sparing in their application uh and i'm glad that we're going to be rethinking them through the through the uh comprehensive plan process i do think that that is really is the the uh as uh councilmember middleton said that really is the issue uh in front of us it's uh or alluded to and as pat said i think that it it's it's not just the issue of of cost that's important but if it was a priority for us as councilmember middleton said that cost would be something we'd be happy to bear i think that we are trying to be judicious in the use of the npo and we've also got now as we know from our memo a new state law that makes it much harder uh now to even do the kinds of things that our npo's historically done because there's much more limitation on the ability to have a zoning of a house that's not one that you own um and so all of these things have come together to make this a good time to think as we do the comprehensive plan process about what we want our npo process to look like and if it's if it remains viable uh and so i'm looking forward to that discussion and i agree that that really is uh that's really the issue in front of us okay uh councilmember middleton uh thank you mr mayer can you guys hear me thank you mr mayer i want to fully yes we can hear you thank you sir i want to fully associate myself uh with the comments you just made also want to i i think uh council reese raises a great point i to be clear i'm supporting uh the text amendments today and um i think is implied query was was what council freeman and i were talking about what is that implicitly what does it have to do with the text amendments and my my line of um uh my statements were were occasioned by the staff once again mentioning cost and and my issue is that uh because the public is listening to us that when we are considering whether or not we're going to use the resources on the npo that is a fundamentally different questioning question than us making a judgment based upon the merits or our anticipated merits of any arguments that may be coming in that npo that the moment we start talking about cost the implication i think a reasonable person listening would be like oh they're gonna do it just when they can afford it which takes no off of the tape which basically means that npo's will be honored by this council when we have the bandwidth to do them so there's no real no option for us it doesn't mean we can afford it so that's what i was responding to when the staff mentioned cost and resources uh and bandwidth but i appreciate but i am supporting the text amendments so thank you mr mayor thank you all right uh madam clerk uh i'm sorry we need a motion and the motion we need would be to adopt the appropriate consistency statement would be the first motion as required by ncgs 16383 so moved moved by councilmember middleton seconded by the mayor pro tem madame clerk we please call the role mayor shul i mayor pro tem johnson i councilmember freeman councilmember middleton i vote i councilmember riz i and how do we address councilmember caballero i believe my understanding is that that she's just not voting is that correct madame attorney that's correct it's a no vote i mean it's a it's a non-vote a non-vote uh so madame clerk the motion passes uh four to one we now need a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the udo so move second second moved by councilor middleton seconded by councilmember riz madame clerk please call the roll mayor shul hi mayor pro tem johnson hi councilmember freeman may councilmember middleton i vote i councilmember riz yes thank you thank you this also passes four to one and now i believe we need a motion to go into closed session per the the recommendation of the city attorney madame attorney is there anything else we need to do do we need to hear some special language from you around that uh if you would like me to read the motion i will as we sometimes do at work session sure that'd be great uh the motion is to hold a closed session pursuant to north carolina general statute 143-318.11a3 for attorney client consultation concerning the handling and or settlement settlement of pending claims thank you you have heard the attorney's recommendation can i have a motion that we go into closed session so move second moved by councilor middleton seconded by councilmember riz that we go into closed session madame clerk please call the roll mayor shul hi mayor pro tem johnson hi councilmember freeman hi councilmember middleton i vote i councilmember riz hi thank you thank you madame clerk the motion passes unanimously five to nothing we'll now be moving into closed session uh if you'll pause for a moment so vivian we're going to wait for instructions from you all before we resume any conversation thank you mr mayor they need some time to get clearance yeah thank you mr america can i request five-minute recess yes you may let's take a five-minute recess great idea uh we'll we'll have a five-minute recess we're going to resume at 601 thanks sir thank you