 Yeah, it's almost to nothing. No more about it. Well, that's the world. Well, well, national standards, all in the other banks, they sell them out of your life. I said, we own nine on the branch. I said, what am I going to do? Oh, I'm hearing two words. You know, you don't know how much you sell. Yeah, they were going from ours. Yeah, I mean, again, nothing, almost to nothing. Question. They're going for more 20. RS 20. The covert farms. I mean, I can't imagine that they own the second floor. It was like a basically always the plan. Yeah. I guess technically it wasn't. That's why there is for a reason. I think everyone understood that that was built. It's very cool. Look at me. I thought it wasn't. And there's so much stuff, man. I said, I said, I said, I said, look, this ain't no one week. Yeah, it's a day on that sale. I did talk to the cars. Actually, so they set up a meeting with me. And I mean, the first thing they said at the meeting was, so we've decided to withdraw. I think they're going to come back. But they said meeting with me. And then I guess five o'clock that night. They decided to withdraw. But the meeting was already set. So you sure? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, they didn't cancel the meeting. That's a compliment. That's a compliment. No, but it's not. I'm just, they didn't cancel the meeting. I know that's what I'm saying. You showed up and they did. You, you being the constant that person who. If I had known, they had. You would have. Yeah. We've been listening. Oh, I know. We've got to keep it lively in the live mic. Next hour. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I tend to. Yeah. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. I tend to. That's. Yeah. You can steal stuff. You. Mm hmm. I want to know if you. Okay. What's the time? So. I can do this one again. Good afternoon. Welcome everyone to the Durham Planning Commission. I know what I used to. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the Board of County commissioners. We are an advisory board to the elected officials. So you should know that the elected officials will have deliberating on this evening. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, please come up to the table to my left and you can sign up. You can sign up for the specific item you would like to speak on. When we have the public hearing on that item, we'll ask you to come up and speak into the microphone. We ask that you please give your name and your address and speak clearly into the microphone. Each side will have 10 minutes, 10 minutes in favor of any proposal and 10 minutes in opposition. And the time will be divided among all the people willing and interested in speaking. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thanks again for being here tonight. And may we have the roll call please? Commissioner Alturk. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Present. Commissioner Ghosh. Here. Commissioner Brine. Present. Commissioner Satterfield has requested an excused absence. Commissioner Harris. Present. Commissioner Hyman. Present. Chair Busby. Present. Commissioner Miller. Present. Commissioner Kenchin. Commissioner Hornbuckle. Commissioner Van. Present. Commissioner Gibbs. Here. Commissioner Williams. Present. Thank you. We will start with, yes, Commissioner Brown. I move an excused absence for Commissioner Satterfield. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great, thank you. We will move to the approval of the minutes and the consistency statements from our May 8th, 2018 meeting. Were there any comments, amendments for those? Commissioner Brine. I move approval of the minutes and consistency statements as presented. Second. Properly moved and seconded. It was a tie on the second. Vice Chair gets the tie. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Adjustments to the agenda. Ms. Smith. Yes, good evening. Grace Smith with City County Planning. We do have a couple of adjustments to the agenda. The first one being the Z17-0047 Carthage Street Industrial case was withdrawn. We have, I did notify the Planning Commission and we send out notices to the property owners adjacent to the site. And if anyone's here for that hearing, I just wanted to make sure they knew that it was withdrawn and would not be heard tonight. So that's Carthage Street Industrial. Also, we have a case on the agenda that was continued two cycles ago. And normally we have the continued cases go first. So staff would recommend that you adjust the agenda and have a case Z17-0049 under eight, excuse me, seven D, public hearings and move it above to be in front of item A. So it will become item A and everything else will shift down. That's just a staff suggestion. And those are the only adjustments that we have and all notices were carried out in accordance with state and local law and affidavits are on file in the Planning Department for that. Thank you very much. I have a motion to accept adjustments as presented. Second. In a doubt. Great. Properly moved and seconded. That's to remove the Carthage Street Industrial from our agenda and to move the Hillendale item to the first item on this evening's agenda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. And we will move to what is now. Here's our mayor. We will move to our first case. First question. Are we moving the Hillendale to the first case on the agenda or the first case under seven? No, first case under seven. Yes, thank you. Under zoning map changes. OK. I move the adoption of the amended agenda. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Commissioner Kenshin, we will note that Commissioner Kenshin is here. Welcome. We will move to what is our first item and remains our first item. This is case A1700011 Z1700030 Hillsborough at Colonville Road. We'll start with the staff report. Good evening. I am Jamie Sonjak with the Planning Department. I will be presenting case number A1700011 Z1700040. This is Hillsborough at Colonville Road. The applicant is Dan Jewel from Coulter Jewel Thames. The property is located at the intersection of Hillsborough Road and Colonville Road. It is within the city's jurisdiction. The site is addresses generally 3578 Hillsborough Road. The FLOM request, the Future Land Use Map Request, is a commercial recreation and open space to commercial, industrial, and there's no change to the recreation open space. The rezoning request is industrial light, industrial to commercial general with a development plan, and industrial light with a development plan. The property is 5.704 acres, and the proposal is to expand the existing convenience store with a gas station, add a new car wash, and add a new hotel to the site. The aerial map shows the property highlighted in red. It is located within the suburban tier at the corner of Hillsborough and Colonville Roads. Access is also provided off of Christian Avenue, of which a portion is proposed for closure and consolidation with the lot. The next several slides show pictures of the site. There are several light industrial buildings and existing convenience store with fuel stations, and auto-related use, retail shop, vacant lots, and a residential use. And these pictures depict the area conditions, directly abiding the track. There is office-related uses. There's a multitude of fast food, restaurants, strip malls, auto sales gas stations found within this corridor. This slide depicts the existing zoning context map, as shown in left. The property is industrial-zoned and industrial light. And the proposal on the right is to change to CG with a development plan that's approximately 1.56 acres in order to expand the existing convenience store with the gas station and add the car wash. And the rear portion of the site is proposed for industrial light with a development plan that's 4.141 acres to build the 90-foot-high hotel. This slide shows the future land use map, as shown in left. The entire site, primarily the entire site, is located with the commercial future land use map designation, except for the rear portion that is currently in ROS, the Recreation Open Space. And the map on the right shows the proposed change to industrial and purple, which would coincide with the industrial light zoning district. There's no change to the Recreation Open Space area at this time. It's a fun place. This slide shows the development plan and depicts the maximum of previous coverage for each of the properties at 85%, the required tree coverage areas at 15%, the various parking and building envelopes, the project boundary buffers, and the maximum building heights, as well as the uses that are proposed. Here is a summary of the key committed elements of which I've already mentioned, the uses, a hotel, a convenience store with a gas station and car wash, the maximum hotel building height of 90 feet, a section of Christian Avenue being closed prior to site plan approval, creation of cross access easements between the two properties connecting Christian Avenue and Colmo Road prior to site plan, and the various other site access points, parking and building envelopes, project boundary buffers, and design commitments. The site is currently consistent with the commercial flam in terms of the CG or commercial general zoning district, but it's not consistent with the industrial flam. So in terms of consistency with the comp plan in sections 2.123, I'm sorry, 2.12C and 2.22B, both the existing commercial designation and the proposed industrial designation are consistent with the intent of the suburban tier. They both provide for commercial and industrial land uses as well as opportunities for employment. In terms of section policy, rather, 2.13I, the proposed industrial designation would match the proposed IL zoning district in the event that both requests are approved, and it should be noted that the applicant has committed to a hotel on the industrial light portion of the site. In terms of 2.42C, the proposed designation, industrial is consistent with this policy as the site is located directly on Coal Mill Road, a major thoroughfare. In terms of the zoning changes, 2.22E and 2.31B, the proposal supports orderly development patterns and interconnectivity and encourages commercial nodes as a development plan commits to cross access easements between the two properties and also shows a connection between Christian Avenue and Coal Mill Road. Redevelopment of these properties encourages the cleanup of several vacant underutilized buildings and lots. It provides for a better coordination and consolidation of lots, and it may serve as a catalyst for investment to the area. And in terms of infrastructure capacity, there is sufficient infrastructure in place to support the change. Staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances, and I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. We will now move into the public comment hearing, and we have one speaker signed up, Mr. Dan Jewel. Thank you, good evening everybody. My name is Dan Jewel, President of Culture Jewel, and in terms, we've been asked by Holmes Oil, who is the contract purchaser of this property from the Miller family to make this request to rezone this property. I'm not gonna repeat what Ms. Sunyak said, she gave a very thorough staff report and some very nice photographs by the way in there showing what the existing conditions are. Those of you who've been in Durham for a while know that the Miller Company built truck bodies for contractors and all kinds of things, install lifts. They were at this site for many, many years. The site is characterized by big metal buildings, big concrete block buildings, lots of paving, fencing with barbed wire on top because they haven't been there for a while. There's weeds growing up through the cracks in the pavement, things of that nature. Believe it or not, in an intersection which is probably not the most attractive gateway into Durham, this is by far the worst piece of property at that location because of these former industrial uses. We think this proposal will be a good step in the right direction to start a transformation of that intersection in terms of adding tax base, bringing people to this location, adding some interesting architecture. We've got some design commitments on our development plan that'll be modern in style and materials and things of that nature. Also, I'm told by the hotel folks that they will have upwards of 75 to 85 employees working just in the hotel and will bring people here from out of town who will spend money in this community. On top of that, as the staff report says, the traffic generation will actually be less than the current zoning designation would suggest that it would be. And of course, there's no school impact with a hotel. This proposal will create an internal connection from Christian Avenue and there's a little gravel road called Wortham Street if you've been over there. At this point now, you have no choice but to come out Christian and try and get out really near the intersection at Hillsborough and Coal Mill which is messy, I'll talk about that in a minute. And we are committing to having a cross access easement through the site so that people will actually be able to get out onto Coal Mill Road without getting into the intersection. So that will help a little bit with traffic. In a location where no stormwater management of any kind exists today, we will of course be meeting the requirements of the Public Works Department in the UDO and putting in stormwater management facilities. We had the neighborhood meeting last year. There were about a dozen people. All of them were enthusiastically behind doing something different on this piece of property. The only question that we actually had, well the two questions were how fast you can build it. One gentleman asked if we were gonna be managing stormwater runoff because he had seen an increasing amount of runoff coming down Christian Avenue and of course we will be managing that. So that's it. I wanted to keep my comments brief. We're obviously happy to answer any questions that you might have and would hope that you agree that this is a good location for a good use at this corner and will be a benefit to this area of Durham. So thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Joule. Would anyone else like to speak on this item? Not seeing anyone. We will move to close the public hearing and a look to the commissioners to see if there are any questions or comments. Commissioner Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. President. This area. I like that. Okay. I guess I've been watching too much CNN this week. Anyway, this area in the past has, especially with Miller truck sales, well that's what we called it. When that was in full business mode, of course I was much, much younger then. The area was had a good functioning neighborhood, business neighborhood was, and there was activity all over, but in the interim, as businesses came and went, Miller truck sales went away, it's sort of become a sluggish area. That's not to say the businesses there are in any way bad businesses. It's just the way things go. And to make a long story short, I'm in favor of this proposal because it's not only, I wish the developer success, but I think when it's put in, I think it will spur some positive activity for all the other businesses up and down Hillsborough Road especially in this area. And I won't go into what the scenarios could be, but I am in full support of this. It's something that I've wondered for a long time, I wonder what they're gonna do with this area of Hillsborough Road. Now, I think this is a positive step forward. I would, if I had the opportunity, I would proffer a motion, but we're not there yet, right? Not quite. Okay, but thank you, sir. But you call dibs, I'll come back to you. Okay. Commissioner Miller. Have you identified a hotel developer yet a builder? I think it's okay to say that two gentlemen here are with daily seven hotels. If you're familiar with them, they've built quite a few hotels up and down the East Coast, including several in Durham. I don't believe the brand has been selected yet, but daily seven has a very long track record of building quality hotels up and down the East Coast. And I also wanted to ask about, why not go all commercial? Why keep industrials? I mean, what's the advantage of the industrial over a general commercial? And then we would avoid the problem with the plum change. I understand, understand. Good question, and we grappled with that as well. The only way to get the height is, Ms. Sunyak said we're trying to go, we're requesting 90 feet of height. The IL allows up to 145 with approval of the city council. We're requesting 90. The base height for general commercial or would only be I think about 60 foot height or something like that. So the only reason we're requesting it, but the important reason that we're requesting it is so that we can get that 90 feet of building height. It's the height. It is the height, yes. All right. But you have included in your development plan a commitment to the hotel use. Yes, sir. So when I write my comments, I can say even though this is a flum island with the commitment in the development plan to a commercial use available in industrial, it's there's no inconsistency. That would be my argument. We have committed to that, yes. All right. So I was over there today and I realized while this is technically a drop in the overall traffic impact based upon the tables in the book, I thought I was going to pass a birthday trying to turn left out of Christian. So I'm a little worried about that. How do you actually anticipate hotel users will come and go from this site based upon the way you would lay this property out? I mean, I looked at your development plan. It looks like it's all ingrass and egress. Every place you have a curve. And I realized it's not going to be that way. You're going to. But how do you actually see this functioning? Most of the arrivals will, we anticipate will be coming off of the interstate. Coal mill. Yeah, so they'll be coming down Coal Mill. There will be a full movement of entrants into the site from Coal Mill. There's a curb cut approximately in that location now. That's also location, as I mentioned, where we're going to create a public access easement through the site so that folks don't have to make that, try and make that that left turn out onto Christian. Instead, you'll be able to go out on Coal Mill route and do something there. So we'll be able to give people an outlet at that point. So we think most of the traffic will come off of Coal Mill. And will the building, in other words, will the main entrance be Coal Mill? Yes. So the signal that the arrangement of the buildings on the property will send is you come and go here because then that gets you out. And that's a turn that's not too terribly difficult to make this signal controlled. It will be a Coal Mill address. Otherwise, you're behind the Kentucky Fried Taco Bell and the other stuff out there. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Harris. Dan, stay up there. My question has to do with the sidewalk, although it's not required by the Commission City Council Transportation Department. So what's your thoughts on the addition of the sidewalks? Sure. I anticipated this question. Newt was going to come from somebody. So two things. We looked long and hard at that. The sidewalk along Christian Avenue, from this property out to Hillsboro, that's where the Taco Bell Kentucky Fried Chicken Combo is. There is only about three feet of public right of way behind the back of the curb. My client, Mr. Holmes, actually happens to know the owner of that property. It's a group called Lewin 4 or something like that. He approached them and said, would you be willing to either dedicate right of way or a pedestrian access easement on your property bill to sidewalk? And he said, no. So there we are. There's nowhere to bill to sidewalk. So unless the city were willing to go in and condemn that right of way, which I would respectfully ask a condemnation not be attached to this development plan, there's not an ability to legally put a sidewalk on that side of the road. So how about the Hillsboro Road side? About the what? Hillsboro Road side. The Hillsboro Road. We have a similar situation on Hillsboro Road. If you go out there, you'll see there's power lines about three feet behind Hillsboro in front of the Lewin property, power poles. There's a little more right of way, but those power poles would all have to be relocated. So a sidewalk is physically possible, but it'd be pretty expensive, as Duke Energy doesn't move those power poles for free anymore like they did 20 years ago. Commissioner Bryan. Thank you. I want to start with just a comment for transportation staff to take a look at. I'm looking at Table 1 and Attachment 8. And I would just like staff to take a look at the roadway capacities for Coalmill Road and Hillsboro Road, because as these roadways are described, the capacities seem a little out of whack to me. Yes, Bill Judge, transportation. Yeah, I believe there is an error under Coalmill. That's obviously not a two lane divided facility. It's a six lane divided facility, which is why the capacity is in over 50,000. OK, thank you. And I have something for planning staff attachment to that's in the staff report that you showed, in my opinion, is incorrect because it does the property lines of the proposed development don't match up with any other property lines shown in any other attachment. Can you repeat it? I'm sorry? Attachment 2 is incorrect because what you're showing is Christian Avenue stand on the outside of this development. That's not the case on either of the other attachments or on the development plan. Yeah, I'll make that correction. You're correct. The proposal does extend to Christian Street where it will be closed. Thank you. I do have a few questions for you, Mr. Joule, if you don't mind. Yes, sir. Is it going to be sort of a two lane access across from one side from Christian Avenue over to Coalmill? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And then my second question, I noticed that you're proposing to close part of Christian Avenue, even though their access is provided to it. Below where that closure occurs, you have access to adjacent properties. Right. And I'm a little confused by that because it looks like traffic coming to and from those adjacent properties are going to be going through your parking lot to get to Christian Avenue. And I wonder what was the rationale behind that? Just to make a situation better, so just to let you know, the Miller family still will own the property to the north and east of this. So the partial closure of Christian Avenue was largely at their request. But they also requested that my client help clean up a messy traffic situation out there. And it's not a ton of traffic. Wortham Avenue has a couple of rental houses on there and a little warehouse down at the end. There's some flex stuff at the end of Miller. But it was part of the contract that our folks provide the access in and out across the site and close that portion of Christian Avenue. I was thinking that if this is successful and you spur additional investment, that flex space down at the end could suddenly have a whole lot more traffic. Yes. And that's what worried me. My final question, I've seen a lot of rezoning requests that have come in with development plans and TIAs. And normally the recommendations in the TIA show up as commitments on the development plan. It didn't happen that way in this case. Yeah, I'm not sure why we ended up that way. There were only, Mr. Judge can speak to this, there were only two recommendations out of the traffic impact analysis just to let you know. One was to close one of the driveways into the current convenience store at the corner of the cruisers and eventually that will be rebuilt and that there be a full movement driveway on Coal Mill at the point Mr. Miller mentioned with a stop control going out. So those, and maybe it's because they were very fairly simple and innocuous requirements, not extensive offsite road improvements. Well, I noticed that the engineer from the state of North Carolina added the third one, which I thought might be significant. And that is that for this Coal Mill road exit entrance, you have 100 feet stacking distance inside. Yes. And I thought that was something that really ought to be on the plan. And it's a good question, but I will tell you that that will also come up with site plan. That's a standard NCDOT review at the site plan stage. And I don't want to put words in Bill's mouth, but that was maybe his thinking on that, that it'll come up with site plan. The DOT wants a 100 foot throat before you can make any turning movements just to keep people moving. Good observation. Mr. Judge, would you care to comment? Yes, Bill, Judge Transportation. Mr. Joel is correct. Since the improvements are all essentially can be illustrated through the driveway commitments on the development plan, we only typically have those listed when they're offsite improvements. So that's why there are no committed improvements related to the TIA. And that internal stacking is something that's pretty standard that gets reviewed with every site plan. OK. Thank you, Mr. Judge. Thank you, Mr. Jill. You're welcome. Any other commissioners with questions or comments? Before I recognize Commissioner Gibbs to make a motion, I'll just note I was inclined to support this proposal. And I miss that this would include adding stormwater management, where none currently exists. So I plan to vote to support this. Before we get to Commissioner Gibbs, Commissioner Williams. Yeah, I just have a few concerns about I'm sure the hotel is more than welcome in that area. But the car wash on that corner, as that corner is exceedingly busy both in the morning and in the evening times as traffic and development continue in that particular area. And traffic does tend to stand when you're turning into a car wash, especially during busy times of pollen season. And I guess road work sometimes. I can sometimes you have an issue where traffic trying to turn into that particular area could be congested. And it could slow the turn on to Coalmill Road. And also understanding that there is a turn, there's presently a dedicated turn lane for Coalmill Road going on to Hillsborough Road, left handed. And we're going to Annex that by putting a drive-through from Christian Avenue through the two parcels or the two buildings. So I'm just wondering, kind of the positioning of the buildings, how would that turn in process work? Because I know we're talking a lot about the hotel access. But the driving force, you have a lot more traffic with a convenience store and a car wash. Then you do necessarily a hotel with steady traffic. So I'm wondering if that was taken into consideration, building orientation, and how that cut-through from Christian Avenue addresses that issue. Be happy to answer that. So I'll take the latter one first. So yes, you are correct. There's a free flow right turn lane from Hillsborough on to Coalmill. Folks go 25, 30 miles an hour through there. That is one of the reasons that the traffic impact analysis is recommending closing that existing driveway cut at that location. So that will not, if anything, we feel confident that our new outlet from Christian to Coalmill through between the hotel and the convenience store will help make that even better than it is today. To the first point, keep in mind that there's a convenience store there today. It's a little bit smaller. They would like a bigger one. And the car wash is not going to be a 10, 5, 10, 8 lane self-serve car wash. It will be your typical convenience store that if you buy $25 with a gas, you get a free car wash. So it's just one bay that you drive through. So it's not a full car wash facility like you would see. So hopefully that helps answer your question a little bit. It does. That's very helpful. Because I was thinking like six or seven bays and you've got that amount of traffic. That's going to be a very strong congestion. But thank you for that. Commissioner Gibbs, recognize you to make a motion? I think I know what the brand of gasoline or what oil company is going to move here. Anyway, that was intended to be a fun thing. My motion, and you can let me know if it needs work, considering the comments from this board discussions, I would like to make a recommendation that we accept this proposal and send it forward to City Council with a favorable recommendation. And we will do two motions. So just to clarify, this will be the first motion for case A17011. Is that that's correct? Oh, yes. Comprehensive plan. Sorry. That's fine. Second. Properly motion by Commissioner Gibbs and seconded by Commissioner Brine. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Motion carries 12 to 0. Thank you. And we will have a similar motion on the zoning case. Well, did I want the zoning? So this is a motion for approval of case Z1700030 with a favorable recommendation to the City Council moved by Commissioner Brine, seconded by Commissioner Gibbs, and then Commissioner Miller seconded. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Motion carries 12 to 0. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will move to our next case of reminder. We have moved up the case Z1700049. This is the 1900 Hillendale 2 case. We will start with the staff report. Again, if you're interested in speaking in the public hearing, please come up and sign up to the table or come to me now. Well, good evening, Jacob Williams with the Planning Department. This item was continued from the April 10, 2018 hearing. It may look rather familiar to you all. There were some minor changes to the plans and to the report since that time. As noted in the staff report, there were some additional proffers. You can see those in Attachment 7 as bold and underlined text. Please note that there is one error in that attachment. There were some architectural styles that the applicant removed that I did not catch. So I apologize for that. The Development Plan Attachment 5 in your packet has all the correct architectural styles that the applicant is proffering. To resummarize this case, this was submitted by Pam Porter with Tony N. Tate's Landscape Architecture. This is in the city of Durham's jurisdiction. I'm approximately 1.3 acre site. And the request is to change the current zoning designation from residential suburban eight to residential urban multi-family, proposing a maximum of 15 residential units, which the applicant has further proffered and clarified that to a maximum of 15 townhouse units. On the aerial map of the property, you can see the case area highlighted in red, located at the corner of Hillendale Road and Fallon Avenue. Some photos of the surrounding area. These are also seen in your staff report. The top corner, left-hand corner, has the existing structure on the site that would be removed in the event that this request is approved. You can see some other vantage points along Hillendale Road, as well as an image of the neighborhood just to the east of the subject site. The zoning context map, as I noted, this site is currently zoned RS-8, and applicant is proposing RUM. There's no RUM to break it into contiguous to this, but there is some RUM, if you look a little further south, down at Bertland Avenue, so you may be familiar with that property. And there are some multi-family apartments in that area. The future land use map, this site as well as the area to the east and north is designated as medium-density residential. The abacus proposal for our SM fits within this designation. On proposed conditions, this is from the development plan seen in your packet. Notes, two points of access, as well as buffers, and the proposed density of 11.45 units per acre. Some RUM standards. The lot width can vary a little bit. I depended 70, but it very much varies, as well as the street yard and side yard standards. Building coverage maximum of 60, and I apologize, the height, that should be a maximum of 35 feet. Some summary of the key committed elements for this plan. As I noted, there's a maximum of 15 residential townhouse units proposed, a potential transit stop along Hill and Dell Road. A variety of architectural styles as listed on the cover sheet of the development plan. Some additional buffering above ordinance minimum standards along the Eastern property line, flatter pitch roof, and a variety as I noted of materials. Comprehensive plan policies for this request, three key policies were reviewed and the request was found to be consistent with all three policies. Therefore, staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and I'll be happy to answer any questions the commission may have at this time. Thank you. Thank you. We may be back with questions. At this point, we'd like to move to open the public hearing. We will again start with those who are in favor and we have two speakers signed up in favor and then we will offer the opportunity for those opposed or against. We have Eric Leith and Jim Anthony. Please join us. Hello, my name is Eric Leith. I actually work for Jim Anthony. I think he is probably in traffic right now on the way here since we got moved up a little bit. I'd just like to say that Jim and myself, along with some of the neighbors who are here, have worked before we were originally on the general for April. We worked through the month of April and through the last two months to try and reach a development agreement on this site that we have profit in the conditions listed. So we have restricted the architectural styles and architectural materials in accordance with what the neighbors have asked for. We've agreed to a height limitation further than what the zoning would call for, also in agreement with the neighbors and have agreed to strengthen the buffer along the eastern side of the property to provide some extra shielding foam for the neighborhood group. So we feel that we have worked in good faith with both the city and the neighbors to try and reach an agreement for this small corner. And I'm happy to try to answer any questions if anybody has any. Thank you. We may call you back after the public hearing closes. And with Mr. Anthony not here yet, we will move to the final person who's signed up to speak against, Olivia Moore. I'm Olivia Moore and I live at 2104 Dartmouth Drive and Eric is correct. We have been working very diligently with the developer to come to some changes that have worked well for our neighborhood. The one issue that we're concerned about is on your attachment nine, item number one, where it says that the city would like to advance the city's goals of pedestrian connectivity for objective 8.1.4 of the Durham Comprehensive Plan. We would very, very, very much like to see the sidewalk extended down Fawn Avenue to Dartmouth Drive. Our neighborhood is a walking neighborhood. We have people now coming from other neighborhoods that are pushing their babies and carriages, children riding their bicycles. I have not pulled a tape on this, but I'm guessing that it's probably another 200 feet from his property to the corner of Dartmouth Drive. And there are two driveways there currently that have the piping under them. One of them, the Barini's are now putting a home in there and then Ms. Powell right there. It would really be a safety issue for us to be able to walk down that area. Fawn Avenue is very, very narrow. Dartmouth Drive is going to see some traffic. Fawn Avenue is going to see some traffic from the townhomes. And we would like to see if Mr. Anthony would agree to do that. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Would anyone else like to speak on this issue in the public hearing? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. I recognize Mr. Anthony who's not here yet, but we may have questions and we'll provide that opportunity for him to speak as well. We will come to the commissioners for questions and comments, start with Commissioner Gauch. Thank you. So I wanted to touch on a couple things first. I remember when an original rezoning came through for this property for a, I believe a parking lot. And I remember at that time, there was substantial pushback on that proposal. And at that time also there was, it seemed like a lot of support for a proposal like the one we're seeing today. So I commend the applicant on taking that feedback and putting it, putting pen to paper, implementing it. The, I did have one question just out of curiosity. It really, I don't think will affect my vote one way or the other. But I noticed that one of the commitments was that the building exteriors will be limited to a maximum of 50% break coverage, which I found odd, but I just didn't, I didn't necessarily, I would expect that to be a minimum, but I didn't know why that was the case. And I was wondering if there's anyone who could speak on, you know, that request. It seems to be responsive to neighbors' concerns. I'm trying to get a better understanding of what the concern was. And Ms. Moore, if you can come to the microphone, but thank you for offering a response. I didn't catch that. I thought it was supposed to be minimum, not maximum. Okay. Well, maybe it's a tight bill. I don't know. Yeah, minimum. We didn't want to see, you know, a brick wall down through there. So thank you. The staff may offer some guidance. Sure. Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. As my memory serves everything I've seen, break noted the maximum. I thought that was a little odd as well. I think if the applicant wants to change that to a minimum of 50% break, there's no issue on that. Let me, yeah. Let me make sure I understood the response. Cause I miss Moore, right? Let me make sure I understood your response because it seemed like maybe we were saying the same thing, but in the opposite way. Are you all interested in- Hold on. Go ahead. Maximum is right. Okay. We don't want to see brick walls. Okay. Right. Okay, understood. That's, and that also answers my original question. Why that was requested. As for the sidewalk, I mean, I'm not going to speak for the applicant, but I would say the problem with doing sidewalk or committing to do sidewalk offsite is that there is not necessarily any certainty that the developer will be able to control that land that's offsite. If they don't have the easement or anything like that, it doesn't make sense for them to commit to it. I'm not saying a sidewalk can't be built there. What I'm saying is it doesn't make sense for necessarily for an applicant to commit to doing sidewalk that is not on their site. I recognize the importance of that and why it's desirable. But at the same time, I, you know, I think it is probably a good call not to commit to offsite sidewalk, but you know, from everything I've seen so far from the developer, I don't know that the developer will be opposed to working with those property owners to see if they could get something done there. But I wouldn't suggest that they make that a commitment on their development plan, despite, you know, despite I recognize, you know, the desirability of the sidewalk. Sure, and feel free to respond to that Ms. Moore. If, I'm sorry, I'm gonna stay here. If the developer does not commit to that, then we have no voice. We have no way of making sure it happens. And, you know, there's no sidewalks now. It's a ditch, two lane road and a deep ditch that the city has cut out that water's standing in now. But anyway, and it's not that far. And, you know, I don't, I've just realized that the Durham Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee is working with the city's goal to advance pedestrian connectivity. I would think that would be, if I was a developer and I'm not, that I would think would be a good political move to agree to do that. I mean, and I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is, political or not, it's not a wise commitment to make on a, because what that means is, if they do not build the sidewalk off-site, they cannot build the project. And there is no guarantee to the developer that they can build the sidewalk off-site. They can build it on their own site. So from, you know... Okay, so could we have a comment that goes with this that says that if the builder is able to build that, to, you know, install that sidewalk, that he would be willing to do that? I mean, I... Where are you going? That type of commitment? I think that's up to the developer. Again, I don't know that that type of commitment is enforceable in the first place. I mean, you know, if they can build it, they will. I don't know that... Well, if they can, they may not. But if they, I mean, we're just trying to get a commitment from Jim that this is something they would look into and try to do for our neighborhood. I mean, it is dangerous to walk down Fawn Avenue now, and it's gonna be even more so. Again, I definitely appreciate that concern. I don't think it makes good sense not for... I'm not saying for Jim, I'm saying for any developer to commit to doing off-site sidewalk because the necessary easement may not exist and they may never be able to obtain that easement. But the sidewalk on their site makes sense. And I think that Jim is probably willing to work. I mean, he's been working with you guys this far. I think he's probably willing to work with those adjacent neighbors to see if there's something that can be done about sidewalk, but there's no need to make that a zoning commitment because it may never happen. A lot of your Jim said that if he can do that, he would. And Commissioner Gosh, any additional questions at this point? No, no. Great, we're actually going to move to Commissioner Miller. We're gonna actually move to Commissioner Miller. Well, I got a question for him. I figured he had a question for you. So welcome, we're glad you're here. Thank you. So I wanted to say thank you to all the participants, neighborhood and the developer for working this out. I think this is a much better proposal for the future land use of this corner than anything we've seen up to this point. And I know you've worked together and I think it'll be a good project and a good thing for Durham. I'm especially pleased with the buffer enhancements and the height limitations that you've agreed to, Jim. Thank you. With regard to the sidewalk issue on your own property from the corner of Hillendale Road down your stretch of frontage on fawn, do you intend to put up a sidewalk? I know the ordinance says put a sidewalk or a payment in lieu. What is your intention? Our intention is to build a sidewalk. Yes. Because it's a roadway with a ditch that is occupying probably whatever right of way there is, it's more than just a sidewalk. It's a pipe and a sidewalk. You have the property to keep the ditch, I suppose if you wanted to, but then if you were a commitment to extend beyond that, it becomes more complicated. I don't know whether you've looked at that or not, I do understand that situation. And it would serve to connect the people who live in the townhouses on your property and make them a more integrated part of the larger neighborhood, just because the houses are different forms, doesn't mean the people aren't gonna be all neighbors once it's completed and everybody moves in. It would be a desirable thing. And so I understand where the bike pit committee is coming from with their recommendation. But having said that, I intend to vote for this because I think this is a great opportunity to have a good project. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson. So dido to the comments from Commissioner Miller. And so one, I want to thank everyone who's worked on this and you're going back to the drawing board, so the conversation board because I do, I also agree that this proposed program of this site is much better than the one that was previously presented. And I would hate to see it's not moved forward due to the sidewalk issue. And I agree with my mate here in regards to the idea of attaching such a commitment to this project seems probably in my opinion not to be the best approach given that this is much more acceptable to what we've seen earlier from my personal position is that you're not guaranteed from a developer stance perspective that you'll be able to execute what you're asking for. So if I'm the property owner of this adjacent site and I don't want sidewalk for whatever reason and I've made a commitment with this development plan. Not asking. And Ms. Moore, I'm sorry at this point unless you're addressed with the direct question. These are just comments and because I'm in support of this but I just want to make sure that my logic behind why I don't that the sidewalk issue is imported from a community standpoint and the connectivity piece I just want to like I just think that including that as a commitment is not the best path forward for this. So I thank you all again and this is my comments. Thank you Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. I'm gonna stay on the sidewalk issue. Can I have a question for staff? In the last case that we heard there was a similar issue BPAC recommended that the developer build off site. You also or the transportation department requested the same thing. In this case, you did not do so and so I'm curious the reasoning behind that. Was there just a, did you think there was a greater need in that other area or? Sure, Commissioner Alturk. Just so I make sure I understand you're asking why the transportation department did not make that recommendation like they did on the previous case. That's right. Oh, perfect. Deferred to Mr. Judge. Yes, on the previous case Hillsborough Road is identified in our bike walk plan as a high priority location. So that was one of the reasons why we did it there as well as we had gone a little further and we'd looked and it appeared as though there was adequate right away and with the construct the sidewalk here. It looks like in order to build the sidewalk off site, you would need either to curb and gutter the roadway to remove the ditch possible or relocate the utility pole or get additional right away or easements from those properties. So given those factors and that it's not a identified project in our bike walk plan, we did not recommend it. Okay, thank you. So can I hear from the applicant about why, because we haven't heard from you about the sidewalk issue. So I'd like to hear your thoughts because in the last case, the applicant gave us their reasoning for why they couldn't commit to it. So I'd like to hear from you, please. Thank you, Jim Anthony from Raleigh. Very fond of working on Durham projects. You're gonna see a lot of me over the next three, four months. The reasoning behind not committing to it today, who could argue that a sidewalk connecting with the neighborhood wouldn't be a good thing? We all know that to be true, but I don't know that those property owners next to us want one. I mean, we have these big debates in Cameron Village where our office is and some people say, yeah, I want a sidewalk on the street and but they don't live there. And then the people who have the land or the sidewalk has to go say, we don't want the sidewalk on our lot. And so this becomes a real problem and making it a part of the commitment is an issue for us. Could, as Neil said, could stop the project because we can't do that in little detail. But we're happy to look at it. I asked Olivia just now to check with the adjacent property owners and see if they want a sidewalk on their lot. But there are other issues related to the comments just made about whether there's additional street improvements that would have to be made and other off-sites, utility poles, relocation, all this stuff that we have not dug into any of that at this point. And I think that the site plan process is the next level where those kinds of things get addressed. Thank you for your response. I am concerned about this, not necessarily in this case, but I think that we're seeing more and more of these cases where BPAC recommends and now the Transportation Department is recommending off-site sidewalks. And my concern is that we will burden the taxpayer in the years to come by putting it on the city to fill in the sidewalk gap. The bike and walk implementation plan noted that we have over 25 miles of sidewalk gaps throughout the county. And by rezoning, we are committing to more foot traffic usually and I think that we need to really consider this probably more as a policy issue, comprehensive plan issue hopefully, rather than a case by case issue. And so while I'm sympathetic to that, I think we need to look at this issue. For the most part, I think this is a good proposal and I plan to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? And Commissioner Gibbs. Mr. Chairman, I've demoted you. This, I was not gonna say anything but this with the last few comments, this is something that especially, this is a prime example of where policy and budgeting by the city needs to apply just to provide a sidewalk and the drainage just for what they were asking for would be really, really expensive because what needs to be done is to take it from fawn all the way over to guest road. That makes sense as what was asked for it is another sidewalk to nowhere. And Olivia, Ms. Moore, I don't mean to be arguing with the residents but I really, whoever lives in those houses will lose a great amount of their yard but that's beside the point. I just wanted to make that statement for the commission and for staff and you can pass it along to whoever it needs to be passed along to maybe to take a good look at this area and put it in the budget. And this is something that the residents can put emphasis on, I'll say, to the city to put this in their planning because it will be expensive. Anyway, that's all my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Gibbs. Before we take a motion for a vote, I would like to just ask an opportunity, give an opportunity for Ms. Moore to make any final comments you've been patient in hearing our deliberations. Lord have mercy. This has been a short one too. Yeah, this was not in any way intended to say that we did not want to see this proposal go forward because we do, we're ready for it to get done. Nor did I want to say that if you don't put sidewalk in, we don't want to see the proposal go through. Not our intent, just to say that we want to go on record that we would love to see that sidewalk go in there, plain and simple. That's very helpful. I do plan to vote for this. Good, we're ready. That's wonderful. Now I commend, and we rarely see the both the neighborhood and the developer working really closely together for as long as you have, I think this is a very strong proposal. So I will accept a motion for approval. Commissioner Bryan. I move that we send case Z17000494 to city council with a recommendation for approval. Second. Moved and seconded by Vice Chair Hyman. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? Motion passes 12 to zero. Thank you again. You can clap, that's all right. Our next item is case Z1700034, Carrington Woods and we'll start with the staff report. Good evening, Jacob Wiggins again. This case is Z1700034, for property located at 833 Carrington Road. This is a request submitted by Penny Sadako. This is in the city, or I'm sorry, this is being reviewed under the city's jurisdiction. This is presently in the county's jurisdiction. The applicant has petition for annexation. The rezoning request is to change the zoning designation from residential suburban 20 to residential suburban 10, which would permit single family residential uses. There is no development plan associated with this request. Minerial map of the property, you can see the case area highlighted in red. As a noted, this side is located along Clayton Road, just to the west of Southern High School and just a little bit to the east southeast of the Cheek Road, Junction Road interchange. Some area photos on the top left corner that is an existing photo, I'm sorry, photo of the existing site. The remaining photos are from the surrounding communities. I'm looking at this property from a zoning context standpoint. As I noted, the subject side is zone RS20. The applicant is requesting RS10. Both the residential developments to the east, west and south of this site are presently zoned RS10. Residential is the predominant use in this area. Looking at it from the future land use map, this area is designated as low density residential, which is four units an acre or less. The proposed RS10 district fits within this designation. And as you can see on this map, a majority of this area is designated as RS10. Some standards for the RS10 zoning district. Typically looking at a lot area, minimum 10,000 square feet, quarter acre lots, lot widths of 75 feet, 25 foot street yard setback. Your side yards are gonna end up being a total of 24 feet, 25 feet in the rear and a maximum height of 35 feet. There were three key comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request and staff found that the request is consistent with all three policies. And therefore, we find that it is consistent with those policies, the comprehensive plan and other applicable ordinances. And I would have to answer any questions the commission may have at this time. Thank you, Mr. Wiggins. Thank you. We will move to the public hearing and we have one speaker speaking four and two against. We'll start with Penny Secontro. I know I got that wrong. I apologize. Please come up and let us know how you really pronounced your name. Hello, members of the Planning Commission. Let me introduce myself. I am Penny Secontro, engineer for the project and owner of Penny Engineering Design. It is a pretty straightforward rezoning request. We are matching the surrounding properties on the three sides and intend to connect the existing roadways, the existing water line, extend the sewer and build consistent with the existing neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Is it pronounced secadro? Did I get that? It's secadlo. Secadlo, thank you. Thank you. And we have two individuals signed up opposed. Kenneth Wiggins and I believe it's Willard Grice. I am so sorry, we looked at it twice and he said I was gonna be right and I said there's no way I'm right. I apologize. Kenneth Wiggins, Lillian Grice. Good afternoon, I'm Kenny Wiggins. I'm not a little confused at the map and everything right now because when we got, you know, the thing we got in the mail didn't really show us exactly our property in, you know, kind of like a view of where we can figure out what was going on. But we do know that the construction area is behind where I live, which is 14 Mevacrest Drive. And I guess my concern is with the properties that when we bought a business since 1992 and when we bought the property, we were told that no one could build behind us because of the creek behind us. And over the years, I guess 25 years, people have come in and tried to build there and no one could build there. And we just want to try to find out what has changed over the period of time that is now allowing someone to develop in that area. Good question. Thank you, Mr. Wiggins. Yeah, I have several questions, but I guess I was doing one at a time or... No, you may go ahead. This is your moment to speak. So please let us know all your questions and then we may follow up with you after the public hearing closes. Yeah, well, building in the creek is the concern. That's what's behind my property, the creek. And I've seen where they've kind of marked off the area they're gonna try to build in or whatever. And it kind of runs right in the back of where I live. And like I said, there's a creek there. So I was curious about that. And also, another thing is, when you come out of Metalcrest Drive, which is where we live on and go to Clayton Road, when you get out to Clayton Road, there's a lot of traffic there based on the school and developments already been done in that area. So the traffic is really heavy there already. And when I come out of my street, there's a really bad curve there. And it's like playing double dutch to get into this traffic, you know? I don't know if anybody played double dutch, but... It's like you just gotta time it just right. And when you see your car, you gotta have your wife look this way, I gotta look this way. Do you see anything? No, I don't see anything. Then you go, okay, go. So you jump into the traffic. And during the school hours, it's even worse. You know, like around two o'clock to like four o'clock, five o'clock, it's just really bad in there. So that's another concern. It's like with more development in that area, more traffic built up. And it's even harder to get out of where we, you know, our street. And we've heard there's gonna be like maybe 10 to 20 to 30 houses in there, which I know will impact us a lot because, like I said, of the traffic, of the people, you know, there, and it's already a congested area already because of the school. And in the school hours, it's really, really bad. So those are I think my major concerns about them, you know, trying to build in that area. Thank you very much. And Ms. Grace. Good afternoon. My name is Lillian Grace. I am corn a lot. I live at Two Metal Crest Drive. I come home sometime and my yard has been painted green, orange, yellow, blue. No heads up as to what is going on. Flags have been planted in the yard. Little orange flags or little blue flags. Sometime I come home and there are wires running from one side of the road to the other side. From my understanding, everybody has to go through my yard to get to one of the boxes. So my yard is constantly being dug up. That curve is really a problem. I've had people run up into my backyard several times. Sometimes I come out and it's a whole windshield sitting up beside the pole. I can't tell you how many people have lost their lives in that curve since I've been there. And like he says, you're creating more traffic. In the morning, during school hours, the traffic is so backed up, you can't even get out onto Clayton Road. You've got to wait for the traffic to die down so that you can get out. And on the map, it's not really showing us what's getting ready to transpire. Our street is not on the map. It's not exactly clear to me exactly what's gonna take place. Because when the sidewalk was put in, my backyard started flooding. I didn't have flooding problems before that. So those are my concerns. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak during the public hearing? And we may call on you when we close the public hearing. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and commissioners with questions or comments. I will start with Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chairman. So Ms. Lillian and Mr. Wiggins. So I'm interested and I just wanna clarify to the extent of your opposition to this proposal here. So it's the stance that you two are taking that you want no development on this parcel of land or is there a particular type of development that you think would work better given the concerns that you have raised in regards to how you are currently being impacted by prior changes in your community and neighborhood and what you foresee with this proposal that's before us tonight. So far as myself on the map, it doesn't really show us how you would get in because we have a side street on the right side of me, Clayton's to the left side, and it's currently closed off. So now it doesn't show how you would get into this development because there's another development on the opposite side. So is this street gonna be open? Are they gonna come down? Are street to get to the new development? Are they gonna go in from the other development to get into the development? Are they gonna go in off of Clayton Road? The map is just not clear. So I am totally opposed to it. And Mr. Wiggins? Opposed to it also? If you could speak into the microphone please, thank you. Yes, I'm totally opposed to it also because like I said, for 25 years we've lived there and I've lived there and like I said, we bought the house, it was one of the things that we kind of enticed us because they said, there'll be nobody to be able to build behind you because of this creek back here. Okay, so now that we see that there's development, like I said, there's been, I guess someone's come in at some point and just pulled trees out of there, which I know we thought, well, okay, what's going on? But they just pulled the trees and then that was it. Maybe that was like a year ago or maybe more. And so then we was like, well, we've seen signs go up in that same area before and then the signs will go up and then they'll go back down. And they'll say, well, been the climate cost of the creek. And now it seems like things are going forward. I mean, the creek hasn't changed, nothing's changed at all. So we're trying to figure out what changed for us to get and change these X's into check marks that they're now able to develop back there because the creek's still there. And it's nothing, I didn't think you could do that. I didn't think you could build into a creek or a creek or a near creek like that, okay? But I'm told against it, not only for that, but for the traffic and everything in general, like she said, it's already, like I say, it's always like playing double just getting out of the street already, it's crazy. I mean, like when the school is in session or getting out, you can't get out of there. I mean, you got to have traffic coming both directions. Then there's a deep curve where you can't see a car until it actually pops out of that curve. Like if I'm sitting at the end of my street, the curve is there, you got to keep, you can see okay towards the school for a little bit, but then you always got to try to look left and then look right last. Because if you look right first, think you got it. You don't see anything that way, you jump out, it's going to hit you right inside because that curve hides traffic right there. So that's helpful. So one quick follow up, because I saw that my fellow commissioners can chime in. Can staff help educate me and maybe answer this address this concern regarding a creek? I don't see a creek, particularly on any of the material we have. So could you highlight where this creek resides? And is it possible to he, this Mr. Wiggins has been under the assumption that you can't develop around or near to some degree around this creek. Is this actually policy or is that correct? Or just. And Mr. Wiggins, as you answered that, I don't know if it's possible to show the map as well of the site. Yes, let me just come over there. Okay, thank you. Nice job. Cool, so I'll enter the first question while they hold this up on your screen, the map for you. In regards to the creek, if you look at, it's probably easiest seen on attachment three, the flum map that's included in your packet, you can see streams noted on there. On this particular property, I am not aware of a blue line stream. If there is a stream on this site, the applicant will have to buffer that appropriately. We definitely have standards in the ordinance for riparian buffers. They vary between, typically between 50 and 100 feet, depending on the type of stream. Again, I'm not aware of a stream on this particular property and you can see on the screen in front of you, the kind of the map of the subject area. There are three, I'll try to highlight them. Hopefully you can see them. There are three street stubs. I think this came up as well. The applicant will be required to make a connection to all three of those street stubs in order to develop this property. Thank you. Did that answer your question, Mr. Johnson? Okay. Mostly, yeah. Any additional questions, you're good? Great, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Gosh. Yeah, Jacob, sorry to call you back up. Could you pull up attachment one and other Mr. Wiggins and is it Lillian? Could you help me understand? I'm asking Jacob to pull up attachment one because I think it was a little more zoomed out and I was hoping you guys could point to where your property is because I didn't quite understand. I think it's in the PowerPoint or is it not? It is, but it won't look cool. Let me just pull up the... That's what I'm trying to get an understanding of if they can, I don't know what map they get on their notice. It's possible that attachment one is a little more zoomed out. Oh, this is a... Oh, cool. A lot involved here. Yeah, I think that one is a little more zoomed out there. Could you all maybe indicate with the mouse where your property is in relation to the rezoning there, rezoning area? No, no, no. I'm sorry, if you could come up to the podium, you can use the mouse to indicate where on this map your property is. The mouse is, gotcha. This is the second one down. I'm sorry, the mouse is down there. This one. And he's about right in the middle. That's hers is... That's my house right there on that corner. Okay, right on the corner, that's your house. Yes. Okay, and Mr. Wiggins? Down, probably right here. Exactly, probably... Here, maybe here. From your house, I'm gonna be... Well, you're off that street. That's what you're saying. He's somewhere right in this area, here. Okay, that is helpful. And where is the curve? You both mentioned a curve that is... This right here. Very dangerous, yeah, right in there. Yes. And pulling out of there can be very difficult. Yeah. Okay. It's got yellow caution markers around the curve. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, okay. That's helpful, because I didn't understand... Exactly where you're talking about. The fact of my house is where... If I'm at the back of my house for a minute, I got a shed back there, right behind that shed to draw off this creek. Can you maybe show... Like, where do you think... Indicate with the mouse, if you will, where you think this creek is, because I can't... I haven't been able to identify it, so I'm just trying to get an understanding of where it is. So... I'm gonna take a second. Okay. I'm turning into... They are here. I can't really see. But I see... Yeah, I'm trying to get my property... Trying to get a count, because it's like two... If you count... Push your address, too. I'm two. Okay, so count by twos down to 14. Right there. Okay. So that's where my property... That's your property, and you're saying directly behind that on the... Directly behind... Highlighted area, that's where you see a creek Yeah, and that's where the creek is. And that's where we've been told for years, that you couldn't build back there, don't worry about nobody building behind you, because there's a creek back there. Understood. Understood. Okay. All right, that is helpful, because I was... I just didn't know where it was. I didn't... I don't think you can see that creek from the street. So... I don't know if you can see it from the street, from the big road. Yeah, right. You can see the squiggles. Right. Okay. But there's also a house here. It's a ditch. Okay. There's a common sense number, you know? That house floods a lot. Whichever house it is, it constantly floods over the years. And people have moved in and out, because of the flooding. All right, that's helpful. Thank you. That... I mean, those were really my questions, because I didn't know if anyone else was struggling with that, but I was. I didn't really have any commentary at this point. I am... Well, I do have one question for the applicant. I know one was not required, because there was no flum change, and I guess no TIA, probably, with such a low density and the acreage. But did you have a community meeting? Were you able to meet with the neighbors before this proposal came to the Planning Commission? I know it's not required, but I think it's typical. It's something that's done. We did not have a community meeting. And if I can answer just a couple of the comments. I mean, yeah, if you... Are you aware of a creek on this property? There are some low-lying areas, but I have had it investigated by the Corps, and there is no Repair and Buffer Creek on this site. There are some low-lying areas that I'll have to take into consideration when I do the three road crossings, but the curve in Clayton Road, which they are discussing, is awkward. It really is. This gives that dead-end road another access out. This development will give them access to other roads to be able to avoid that congestion on Clayton Road that they are discussing, which they will not have without this development coming forward. And do you anticipate that with the development of this site, there will be another entrance to the site on Clayton Road? No. Okay. No. The quickest access to Clayton Road would still be at that potentially dangerous... Or the next one up, the one on the west side. There's another access onto the road. Oh, from Hounds Chase Drive. Is that what you're saying? Right there. Right. So you're saying they could, instead of coming out at that dangerous... Right, and then they have access through this entire subdivision to get to other properties to the south to avoid Clayton Road altogether if they so desired. It's gonna make interconnectivity through that whole subdivision. Yeah, recognize that, because that's what's the requirement in the UDL. I don't have any further questions or thoughts on it. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bryan. Thank you. I definitely see that it is reasonable to have a residential development, which is gonna be the same zoning as the areas that are around it. One thing that I was somewhat disappointed with was the fact, and this is not required either, but there wasn't a development plan which I think could have answered some of the questions that have been raised. You've already answered one of mine, and that is there's not gonna be a connection off of Clayton Road, so we're gonna depend on the interconnectivity of the three streets that stub out to this property. But I'm also curious about the fact that if you look just to digress the acreage, I think in the staff report it says you could have maybe 34 single family homes. You start allowing for the streets, and it might be down to 30. In your application, you say 23. With a development plan, you could commit to a certain number, like up to 23 or so forth. Another point that's of interest to me is whether this site would be clear cut and mass graded, or would the individual lots be graded and trees be preserved? You can say anything you want to about that, but at least you can put a commitment on a development plan that's not enforceable. And then if there is any area that had to be protected, and I gather it's not really a creek, just a little area that gathers water, again, that could become a designated treesave area or something like that. Again, without a development plan, you can't make any commitment that's enforceable. So I'm sort of up in the air about this one. I've heard what the neighbors say. I definitely agree with them about that curve, because that's where I was not too long ago trying to get turned around. I'm just not sure at this point how I feel about it overall, but really I'd love to see a development plan. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Bryan. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can ask Ms. Codlow to come to the mic, I have some questions. So if I understood your responses up to this point, your current plan would be to have, to connect to the three stubs, two of them are named Alpha and Dairy, and I don't think the one that's off of Meadowcrest has actually got a name. So you'll connect to all three of those, but not to Clayton Road. Did I understand that correctly? Yes, sir. And did I also understand that you're a land planner or an engineer? Yes, sir. And so you've been running the calculus on this, and it seems to me that for the number of potential houses in here, that's a lot of street. So do you think 23 is probably about the maximum you're gonna be able to get out of this, or is that, I'm just trying to figure out how big an impact this is going to have as a practical matter, not just the simple mathematical matter? Yes, I believe that's a relatively good number for a maximum number of lots. And then for the staff, I am concerned also about this jurisdictional stream thing. I drove over there and got as close to the property as I could on all three sides using the existing streets and was looking in the property slopes for the most part from north to south and also from east to west as a matter of fact, over on its western border, the property is right much higher than some of the lots that back up to it over there. Looking between the houses could not see any sign of low places or creeks because it's fairly wooded on the edges. But I noticed that on the, looking at the zoning context map on the left-hand side and you've left it up on our screens but it's not up on the screen above. There are some, it looks like a tributary comes up, it runs along the back lot lines between alpha and chance and what I'm trying to figure out is are the other lines on the map obscuring a stream because finally there is a little blue squiggle in the property itself. Do you see what I'm seeing? Sure, yeah, Jacob Wiggins of the planning department. I do see, and I apologize I didn't catch that earlier, a very small, low squiggly line in the south western corner of the property. Exactly. Again, if there is, we'll go by that, we go by the blue line streams and if there is a stream there, the applicant will have to buffer that in accordance with the EDO standards at the time of site plan. I was just wondering if we were to, if we were to pull these other lines off the map, would we get a clear picture and do you have, it looks like these, a lot of these squiggly lines I'm looking at don't actually connect up, but they probably do on the ground, but they don't appear to on the map. Right. But is it correct to say that those are just isolated low places or are they in fact connected up somewhere on a better map somewhere? I don't know if you're gonna find them on a better map, a lot of these lines come from the USGS all survey from the 70s. So 40 years later, some of them may or may not still be in existence, my guess is. Right, and there is in fact a process to have an engineer evaluate the streams and get them reclassified. You took the word right out of my mouth. My own feeling on this is the developer is asking to have this piece of property zoned in a way that's consistent with the developments around it on three sides. And to develop it in a way that is consistent with that the way it's developed. And it's very hard for me to say no to that, especially when there's no issue arising out of the comprehensive plan or the flume. I am concerned about, I would like to know about streams and stream buffering before I vote on a case. That seems to be up in the air tonight. I like Mr. Bryan would like some assurance about internal roadways, because there is also a process whereby a developer can ask for relief from the requirements to connect to stubs. Is there not? Take it as the payment permit. Yes, there are some instances in which those connections, when could a request to be exempted from those connections? To me it would be an unhappy result if we were to build 23 to 30 houses on this piece of property and have them tied to, because that's fewer than 90, all have them tied to one of these three stubs instead of diffusing the traffic out probably to at least two of them. I doubt people will use dairy very much. I don't see much of a reason to do that. But Alpha and the unnamed stub up here on Meadowcrest I think are gonna bear the burden. I would hate to see one of those cut off. If we had a development plan I would have an answer to that question. But I would hate to see one section of the existing neighborhoods bearing the burden of all the traffic coming into and out of the new homes on this site. So I'm with Mr. Bryan. I'm up in the air on this. It's not that I am against the development of this property in an RS10 zoning category. I would just like to know how it was going to be developed and don't have the answers that would make me more comfortable voting for it. Mr. Wiggins. Just to clarify. So in regards to the street studs connections those are required by the ordinance as commissioner Miller noted there may be some exemption that can be applied at time of site plan. So development plan or no development plan those exemptions can still apply at time of site plan. So you can have a development plan showing those but if they meet the criteria and the ordinance at that time of site plan those could still be exempted at that time. Thanks for the clarification. Commissioner Van. Yes. I guess my first concern would be question would be to is it Sadafo? Is that correct? I got one right. All right. And I guess just sort of following up on commission and gauche who initially raised this probably one of my questions as well. Because I too I guess I'm in this area like almost like every day. And area is seeing a lot of building but also a lot of traffic out of that area. And I just wondered while it is not a requirement but have you had any conversation with anyone out there relative to this project into the neighborhood anything, a letter, anything? No, sir. I have not. It looked like a pretty straightforward zoning request that this is a piece of property that the entire neighborhood was designed around stubbing to the connection inside of this piece of property. And it's the same zoning. It's the same criteria that anyone in this zoning would have to follow. The connection that we haven't challenged any of the connectivity would not see any reason to challenge the connectivity. It looks like all the developments around here and the planning staff in this area has encouraged this piece of property to make all of these interconnections. Okay. All right. Thank you. And let's see. Let's talk to the residents for a second. Either one of you or both of you. All right. So, and I would just ask either of you or both of you. So, given the concerns that I mean obviously you're concerned you're here tonight. So, have you all among those in your community and residents there, have you all had conversations relative to this? Well, I've spoken to my next door neighbor about it. I'm not sure if everyone received the letter. First of all, we weren't on the map. So, they probably might have thrown it away. They didn't see metal crests on there anywhere. And we were the ones impacted. You got streets all the way down toward 98. What they got to do with what's going on be a metal crest. Metal crest wasn't even on the map. So, some people might have just tossed it away. But you better believe me when I leave here I'm going to talk to everybody in the neighborhood. Well, I've talked to like four of my neighbors on both sides of me. So, oh, sorry. Yeah, I've talked to like four of my neighbors on both sides of me. And, you know, they all saying the same thing. They couldn't make it here tonight. I know some of them actually said it was coming, but at the last minute they couldn't make it, whatever. But yeah, I've talked to them and we've all talked about it. And when we start seeing, you know, things happening back there, you know, we all start having conversations about it. So, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I guess my only point is I guess just as on tonight, you sort of faced with the question of, you know, smart growth, meaning that it meets the guidelines that we need, but while at the same time taking into account the impact upon the residents who live there and those persons. And always, I'm one of those, I try to at least go along most of the time with the concerns raised by the residents. And so, you know, given that there seems to be a few other concerns that are raised tonight by some of my other commissioners here, I would, I too would be probably pretty hesitant about, you know, making a decision. We may be forced to make a decision, but I'd be hesitant about that. Given some of these concerns and unasked questions. All right, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Van. Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. I want to echo some of the concerns that other commissioners have raised. And so I won't restate those, but I do want to ask the applicant whether she would like us to at least consider continuance to have some time to discuss this with the neighbors or maybe if you were interested in a development plan or whether you just would prefer us to vote on this tonight. I'm always interested in speaking with the neighbors. Again, it seemed to be a pretty straightforward request to construct something that is very similar to what you already have. I also thought that there was another level of approval after the zoning. Then we go into the complete design phase and address all the issues that staff would have, that neighbors might have. It seems like it's hard to do a design without knowing it, without having the zoning there to design to. Because right now, if I did a plan, the zoning would not support the kind of design that the current neighborhood has. Thank you. Thanks, that's all. Commissioner Harris. Jacob, I have one question top of page three. It says Southern High is found just to be the northeast of the subject site. Should that be southeast? Sure. Thank you for catching that. It depends on which way the map is laid out on the table. To Commissioner Ghosh and then Commissioner Williams. Well, I have already spoken to Commissioner Williams. You mind if I speak again before you? All right, thank you. And thank you, Chair. So echoing Commissioner Al-Turk, I was going to suggest if you're agreeable to it that maybe you take some extra time to actually meet with the neighbors and discuss this. And you've said several times that you felt this was a pretty straightforward rezoning. I don't know how much work you have done in Durham, but I would say welcome to Durham. I don't know that there are straightforward rezonings. And at any rate, I think it's an act of good faith to just go ahead and meet with the neighbors and address their concerns to the best of your ability. Now, without a development plan, and I'm not suggesting that you should do a development plan, but without a development plan, it can be very hard to address those at the zoning stage. However, building that rapport, I think will be beneficial in the long run. On the other side of that, it was asked, I think Commissioner Johnson asked earlier, if you guys oppose any development on this site, or is there a specific type of development you want on this site? And you all seem to indicate, and forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing, but you seem to indicate that you would prefer no development on the site. I don't think that is realistic. Now, I can appreciate that over the years, you have come to expect that there would not be development there, and we're told that much from, I don't know, a realtor or whoever, based off of a stream. If I understood correctly, I believe the applicant has done a stream determination with the core, and it has been determined that there is no jurisdictional stream on the property. That means it can be developed without having the stream buffer. So I think it would be beneficial for you all to meet as a neighborhood to discuss what you think would be an ideal development on this property, because my feeling is that sooner rather than later, this site will be developed, whether pursuant to this rezoning, a new rezoning, or the current zoning, but it might be helpful for you all to organize as a neighborhood to talk about that, because I don't know why, but for whatever reason, a stream that may have existed in the past no longer does, and the site can be developed. It's something you all should take a look at and try to develop your own thought process around so that instead of being on the back end of a rezoning fighting it, you can actually partner with the developer and see if you can implement your long-term vision for the neighborhood, given that the parcel probably can be developed today. So I'm not making a motion, but you know, and I haven't heard the applicant suggest that they were interested in necessarily extending this for 60 days, I think it's typical, or two cycles I should say, but that's, I would recommend that you do that, because I think it would help both the neighborhood and your project, that's all. Great, thank you, Commissioner Gosh. Commissioner Williams? Yes, I have extreme concerns with the fact that it's without a development plan, it's already been pretty much stated that there will be no access from Clayton Road, given the current traffic issues, so then you take what is already a private street and introduce more traffic to access this neighborhood as a portion of the turn in, and I think that they're legitimate concerns from developing this particular area in regardless of whether it's 23 homes or 30 homes or whatever the case may be, the traffic impact is going to be interesting for those that live on those streets where there's already a cul-de-sac and one road doesn't go anywhere, and then accessing or turning in from three different entry points or crossover streets, it kind of changes the dynamic of people who live there. One person doesn't have anybody that turns on that side street that doesn't go anywhere. Now it's gonna have traffic for people trying to access this neighborhood and you're gonna force more traffic through other areas, other considerations of just what's there. So even without a development plan, I have huge concerns about developing in this area in terms of right-of-ways and just traffic their period. I can't say looking at it even in the most creative ways that I'd necessarily agree with it unless it's something that is way beyond any possible conceivable notion. I can't say that I agree with the development of this area presently, even with accessing streets that are already there and the impact that it's gonna have on the neighborhood and the travel and how much is going to dramatically change the people who already live there in these areas. So those are my comments as far as this is concerned. Thank you. Mr. Wiggins, you have a comment? I just wanna clarify one thing, Commissioner Williams, these are all public streets surrounding this property. There are no private roads. They're all owned and maintained by the city of Durham. All right, well, by private, I mean like there's a cul-de-sac and the street doesn't go to anywhere because there's nothing there. So if I live there, I think there's a private street. There's no traffic. You're not turning on that street unless you're going home. Sure, that's fair. And one other thing I would note, again, the connectivity is an ordinance requirement. So it's this property we're developed today. Those connections would have to be made. After that. Thank you. Commissioner Bryan and then Commissioner Johnson. I just wanna detail what my fellow Commissioner Gosh has said. I would recommend that you consider a deferral for the purposes of meeting with the neighbors and seeing if you can come to some of the resolution of these issues that have been raised. I don't know if you wanna make a development plan, but in my opinion, it would be helpful. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson. So echoing that sentiment, but first I would like to just, so a comment to fellow Commissioner Williams in the sense of this desire to not, you don't, you stated that you just, you're not in favor of development in this site. The reality is, is that someone can come in right now with the zoning as is and development can happen. So it's a question, I think the reality-based question for us as a commission and as the reality of the owner of this property and the neighboring community and neighborhood is that, as my commissioner stated, something will likely happen on this site. Someone would not own this property and just pay property taxes and nothing happens to it. So that leads to my echoing of suggesting from a personal standpoint that the neighbors get in on the front end of trying to have a conversation with the sponsor of this site to have as much say as you possibly can, sorry, possibly can from a amicable as possible point of view so that some of your visions and concerns can get addressed on the front end rather than this moving forward and then you're reacting rather than responding to opportunities to program this particular parcel in a way that's beneficial beyond this acreage here. And so I'll echo in closing again that the reality is that if this just stayed at RS 20, someone could come in right now and develop it and all the concerns will still be there but you don't even have to come before, they won't have to come before us to get a yay. It happens. Building permit. So the question for us is to figure out, well, not for us, is I think the larger exercise of challenges to figure out how can we get this as in a position where as we can get as much agreement at rather than contention on what actually happens. And so I'll close with that. Thank you, commissioner Johnson. Before we finish and make a motion and I'll remind the planning commission, we have the ability to make a series of motions. We can ourselves decide to have a motion to delay any decision for two cycles for 62 months essentially. We also have, we can make a motion to vote to approve and vote that up or down. That is within our purview. But before we have a motion for consideration, Mr. Colo, I just wanna give you an opportunity. Numerous commissioners, and I would put myself in this camp as well, have wondered if you would be willing voluntarily to ask for a two cycle delay to allow the time to meet with the neighbors and just wanted to give you the opportunity to share your thoughts. So that would mean returning to us in August at the August Planning Commission meeting. Chair Busby, if I may add, the commission also has the option of a 30-day deferral. It does not have to be a 60-day deferral. You have either one of those options available, 30 or 60 days. We do, okay. We have been told in the past by staff to do a 60-day. That's our recommendation for volunteer when commitments are proffered here for adequate time. I see. I think it came in when the development. I see, thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Would still like to hear your thoughts. I think personally 60 days allows for enough time for the neighbors and for you to have a meeting, maybe a second meeting to have some discussion, but wanted to hear your thoughts on the possibility of a 30-60-day delay. Well, and I'm gonna ask a question also, if I may. We are more than willing to meet with the neighbors. We're more than willing to have a 60-day delay. The development plan criteria, I don't think could be done in 60 days. I think it needs a whole review. Is there something that can be done with conditions without it being a development plan? I'm gonna let Mr. Wiggins answer the question. Thank you for the question. Thank you, Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. To answer the last question, there is no means to proffer commitments. There was only map change without a development plan. A development plan at this point would actually trigger a new application. So this application would have to be withdrawn. The plans would have to be drawn up, submitted and reviewed. So I guess I'm saying I'm not willing to go that route. Yes. I'm just trying to be as honest as I can with everybody that's voiced concerns. No, we appreciate that. I think actually we were assuming, understanding that situation, what we were asking was to voluntarily request a two-cycle delay that would allow to at least meet with the neighbors to make sure that everyone understands the concerns or the opportunities from each of your perspectives. But we understand that if you returned with this proposal, it would not include a development plan. To return with the development plan, which could then allow for proffers, you would have to pull out this application and start the entire process again. Right. I understand that. I understand it. So the answer on a 30 to 60 day delay just to allow conversation, but not having a development plan, are you open to that if that is proper? Oh, we're definitely open to that. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. So we've, a number of us have asked the applicant whether she'd be willing to do that. I'm curious to hear from the neighbors, because as a few commissioners have pointed out, right now the applicant can build 15 single family homes which will generate traffic, 15, 15 right now. 15, yes, one five. And so she's proposing while it's not written, or it's not set in stone 23, right? And so I'm curious if you would like to meet with the developer to talk about potential compromises or what, so before we kind of, before we have this vote, I'd like to hear from you what you'd like from this process. And again, if you could come to the microphone, either of you, and I believe the question is, what is your opinion about having a delay where we would ask that we give the opportunity for a meeting between the neighbors and the developer to discuss this proposal. And we would likely be back here in two cycles in August to continue reviewing this proposal, but it would allow for some discussion and a neighborhood meeting or some kind of gathering. Yeah, I mean, we're willing to meet with her or anyone about what they're going to do or whatever. So yeah, I'm willing to meet with him. So my neighbors are too, I mean, so I'll let her speak for her. Ms. Grace. Yes, I'd be willing to sit down with the developer. In my opinion, this should have taken place first before you came with a proposal. You don't live there, you're not gonna live there. And one of these fairways that she's talking about will connect to Twin Lakes. If everybody knows how large Twin Lakes is, you're talking about mass traffic. So every time somebody runs into my yard or run up in my house, I've had three break-ins since I've been there, my neighbor has had two. So now you're talking about a lot more traffic, foot traffic and vehicle traffic. So yes, it needs to be discussed before somebody just decides to throw some houses up to make a dollar and they're not gonna live in any of them. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Alturk, any other questions? At this point, the point we're at is that it sounds like everyone is willing to meet. We have the ability to delay this one cycle or two cycles. So I am open to discussion and a motion, Commissioner Bryan. I will move that we grant a two-cycle container. Submissions and maintenance for case Z1700034. So properly moved and seconded. Miss Smith. We also continue it to a date specific which would be your regular meeting in August. Looks like it'll be held on the 14th of August. That I accept that amendment. Mr. Chairman. Any discussion on the motion, Properly motion and seconded, this would be a continuance to the August 14th, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Gibbs. I don't have a discussion on the motion, but I do have a point of view for this development and what I have heard tonight. And it's going forward. Is this okay? I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand Well, you said the motion has been made. Is there any discussion? Are you referring specifically to the motion? Yeah, we have a motion that is ready for a vote, but we can have discussion on the motion before we have a vote. Okay, well, can I go ahead now or do we want to do the vote first? I mean the seconding of the motion. I believe it has been moved and seconded. So we are ready to vote unless there's discussion on the motion. Okay, in that case, I do have a comment. This site, there's something weird about this site anyway. At number one, why it has been left out, carved out and not developed until now, it's got to have a history. There's something, I guess you need to look at who developed these other areas around this. Number two, I don't see that that would be a big problem in splitting up the traffic patterns from this and exit and entry, exit onto Clayton Road. And there's two or three choices of connecting to these stubs and I don't know how these stubs got here. They're basically dead-end roads. That's the other weird thing about these sites around here, but for your development, you can connect to it. That would mitigate some of the overuse of any one or even two roads to gain access and exit from this area, as well as the existing areas. Is there any way that? Commissioner Gibbs, at this point, we have a motion to continue this until the August 14th meeting. So after that vote, we know we will be back in August and I think that will be. And I'm trying to avoid that kind of thing. I was going to make an alternate motion when, okay. Any other discussion on the motion? This is the appropriate time to make an alternative motion. Any, all right. If he's gonna make a motion. Yeah, no, this is your time to make an alternative motion. On the, I can hardly read this. I'm sorry, on the case Z17043, I move that we send this forward for approval. So the motion is to, the alternative motion is to send forward case Z170003434 with a favorable recommendation. If there's no second, that motion will not move forward and we'll be back to the original motion. If there is a second, we will have discussion and a vote. Is there a second to send this motion forward with a favorable recommendation? Question. Yeah, commissioner Johnson. Would it be that this alternative motion would override the initial one? So we're voting to place that one. Yeah, if there is a second, we will vote on it and that will override the continuance to the August 14th meeting. If there's no second, we're back to the original motion of the continuance. Is there a second to this motion? Seeing none, we are back to the original motion, which is a continuance to the August 14th meeting. Any additional discussion? Seeing none, I'd ask for a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Alturk. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Ghost. Yes. Commissioner Brian. Yes. Commissioner Harris. Yes. Commissioner Hyman. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Keshen. Yes. Commissioner Van. Yes. Mr. Commissioner Miller, sorry. Yes. Commissioner Gibbs. Well, yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. Ocean passes 12 to zero. Thank you and appreciate all of you being willing to take the time to meet. We look forward to seeing you back here at the August 14th meeting. Before we get to our next item, Commissioner Williams, I know you need to leave. Yes. Any parting comments for us and then we will have a vote to excuse you from the remainder of the meeting. No, happy voting. We will miss you. Can I have a motion to... Motion to excuse Commissioner Williams from the rest of the meeting. Moved and seconded. Commissioner Miller. A move by Commissioner Brian, seconded by Commissioner Miller. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great, thank you. We will move to our next item. And this is case Z1700043, Holverd Farms, phase 12. We'll start with the staff report. Thank you. Jacob Wiggins again with the Plain Department. Don't mind me. Okay, so, I don't really know what's going on here. So we'll hold this like this. This is a request submitted by Mitch Craig of the CE Group. This is in the county's jurisdiction. This is for an approximate 29 acre site. Your request is to rezone the property from residential role to residential suburban 20 with a development plan. The associated development plan would cap the maximum single flame of the residential units at 31 for this site. The subject site is highlighted in red in front of you. This property is located just north of the Durham County, Chatham County line. You can see that as the yellow line, kind of about two thirds of the way down through this map. The site is just to the west, NC 751, and near the intersection of Fayetteville and NC 751. Some aerial photos of the subject site. You can see the top two images are in the site. Again, Edwards with Lane, as well as some existing homes under construction. I'm at the lower left-hand corner. You can see the intersection of 751 at Fayetteville. And then just to the north of this property is the closest residential subdivision that I can find. I'm looking at this property from a zoning context standpoint. You can see the predominant designations in this area are the RR and MU district. That MU district is the 751 South project, which some of you all may be familiar with. And as noted, the applicant is requesting to go from the RR to the RS-20 designation. Future land use map, this area is designated as very low density residential on the future land use map. And the proposed RS-20D fits within that category. Proposing conditions, these are seen in attachment five of the development plan. As you can see, noting the private drive for this site as well as some access to Edwards with Lane to the east of the site. So these are the, I'm just gonna skip over that. Some key committed elements for this request in the RS-20 district. As I noted, I'm looking at a maximum of 31 residential units. The development plan has committed to site access points as well as an internal private street and the requisite project boundary buffers as required by the UDO. There were three comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request. Thank you so much. Three comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request. And the request is found to be consistent with all three. I mean therefore, thank you. Therefore staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, applicable policies and ordinances. And I'll be happy to answer any questions that you all may have. Thank you. We will open the public hearing and we have one individual, Mitch Craig signed up to speak. Thank you. You can begin. Thank you. If you can speak into the mic, I know we've been having some issues. I'm not sure it's there. It's Craig with CE Group 301 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603. I'm here representing the owner, developer and here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in this public hearing? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any questions or comments? Commissioner Bryan. I have two minor corrections for staff. Page three, section D, first paragraph. I think it's attachment six rather than five that you're referencing. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. And on page four, section F, second paragraph, it's attachment eight rather than attachment six. Thank you, Commissioner Bryan. Thank you, Commissioner Bryan. Commissioner Miller. I have a couple of questions for the developer. If you can develop this piece of property with 33 single family homes under the RR zone, why do you want to rezone it to RS 20 and develop 31? Because it's not physically possible to develop it without many lots under the current zoning because of the power easement in the rear of the property. That's an excellent answer. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll accept a motion. Commissioner Bryan. I move that we send case Z1700043 forward to the board of county commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by Commissioner Bryan, seconded by Commissioner Alturk. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 11 to zero. Okay, thank you. We will move to our next case. That's case Z1700051. This is 5246 North Roxboro Road. We'll start with the staff report. Well, thank you, Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. I will not touch the microphone this time. So this is a request submitted by Richard Berry. This is for property located at 5246 North Roxboro Street. This is in the city's jurisdiction. Approximately a two acre site that is requesting to change the present zoning designation of commercial neighborhood with a development plan to commercial neighborhood with a development plan. The new development plan that is proposed would limit this site to a maximum of 20,000 square feet of commercial floor area. An aerial view of the property. You can see it highlighted in red. I'm just a little bit south of the Infinity Ladder Road interchange with North Roxboro Street. Just north of West Point on the Eno as well or parts of the Eno Park, I should say. Some area photos. You can find these also in your staff report. Looking at the couple of vantage points from Roxboro Street, the first two in the bottom left-hand corner and then the bottom right-hand corner is the neighborhood that is located off of Omega Road to the rear of the subject site. The zoning context map, as I noted and the property is on CND and applicant is requesting to go to CND as well. The previous zoning at the site was approved in 1987. On that development plan, restricted the use of this site to a family care home. That was the only use permitted under that development plan. So with this development plan, the applicant is not restricting the uses save or anything that would trigger a TIA. Any uses that would trigger a TIA would be prohibited by this new development plan. The future land use map, the property is already zone commercial. I'm sorry, designated as commercial. So the proposed CND district. It's within that designation. Proposed conditions, as I noted, the applicant is proposing a maximum of 20,000 square feet. You can see this as sheet C2.0 as part of attachment five in your package. Access would be provided from North Roxboro Street to this site. Some general development standards for the CND district. Minimum required is 5,000 square feet of side area. The maximum is 20,000. 25 foot street yard setback. The rear yard is 25 feet as well. Building coverage at a maximum of 60% as well as a maximum of 35 feet in height. Some of the key committed elements as I noted the 20,000 square foot of floor area. No uses which would trigger a TIA. The noted side access point, project boundary buffers. And in terms of design commitments, flatter pitched roofs, and no plastic or vinyl siding would be permitted if this request is approved. Three key comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request. Staff found the request to be consistent with those. Furthermore, staff found that this request was consistent with other applicable policies and ordinances. And I'll be happy to answer any questions the commission may have at this time. Thank you. Thank you. We will open the public hearing. We have one individual signed up to speak in favor. Mr. Jim Clark. Good evening, commissioners. Jim Clark, I'm with PAPS Design Group, the engineer for the project. Principal location of our business is 9-11 Paverstone, Drives, Suite E in Raleigh, North Carolina 27615. And I'd be happy to field any questions you have about the particular development plan or this application. Thank you. We'll call you back if we have any questions. Would anyone else like to speak in the public hearing? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, we'll start to my left. Any questions or comments? Commissioner Miller. If you would come back to the mic, sir, I'd appreciate it. I'm looking at your development plan. You show a 30-foot project boundary buffer with us, I believe it says, I'm reading it correctly, 60% opacity, is that what I'm seeing there? That's correct. 60% and, of course, you have two alternatives to that that you can elect to do right up to the time of site plan approval. And one is to reduce the boundary buffer and put in, I believe, a wall or a dense hedge. And then the third one is the interactive buffer model, and I never know what that's going to produce. Do you know which buffer you prefer to do? For the design plan, or for the development plan on C2-0, I believe on the east part of the lot is the one you're talking about, correct? Exactly. So my concern is the buffering against the five houses that share a three-share long property line with you and two-share a partial or smaller one. I would like to make sure that if this property gets developed for a commercial purpose, that those properties are properly buffered. It's my understanding before that this property, today this property is committed to a residential nursing facility that's not going to be built. Right, that's correct. So the facility that was proposed in 1987 is not going to be built. The purpose of this is to remove that development condition. And you can come in here and put in a number of CN related uses, commercial ones. Some of them could even be open fairly late in the evening. And I just want to make sure that these houses that back up to it, before I vote, I would like to know or have in my mind a reasonably clear picture of how those houses are going to be buffered from what might go on the site. Yes, so two things. The comment about the uses that are proposed, any allowable use in the CN district is still allowed. As Jacob described in the opening, it would be limited to the extent that it doesn't create 150 trips, peak hour trips, which would generate a traffic investigation to happen. So basically, if you look at the use table, any of those that are allowed to the extent that they don't exceed 150 trips, they would be allowed. So they're limited in square footage by that. Secondly, the tree coverage area, it's called tree coverage area number one that you're referring to. The CN district, when it's butted up against the residential district like it is, requires a minimum 30-foot-wide, 60% opacity. So that's also called out there, but it's also committed graphically here on the development plan. But it can be reduced to 22.5. I'm sorry? It can be reduced under the ordinance and under the terms of your development plan to 22.5. And I think to do that, you have to come in with a wall or a dense edge. Is that right? Yeah, you can reduce it with the presence of a wall. Yeah. And then the third alternative, which, and maybe this language would prevent the third alternative is the interactive boundary buffer model, which is a computer algorithm. Does this limit that? This gives two alternatives and does not specifically mention the third one, that the code allows. Does this language exclude that interactive boundary buffer model? In this case, I think, given the specificity on the development plan, that is true. I don't think the applicant would have the option for the interactive buffer model there. All right, thank you. Thank you both very much. Commissioner Harris. Mr. Judd, the question has to do with what is the redesigning of the Roxburgh Infinity-Atlata Road intersection technique consideration with this project? Yes, Bill Judd's transportation. The current best available information we have for that project, I believe that applicant did show the proposed right away based on that. It's my understanding NCDOT is working up another alternative for that based on feedback that they got at the last public meeting last fall. So they've not finalized those plans yet, so I don't know how, if they choose that alternative, how that might impact this property, just because that information is not available at this time. So even without that information, it would be a right turn only coming out of that property, right? Very likely. Although the other alternative they're looking at may or may not have the median along Roxburgh, which might end up not restricting it to right only. Other roads are right turn only in that section because of the accident factor, five lanes of traffic. Yes, like I said, the new alternative they're looking at was partially due to some of that response about restricting access to some of those properties and commercial driveways. So I think the, yeah, I'm not exactly certain whether or not they're gonna propose a median. They were, last time I talked to them, they were going back and evaluating the existing accident history and trying to determine whether or not from a safety standpoint, they absolutely had to have a median or not. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Bryan, Commissioner Johnson. Just a quick question to confirm an assumption I'm making. So when we say an application says up to 20,000 square feet, that could be multiple facilities or buildings on this parcel, not just one single building, correct? Yeah, we haven't limited it to one building. There's really not a whole lot of room to have put multiple buildings and be able to park it, but no, it's not limited to one building, but total square footage would be added together and the existing, you know, in the development tier that we're in, the CN zoning is limited to 20,000 already, that's matched also by our proposal. But as I was mentioning earlier, that that would be an absolute maximum just like in the CN zoning now, only it's limited and will probably end up being lower than that because of the traffic counts. Gotcha, thanks. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Gibbs. I wanna be sure I'm on here. Regardless of what they do with the Roxboro Road, the entrance that's being proposed here is we're gonna have to learn to split hairs on this commission. It's gonna be almost, it's gonna be close and almost just beyond where the proposed turnaround to go back down to the intersection in order to gain access to infinity coming from the north. Don't, I shouldn't have even mentioned that because that was the crux of the complaints about what DOT was planning to do with this intersection. This has nothing to do with your project except my original point. Even if they go ahead with the intersection as proposed, I think you're gonna, this entry is gonna be right there on the border where a left turn and right turn can be made going in and out of here. But that remains to be seen. I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you, Commissioner Gibbs. Any other comments? And if not, this is the appropriate time for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we send case Z1700051 concerning the property at 5246 North Roxburgh Road forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Alturk. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. And our final zoning map hearing this evening is case Z1700054, Salix Drive. And we'll start with the staff report, Ms. Sunyak. Good evening. I'm Jamie Sunyak with the planning department. I will be presenting case number Z1700054, Salix Drive. The applicant is Sean Gorman from Salix Drive, LLC. The address is generally located at 425 Scott King Road. Scott King Road, the jurisdiction is currently within the county limits and they're pending annexation. The existing future land use designation is very low density residential, which is two dwelling units per acre or less. The rezoning request is currently our rural residential and the applicant is seeking rural suburban 20. The site is 6.54 acres and the proposal is 11 single family lots. No development plan was submitted as part of this application. This slide shows the aerial map. The property subject site is shown in red. It is two properties on the south side of Scott King Road, just west of the intersection of Salix Drive. The site is located within the suburban tier and it's located within the Cape Fear River Basin. It is located within the southern part of Durham County. The property is heavily wooded as shown in these pictures and no structures are presently found at the site. There are a number of photos that highlight the area. The site is adjacent to vacant, heavenly wooded land to the west and some single family homes to the north and on the south side of Scott King Drive. On the north side of Scott King is the Herodon Park to the east are residential homes along Salix Drive and to the south is the subdivision Jordan at South Point. This is the future land use map. The property as mentioned is located in the very low density residential designation and this designation is consistent with the request of rezoning. The zoning context maps as shown here, the property is currently within the rural residential shown on the left and the proposal on the right is to change to rural is to change to rural suburban 20. There's no development plan as mentioned. So this slide basically highlights the standards that would apply for the RS 20. There's a maximum density of two units per acre with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. As shown are a lot widths and side yards, rear yards and so forth. The proposed RS 20 designation complies with the current very low density residential designation on the future land use map and apical policies and this request is consistent with policies 231B and 232A. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. You're welcome. We will now open the public hearing. We have two individuals signed up to speak in favor, Sean Gorman and against Erica Young. Mr. Gorman. Thank you, Ms. Soniac for the presentation. Good evening, Chairperson Busby and fellow commissioners, I'm Sean Gorman, 5011 South Park Drive here in Durham. The applicant for what we think is a modest zoning change request to the RS 20 zoning district, allowing for conforming suburban single family residential lots. As Ms. Soniac mentioned, our proposal of the RS 20 district complies with the UDO and current very low density residential designation on the future land use map. Our intent with the property is to bring single family homes to the site that are consistent with the area. We would like to bring neighbors to the area to utilize the amazing city infrastructure that's in place currently, such as Herndon Park across the street, as well as the American Tobacco Trail. Overall, we feel this proposal of the RS 20 district is more appropriate with public utilities on site than that of the current RR zoning district. We have met with or had conversations with about 70% of the adjoining neighbors to fill them in on our proposal. There were no issues brought up regarding zoning. There was an issue regarding blasting by the developer to the south, the neighborhood, Jordan at South Point. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval and I will make myself available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Erica Young. I live right on the south end of St. Luke's Drive. I've spoken to a bunch of my neighbors as well. We have, you know, neighbor meetings. And we have a few things that we would like to see that come with this neighborhood that we think are lacking, that we're lacking when the large neighborhood to the south was put in. The neighborhood of St. Luke's Drive has been affected by the development of Durham quite a bit in the past few years. The blasting that took place next to our houses that ruined our foundations, the noise, the light pollution and the increase of traffic on their rural road changed our lives and has stolen money from our properties. Many of us have been told that our houses are in need of tens of thousands of dollars in foundation work, many of which were in perfect condition only five years ago and are now in dire need of repair. The windows on my house no longer hold seals and many of them are jammed. Cars now fly down our road with no mind to the speed limit and with three families on the road with small children, I don't need to tell you how concerning that is. The increase in traffic from fast cars to dump trucks have increased the pollution on our road many times and currently the runoff goes straight into the ground above our wells, which could be a concern for years to come. It stands to reason that our community is cautious when the issue of rezoning for a new development comes up. Nevertheless, we understand that the plans are proposed are in line with Durham's plans for the future. We simply ask that when you make these plans you keep in mind the current residents of the neighborhoods in question. Is the Durham, is city of Durham going to annex the current neighborhood if our wells are ruined and we need city water? Because I wish to be in control of our choice to live in the city or not. If blasting for the sewer ruins more of our foundation or further damages our property in other ways, is there some way that we can seek compensation for that? The city needs to provide speed bumps on our road and the method for dealing with the runoff of pollution of the traffic now traversing our road as well as this road that we put in is not rated for the amount of traffic that currently traverses it and they have to repair it several times a year now. It's always being repaired and there are always cracks. I think that it was not actually up to code when they put it in, it is thinner than they said needed to be put in. My neighbor has the specs on that. In regards to the rezoning plans, like there's not a lot there. There's no plan submitted because it's a small neighborhood. So I mean, I don't know, I can't speak to that particular but in the rezoning plans, the U-Smiths who border and our borders were not taken into account with the plans and we would like a border of woods between ourselves and the community. There's a creek that runs in the back of my house that when it rains it's filled with water and I know that when the community down south got put in, our land was continuously flooding because of the poor work with the stream and so I know that any time that they do construction they're gonna have issues with runoff and it's gonna send everything straight on to my property and so I want some kind of requirement for them to deal with that. So the U-Smiths community understands that this is direction of the city and of the county, that this is what you guys are planning on developing in our area, but we ask that rezoning comes hand in hand with infrastructure improvements that will allow development to be done in a responsible manner and that does not leave existing communities fitting the bill for progress, thank you. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak in the public hearing? Not seeing anyone, we'll close the public hearing. We may ask one or both of you to come back up if we have any questions from any commissioners. Commissioners, any questions or comments? Commissioner Johnson and then Commissioner Gauch. So I apologize in advance to my fellow commissioners and those in the audience, but I need a little education here. So for the applicant developer, you stated that this requested change is essentially more in line with the existing utilities versus what will be required under the RR and correct me, but can you provide me a little insight on what would be required under the RR versus what you're, how does this make it easier or more conducive to what you're proffering here? I think what? Posing. I think what you're referring to is what I said regarding when we bring it to RS 20, it makes more sense to have utilities in front of a residential sub, the suburban tier, a residential suburban tier, I think it makes more sense to bring utilities to a property that's owned or residential suburban rather than residential rural. Does that answer your question? Partially, a quick follow up. Is that, is that, is that your personal perspective or is that more, is there some, what's that based on basically, I guess, what leads you to come to that conclusion? And I ask this question because I'm not a utilities person, an infrastructure person, so I'm just. Yeah, just in my view a rural, a house in a rural subdivision has septic and well, whereas anything that's owned RS 20 in the city is gonna have public utilities in front of it. All right. Great, thank you. Commissioner Ghosh. Thank you. I did want to respond a little to some of the concerns I heard from the neighbors. I think one thing that was mentioned was that there was some, you all experienced some damage to your foundation from blasting. Now, I'm sure you can appreciate that that this rezoning obviously has nothing to do with the previous damage, but one question you asked was, is there any form of recourse for that? I mean, just legally speaking, yes, there is. And when they do blasting, there's a certain proximity within which they need to provide notice that they will be blasting. They do a foundation check before and they're supposed to do one after. And if that didn't occur, I mean, there may be, you may have some recourse against whoever was doing the blasting. I appreciate the concern and I don't know and I don't know that the developer would know already whether any blasting will occur on this site, but as property owners, I think that it is important. Obviously you want to be aware of your rights and protect them to the extent possible. So there probably is something that you could pursue there. You also asked the question whether the city would annex you if your wells ran dry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that there no longer is involuntary annexation. Now, you can, if your well does run dry, there are I think emergency opportunities for you to receive city water without being annexed or that kind of, but my understanding is that this development, correct me if I'm wrong, will be in the city and will therefore be serviced by city water and sewer. So your groundwater will not be affected. The water table is not affected in that scenario. So there again, I think the development isn't necessarily going to affect your access to water. So I just wanted to let you know that and I think that the proposal in front of us is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's a very, on the scale of things, is a very low density, not very intense type of development and it's even called for in that manner in our comprehensive plan. So ultimately I think this kind of development does make sense in that area. That's not to say that your concerns are not warranted, but I don't know, I mean, I think I'm inclined to support this type of proposal. And as opposed to a previous case of what I heard was that the developer has met with many of the neighbors. I assume that to be true, but if it's not, I guess I would have a concern, but it appears that they've done some community outreach and tried to get an understanding of what the concerns would be. Commissioner Ghosh, any additional comments or questions? No, that's all. Great, Ms. Sanyak, any? There is not an involuntary annexation process, but if there is a health and safety concern, then the city would consider your property for annexation, you would have to petition for that. I just had a question though for you. Which property is yours? Are you on the east or? You should have the mic. Okay. If you can come to the microphone, if you don't mind. For all of us, can you show us the map? Could you just for the record state your name and your address, please? Eric Young and my address is 8106 Salix Drive. It's the very bottom panhandle shaped property. Okay. Thank you. Cool, okay. Great, Commissioner Bryan. Before you get back to your seat, I think I know the answer to this question, but I take it you're in the county right now. Yeah. Thank you. This is another one of these cases. This is a very small project. Again, I'm sorry that we don't have a development plan to address some of the issues that have been raised. I for one would like to know whether you're planning to access via Salix Drive or Scott King Road. Yes, sir. We are planning on bringing utilities up Salix Drive. See, now if we had a development plan, I'd probably push you for a commitment to maybe make some foundation improvements to Salix Drive because what that lady says is quite true. It wasn't built to handle the traffic. It's being forced on it now. Sure. And I'm also, you know, are you going to clear cut? I hope not, but are you gonna clear the lots individually? We have not gotten that far in the planning process. By now there is no plan to do that. Okay. And you did say something about building houses that will sort of be in conformity with what's around you, but I'd like some clarification on that. If you're matching the houses along Salix Drive, that sounds good. They've got nice lots, but if you're gonna match Jordan at South Point, I don't like it at all. Sure. Yeah, I would say it's more conforming with the area, which is Lions Farm down in Scott King, Jordan at South Point, Clawson Drive, just at the corner of Herndon Road in Scott King. All those developments are all... Good, because Jordan at South Point, in my opinion, is a mess. Well, it's a very large project and it was developed under RR, so they got 177 lots in there. I'm not telling somebody to already know, but the lots are smaller than what we were proposing. Okay. It's the same. It was also supposed to be a conservation subdivision. Any additional questions? But that's all I have. I'm just, again, sorry we didn't have more detail presented to us. Thank you, Commissioner Bryan. Commissioner Hyman? Yes, I wanted to ask the developer a question, please. And it's in regards to the issues raised by the resident. She mentioned infrastructure improvements and thin streets with thin streets. And so my question, what impact would your development project have on those streets that she's referencing? On Salix Drive? Yes. It's my understanding that Mayor Tosh Holmes, who developed Jordan at South Point, brought that up to city standards. I guess it doesn't have curb and gutter, but it was resurfaced from what it was before they purchased the property. And I'm sorry, what was your follow-up there? So it's your observation then that the streets have been brought up to standard. I noticed that she had mentioned that there was some patching, but streets normally have to meet approval. So you're saying those streets have met the required approvals, is that correct? It has been resurfaced once Jordan at South Point was. Re-surface, yes, but have they met requirements for streets are normally approved and then turned over when they are suitable and substantial to meet? I'm not sure what the plan was with Jordan at South Point, as we weren't involved with that project. I don't know what they committed to the city. I just know that streets can sometimes be a big surprise to individuals and they find out after the fact that they're not up to standard. So I think that that's something that needs to be known upfront. Okay, thank you. Any additional questions, Commissioner Hyman? No, thank you. Commissioner Miller. Do you know, have you made any kind of testing or anything about whether or not it's going to be necessary to blast in order to install city, sewer and water? We have not gotten that far. We do think it won't, we're not planning on it right now. Our Topo, we do have a slope to Salix Drive. So we do think we shouldn't have a problem with our depth of sewer. And there's sewer and water currently in Scott King? There's water. Water, sewer's not available. So how are you going to do sewer service? Coming up Salix Drive to the north to our property. Oh, you're going to bring it up? Yes sir. Okay, that's interesting. So your water will come from Scott King and your sewer service is going to come up Salix? Yeah, we haven't decided on water. So you're going to be cutting Salix up again? All right. Yeah, we haven't decided on water. We could get it from Scott King. And Bill, my partner Bill Ripley could maybe speak to that a little bit more, but... But he left. No, there he is. What are you going to do, Bill, do you know? And if you can come to the microphone, please introduce yourself, your name, address and address the question from Commissioner Miller. Thank you. Bill Ripley, 5011 South Park Drive Durham. Utilities, I give you an honest answer. We're going to do what the city tells us to do. And sewer obviously is coming from the south, Jordan at South Point coming up Salix. Water is available to the north or the south and it may be coming from both directions. So it's up to the engineering department to tell us what's required. So best I can tell you we're going to serve it one way or the other with utilities. But today is either water or sewer in Salix Drive. Sewer is in Salix, water and sewer both in Salix at the south terminus of Miss Young's property. Okay, but it's down at the bottom. It doesn't come up. It's about 200 feet from our property. So we'll be bringing it up to Salix and the city will also infrastructure. They will make us fix or repair that street to whatever standard the city has. Right now it's a state maintained road. And this is a very odd shaped piece of property. Can you get, how many 20,000 square foot lots can you get out of that piece of property? Do you think? Up to 11, maybe 10. We won't know until we site plan. You think you can get 11 in there? What I see is a street coming in in two bulbs. Yeah, it could be 10. We haven't gotten that far. All right, very good. And are you going to develop this or are you going to pass it on to somebody else? We do plan on developing this sir. All right, very good. Any additional questions? Commissioner Miller? No, I'm not done. Anyone else? Any additional questions or comments? Commissioner Bryan? We'll solve all for the wall question, but in the course of bringing water and sewer up Salix or down Salix or some combination of both to serve your project, could it be set up so that in the future, if it was necessary the people who currently live along Salix could ultimately connect? Yes, they could. I believe there's frontage fees and cap facility fees associated with that, but yeah. Okay, thank you. Make one clarification. Yes. Planning department. So the statement about the Salix being that the city could require that the developer bring it up to city standards that is actually in the county. So that is not something that is guaranteed that that would happen. Yeah, that's it's a state road. Right, I was speaking with Mr. Judge and the utilities more than likely. I'm not an engineer. I'm just putting this on the record so you know that they may not even be allowed to put them under the pavement. The state would not normally allow for that to happen. They would have to be put in the shoulder potentially versus under the pavement. So that has not been determined yet, but I just wanted to make sure that no one left this meeting thinking that this road was gonna be improved to city standard. No, I was just afraid it was gonna be torn up again. Yeah, I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. It's not coming into the city. Right, and in order, well, we've discussed whether she'd be riding or not and that might be something that we talk about at a later date, but I know that right now it's not proposed to be as part of this application. Yeah, my question actually was where sewer and water extensions were gonna go. Right, but I think there was a comment made about, I think there was a comment made about that it would be improved to city standards. I think I heard that and I just wanted to make sure that we clarified that that might not be the case. Right, okay, thank you. Any additional questions or comments? Discussion or a motion? Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna move that we send cases E1700054 concerning the property at Salix Drive forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Is there a second? Second. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Alturk and we'll have a roll call vote please. Commissioner Alturk? Yes. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Commissioner Gouche? Yes. Commissioner Bryan? Yes. Commissioner Harris? Yes. Commissioner Hyman? Yes. Chair Busby? Yes. Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Kinchin? Yes. Commissioner Van? Yes. Commissioner Gibbs? Yes. Motion carries 11 to zero. Thank you. So our final official item on tonight's agenda is a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance. This is TC-18 WD04 zoning permit. Thank you, Jacob Wiggins of the Planning Department. No presentation for this item. So there's an attached ordinance in your packet. This is a new permit or new initiative from the Development Services Center. The zoning permit would be required for new single family developments, duplex projects, perhaps accessory structures, decks, et cetera. And it also would apply to changes of views where there is not a site plan required. I'm currently in terms of residential development. These cases are, these new homes are being reviewed on a case-by-case basis between the inspections department and the planning department. This permit is designed to clarify that process, both for planning staff and inspection staff. Presently inspections reviews all single family permits. They will interface with planning when they have questions. Sometimes between the two parties we're looking at different things that we don't catch everything. So the zoning permit is designed to something that would be applied prior to building permits so that it would clarify both things for planning staff or inspection staff, as well as the applicant. Because part of this review on staff will note if there's any other issues on the property that have not been brought up, perhaps there's something that would require board of adjustment action or things of that nature. So before someone gets to the building permit stage and invest that amount of money, this is kind of a quick check on the front end for that. Another part of it is some of you all may recall that the city used to have business licenses. Most municipalities in the state did until the state took that option of way. That was one way that planning staff tracked change of uses that don't require a site plan. This is because someone would have to come in for that verification to get that. So we've not had that for the last couple of years. So this process, this permit will also help streamline that process for staff. There will be a nominal fee. It is currently projected to be $30 for this permit. And I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have about this ordinance and permit process. Thank you, Mr. Wiggins. We do have a public hearing, am I correct? That's associated. So we will open the public hearing and see if anyone has signed up. Great, thank you. I'm sure we'll be back with questions. Yes, Mr. Bill Ripley has signed up to speak. Bill, welcome back. Bill Ripley, 51 South Park. I shouldn't speak to this, but I agree with Mr. Miller on this. This is a new process. This is, basically it's a new tax, but it's not gonna hurt me or developers. This is a homeowner tax. When you wanna build a deck, or put a cement pool in and add it to your house, or every builder that builds a new single-family house. And while it's proposed at 30 today, it's 100 next year, 300 next year. But the biggest problem, pass it, be along with it, shouldn't expire in three months. There's no reason an architect and a homeowner and a builder should have their permit expire in three months. They gotta come back and get another one. It's the same thing as looking at the map. It says zoning is R20, you can do X. Charge the citizens for it if you want to, but it should be good for at least a year. That's all I'm gonna do. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm gonna just close the public hearing. And we have one other person who just gave me the thumbs up. So we'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, Commissioner Alturk. I just wanted to ask staff to comment on that last comment by Mr. Ripley, is that right? About expiring in three months rather than longer? Yeah, so I'll clarify that. The permit would expire if one does not apply for a building permit within three months. So it's because factors change pretty regularly. Yeah, I think that's the intent behind that. So if they apply for it, then it can... Yeah, if you get your zoning permit, again, the zoning permit is something that is proposed to be reviewed within a couple of business days. So the idea being that you get that check and then, or you get that permit checked off and then proceed to building at that point. You wait three or four months, you may need to come back in and get a new zoning permit before you proceed to the building permit stage. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson. So following up to that, I'm Mr. Wiggins. So what factors are you all considering that has triggered the three months threshold? And I ask this in the sense that you can get a building permit and you have, what, 12 months to actually execute what you're gonna do under your building permit before you have to get a new one. So factors can change then, but it's basically at your grandfathered end. So what is it about the zoning three month threshold that causes you to give a shorter timeline? That's a very good question. Commissioner Johnson, I'm gonna defer to Robin Young on that one. If you can't move the microphone in 30 days, it expires. I'm Robin Young with the Development Services Center. So with the purpose of the zoning permit is what happens typically is a homeowner comes in and wants to do some kind of construction item or builds a construction item and then inspections has to go out and check it out. And then they come back to planning to say, hey, are the setbacks right? Is the impervious surface right before they'll sign off on the building permit? So this was sort of like a prerequisite so that when it gets to the building, they have a one sheet piece of paper that says, hey, they've already been through planning. It's ready to go. We've seen the plot plan with the setbacks and now all we can do is check it and then give the building permit. And so inspections has even said they can apply for both the zoning permit and the building permit at the same time. And but inspections will not move forward until the zoning permit is complete. And we're hoping that that helps staff and citizens with faster processing. So that's helpful. Quick question for staff. How much is in I haven't paid, haven't gotten one in recently, but how much is the building permit, the cost? Jacob Wiggins with the Plain Department. It varies, typically based on the square footage of what you're doing and the type of use. Just confirming. So it seems like one of the goals is to incentivize basically action in part on behalf of the homeowner or whoever is applying. But what if there are financial factors or something that just doesn't allow a homeowner to move as quickly as the city would desire. It seems that this is a little punitive and that I can get started and then deal with whatever it takes for me to get to the building permit application. But now you're saying that there may be duplicative costs for the zoning permit because I didn't do it within three months. And so that's just the issue that I have in regards to that the rationale. I get the logic, but it's the... So just remember it's not that they have to get their building permit, they just have to apply for it. Most people come in and know they wanna build a deck or they wanna build a structure, a shed in their backyard. And so we then sit down with them and say, okay, you can do this, it has to be this far off the rear property line, this far off. And so that way they have this zoning permit and they have all the regulations, all the demographics, everything they need to in order to make it work. And then it can go straight to building and inspections. Yep, I get you. I'm just my concerns, but I told you where you're coming. No, it's a valid point. And I'm trying to figure out how to say that inspections is also looking forward to this happening to help them so they don't have to circle back and have time delays by coming back to planning. Commissioner Goesch. So Robin, I think this is probably for you. Can you just walk me through? So I apply for a zoning permit, what happens? And this is for structures. I do wanna clarify that it's not for fences or swimming pools, but it is for a deck or anything that would cause impervious surface, a structure, another dwelling on the property. And so there's one application to fill out. And once that's filled out and paid, then our staff goes through and marks everything from environmental to impervious surface to setbacks to historic districts to MPO so that all the information is completed and then it spits out a permit in our computer system, which is then linked to the inspections department. And it can flag them and say, hey, if they've submitted their building permit, their zoning permit's ready to go, you can now take this and run with it. So is there a site visit? There's not a site visit for the zoning permit. Okay. We can look up the zoning online and we have all the regulations for that online. Which was actually the point that I was making. I don't really understand what the point of the zoning permit is. I mean, like you said, you can look up the zoning online and you can look up all the regulations. It also occurs to me, I might be wrong on this, that a zoning verification letter costs 14 bucks. I'm not real clear on why this zoning permit will cost 30 bucks. I recognize that there are some other things that they check, but I mean, all of this stuff is generally available online. If the point is to assist the inspections department, make it run more smoothly, I feel like some internal training could take care of that. This is something that I think a regular citizen with enough time on their hand can look up online like you said. Sure. Commissioner Goves, I would agree with that. I think what we see as staff is that regular citizens don't have the time to do that. Probably. I think part of this, I agree with you, this is kind of similar to a zoning verification letter. Yeah, and basically, yeah, the intent is this will ultimately replace that. So this isn't just something like Robin mentioned, this isn't something where you're basically getting a plot plan, we're just checking yes. We're gonna do basically like we would with the zoning verification analysis, we're gonna look at all different parameters of the site. True, someone from the inspections department could do that, but the inspections department is also tasked with enforcing the North Carolina State Building Code. So there's only so much time they have on their hands as well. The staff is also looking at, in terms of the fee, staff is looking at some options to reduce the fee for families. We haven't gotten that approved yet, but that is, if needed, if there are fee reductions for people if this is an owner's cost, there may be some options for that. But yeah, I think basically we see this as ultimately replacing the zoning verification, but also giving someone a little bit more information than they would normally get. Sometimes you may have experienced this, you submit a building permit, and they'll say, denied, go talk to planning. And that's not necessarily very helpful to a citizen in that regard. So this would hopefully give them all the information they need, basically we're gonna do all that research for them on the front end for $30. Yeah, and I actually am not necessarily opposed to having this replace the zoning verification letter. I think maybe the part I have trouble with is why this would be required. Like, a zoning verification letter is not required in any circumstances, the service that the city planning department provides. And when a citizen finds a need for it, they pay for one and they get it. And I would agree that that zoning verification letter itself could be more robust. This sounds like a more robust zoning verification letter, but making it a requirement for, I mean, to me it's kind of more on the margins type of thing. If we're talking about a huge development, whatever, it doesn't matter. But if you're talking about adding a, I don't know, attached garage or shed, I don't know, just something that really shouldn't be that big a deal. It seems like something like this, I mean, I don't think $30 is gonna upset your project there, but something like this is just, I don't know, just seems like another process that in my mind, isn't necessarily needed and therefore should not be required. Maybe it could be offered as something to speed the process up. So if you want to pay 30 bucks, you had some assurances that your building permit review won't be screwed up, I don't know. But otherwise, it's kind of luck of the draw or whatever. Maybe something like that would be more palatable. I don't know how I feel about it. Understood, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Gose. Commissioner Brain. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I share Commissioner Johnson's concern about the short fuse that seems to be attached to this because when I think of some of the work that's gone on in my neighborhood and how slowly it's progressed from one reason or another money being one example of why things were slow, I think people would have been coming back more than once or twice to renew. So I really think if you're gonna do something like this, it needs to go longer than three months. Sure, Commissioner Brain, yeah, we appreciate that. We're certainly open to extending that timeframe for sure. If the commission has a recommendation, we'll certainly take it under consideration. Thank you. Commissioner Harris. I guess I'm hung up on the name, Zoning Permit, and you're not requesting a change in zoning. I mean, if I'm building a deck on my house, I'm not gonna change this, I don't so why zoning? Yeah, well, it kind of captures a couple of different things. So again, this permit will capture residential development as well as non-residential development. So perhaps the name, I think we looked at it as, as we discussed earlier, almost a cantor zoning verification. So you're not changing anything through that, you're just verifying what's there. So that's what this permit will be doing. It's more like a verification in regards to what the zoning code will allow you to do. Okay, so you're verifying whether or not I can do what I plan to do. Project feasibility. 10,000 square foot home, I wanna add 20,000 square feet to it. So yes, you wanna allow me to do that. Yes, sir. Commissioner Miller. So I'm in favor of this. Other jurisdictions have been doing it for 50 years. It seems to me that it's in the community's best interest to make sure in some sort of orderly, regularized fashion that people don't get launched down financial stream and then find out that they've got a problem and it happens. It happens all the time in areas like where I live where no lot is conforming because they were made before we created the zoning that governs them. These things are complicated and you can't, and I'm sorry, I can't look it up online. I need the plane staff to help me. I can figure it out and I think I'm right, but I feel a lot better. When I've talked to somebody and they've looked at it and they've told me yes and that's a zoning permit, what I need is a piece of paper. I'm against the fee. We already charge for this review. It seems to me this is getting the general public online with a process to make the staff's life easier. The staff should be doing this. This is what we do when we regulate property. If you take the fee away, the three month term doesn't matter because if it runs out then you can get another one. I think the three month term is important because if I'm not mistaken under the statutes, a zoning permit would vest the zoning. I do not want to vest zoning for long periods of time. If you get a one year zoning permit life, you could on day 364 apply for your building permit. Now the zoning permit doesn't matter anymore and now we're vested again. I do not want to have these legal hand ties on the community's ability to change the rules and affect future development. So a three month term as long as there is no fee or a nominal fee only is fine with me. I think this is something that we've needed to do for a long time so that ordinary citizens are not bouncing back and forth between departments or finding out that they've got a problem after they've started. And I know that you're tired of dealing with these things too and also compartmentalize that our building inspectors are building code and that our zoning people are zoning and it seems to me it just makes more sense because the review is happening. So let's make it, let's have it organized in tears and do it that way but I'm against the fee. And one of the reasons why I'm against the fee is this applies to little guys. The big guys are gonna go through site plan and that is their zoning permit process. The little guys, the guy who's going to build one house on one lot or is going to add to his property or build a deck, they are the only people who are gonna be paying this and I just don't wanna throw another nickel or another dime onto his cost. Let him pay for the building permit, the city gets that money, that's all but the zoning check needs to come first and when he goes and he says I need a building permit and they said first you need to go get your zoning permit. Okay and I can see the face is falling and then they find out well we'll have this back to you within a certain number of days and it doesn't cost anything then all of a sudden he's feeling better and his project is safer going forward. So I'm all for this, I am against the fee, I have a question. So what you're asking us to pass is the statutory provisions that set up the fee procedure and this would be in article three of the code. It doesn't have anything to do with the fee. I mean with the process, this is the procedure. The fee comes somewhere else in some business that doesn't come to us and I know that at certain intervals during the year at least once you have a thing where you ask the JCC, I never could get that to this, JCC, yeah whatever it is, yes those guys to look at it and then it goes to the bodies and that and that I suppose would be the place where I would object to this fee except for that I'm going to support this but I'm going to make it clear in my comments that I'm against there being any fee to it. I would feel differently if this was a few more dollars on the people who can afford to pay for it but for most people, and this includes me and maybe I am wrong to project my own experience onto other people, when I have looked at the few projects that I have done on my own property, every penny matters and we have already used the complicated nature of our zoning code and I'm not advocating going back. It tends to alienate ordinary people from this process and the fees certainly do. If an ordinary person wants to come up and apply for rezoning, that's a lot of money to gamble especially since if they're not even in the market if they want to make some small change to the zoning to protect their property but not necessarily as a commercial enterprise to make money, we have shut them out. I think of all the work that I did 40 years ago in rezonings throughout Durham where the fee was 19 bucks and that was neighborhood initiated. Well, that's over now and I'm against this $30 fee. I'm against a $10 fee. I suppose it was $5, I would quit quibbling but even $30 I'm against and if you take the fee away then the fact that it's a short period on the life of the permit doesn't matter because then you can go apply for another one. So that's how I feel about it and I encourage you folks whether you like the fee or not I think that it's time for Durham to do this. Other communities have done it literally for 50 years and when you read the zoning statutes at the General Assembly and they actually think that everybody does this because it's written in there. We don't, we should. Commissioner Van. Yeah, that was, well, I don't think Commissioner Miller that was actually one of the questions I guess I had. I was trying to look at comparables because I assume as you thought up this idea that you assume you looked at other municipalities of a similar size or a sister size to this city. And so, and I was just wondering, who are they, who are IPs, or who would be IPs rather if this matter moved forward? I mean, I mean. Which borrows from most jurisdictions, I would echo what Commissioner Miller has said, most jurisdictions in the state have some version of this regardless of size. I can speak from my own personal experience in previous jurisdictions I worked for that were on a smaller scale than Durham. Yeah, this was the norm. If you wanted to build something you would go get your zoning permit and then you would proceed or whatever they called it and then you would proceed to the building inspections stage at that point. So I would say, I mean, I don't have the numbers in front of me but I think a majority of the municipalities in North Carolina approach it this way. And have they found how effective this has been? Is there any idea as to impact or? I mean, I would think so because it appears more jurisdictions such as Durham is trying to have that way during the review and understanding or in thinking of this process. I guess you have to go on with this. Yeah, I mean, we certainly reached out to them and we feel based on what we've seen or heard from our peer communities as well as just looking internally at how our processes between the inspection department and planning department have worked over the last 20 years or so that we think this is probably a step in the right direction for both internal city staff as well as the public as well. Okay, thank you very much. Yes, sir. Commissioner Johnson. All right, so we've created a belong of the legal conversation around this but I think it's important to have this conversation. So in regards to staff, I'm gonna assume that the goal here is to create a win-win outcome for both the local agency as well as the end user, the one who's applying for the zoning permit or however we call it. So to follow up on Commissioner Miller's point of about the fee, he doesn't agree with the fee but he does agree that this should be a part of the standard process. If we assume that basic fundamental economic incentive, the whole idea around incentive. So introducing a cost would, one would say in theory, it would lead to likely a reduction in the number of people applying for a building permit if you have to have the zoning permit first because now you have an additional cost. So the outcome could be we have less residents in Durham who's applying for these building permits and because of the zoning. The flip side is that there's revenue that can be generated because now you've instituted a cost and we don't know what the impact will be on the demand for the services. So in trying to find a middle ground from Commissioner Miller's proposition of getting the, not charging a fee but we still institute this from a process standpoint, could it be a way that we allow residents to actually opt in and the city can guarantee or give a pretty firm timeframe of when a free, no charge, well, let's not call it, a no charge to the applicant, they will get a decision regarding this zoning approval or certification, no cost. But then there's an option for expedited that allows the big developers who is not gonna impact their project as my commissioners have, my fellow commissioners had noted, but maybe a pocketbook issue for the average or regular Dermite that they can have the standard, you know, net neutrality, let's call it what we're having at the federal level, but residents may be more inclined to accept that, oh, I'll get my decision in 30 days versus I can pay more than $30 to get an expedited option and that creates a win-win where now we have a process, a process in place, but then we account for the fact that you all have to take the time to do it and that's not free and we're probably not gonna get an expanded budget at the local level for you to get more people, but now there's a way to potentially cover some of the costs of doing that, you know, expedited or workable at night. Just a thought. Thank you. Commissioner Bryan. Listening to comments, it's obvious Commissioner Miller knows about the use of the zoning permits and other jurisdictions and it's also obvious that staff has done some research to see what other jurisdictions are doing. So that leads to a question I probably should have asked earlier. From based on your knowledge and the research, what is the typical timeframe for a zoning permit and other jurisdictions? I can't speak to other jurisdictions. I think it varies depending on the size. It can be a couple of days, sometimes in places it can do it same day. It can be as much as a week. We are shooting for roughly about three business days to review these. No, but okay, but how long are they good for? Oh, life of the permit. Life of the permit. So we actually looked at this text amendment from the city of Asheville. And so that's what we based it off. They're crazy. Any control on left? And a second question in looking at other jurisdictions, Asheville or anywhere else, what about costs? We are very cost comparison. I mean, if we compare, I think we're about the same. We may even be less. Typically all of our development costs have been low compared to Charlotte and Raleigh in places like that for construction drawings and et cetera. And so actually our director and manager already have a fee schedule that they've started the process with, with city council, which includes this in there. They're not here and I haven't been to any of those meetings so I don't know where that stands. All right. Jacob Wiggins playing part, just to clarify that point. So the all planning fees are set by city council and the board of county commissioners. So it's part of this year's budget. This item is noted as part of that for the $30 fee for the upcoming fiscal year. So it's gonna be part of the budget decision and later this month. Correct. Yes, sir. Like next week. Yes, sir. Get your comments in quick. Mr. Brian, any additional comments? And I'll just note that this was heard at last week's joint city county planning committee meeting and my personal opinion is I also have some thoughts about the fee and the level of the fee, Commissioner Johnson. I think you've raised a really interesting point that's worth considering as well as the timeframe. So I'm gonna plan to vote to approve but put those comments in my notes for the governing body to consider. Yeah, and Commissioner, I'm sorry. Chair Busby, I would just echo that. We've heard some good suggestions in terms of the time and the fee is a little bit out of staff's control at this point, but I think those are all very valid comments. And this is something obviously we'll continue to evaluate each year as part of our work program. Great, thank you. Seeing no other comments or questions. This is the... Did you work all the way down? I believe so. I believe anyone have any remaining questions or comments and if not, I will take a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman, I move that we send TC 1-800-004 forward to the governing bodies with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by Commissioner Bryan, seconded. Was that Commissioner Ghosh? Who seconded? Who threw their voice? Commissioner Alturk, well done. All those in favor, please say aye. I'd like to debate the motion if I may. You may. I would like for us, at least to consider sending a, modifying that a little bit by saying that we oppose the fee if that's in fact the way we feel together. And I would ask the maker of the motion and just second to consider whether or not they would consider modifying it that way. And I will also throw out that if you don't wanna do that then I'm still gonna vote in favor of this. And then we can have our several odd comments. But I think that our advice to the governing boards might be a little bit more powerful if we could come together on the fee question. Commissioner Bryan. I don't have any objection to modifying the motion to say that we also recommend that there be no fee. But to a certain extent that hangs me up because I'd also like to stick in there that would have a longer time period from the validity of the permit. So. And Mr. Chairman, if I may, I understand that one. We just go ahead like we are and we can make other individual comments. Okay. So we're back to thank you. We're back to the original motion of approval to send forward to the governing bodies noting that everyone has the opportunity to make their individual comments. All those in favor of approval, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. For the record, Commissioner Johnson was the name? Great. Oh, two nays. Commissioner Johnson and Al Turk voted no. The motion still carries. Nine to two. Nine to two. That was our final official item. We have two unofficial quick items for, they're very official. So first for commissioners Gosh and Bryan, we have your county certificates of appreciation for your service. So congratulations to both of you. The other county commissioners, I believe were given these certificates at the annual appreciation gathering for the county appointees. I will hand these to you in a moment. In addition, we will officially celebrate next month with our always will be the chair to me. When I joined, David Harris was the chair of the planning commission. And this is his final meeting with us as he has term limited. And so I think it's well worth us spending a few minutes now. I know I will miss next month's meeting. So I won't have the pleasure of giving you the well earned proclamation, but I'm gonna start and just say thank you so much for your service. Again, when I joined, I learned a ton from you because you were the chair when I came on this commission. So I was in watch and learn mode and we really appreciate your hard work, your dedication, your insightful questions. I know you're still very active in Durham. So I'm looking forward to seeing you in other capacities, but I really appreciate your service and we're gonna miss having you here. I appreciate those kind words, but $30 a hell. Yeah. My comments last for 90 days. That's right. I opened the floor for any other commissioners. I just staff just wants to clarify, well, Mr. Harris be available to come to the next meeting. So we would like to put that item on the agenda and have you recognize it. I've been told to be here. All right, great. We'll make sure it's on the agenda. Any other comments from commissioners? I would like to suggest that if we put Mr. Harris on the agenda that we put him at the top of the agenda. So that, you know. No, no, no. Mr. Clarification, we have to order it due to by the rules of procedure, but staff will ask for an adjustment to move it to the front. Of course, we're not gonna ask for the whole meeting. Don't expect me to vote for that. Top of our heart, top of the agenda. That's exactly right, exactly right. You know, this was a six-third of meeting in that. We were to be out here at six-third. I'm sorry I asked so many questions. All right, with that, again, we thank you, Commissioner Harris and this meeting is adjourned.