 one minute. Reminder to all commissioners, please enable your cameras and microphones. Thank you. We're at one meeting till a meeting start, one meeting till a meeting start. Once again, please enable your cameras and microphones to all commissioners please. Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome to the May meeting of the Durham Planning Commission. Members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final vote on any issue before us tonight. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom virtual meeting platform. In this virtual meeting platform, public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on video by default. To maintain meeting decorum and a discernible record of the meeting, the chat function has been disabled. Speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time. If you have preregistered, your name will be called for you to make your comments. And if you called in before the meeting started and staff was able to get your information, your name will also be called to speak at the appropriate time as normal. You may also call in during the meeting tonight by dialing 1-301-715-8592. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the public hearing you are interested in starts. After all of the preregistered speakers have shared their comments, I will ask if there is anyone else wishing to speak. At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. And when recognized, state your name and address and make your public comments. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, your recommendation is not favorable. Thank you. Can we have roll call? Thank you. Chair Emondola. Here. Baker. Here. Batista. Here. Busby. Here. Vice-chair Cameron. Here. Cut right. Here. Durkin. Here. Herod. Low. McIver. Morgan. Here. Cease. Here. Carmen Williams. Here. I thought I saw you there. And Zuri Williams. Here. Thank you. We are here and McIver are not present at this time, so we're at 12 members. Michael. There we go. Herod is here. Thank you. Sorry about that. 13 members. I'll ask McIver one more time. We'll see if he shows up late, and if not, we can return to the end of the meeting. Very good. Next on our agenda is the approval of the minutes inconsistency statements from our April 12th meeting. Does anyone have any comments or adjustments to the April planning commission minutes? Seeing none, I would take a motion to approve the minutes. Like a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Second. Moved by Commissioner Herod, seconded by Vice-chair Cameron. Is there any further discussion on the motion? May we have the roll call vote? Emondola. Yes. Baker. Yes. Batista. Yes. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Herod. Yes. Low. Yes. McIver is not here. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. Carmen Williams. Yes. Ann Zory Williams. Yes. It passes 13-0. Thank you. The staff or anyone else have any adjustments to the agenda? There are no adjustments that I'm aware of. Seeing none, we will now move to our public hearings for the night. We'll begin with case Z20 quadruple zero nine, 1110 Old Oxford. This was originally continued from our February 9th meeting and we have been requested to refer this case back to staff, which will then restart the process and it will allow for the applicant to go through more community engagement with the community. As a reminder, this is the commercial case that we saw recently in Braggtown. My proposed move forward would be to go ahead and close the public hearing from this continuance and then immediately vote to refer this back to staff. Does anybody object to that or want to discuss that process? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and then I would accept a motion to defer this case back to staff. Mr. Chair, I move that we refer case number 220 quadruple zero nine, the 1110 Old Oxford Road case to be referred back to the planning department. Second. Great. Moved by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Cutwright. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, may we have the roll call. Who? Mendolia. Yes. Baker. Yes. Batista. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cutwright. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Harrod. Yes. Low. Great. And I see McGuy, uh, Christopher MacGyver has, uh, joined us. So MacGyver. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. Carmen Williams. Yes. And Zuri Williams. Yes. Thank you. It passes unanimously 14-0. Thank you. And it's to staff and the applicant for, um, doing the work to get this one right. So next on our agenda is case Z21 quadruple zero four triangle veteran area referral clinic. We'll begin with the staff report, just as a reminder to everyone in the tenants and all the commissioners. We've seen this case recently and it has returned to us, um, because it, um, some of the notification processes weren't correctly followed. My understanding and based on the staff report is there have not been any updates apart from adding in the, um, additional proffers that were provided during our public hearing when we saw this case before. Um, so just wanted to flag that and keep that high and speed discussed tonight. Yes. Thank you, uh, Chair Mendolia. I will briefly go through the presentation. Uh, again, that was, uh, provided for you, uh, in February. Um, and, uh, as the chair mentioned, there was an error in the posting of signs, which required the public hearing to be held again, uh, with you, the planning commission. Um, again, Z21 zero four triangle veterinary referral hospital. Um, can you all see, uh, the screen? You all see the presentation? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, it, uh, 608 Maureen Road is within the suburban tier and in the city. It's just under two acres. The current zoning is CN and RS 10 and the proposed zoning is commercial neighborhood with a development plan. Uh, the existing, uh, future land use map designation is low density residential. Um, and the recommended, uh, change if the zoning is approved would be commercial. There are no applicable zoning overlays and I don't know why it says none on the proposal, but it, um, it is to expand the existing facility, uh, for, uh, uh, veterinary clinic and office uses. Uh, there is the, uh, context map and as you can see, the site is currently has CN zoning on it. Um, and there are portions of the site that are currently RS 10 and the rezoning is, is to reason just the entire parcel to the CN with development plan. There is the site itself is currently, uh, developed and it was developed, uh, used permit, uh, for that use. There are the existing conditions. You can see the existing structure and parking surrounding it. There is an access point onto Linden Terrace and an access point onto Maureen Road. And then there is landscaping to the south and west and along, uh, Linden Terrace and Maureen Road. Uh, here highlights the, uh, proposed expansion areas and, um, the buffering that would be maintained along with the existing and, uh, there are commitments. There are limits on the allowed uses. Uh, there is a prohibition on outdoor animal containment which is consistent with the approved future bike lane. There are some building and design commitments and then they have added, uh, per the February 7th hearing, they have, uh, added the prohibition on, uh, any new access points for construction traffic that they will use the existing access points for that use if the, if the rezoning is, is on the plan that is provided for you in your agenda packet. Um, again, there was a neighborhood meeting held. Um, I do not believe there were any new neighborhood meetings that were held since then or after the planning commission meeting, but I'll let the app can update you on that. And, um, except for the flum designation. Um, it was determined consistent with the comprehensive plan and, um, as a reminder on February 8th, the planning commission, uh, did recommend, recommend approval with a vote of eight to three. And I believe it was, uh, commissioners, uh, Carmen Williams, um, uh, commissioner Cease and commissioners Busby who voted no. Um, the applicant. Is Mike's audio only going up for me? Or is? No, I see. It's the same. I think it's everybody. Okay. Yeah. Mike, just so you know, your audio is cutting in a little bit up. I did get a notice that my internet was unstable, um, to go along with me in general. Um, so I apologize and we'll, I'll do the best that I can. Thank you. Uh, at this time, we're going to open the public hearing, but we'll begin with the applicant presentation. Um, the applicant, I'm going to give y'all 10 minutes to present. And then after that, we'll go to resident comment. Thank you. Uh, Randy Herman, um, attorney for the applicant. Um, also the, the applicant is here and our engineer is here as well. If there are any questions for them. Um, again, this is a, uh, a matter that's already come before you. So I don't want to take up too much time, uh, rehashing it, but to, uh, to remind everybody this is a, um, a veterinary facility that is, that mostly does, um, specialized in referral work. They take referrals from all over the triangle. Um, under the existing zoning, um, the commercial portion of the property, the, the property, the, the portion that's zoned commercial, follows the old lot lines of an old lot, um, that no longer exists. And so basically it has the effect of, um, on the existing parcel, uh, restricting where on that parcel commercial structures and commercial uses can be located, uh, which is just created some kind of practical difficulties, um, in making the best use of the site. So the proposal is to rezone the entire thing to neighborhood commercial, uh, while also putting in place, uh, a, a plan, um, such that there are the, uh, we're adding additional restrictions to the use and, and more carefully planning out the use. So although the commercial portion would expand, it would also be, um, more predictably used in the future. Um, this is generally surrounded by residential lots. And so we're trying to work with those, uh, residential owners to minimize the impact on them, um, from the existence of this facility. Um, let's see. I don't know if I want to talk about the, the details of the site plan. Again, we went over that, um, in, in some pretty significant detail in February. I believe the membership of, of the commission is the same. Um, but the, the basic plan is to expand the building, um, to the West and also to explain, expand the parking to the South. Um, there's also a mobile MRI unit, um, which is proposed to be located behind the building. Um, even though it's a mobile unit, it'll be there on a more or less a permanent basis. Um, it just, as we talked about in February, it's easier to take a mobile unit and put it behind the building than to actually install an MRI inside the building, which is why it's also done that way in many hospitals. Uh, and so that would be located in the rear so that it wouldn't be visible. Um, but it would expand the, the ability of the facility to, to handle, um, the kind of specialized treatment and care that, that they do. Um, if any members of the planning commission has any questions, we're having to answer them. Um, but, uh, otherwise, uh, as, uh, Mr. Stock said that the only change, um, on the plan from last time is the additional condition that we agreed to orally in the previous planning commission meeting, which has now been written, written writing. And since we're back, we figured we might as well just go ahead and put that in the written plan that was presented to the commission. Thank you. Um, we'll go ahead and move to resident comments. Um, as a reminder, everyone will have two minutes to speak. Um, we have one person who signed up in advance to speak as an opponent. That is Cecilia Eichenberger. Cecilia, you'll have two minutes. Please state your name and address and make your comments. Am I the only one speaking? You were the only one who registered in advance, Cecilia, and you'll have two minutes to make your comments. Um, I don't really have anything new to say. I'm just concerned that, uh, this, uh, rezoning doesn't open up, uh, a whole new mess as long as they stick with the buffer zones and, um, they keep to the plan that they say, I'm fine with that. Um, we did have, uh, where's Janet for heaven's sake? Janet Mitman. We did have some question for sure about this new building. Is it 6,000 square feet? The whole thing in two floors, two stories? Or was that the actual footprint? We did have questions about that and I don't know why we couldn't find it in a previous session. So that was, that was a concern that I heard come up. Otherwise, I was okay with things, um, you know, except for the, the concerns that other people have said that if everything is stayed with the plan, we're okay with it. I'm not going to enjoy the construction. I'll tell you that. It's going to be really loud and I'm not going to enjoy that, but otherwise we're okay. That's all. Thank you Cecilia. Uh, so those, that's everyone who signed up in advance to speak. I see two people have already raised their hand to speak, uh, as well. If anyone else would like to speak on this item, please go ahead and raise your hand. And if you are on the phone, you do that by pressing star nine. But we'll move to Melissa M. Melissa, please state your name and address and you'll have two minutes. I can hear you, but it's like very, it's breaking, you're breaking up, so it was hard to hear. Okay. Um, I'm probably going to speak, but not for this one. So I don't know how it got messed up. I'm messy chapel. Okay. Great. Yeah, we'll get to that one. Um, a little bit later tonight. That's the dip item on our agenda. Um, okay. Up next we have Anthony Benson. Anthony, you have two minutes to speak. Please state your name and address and make your comments. Okay. Um, I'm Anthony Benson. I live on 3912 Inwood Drive, which is the next road down parallel to Linden Terrace. And it's basically at the bottom of the hill. And we've had some, um, severe flooding on occasion, at least four occasions. My next door neighbor's basement has been completely flooded. And we've had water coming up to the side of the house in the 30 years that I've been here. And I'm very concerned about the additional paving of the parking lots and the additional non-absorption area of having larger buildings at the top of the hill there. Um, and I wondered if the city engineers have been involved or consulted about the runoff problem. Um, because we had some meetings previous years about the additional runoff areas that have been created by the new highway and other things that are all coming down to a drainage ditch behind my house. That's, that's my real concern. And maybe it can be ameliorated with porous material in the parking area or something like that. Thank you, Anthony. Um, is there anyone else in attendance who would like to speak on this item? So please raise your hand at this time. Okay. Seeing none, um, Randy, just so you know, you had about six minutes left of your time in case you want any further comment. Uh, yeah, I'm going to call on Tony Whitaker. You should be on the call if he has anything he wants to respond to about the, um, the water runoff. And also if you can answer the question about the square footage in the new building. Yeah. So I'm here. My name is Tony Whitaker with civil consultants, the engineer for the project. We have consulted with, uh, city engineering, uh, folks in the public works department for stormwater management purposes. We've had those preliminary conversations and we well understand the city regulations for stormwater management. So we've shown on the development plan, two locations for stormwater management devices that would help to mitigate the additional impervious surfaces, uh, mitigate the runoff from those surfaces. So we do believe that we'll be able to satisfy city regulations at a minimum and then some with, um, for both small storms and larger storms. Uh, so we, we feel confident about that and, uh, don't feel that we'll be making that situation any downstream situation any worse at all. Uh, regarding the question, uh, that Cecilia had about the building, uh, the 6,000 square feet would be the total upper limit of all floor area within that two-story building. So there is not the footprint available for 6,000 square feet on one level. So that 6,000 number would be distributed across two floor levels. Thank you both. Uh, at this time I'm going to close the public hearing commissioners. Anyone have any questions or comments on this case? Seeing none, I would accept a motion, uh, Commissioner Cease. Thank you. I just want to clarify, um, for anyone who may be in attendance this evening versus, uh, having missed the last meeting, uh, why voted no last time and why I'll vote no this time. Uh, there's nothing to do, um, no, no major concerns with anything, um, that we typically are addressing in cases that come before us in terms of uses. Although we did hear, uh, both tonight some concerns with regards to flooding. We heard last time concerns with regards to both construction traffic and regular traffic. Um, I'll just point out briefly the, uh, attachment L of the planning staff report addresses the criteria for future land use map change recommendations. And it speaks there correctly to, um, kind of some consistency and intent, uh, between the conference plan to propose flum amendment and associated zoning changes appropriate for the suburban tier. Those aren't my concerns. My concerns are the kind of detailed description that we heard of the existing use, uh, and the fact that that existing use is proposed to be expanded and that this is CN zoning. And so my problem with this rezoning application, my concern, my opposition to this rezoning application is grounded in the intent statement as established in the UDO. So 4.3.2 commercial neighborhood, which is what we're considering first sentence. The CN district is established to provide for modest scale commercial centers in close proximity to residential areas that offer limited commercial uses to satisfy the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. And what we heard is a description of an operation that is not that it's much more than that has much bigger draw. And, uh, so I just wanted to clarify that's, that's why I'm voting against this rezoning proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Cease. Any other questions or comments? And if not, we'd accept a motion. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we move case Z 21 quadruple 04, the triangle veterinary referral hospital case to the city council for approval. Second. I've heard a move by commissioner Morgan and a second by commissioner Baker. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, may we have the roll call vote? Thank you. Amandolia. Yes. Baker. Yes. Batista. Yes. Busby. No. Cameron. No. Right. Yes. Yes. Durkin. Oh, yeah. Oh, sorry. Harrod. Yes. Low. Yes. Giver. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. No. No. Carmen Williams. No. Zuri Williams. Yes. Uh, it passes, uh, 10 to four. Thank you. Thank you, Steph. Thank you to that. And chair, um, if it is okay, uh, commissioners, your morning, welcome to send in new comments, but we will take the comments that you've already submitted from that past hearing and include them as your comments. But if you have additional ones, you still have that same. Um, and I would also just to reiterate commissioner Cease's point, I would encourage anyone who attended tonight that missed our last public hearing on this. All of our public hearings are on YouTube. You can go back and look at the discussion we had. Um, and it was a pretty robust discussion the first time we saw this and will, um, also probably provide some nuance to some of the yes votes on this case because I know there were many of us who, um, I would speak for myself for a moment. I know myself voted yes on this case, despite the use being, um, not exactly what I would ideally want in this case because that did not feel appropriate given the fact that it's already a veterinary hospital. Um, so just encourage folks to go watch that back. Um, because there was some good discussion there with that. We'll move on to our next case. Case Z 20 triple zero 38 courtyard at Farrington. We'll begin with the staff report. Uh, chair, I'm andolia and planning commissioners. Um, it will be presented by, um, Andy Lester. He is, uh, new to, uh, well, he's not new to the planning department. He was with the planning department a few years back in development review and is a recent hire to the land use group. This is his first case and presentation. So, um, uh, just wanted to introduce him. We're excited to have him. He's an excellent member of our staff. Um, and I will, uh, stop talking now and let him proceed. And welcome, Andy. Great to have you. Thank you chairman. Thank you commission. Now, let me share my screen real quick and we'll get started. Please let me know if you can see it. Fantastic. Uh, thank you commission. I'm here tonight to present, uh, the rezoning case Z 20, uh, zero, zero, zero, three, eight courtyards at Farrington. Um, the following information summarizes the application. Um, the proposed site consists of four parcels totaling approximately 21 acres and would include 67 single family residential units with the clubhouse. Uh, the specific addresses are 5109 517 5251 and 5271 Farrington road. Um, in addition to the rezoning, this would require a development tier change. Um, you can see currently it is suburban and the village contact neighborhood. They're proposing, um, a suburban tier. Um, there isn't an appending annexation with this as well. Um, the existing zoning is RS 20 and they are planning a plan development residential zoning district with a density of 3.785. And in addition, this would require an existing change, uh, too low density residential. The overlays of the site include the, uh, falls in noose and then I 40 major transportation corridor. So as you can see, the existing zoning of the site is already RS 20. Now the site is surrounded by RS 20, um, residential suburban multifamily, PDR and rural residential. The existing future land use destination is office to the north, uh, low density residential in the middle of the development site and to the south, it is a design district. If approved, the proposed future land use destination for the entire development would be changed to low density residential, uh, to accommodate the proposed rezoning. In addition to the flume change, um, the development site is split by two, uh, development tiers, the suburban tier to the north and the design district on the south side of the site. Uh, to accommodate the single family development, the design district need to be changed to be suburban tier. Uh, this aerial map shares the general location of the project, uh, to the east is I 40 and to the west is Farrington road. And I do want to bring, um, the commission's attention, um, that is emitted from the staff report. Um, this site is actually, um, listed in the dirt Durham historic, uh, inventory. Um, this is actually the site is the Walter Curtis Hudson farm and the applicant will provide an update with their conversation with the ship. Oh, in regards to that aspect of it, um, the applicant has included graphic and text commitments, including additional right of way for bicycle lane architectural variety of single family detached homes. However, the commitments do not address the Walter Curtis Hudson farm dwelling as listed in the Durham County historic architecture inventory, buried housing and affordability. There's an intermittent stream on the site with 100 foot stream buffer and a 10 foot no build setback. Um, there's a 20 foot ingress egress easement and a 30 foot, uh, deep energy easement that runs, um, along the northern property boundary. Um, in addition, the site features the, uh, Walter Curtis Hudson farm. Um, the proposed conditions, um, the applicant has proposed the majority of the tree preservation area on the south, southeastern portion of the development, uh, for access points, one on the western boundary of Barrington road, um, one on the northern boundary and two on the southern and additional asphalt for a bicycle lane on the western edge of the property and the parking and building envelope, as you can see. Um, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on September 9th, 2020, 36 community members were in attendance. Um, since then three inquiries were received about tonight's hearing. Uh, one social pinpoint comment were received by staff in relation to the case and that is in the staff report. Except for the three CGO objectives, the future land use designation and tier designation. Um, staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies. If the request is approved, the firm designation shall be amended to maintain consistency. And, um, staff may applicant are available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Andy. Um, at this time, we'll open the public hearing. We'll begin with the applicant presentation. Um, I see Neil Gauch is here for the applicant. Neil, let me know who all is on your team and you'll have 10 minutes. Uh, thank you, chair, uh, with Jason Coffey and, uh, James Whitaker are also on from our team. Um, and good evening, uh, chair, vice chair Cameron and members of the planning commission. I am Neil Gauch with the morning star law group at 700 West Main Street Durham. I'm representing the applicant for this rezoning, which is Epcon. Uh, as I mentioned earlier, Jason Coffey from Epcon communities is on the line with me tonight as well as Mr. James Whitaker with advanced civil design. Um, I want to thank Mr. Lester first presentation. I know this is your first one. So first of all, I feel honored and second of all, great job. Um, that having been said, uh, I know Mr. Lester is new to this case, which was submitted back in September of 2020. So I thought it might be useful to give some history on this one. Uh, we had an initial neighborhood meeting for this project in August of 2020 to discuss kind of two paths for the development of this property. We wanted to understand which path the neighbors felt was more appropriate for this property. As mentioned in the staff report, part of the property is within the Lee Village Compact neighborhood here, and the rest of it is within the Suburban here. A PDR zoning district is not allowed within a compact neighborhood here. So before we move forward with the project, we wanted to hear from the folks who live there, uh, what they would like to see, you know, so that was that's what our first neighborhood meeting was about. And in large part, we found that there was overwhelming support for a suburban style of development rather than the compact style of residential development. This feedback directly shaped our application for this project, and it's why we were applying for a tier change for a portion of the property to go from compact neighborhood here to suburban. One important aspect to understand about this property is that the compact neighborhood here in this location does not follow the existing property line. It does not follow any existing easement, natural feature, or other physical feature of the property. This is unusual, though it is not unheard of. But from a practical standpoint, having this property in two tiers makes it extremely challenging to develop comprehensively because of the differing UDO standards applicable in each tier. Put another way, I think anyone looking to develop property probably would apply for a tier change. And we felt our decision to apply for the suburban tier was the right decision in this case, based on the feedback we got from the neighbors. In line with that feedback, we are proposing a suburban style development on about 22 acres. We've committed to a maximum of 67 homes, which puts us at a PDR 3.785. The floor plans being offered in this project, all are single story living with an option to have some finished space on a second floor. We don't know how many people will pursue that option so the development plan provides the flexibility to do either type on each lot as the market dictates. This project also commits to a maximum impervious of 50%, rather than 70%, which is typical in this region and typical of suburban development in Durham. And out of 4.82 acres of required tree coverage, we're committing to 3.14 acres of tree preservation and the rest will be planted back. And I think that's significant because a large portion of this site already is devoid of trees. Certainly the project will require the removal of some trees, but we actually will be saving a fair amount of the existing tree coverage on the site, simply because there aren't that necessarily that many trees. Finally, I wanted to touch on a couple of items from the staff report and the presentation. With respect to the Civil War trails, until the staff report was released, our team was under the impression that the sign within the right of way related to the Civil War trails was city or government signage. We assume the sign would continue to be within the right of way along the frontage of the property. The staff report correctly notes that our development plan does not address the Civil War trail sign. And we already ran this by staff. We're happy to add a commitment that the Civil War trail sign would be preserved and must be displayed so that it's visible from the Farrington Road right of way. We're happy to do that. We had assumed that that was kind of the requirement anyway. Staff also mentioned the Curtis House in its presentation. And again, staff correctly noted that our development plan does not address the Curtis House. The historic component of this property falls under the purview of the State Historic Preservation Office or SHPO. Our team actively is working with SHPO to reach an agreement on how the heritage of this property will be honored. Originally, we proposed using some of the materials of the existing structure within the amenity feature in creating a photographic exhibit regarding the property within the amenity. To our surprise, SHPO was not interested in this approach. And I understand primarily that's because the structure has been altered several times. So the structure is not really indicative of any particular time period. In other words, the structure is a bit of a mutt, so to speak. We still have not reached an agreement, but SHPO seems to be leaning towards the developer being involved in the leaf arm park across I-40 from the site. We're not sure whether that will be in the form of a monetary donation, donation of artifacts, or something else. But we still are working through that. And I wanted to let you all know where we stand on this because we will be required to reach an agreement with SHPO on this before we are able to receive our federal permits for construction. So while our development plan does not address the topic, this is something that will be addressed through an agreement with SHPO. All right, I think that's it. Thank you for your time. And we look forward to your questions and comments. We're available to answer any questions you may have. And I think there are a few people who are signed up if I recall. Thank you, Neal. So we had 27 people who signed up who registered for this meeting. None of those people indicated they would like to speak. All of those individuals either indicated they were not speaking or they were undecided. So for the record, I'm going to just indicate that of the people that registered who were not on the applicant team, 12 indicated they were proponents. One indicated they were an opponent and 14 did not say. Since no one said they would definitely like to speak, we're going to just do this by folks raising their hand. So if there are any residents in attendance who would like to speak on this item tonight, please virtually raise your hand at this time. Reminder, if you're on the phone, you do so by pressing star nine. We'll wait a moment for folks to get their hand raised. Okay, I see one person has their hand raised. Ingrid McIntosh. Ingrid, you'll have two minutes to make your comments. Please state your name and address and then make your statement. Hello, I'm Ingrid McIntosh. I live at 5207 Niagara Drive and that's across the street from the proposed development. And I just want to state my very solid support for this community to be developed. There'll be nothing but a plus for us as far as our property values and so much better than anything else that we have heard is being considered. So please let Epcon continue to develop the wonderful communities that they do in this area. Thank you. Thank you, Ingrid. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this case? I'm seeing no hands raised. Neil, you had about three minutes, 50 seconds left of your time. Do you want any further comment or rebuttal? I'll just say thank you to Ms. McIntosh, was it? And we agree. But yeah, happy to answer any questions that you get. Thank you. With that, we'll close the public hearing and turn it over to my public commissioners. Who would like to start with questions and comments? Commissioner Carmen Williams. Thank you, Chair Emondola. I just wanted to express my support for this development. So my support doesn't come often. So when it does, I'd like to be very vocal about it. I like this development. I like how it's presented. I definitely enjoy the fact that they are single family homes. I'm not sure if they will be aging in place compatible, but if they are, that would create some livability in this area. It's a heavily traveled area. However, the ability, if at all possible, to create wider hallways, which even if you're not aging in place, that's always beneficial. It's nothing worse than trying to get a couch down a narrow hallway and into a door frame. But outside of that, I like this project. I like the tree preservation. I like the considerations that are coming into this area and I think it's hard time that we have some properties where we're not spending $650,000 on a house that's attached to someone else's. So I definitely appreciate this development and our plans to vote for it. Thank you, Commissioner Carmen Williams. Other comments and questions? Commissioner Durkin, a commissioner you are on mute. Oh, sorry, double mute. I have a question for staff. My understanding was that we were trying not to or were actively not permitting age-restricted development, that right or am I mistaken? That is correct. We're not seeking commitments for age-restricted development, but it would be allowed by the applicant if the zoning was approved and they chose for age-restriction. Okay, because there were some conflicting things in the staff report about it not being age-restricted, but then in the exhibit C of the neighborhood meeting attachment, the answer is that the community is intended to be age-targeted. So I imagine that age-target is 55 plus. I would imagine so, yes. But in the past, what has happened is that there were commitments that made it a zoning commitment to make it age-targeted or age-restricted and we as a policy are not promoting those kind of commitments. Can you give us the policy behind that? The community goals and objectives in terms of welcoming neighborhoods, varied households, the neighborhood and housing goal and the objectives under those. Okay, that's helpful. And I think that at least one of the neighborhoods across the street from this proposal is an age-restricted neighborhood. So it seems like there is a concentration maybe of these neighborhoods and that makes me want to not vote in favor of this. I'm just concerned about the concentration in that area. It's a very homogenous style of development. Thank you, Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Busby. Thanks, Chairman Mandolia. I just had a question for the applicant or a couple of questions. So mostly just to start, on page six of the staff report, there's a sentence that struck me and I agree with it. So I'd like to hear your thoughts. It says, this development does not have a significant number of text design and graphic commitments. And so, for example, affordable housing, there's no commitment to even providing funding to Durham's affordable housing fund. There's no additional stormwater commitments. There could be an opportunity for extended sidewalks potentially. So I wanted to hear your perspective on the limited number of proffers that we've seen here. And for context, I recall further down this road, we had a case in the fall that had a significant number of commitments that were offered. And I think I know I voted for it, but a lot of those commitments, including affordable housing, were a big reason that I was willing to support the project. So a question for Mr. Gosher, the applicant team. Sure. And thank you, Commissioner Busby. First, I did want to mention that this project is specifically not age restricted. And kind of to your question, Commissioner Busby, some of the commitments here are related to how the houses will be built, which deal with having first floor living, no steps up to the front door. And those are age targeted features, which we do find an EPCON has found to be pretty critical for an older population. However, specifically, this community would not be age restricted. It is just that the homes are designed so that they are, I guess, more inviting to folks with mobility issues by preventing or not having stairs up to the front door and primarily having all the living on the first floor. And again, with that option to finish the second floor. The limited number of commitments on this, I mean, as I mentioned, this case was filed long ago. And there were a number of issues that came up through the multiple review processes and through the multiple reviewers from planning that we've had, including specifically some of the environmental concerns and getting that cleared up. This site, this project does not impact those, you know, any floodplain and floodway. There is technically a stream crossing on the site, and that is indicated on the staff report. However, I would like to note that that stream crossing is one which actually can't physically be avoided because of the connectivity requirements. In Durham, we have to provide a point of connection in all four cardinal directions. And on the south side of the property, there isn't enough room to provide that stuff without crossing the stream. Now, the portion that we're crossing is very small. And we have been in touch with the Army Corps on this. It's technically a stream because of its depth, but it is not one that provides any real flow that's important to ecological concerns. The streams up against I-40 were not impacting those. Those are the ones that are more important. So, you know, I mean, I would agree that there are not a ton of commitments, but I think that speaks to the simplicity of the project. This project is only a maximum of 67 homes. And I hear your concern about affordability and how there is no specific profit here for even a monetary donation. And that is something that our team is considering and will continue to consider as we work through the process. On a project of this size, I do think it is doubtful that a project of 67 homes will be able to underwrite, you know, the inclusion of affordable units on this property. So, I do think we're leaning towards a monetary donation. And that is something that we, you know, are mulling over and will consider. And, you know, as we get into conversations with elected officials, try to better understand what the recommendation is there. Great. Well, thanks for the background. I mean, it's helpful to hear that this case started a while ago. I will note that two proffers that I think have been quite common at the Planning Commission probably since your case was filed. The first is we often do have applicants being able to offer 100 year stormwater feature commitment on site. And so I wanted to ask, is that something you'd be willing to consider this evening to add as a proffer? I, so I'm not in a position to answer that. And I think Mr. James Whitaker might be able to speak to that. But I mean, it's certainly something we can consider. I just don't know how that impacts this project. And I'm not sure if my client is aware of that either or if that's been studied. So I would say I don't think we can commit to that tonight, but it's something we could consider. Okay. Well, and I think often applicants have been able to think about it. And before we even vote on this case can come back and say if that's something that is an opportunity. So if you want to consider it while we deliberate and come back, that would be appreciated. The second is I strongly hope you will consider offering funding to the Durham Affordable Housing Fund. I understand what you're saying about not being able to put affordable housing units on this site. But that is something that is quite common and I think is really important in terms of supporting one of our biggest priorities as a community. Often applicants are making that proffer here at the Planning Commission. And again, I hope that's something you will not only strongly consider, potentially consider offering this evening before we vote on the case. But again, I'll give you a moment to think about that. And I appreciate your time and your attention and consideration of those opportunities. So that's it for me, Chair Amadouille. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Busby. Commissioner Cutwright. Thanks, Chair. And I think I'll just just to add or to to piggyback on the affordable housing aspect. I think one thing that could be considered that I've heard recently is developers providing a lot or two or three to Habitat for Humanity and actually partnering with them on potentially building homes in the neighborhood. I think that's maybe a consideration that you can put out there as well as you're considering how you can help the Durham community with its need for housing. So I'll just throw that out there as a consideration. And I've seen developers go as far as actually building the houses for Habitat because they can do much cheaper for a simple developer fee. So just a consideration there, something to think about and consider. Thank you, Commissioner Cutwright. I see Commissioner Carmel Williams has their hand raised. Before we come back to Commissioner Williams, I want to make sure anyone else who hasn't gotten the chance to speak yet and ask questions has that chance. Like Commissioner Herrod. Thank you, Chair. I do think this project has a lot going forward. I'll take it like the maximum percentage of impervious area that's good to hear and the bike lanes and so forth. I think as far as sense of plates, we're maybe missing the boat. I don't live close to this but I've been up and down Farrington Road and been in the Patterson Mill Store. It's a very cool place. A lot of history there just like there is on the other side of I-40 where they have a leak on them. So it seems to be like hopefully we could think outside the box and maybe with the community building preserve some of that historical flavor. That's something I'd like to see a commitment to possibly. And then a lot of civil war is not as popular as it used to be but it's still historical importance in our country. So we talked about off-road trails in this report somewhere. So potentially we could combine off-road trails with civil war trails. I'm sorry. I don't know. That's just some ideas that I think would make the project more unique because I don't know. You just go down right down the road and all the projects are delight sometimes. So it'd be nice to add some unique features. Also the PDR part of the emphasis for that is having varied housing units. So I know with 66 units it's hard to do but maybe we could think about that. The developer could think about that a little more as well. And then I don't know. This is kind of frustrating to all of us I think. It says something about the report says something about the intersection of 54 and Farrington Road is less than a mile south of here. And there's some bus routes there. There's potentially a rapid transit station in the far future. I don't know. It seems like it'd be nice if we could have some sidewalks that potentially somebody else could add on to down the road. Just a wish list. So that's all I have to say. But I'm in favor of the project. Thank you Commissioner Heron. Commissioner Cease. Thank you. Hearing Commissioner Heron reference the old store there I have to also admit appreciation of the history and the experience of visiting there many years ago. Probably 30 plus years ago and also in the time sense. And this is both an interesting and a challenging piece of land from a development perspective just because of the proximity to 40 and because of the uncertainty that lingered over the both the light rail project at the time and the uncertainty quite frankly that lingered over just the tier boundaries around those areas contemplating them for future transformation. And hearing the presentation tonight and also kind of knowing the context of what's out there I guess one thing that I wanted to comment on beyond the kind of nod to history is building on Commissioner Heron's comments that I don't think it's just the housing or the house that's there alone that that's of value in terms of the cultural significance of of this place. And I would encourage the development team very strongly and this is this is kind of the an outcome of us being accustomed to having development plans that don't show any details about what happens inside the boundary which is problematic in nearly every case. They're not really development plans they're non development plans they show us where you can't do development and then they don't tell anyone anything about what actually is to happen in a spatial sense on the site. But this site the configuration and collection of the agricultural buildings that are there is is worth really strong considerations preserving and incorporating in some way in the green space that's being preserved and from a planning perspective I know that's possible it's it's it's math and it's not dollars it's acreage and this is a really low density project quite frankly yeah under four per acre it's it's a low density project which in some ways makes sense given the buffer to I-40 the proposed impervious service limitations the existing stream buffer so that makes sense that I would just encourage the applicant team to really give great care in how they treat the collection of agricultural buildings there that that forms the you know that forms part of the story of what made that such a special place for so many visitors through the years and and I appreciate the care with which Mr Booker and and and his family has has provided for that land through all these years and so that's that's one point second point I'll make well two points it's just I reiterate Commissioner Busby's and Commissioner Cutwright's comments regarding affordable housing regardless how many housing units there are there there would seem to be a capacity to contribute something in in monetary terms or other terms to help Durham address our the housing challenges that we're facing there and there are a lot of options there and it would really make for a much more desirable application to have have something included but I wanted point the third point and I'll finish is Neil referenced the string crossing the one string crossing that's included on the development plan in order to provide access to I think it's side access point for one of those access points to to the south and I just want to highlight the importance of both of those access points to the south given that to the southern end of this property is that you know is where the tier boundary is proposed to be reduced but it still is you know it it still is to be maintained to the south and the Lee Village compact neighborhood tier and those points of connection in the future are going to be really critical in in a lot of ways both conceptually and practically in for instance keeping extra trips off Farrington road as the places parcel to the south develop out so I don't want those well let me just say that I don't want concerns about the environmental implications of impacting that stream buffer to some way eliminate the the side access points that are identified on the development plan those those need to stay in place I think through the consideration of this project so with those comments I I do support the project but I just wanted to make all those comments thank you thank you commissioner cease there are other commissioners who would like to ask questions and comments before I return to commissioner Carmen Williams it's seen I'm going to make a quick statement as well because maybe commissioner Carmen Williams you can also help answer some of the questions I have on this case I'm going to admit that as someone who's relatively new to Durham I'm not as aware of the cultural significance of this site as it is evident other planning commissioners are and so I've only had my experience of driving past this area and noticing that it definitely sticks out from what's around it so I would just welcome more context from other folks to plead to speak to that and help me kind of round out my understanding of this site and I just to add to the conversation without that understanding I am looking at the current and future zoning to make a decision and I at this moment am concerned about this proposal because it is and what is supposed to end up being a mixed residential site immediately adjacent to a transit opportunity area and so what I see is a really big opportunity to set ourselves up for success in the future when this interchange at 40 and fairing and 54 becomes a more mixed used walkable area that has dense housing types nearby and so I am currently opposed to this case but I will welcome any other comments and I'm curious to hear folks thoughts on that commissioner Carmen Williams. Thank you chair Emily I can't speak to anything as far as the Civil War is concerned in this area at all I can't help you with that maybe someone else can. I am I guess I'm a little floored because we are pushing very heavily for affordable housing in this area where it's needed just about everywhere in Durham and a large portion of this panel push for market rate housing in a soon to be former projects area that didn't necessarily need it so I guess I'm just I'm just trying to get a feel for my fellow planning commissioners because I think that we have to address affordable housing in a more uniform stature across the board regardless of where developments are going it's a need across Durham and I think that sometimes we may send messages to people that are confusing about whether or not we want affordable housing or we need affordable housing if there's an if then statement. I'm for this project because it addresses a need which everyone on this call is going to have at some point in time unless they're unfortunate and that's the ability to age in your home and with prices going in the way that they're going everywhere developments like this are necessary and it's rare that we find places that are willing to offer multiple access points that help traffic it's rare that we find a developer that will come in and actually consider tree preservation above what's there with the plan to actually plant more trees which helps sidewalks and I understand that this could be a hub going forward we don't know how far in the future because first they're going to have to widen 54 before it can become a major transportation hub that that's going to have and that's going to take some time and there has to be more development in this area commercially for there to need for there to be a need for walkability to help out with transportation because of right now I don't know where they're walking on fairings and road in 54 unless they they're walking to eat and then they're going to burn off what they just ate by the time they get back home so I appreciate everyone's efforts I just I don't I don't see in this particular case the need to force the hand for affordable housing contributions or affordable housing mandates within this project of course we needed everywhere it just seems a little bit more forceful with this where we were a little bit more lacks in other projects and again I just want to show my support for the developer because I like this project and that's extremely rare thank you you commissioner common Williams commissioner cut right thanks chair um I just wanted to comment on on commissioner Williams comments specifically around affordable housing I think that uh stating that this is the request for affordable housing on this particular project is is forceful or heavy-handed is maybe maybe a bit maybe a bit blown out of proportion I think it's been mentioned I don't think anyone's voted against it or or may vote against it because of the lack of affordable housing it's something that should at least be thought about or mentioned in almost every project that's my thought I think some other some other commissioners may agree with that that there's opportunity in room for affordable housing on every project we fully recognize that not every developer is going to do it some projects are thin I mean I get that and it may not be possible right they may not be able to make the numbers work for a variety of reasons um but it should be mentioned and discussed and asked for um and whether or not it can actually be proffered as a whole another ball game but um I think that was a this was a light ask and I don't think a lot of pressure has been put on the request for affordable housing in this particular development that being said I do think that um adults that age and place do have restricted incomes um and affordable housing is important at that level as well so I just think it should be thought about across the board again it won't happen everywhere but it should be at least brought up and asked about and almost every development that's coming through Durham thank you commissioner right commissioner cease thank you and I appreciate commissioner cup right um elaborating on uh his perspective there and kind of describing what I think a number of us were expressing with regards to affordable housing on this particular site commissioner Williams I'd like to just uh and and commissioner amondola um address one other point each of you raised is that when I reference the kind of cultural significance and agricultural significance of this site I want to be clear I wasn't aware of any civil war trails what I was referencing was the Patterson meal mill store and the history of it as an exhibit space for um pharmaceuticals and the country doctor's office turn of the century is what it's described as and I and I say that was ingrained in my upbringing as the son of a pharmacist who was the third owner of a store that had been in existence for over 80 years and so I grew up with pharmaceutical bottles and and fixtures from the 1910s that made their way into my father's garage when he sold the store 20 years ago and and that as he has aged his children me being one of them have faced the challenges of what to do with that stuff and so there was a a sense of affection that my father had with the collection that the applicants family had had maintained and made available for understanding healthcare and and drugs and disease and the ways in which the provision of healthcare was provided 100 years ago essentially and so it's that aspect of the agrarian and and nature in the form of the buildings and their situation on the landscape that I'm speaking to when I speak to the historical aspects of that site and it is in part because I know of the care that that the owners have provided to that place for so long that I have a bit of a trust it may or may not be earned but but I care that they've you know I trust that they've given great consideration into how to allow this property to change given that the you know major infrastructure investment of a light rail is not occurring to the south in in the near future and so you know that I I I appreciate that need for this transforming into something else as far as the aging in place the completely unrelated point and age targeted it is an aspect of why I think those connections to the south are so important because you know aging in place when we talk about health in the built environment that you know there is a long body of research literature understanding that these types of single use single family detached subdivisions not connected to any basic availability of goods and services or jobs or transit or the places where the built environment is not conducive to activity it's not conducive to the physical activity that's so essential and in terms of aging in a healthy way and so there is a bit of a conflict here in terms of age restricted but it's utterly all dependent and and that's problematic but there's a precedent in terms of the subdivisions that are immediately across the street it's a small site and I think as long as the connections are made to the south to allow that to evolve in the future and regardless of what what infrastructure investments are made there what form of transit there is an intensity of use happening with projects both underway and contemplated at the 54 in Farrington and I-40 interchange it's on the corridor that connects to one of the largest employment concentrations we have and in UNC hospitals UNC and downtown Chapel Hill so you know there this is not a this is a you know this is a 20-acre project and it's ripe for transformation at this point in time in this form and you know I support it I again I do encourage the applicant to consider a contribution to affordable housing and I'll leave it at that so I hope that's helpful in terms of the historical aspect. Thank you Commissioner Busby. Thank you before we have a motion for a vote which I'm expecting is probably coming quite soon I just wanted to circle back to the applicant team just to check in thanks to our deliberations you've had some time to think about other additional proffers you'd like to make this evening while we're before we vote on this. Commissioner Busby I just wanted to note that planning staff member Andy Lester has his hand up I'm happy to address this but I know if we want to hear from Mr. Lester first. I'll lead that to the chair. No I want to you respond to Commissioner Busby's question first and then we'll go to Andy. Sure so on the stormwater measure which was something that you discussed earlier I'm going to turn that over to Mr. Whitaker to give a response there. James Whitaker. Yeah hello commission members. This is James Whitaker advanced civil design 51 Kilmaine Drive carry North Carolina. Regarding the stormwater we would be happy to put a restriction on there that we would control the 100 year peak post-developed runoff rate to what the existing 100 year peak develop runoff rate is. That's great thank you and I definitely appreciate that I think anytime we can we can offer that on a site it's helping not only the development but it's helping everyone in the surrounding area especially if we see continued development up and down the corridor so that's that's really appreciated and and then Mr. Goche any any thoughts on the affordable housing I know we've talked about that a fair amount this evening. Yeah so a couple thoughts let me first answer the question I don't think we're in a position right now to make a commitment although I will say that my client has indicated that it likely will make a monetary donation a profit for monetary donation but what that amount will be I don't think we can commit to tonight but on the affordability but I did want to just talk we we feel confident that the price point here is going to be well under the median price point for this for this zip code and now this zip code is one of the more expensive zip codes in Durham so that plays into it certainly but we certainly think we're going to be under that I just want to put that out there. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Goshen and everyone on the applicant team and just hearing that you're planning to likely do that when you go to city council I think I certainly hope you will you will follow through on that I'm sure council will also ask as well and that's it for my questions chair Mendelian fellow commissioners I just wanted to share my perspective as well I'm of a similar mind as commissioners cease I think this makes sense now given that the light rail is no longer moving forward and we're we're going to move in a different direction in terms of our transportation plans given what's already happened historically across the street and in this area and given these additional commitments or a commitment to consider a commitment I think it's important that a part of town that's thriving is willing to support their neighbors in a variety of different ways so I am planning to vote for this case when we get to a vote that's it for me. Thank you commissioner Busby I did want to just state for the record because Mr. Goshe referenced the median price point of this zip code that according to the staff report that median price point is 610,000 and looking at EPCON community's website you can see that they have communities and carry that begin at the 400 and 500,000 range so just for folks listening in that's the point of reference here Andy, your hand raised a moment ago. Thank you chair staff just has a couple clarification questions for Neil. Neil talked about I guess the relationship with SHPO in terms of I think obtaining a permit could you clarify that Neil? Right, sure in working with SHPO so SHPO's authority ends with the federal government's oversight and regulation so to the extent that we need a federal permit which we do SHPO can prevent or I'm sorry maybe a state permit which we do SHPO can prevent those permits from being issued until we reach an agreement with them on how this site would be treated for its historical components I don't know for lack of a better term. And I just wanted to I guess confirm I guess the stormwater commitment and clarify the comment that you made about signage when you first started. Yeah sure so on the stormwater we would commit to treating the 100-year storm if I understood correctly but let me I don't want to use the wrong term so let me make sure with Mr. Whitaker that that is the case we're controlling that 100-year storm. Yeah we would control the 100-year post-develop rate to what the current pre-develop rate is there'd be no increase in runoff from the 100-year storm. There you go. And then on that sign so I could not point on this development plan where that sign is today so the commitment is essentially to preserve that sign but we also want to make sure that it be displayed in a prominent location along the Farrington Road right of way in case it needs to move up or down that road based on how the site develops. I don't want to commit to preserving it specifically where it is today if you know something needs to happen in that location that's what I was saying that so essentially we will have that sign visible from the right of way up here at the red. I think staff will need to try to finalize those commitments. I believe Mr. Stock may have a comment as well. We'll get those the exact wording for those. Neil could you explain your commitments to first floor living and no steps to the entry ways I don't see on the development plan where those commitments are and can you also just for our edification because we're still kind of scratching our heads what state permit is requiring the SHPO approval. Thank you. No SHPO doesn't approve anything right so but we we we have that stream crossing that's being proposed that is a permit that is going to be held up by SHPO. Okay all right that that's what I meant like what permit is requiring being held up okay my SHPO could you clarify the other commitments that you made earlier. Yeah the first floor living and I'm sorry if that wasn't on is not already on the development plan I'll to be honest with you I'm working with Epcon on several projects so essentially the commitment is that there will not be stairs leading to the front entrance of the house or at least to I'm sorry at least to a ground floor entrance on the house. I know we have this language somewhere and if it's not on this case it might take me a minute to find it specifically but it's something that you all have reviewed already in the context of another case if not this one. That's fine we can work out the language with that and for the first floor living are you making the statement that there's going to be basically bedrooms will be on all first floors of all units because right now the commitment is just to single single story and story and a half which doesn't necessarily commit to first floor living. First floor yeah so first floor living meaning that will be bedrooms on the first floor. Okay and we can work out that specific language too. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Are there other commissioners who have comments or questions at this time? So I just I first want to express my appreciation for the explanation of the cultural significance here with the agricultural uses is very helpful for me. I am still in opposition to this case. To me this doesn't look a lot different than what we get in southeast Durham and I think arguably is closer to potential for more services and more connectivity in the future and so I will be voting in opposition tonight. This time I would accept a motion and a reminder that the motion needs to include the stated proffers that were added during the public hearing. Mr. Chair I make a motion that we take case number zero two zero triple zero thirty eight the courtyards of Farrington road with the associated noted proffers to be forwarded to the city council for recommended city council for approval. Thank you. Moved by Commissioner Morgan seconded by Vice Chair Cameron. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes Mike. Just one clarification. The motion will also include the proposed tier change from compact neighborhood tier two suburban. Okay. That is correct. Okay thank you. Vice Chair Cameron. Is there some way we can get a summary of those proffers that were made after we vote as well for comedy? We can provide that summary now before the vote if that would be helpful. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Andy please jump in if I missed something but there is a commitment to treating the 100 year storm event. There is a commitment to a first four living arrangement where there will be a bedroom on the first floor of every unit. There is a commitment to no steps to the ground level entrance to each unit and there is a commitment to maintain the Civil War signage that's in the right of way if there is a need to move that and that would probably be happen if there was a need to move that signage for any roadway widening. I think that's accurate Mike. Okay. I believe we're ready for the roll call group. Amandolia. No. Baker. No. Batista. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. No. Yes. Low. No. McIver. Yes. Morgan. No. Cease. Yes. Carmen Williams. Yes. Amesery Williams. Yes. Okay. It passes nine to five. Thank you to staff. Thank you to the applicant and all the residents who showed up. Thank you very much. With that we'll move to the next item on our agenda. That is case Z20-00044 Griffin residential track. Before we have the staff report I just want to note that we're about 30 minutes out from our first break to give our closed captioners a break during our meeting and so this public hearing will get a little broken up by that break but we'll begin with the staff report. Thank you. Michael Stock again with the planning department before you tonight is case Z20-00044 Griffin residential track. It is located at 4903 Leesville Road in 2755 US Highway 70 located in suburban tier and is a city case pending annexation. The site is approximately 118 acres. The current zoning is rural residential and industrial or RRI and the proposed zoning is planned development residential 3.753 or PDR 3.753. The current flum future land use map designation is oh I'm sorry I did not share screen. Hold on. I have that problem sometimes. Can you all see now? Yes. Thank you. I apologize for that. The there is no change in that the proposal would be consistent with the flum. The current zoning overlay is in the FJB Watershed or Falls Jordan District B Watershed and the proposal is for 380 dwelling units with a mix of single family and townhouse. As you can see the site is predominantly zone I the dirt deep purple there with a southern portion RR and it is surrounded by PDR developments to the north west and the recent proposed parcel K approved parcel K PDR 5.949 development to the east is still RR predominantly our zoning and there is commercial zoning along Highway 70 and as you can see and it does not include this circle which is a property that was subdivided out of the parcels and which maintains a cell a cell tower structure. There is the aerial of the site primarily wooded there is a clearing obviously in the middle and the cell tower is right there. The parcel K development is immediately to the west and is primarily wooded to the north and east and south the existing conditions there is flood plain and streams along the guess the northwest and southeast sides of the development and along portions within the interior. It's also there are identified natural heritage areas and steep slopes that are primarily shown as remaining undisturbed. There are some areas of the identified steep slopes that would be disturbed but not beyond the maximums allowed. And as you can see as the proposed development plan it does show the proposed alignment of the northern Durham Parkway and also alignment of the Collector Street consistent with the Wake Durham Collector Street plan. Does commit to a mix of single family and townhouse units. There are specific active open space commitments limits on flood plain encroachment and enhanced stormwater controls dedication construction northern Parkway and the Collector Street rights of way. Commitments to U.S. 70 and Leesville road improvements per the traffic impact analysis dedication to Lick Creek mean way and construction of connections to that and there are additional building and design commitments. There was a neighborhood meeting held in 2020 where there are seven community members in attendance and social pinpoint comments are provided in attachment. So except for the flume designation actually the flume designation is is consistent but staff also determines that the housing and housing and neighborhood goals and community goals and objectives are not compliant with this request and we'll be happy to answer any questions I believe the applicant is also here. Thank you Mike. We'll begin or we're going to open the public hearing. We'll begin with the applicant presentation and you'll have 10 minutes to present and I believe now you're on this one as well. Yep and good evening everyone again. I still am Neil Gauch at the Morning Star Law Group 700 West Main Street but this time I'm representing the C.S.C. Group we have Steve George and Anthony Catalano from the C.S.C. Group with us tonight I believe and we also have Beth Blackman from the Timmins Group in Caroline Bajarski with Brandy Kemp available and once again I will thank staff this time I've stopped for the report and presentation on this case. I think the big story here on this case is that a majority of the site is zoned I which I think everyone can agree is not in appropriate zone industry for this but we'll say we recognize that this is its own application. The reality is though that this project is not possible without K-Parsal in that way it is kind of the next phase of K-Parsal which is a project by the same developer that was approved last year. I think it's important when you consider this project the development plan commits to at least two different housing options townhomes and single family and the plan is weighted towards townhome it's about 380 homes on 117 acres but when you look at this site in conjunction with K-Parsal you really get the complete picture. K-Parsal encompasses about 140 acres it provides for a maximum of 837 units I will say it's not a project that I was involved in so I'm just reiterating what I understand the zoning to encompass there but you know then the on K-Parsal the mix of housing includes two different sizes of single family homes two different sizes of townhomes and 432 multi-family units so across the two projects you're getting around 1200 new homes on 258 acres and you know I think this developer is really looking at this from more of a long-term standpoint and their approach their development plan is reflective of that approach the project commits to a number of key infrastructure improvements for example the plan commits providing a large section of the northern northern Durham Parkway a portion of the Lick Creek Greenway and a north south collector road both northern Durham Parkway and the collector road are shown on the city's adopted comprehensive transportation plan and I will say the only stream crossings shown on the plan are the ones required to implement those roads as this region of Durham develops over time infrastructure like the northern Durham Parkway and also the Greenway Lick Creek Greenway will become crucial components contributing positively towards the quality of life the developer also recognizes the importance of strong storm water controls and environmental considerations the D plan here commits to providing storm water measures for up to the 100-year storm event the project also limits impacts the flood plane and floodway to only those required for the northern Durham Parkway public utilities like water and sewer and greenway infrastructure so no other impacts would be allowed and those are ones that are you know essentially required uh per the conference of transportation plan and the greenway plan and the project commits to 25.5 percent tree coverage instead of the minimum required 20 percent tree coverage we recognize that one of the key concerns about development in this region is the lack of infrastructure investment the project does not shy away from that the D plan commits to several road improvements in addition to the crucial infrastructure identified in various of the cities adopted plans northern Durham Parkway the collecting road the greenway so yes this is a big project but it is projects like this which can afford to underwrite all the necessary infrastructure which will support existing approved and future development in this area in addition to what is being proposed here so I think that's a really important consideration on this um the project also commits to having multiple uh amenity areas or open space areas which I think is important for the quality of life rather than having you know a centralized amenity that people on the outskirts of the community would have to you know essentially travel to a longer distance to this has multiple I believe it's seven um open space areas that are committed to which I think is pretty you know important and unique and thoughtful for a project of this size um and I think that covers most of the points here uh and uh you know we're we're available to to answer your questions and receive your feedback we look forward to that thank you you know uh so we'll now move to resident comments we have let's see it's like we had two people that signed that registered in advance one person who registered um to speak Caroline chiefs signed up as a proponent uh Caroline oh hi I'm Caroline Bojarski that Neil alluded to this project has been going on so long that I got married in between so if you have any questions traffic related I'm available to speak on behalf of that but um thank you um okay so then we have no one registered to speak on this case if anyone would like to speak on this case please raise your hand at this time I mean if you're on the phone press star nine to do so okay seeing none um to be consistent no I'll offer you the remainder of your time although I'm not sure that you need it I'm ready to receive your feedback and answer your questions thank you thank you so I will close the public hearing and open it up to commissioner question to comment commissioner Morgan thank you chair I have a question for the applicant um you had indicated that you would actually build out the uh northern Durham parkway uh right away that comes across the property itself yeah that's right that's uh so we'll build out yeah that's correct I believe we'll build out that whole portion if I remember correctly certainly we'll be dedicating the right of way for it uh across the site and I believe the way the site sets up we would be building it out let me allow anyone from my team to correct me if that's incorrect but I think you can go ahead with with your line of questioning given Morgan and someone from our team might be might step in to correct me okay um and I guess I have another question about can our road is there a connection to can our road and any kind of commitment to upgrading it from a dirt road to that I saw pictures of you know access coming in from dock nickels road and this was I'm curious was there any kind of commitment to uh in our road itself our our research indicates so I think the the map on GIS and in other locations seems to indicate that the canard right of way touches this property however in our research and title title word we found that that is not the case um and so we are not able to connect to canard I think is the way I would describe it um because there isn't an existing right of way or easement to it I know it looks like that on the map that we what we found that was not the case so we're not touching canard road not connecting to it not improving it yeah kind of if I remember right I drove all the way back there when we had another applicant uh for the property east of there and it looks like there's like a house at the end of can our road that that may be blocking your access uh yeah perhaps I mean I think that's I think that's true that there is a house at the end of there I don't know if that's what's blocking the the connection I think if I remember correctly we just didn't find the right of way actually touched our property if I remember correctly if I could jump in this is Steve george of the csc group what nil is describing is true that yeah canard does not actually touch our property it ends right before the Griffin property begins so we do not have a connection point there okay would there eventually uh be one I guess if there is a I guess it would be dependent if I'm on the property north of your your parcel right we are showing an access point to our northern property line that will not connect to canard today but in the future if the property north of us were to develop I would assume that it would connect to canard and therefore would be required to extend canard to the connection point or provide another connection to our northern access point which we're showing on this point okay I guess one of the thoughts that comes to my mind the sounds like the only real connection is through is dependent upon the development of parcel k and some of the infrastructure that would be around there the the only way in and out of this particular area would be through the northern Durham Parkway extension I would say that's correct which is why I said you know this is really kind of the next phase of k parcel this project is not possible without development of k parcel okay and I guess my other thought would be is you know going to the south in east with the northern Durham Parkway extension I know we have another application that will pick up on the other side of Leesville road but we don't have any kind of plan of trying to align those right-of-ways and have you had any discussion on where that that road may go the northern Durham Parkway yes going to the south well yes I mean in our understanding is the alignment that's going through our property is consistent with what's been adopted in the comprehensive transportation plan which is why I mentioned earlier that the only stream crossing shown on this are ones which are required for the northern Durham Parkway and I think that might be it but maybe also the collector road no I think it's just the northern Durham Parkway there's the only stream crossing shown and the reason they're they're shown and otherwise required is because that's the alignment that's been adopted on the comprehensive transportation plan now we're the northern Durham Parkway goes off-site I will say that's not something we necessarily have considered but we were you know our intent here was to be consistent with what is shown on the comprehensive transportation plan so it just sounds like the only you know the entry and exit point is either through right leaf coming in from the north or through parcel k when that is completed I mean yeah I would say the access to the site is going to be through k parcel for the foreseeable future you know once k parcel develops okay yeah I mean might might be concerned again is this whole infrastructure in this area and certainly we just have no this is yet another one of those parcels that is coming before us where we have no real transportation plan that can connect I don't fault the applicant so much as that we do need to have an overall plan and then we've had a southeast Durham study which has been in draft form and we don't have any real transportation map of what's going on in the area and I keep getting a lot of input from you know the folks that live around me because I live in that area is just how is this going to work how's this going to with the additional traffic especially access and and things like that so I think that really kind of speaks to you know are we are we ahead of ourselves trying to change the zoning here for the neighborhood where we don't have the the infrastructure in place so that's just my comment thank you commissioner organ other commissioner questions and comments and apologies I do want to recognize death blackman who's a participant that raised their hand and wanted to provide them an opportunity to add comment good evening I was just going to chime into what Neil said about northern Durham Parkway we are required to build it across our property k partial would be building the connection point to the existing and then we would pick it up from there those are the only two stream crossings that we have on each side of our property lines and in regards to the zoning and you know the infrastructure not being in place it is generally an unfortunate reality that the infrastructure improvements a lot of times fall only developers and by using this property to build another piece of what you have it does not complete it it does not take it out to leesville road unfortunately but at least gets you another step closer and let me know if you have any questions thank you thank you commissioner batista yes thank you yeah my question is for the applicant related to runoff this lot currently is undeveloped and it's a sizable lot and it looks like all of the drainage that currently would leave that lot goes right to lick creek and so I see that there's a proposal for less than 80 percent pre-development runoff levels how do you plan to do that by converting to up to 70 percent impervious surface thanks for the question i'm going to guess that best black man on our team is going to be the best person to answer your your question is more about the engineering side of that how is it done right okay i'm not going to pretend to know how to answer that question and i'm not sure best if you're able to address um commissioner batista's concerned here staff can we get that thank i'm i think i'm on meeting myself now thank you um yes best black woman simons group again um so we will design stormwater control measures utilizing much likely wet ponds the treatment because we will have a lot of area that is undisturbed as well you know without impervious areas it allows us to work together between that and the proposed development to come up with a plan that works um i don't know that we have actually run numbers regarding the actual impervious that we need on site uh because of the amount of you know floodplain wetlands and buffer areas that we do have but to give ourselves flexibility as we're moving forward with it the 70 percent impervious was allowed in the watershed with appropriate stormwater control measures and the 80 percent reduction going to the 80 percent level was uh a suggestion we worked through with the uh different effects of the stormwater group okay thank you thank you commissioner batista commissioner cease yes a question um something that neil alluded to or stated and something that beth i believe stated um my understanding from what each of you have said is that the applicant is proposing to construct the northern Durham parkway from the area up near well the tax commitments referred to picking it up up near flat river drive to the northwest constructing that all the way across this site to the southeast to site access three is that correct right and where is that stated in the tax commitment or can we make sure that that's added as a tax commitment um yeah i mean i think the tax commitment refers to dedication right correct and then the requirement in the udo is that we would have to build any portion of that which is required for access to our site so i think the way that this is the site is laying out all of it is necessary for access to the site um so i think i'm not sure if staff would support the the commitment you're suggesting but um but no i'm not worried about staff's reporting and i'm wondering if you've stated it and and you've described the ability for a project of this size to help in contributing the infrastructure and miss black oh yeah no i have no issue i have no issue it's not in the documents from based on my interpretation so i'd like that to be stated clearly if that's actually what you're offering what i was suggesting is i'm not sure staff's position on the enforceability of that uh generally our tax commitments have to be in excess of what udo the udo requires and i'm not sure that's in excess but i mean i think it's a true statement staff i guess i would weigh yeah i asked staff to weigh in on that but in general i think we're comfortable i think you could access your site here's why i'll just intervene and then michael can chime in um i'll not intervene i'll clarify why i'm raising the question uh i believe it's quite possible for you to access much of your site without constructing a roadway across your site and certainly without constructing it all the way to side access three but it is being represented to us as constructing it all the way to side access three and that's a really big difference so that there aren't these residual pieces that are unconstructed or not constructed or left to the public dollar down the road when properties to the southeast are built so i think there should be clarity around this so michael did you is is the nuance that neil is suggesting is that correct so let me just read what the current tax commitment says um number one under tax commitments prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy construct northern Durham parkway to ncdot standards from the end of the existing roadway near flat river drive to the western property line at site access number one so i think it's talking about it in reverse from what you were so that commitment's already there and the udo regulations are such that um no more than 90 units could be uh constructed um and coed um if there is only one functional uh access point so a second access point would be functional access point um would be required and that would most likely happen with the construction and connection to the collector street to the uh southwest through parcel k so it is kind of parcel k dependent um for construction and the infrastructure improvements and earlene is raising her hand and she may be correcting me or adding to something so i'll let i'll stop talking so earling thomas on transportation department i will just add to what um mike was saying um and to clarify your question the tax commitment can be revised and staff would support a tax commitment of fully constructing um the northern Durham parkway through the site to site access number three your observation is correct that they could technically only build a portion of it which would not necessarily be required to go to the eastern property line if they didn't need that portion of the room to serve their site so if that is something that this commission desires and that tax commitment would need to be revised thank you um earlene especially for clarifying that i and i want to state that uh i i think not only i don't want to state it in terms of what this commission desires i want to state it in terms of what we as a commission were presented with and i think it should be added to maintain um and we'll make that commitment i mean with that clarification from transportation moment we'll make that commitment that is certainly the intent okay thank you i may have more questions but that's it for now mr. Durkin do you think your thing takes two minutes we're gonna take her oh you're on you're on me it's still mr. Durkin you're on you i'm gonna say i won't talk for more than two minutes but i might spur a conversation that requires more than two minutes if you want me to wait until after a break that's fine yeah um let's do that so we're gonna go ahead and take a break for our closed captioners um we'll return at 7 40 p.m we'll be returning in about one minute i'll wait for just a few more commissioners to return and then commissioner durkin you'll be recognized uh commissioner durkin if you want to go ahead and start sure um so the parcel k was referenced as this kind of gone along with that parcel but i believe that um the commissioners that were on the commission at for that case all voted against that one so i don't know how fair or good of a reference that project is in support of this one the other piece is that the big thing on parcel k was the lack of affordable housing given the scale on the of the acreage and the number of units and there they were actually if i'm remembering correctly proffering something along the lines of two percent or something of actually proposing units of offering units not even just a donation to the affordable housing fund and here there's neither the proffer of actual affordable units nor a donation to the affordable housing fund and there i'm not in support of this project for the reasons that were discussed at length and parcel k um we can go through them here um but it's really just the infrastructure impacts and lack of infrastructure is also affordable housing and the amount of development that's happening this area of Durham without having that component involved in any kind of significant capacity whatsoever and so that's my position on this one thank you commissioner Durkin other comments and questions so uh i see commissioner heron has your hand raised you commissioner heron yes thank you thank you chair um i'd like to ask neil uh if y'all are considering something of that nature uh because i mean in terms of excuse me go ahead no i'm sorry you go ahead well i was just gonna say since i've been on the commission um uh almost a year this is the largest project that i've seen so it surprises me that there's no uh offer made no mention made of a percentage anything of that nature so that's the reason for my question sure that makes sense um i will say uh one of one of so the k parcel is a much larger project it did include some affordable housing but it also has multifamily and again that's not a project i've worked on so i'm not speaking from any place of authority on it but my understanding is they were providing affordable housing in the rental units primarily or maybe only and maybe also a monetary donation to the affordable housing fund and that project was much bigger than this one but this project you know it is a large project i'm not suggesting otherwise and i touched on this earlier one of the one of the main things that allows this project to do is to provide all of that infrastructure that is associated with it but i think you know that that is a strength of this project um we've heard over and over that uh development in this area you know needs to be curtailed to some degree until infrastructure is time to catch up but at the same time infrastructure is installed piecemeal essentially by developers for the most part this is a project which puts in a lot of infrastructure um in the northern Durham parkway and the collector road and also commits to building out a portion of the screenway um you know and so a lot of the cost associated with developing the site goes directly to infrastructure so there is not a commitment on this project for affordable housing in is to be included um and this but but this project theme is considering and um i believe will make a monetary donation to the affordable housing fund and it you know my opinion is to be fairly sizable because it's a sizable project however a lot of the cost here is is soaked up in the infrastructure necessary to develop the site regardless of how it's developed these are things that are required primarily from the conference of transportation plan so that answers your question yes yes thank you for that answer uh would you care to be more specific at this point so we the applicant team and steve george is available we've not discussed a number uh that would be essentially that i think that you know that remains to be seen the the housing market as you know is changing pretty rapidly and currently you know we're it's taken a long time to go once you all vote on a case taking a long time to get to city council so you know we're kind of wanting to understand what the market is at a time uh which could be different okay and while we're on the subject uh i think we're adding uh something like 67 students uh to the well to the school system private or public are are you guys considering uh some sort of proper to the Durham public schools uh yes and then we we have been waiting for the staff report on this um you know to make that commitment but yeah we would make a bursting commitment to the Durham public school system um based on the additional number of students that are expected to be generated from this okay maybe uh as we talked about before maybe before the vote uh you could make that a little more specific i mean that's up to you but uh that's a suggestion uh i think that's fair well what what i think that's fair allow us some time to deliberate as we uh as we continue these discussions all right thank you a lot new i see uh jeremy tar has raised their hand recognize jeremy at this time jeremy are you able to unmute yourself to speak no response here okay well we'll move on for now and maybe come back to jeremy later are there other commissioner questions or comments so i have a couple of questions first i have a question for staff i'm curious how the planned Durham north Durham freeway here um played a role in conversations that staff has had about draft place types for this area i don't know if i can speak directly to that role um i know the draft place type actually i'll have to remind myself what the draft place type is if you give me a second unless you already have it pulled up boston yeah i believe it's mixed residential okay um i know most of the place types out there um because there is an interest in promoting um a mix of uses in certain instances but also a good mix of different types of housing um whether there's a parkway going through it or not um is going from just a kind of a planned residential type uh place type to mixed use or mixed uh mixed residential neighborhood or mixed use um freeway uh Durham parkway which i'm going to call it a freeway um and the collector street would only um add to to those place types and would it would have influenced that okay thank you for that um and then question to the applicant um for this case has been referred to a lot as a continuation of parcel k and so given that that's the framing that you've handed us i'm curious why we're going with a lower density on this site than what was offered at parks okay i mean parcel k certainly has some other characteristics that make it more marketable and uh developable for higher density specifically multi-family um this site is not nearly as accessible as parcel k uh as we've discussed you know in this uh in this hearing here um you know and we're going to have to essentially build the northern Durham parkway through the property in order to do it for it to be accessed it does not currently have any kind of frontage or you know viability for an apartment site in our opinion uh apartments are the difference you know in for the density from if you take the apartments out of parcel k the density in parcel k would not be as high and this site is not likely a marketable spot for apartments and so the density on the single-family town of that is similar to parcel k uh in that respect okay thank you for that um so to follow up on Commissioner Durkin's comment from earlier about how framing this uh in relation to parcel k is maybe not uh the most helpful framing in terms of getting the making the commission feel good about it um I did go and look back it was a 1 to 11 vote against the case um the one commissioner who voted in favor of it is not currently on this commission they um were term limited out so just as a frame of reference for what we you know the comments we made on parcel k they still stand particularly on a site immediately adjacent and to me while I am very happy about the opportunity to have the infrastructure here built with the north turn freeway I think that's a huge that that's something a big positive for this site um there's a lot of things about this proposal that to me feel like a step backwards um lower density less affordable housing um and as has been mentioned time and time again this is a very large portion of land um I understand that as it is currently valued that higher density use and more intense use is not as financially viable however I would make a case that once the Durham freeway is built then the value of this is going to go up and more intense and dense use would be appropriate here so I'm pretty firmly against this case um I also just want to note the comment that Mr. Goche made about um waiting to determine the contribution to the affordable housing to the affordable housing fund um and I'm just going to state my my interpretation of that comment was the cost of construction might go up and so we might want to wait to put a number on that in case we want to put a lower number on that down the road to save money around the edges now that might not be accurate or that might not have been Mr. Goche's intention but that was my interpretation of that and um I don't really you know that to me that doesn't feel very in the spirit of making contributions to the affordable housing fund of making donations like that um so for those reasons along with many of the other ones that we talk about time and time again on this commission of unsustainable suburban sprawl that is disconnected and segregated um I am against this case um and I I really really would love to see um something better at this site um particularly given that then the the applicant has come to us before with parcel K and has knowledge of the concerns of this commission and from my perspective it looks like none of those things showed up in this application which is almost offensive and it also it makes it kind of sad and hard to reduce some of these cases and so I really hope and encourage that the next time that um you bring a application to the planning commission that you'll consider some of the comments that we so clearly state on a monthly basis um commissioners cease thank you um yeah a couple of references have been made both by the applicant and in the conversation to parcel K um references have also been made to the draft place types guide and a couple of points and and I don't disagree with much of what commissioner or chair just said chair Anandolia um the proposal before us is carpet housing it's just expansive housing across the landscape single use just as parcel K was just as many of the surrounding tracks here are and all of those in their totality create predictable outcomes of traffic and limited access to services limited access to retail limited access to to civic civic destinations and so in referencing parcel K and in referencing the draft place types I want to highlight just two of two items first of all this is quite different than parcel K in a very um significant way from a planning perspective from a transportation perspective from a land use perspective it's different from parcel K in that it includes both sides of a substantial portion of this future northern Durham Parkway in whatever form that takes although it's on a predictable track at this point with low density suburban sprawl being proposed around it um but it's at the intersection of that proposed right-of-way plus the collector collectors which is also an artifact of suburbia these aren't connectors which are streets that people can walk on and easily access their goods and services but they're collectors which serve cars but that intersection does produce market viability um perhaps not now perhaps not under the low density that's being proposed but certainly with more forethought and care given to market dynamics and land use configurations that could be supportive of different outcomes on this 117 acre track so it's a large parcel there's plenty of opportunity to do more than 3.7 or whatever the number is of a single use so that's one comment to really you know highlight that this is different than parcel K it has much more potential than parcel K because of basic transportation infrastructure as contemplated on plans and as proposed in the project secondly the reference to the draft place types which makes me nervous because those haven't been approved I think there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved before the draft place types map or the draft place types guide can be a definitive guide but it adds context to these conversations so I'll run with it and to to that point this is shown in the draft place types as mixed residential neighborhood the important distinction for purposes of our conversation I think and for purposes of the points I was trying to make regarding the potential for what this could become at the intersection of northern Durham Parkway and this collector road is that the mixed residential is exactly that it's it's it's mixed but it's also just predominantly residential there are also supposed to be in the draft place types guide they're also supposed to be easy access to civic uses to commercial uses to destinations that people can reach um by safely walking biking and rolling within and around their neighborhoods none of that is offered in this project none of that is offered in the proposed land uses none of that is offered in this you know pdr proposition that's being considered so I would argue it's not remotely consistent with the mixed residential neighborhood as a draft place type because it doesn't offer those things even though there's ample acreage to do so there's ample potential transportation structure to do so if this was um something other than just more of the same which is single use auto dependent residential that will forever be uh a traffic problem for those who can afford a car and a pretty isolating living experience for those who are dependent on others to allow them to access their basic daily needs and services and goods um so if it's not clear I'm going to vote against the project thank you thank you commissioner cease uh commissioner morgan thank you thank you chair um you know it's it's one of these issues or these these uh applications that has a number of issues to it um you know in defense of the developers to some what extent we we don't really have a transit type plan and if we were trying to support any kind of affordable housing it is automobile dependent and there's really that issue that it makes it really tough to really to support any kind of affordability in this area my my other concern is you look at northern Durham parkway we're extending it maybe another further closer towards uh us 70 the ultimate plan is northern Durham parkway we'll connect to aviation parkway which is being extended or planned to be extended in wake county up to us 70 and so you know it's one of those things where you know keep harping on the idea of infrastructure it isn't here in this area and you know we're we're building and approving a number of additional things even though I know our commission hasn't approved it but the city council has gone ahead and approved a number of developments which is increasing the number of housing units which is increasing the tax base which could be worthwhile to invest in this area to invest in a few segments that could connect this and make this easier to to manage so in some ways I do say that you know I'm I believe that the developers bring forth a number of items but they have some limited capability or limited ability to do things unless they are willing to build out some of the rest of the roads and other things which could be a major expense and so my concern here is this these developments we had one with 5909 last meeting we have another couple more that are going to be coming up to are up to probably another seven or eight more of these things I study the maps and I see the developments on social pinpoint and we're not doing anything beyond looking at each of the parcels and my concern is is that you know while infrastructure is a big thing I appreciate what the developers brought forward to try to kind of build piece by piece but it would be really great to see the ultimate what the end goal is what we would like to do with our collector streets I mean you know I brought up the thing about the the dirt road which is can our road coming towards the property I know it doesn't intersect with it but that could also provide access but I don't know what it would do to the traffic in the area so my biggest concern I'm not for it but I think for a very variety of different reasons our commission is not in favor of this probably for different reasons and I would ask you know as we make our comments back to the city council is to express your concerns and also express city council to take some kind of action as to try to help these things move along if this is what they want in the area I think we should really be asking for our elected officials if they're going to approve it over our objections or concerns then you know make you know make the investment so this this can meet some of the goals and objectives that we want to see in a comprehensive plan so that's that's my concern and like I said I I'm not in favor of it and only for my reasons and I would address request my other council members to provide that in their comments as well thank you thank you commissioner morgan there are other commissioners who would like to make comments or ask questions at this time seeing none I would take a motion at this time and before the motion I would like to yep get staff to follow up on any proffers also I think mr. gauche we had commissioner here had asked earlier or had suggested maybe you think more about any additional proffers you might make and want to follow up if you had any additional thoughts on that front yeah can you hear me yes okay so specifically I think we were discussing the Durham public school system and we would make a proffer to make a one-time monetary donation in the amount of twenty thousand one hundred dollars to the Durham public school system and that number was arrived at I think it was sixty seven students were stated so that's like three hundred dollars a student okay and were there did did y'all decide on a number for the portable housing fund or are y'all deferring on that I think we would defer on that we have not decided on that number okay Mike do you want to go through the added proffers to make sure everyone's on the same page um yes um one of those was the proffer donation to DPS and getting a final proffer on that the second is that the text commitment regarding construction of northern Durham parkway through the extent of the site will be made and verified through transportation for correctness um the the third one I have and it was something that uh Neil mentioned briefly was construction of the greenway trail my understanding was that it was just going to be dedication is that is that correct it's just dedication of the uh of an easement for the trail or was the trail itself to be constructed within uh for the site um if you look at this is that if you're looking at commitment two oh that's connected to the greenway I thought it was supposed to be constructed in one of these I just I just need clarity I remember asking about this under review and it was first said that it was just going to be dedication of an easement but connections to that we're going to be made is the actual trail itself within the site going to be constructed in addition to dedication of the easement I'll let Neil or Steve they the type commitments just just refer to the easement that was my understanding too yeah so and I'm sorry if I misspoke um I hope if you can give me a moment let me make sure I oh okay actually my client said yeah so I think it is dedication of the greenway easement and construction of connections to that greenway easement okay that's the clarity I needed thanks thank you I believe we're ready for a motion with those additional proffers chair uh chair um I make a motion that we take uh case number z20 00044 which is the griffin uh which griffin are we at there griffin tract here's your griffin track uh uh development track or uh griffin track the case to be forwarded to the city council for a favorable recommendation moved by commissioner morgan do we have a second second seconded by chair cameron any discussion on the motion commissioner cease I'd just like to clarify that the commitment to construct northern Durham parkway within the right of way I'm sorry across the full extent of the property is included yes that is correct that additional proffer and the commitment to $20,000 $20,100 to DPS is also included in this motion did I miss anything Mike no that's correct and it would just be as as uh early noted prior it would be just be a uh clarification of text commitment number one for the northern Durham parkway construction uh maybe have the roll call group for amondolia no baker no batista no buzzbee no cameron no cut right no durkin no thank you harrod no low oh diver morgan no cease no carmen williams no zurie williams no motion fails unanimously thank you staff thank you to the applicant that will move to our fifth item of the night uh this is case z 20 000 50 massy chapel townhomes we'll begin with the staff report good evening are you able to see my screen yes we are and hey grove hello uh this is berg roper with the city county planning department i'll be talking about uh case z to quadruple 0 50 massy chapel townhouses the following information summarizes the application the applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of one parcel of land located at 7926 massy chapel road totaling 5.828 acres the current zoning is rural residential the applicant proposes to change this designation to plan development residential 4.928 the property is currently designated low density residential on the future land use map the proposed zoning is inconsistent with this designation so if the proposed zoning is approved staff recommends a change to the flung to designate the property as low medium density residential the existing zoning is rural residential the site is surrounded by commercial general and rural residential areas as well the aerial map shows the general location of the project the site is located along massy chapel road between Fayetteville road and abron drive property to the north is zoned cgd and includes an automobile sales mall development and south point mall further to the north the property to the west south and east is zoned rural residential and includes single family homes the applicant has included graphic and text commitments including stormwater control measures the installation of a five foot sidewalk along massy chapel road along with design commitments such as covered entryways roofing and building materials and color palette for the full list of commitments please view page six of the staff report this site has access to water sewer and electrical services there is a stream to the north of the site with a 100 foot stream buffer and 10 foot no build setback this site has predominantly hardwood forest with some pine additionally steep slopes are identified on on the site the maximum amount of disturbance allowed is 15 percent of the overall slope area the plan would allow for a maximum of 15 percent of the area to be disturbed applicant has proposed a tree preservation area on the northern portion of the parcel one site access point a sidewalk along the north side of massy chapel road to a nearby parcel with PID 211 002 to the west to connect the adjacent parcels and bmp is on site to be sized to detain the 100-year storm event the proposed development will be limited to a maximum of 28 townhouse residential units along with accessory uses two neighborhood meetings were held in accordance with UDO requirements on September 9th 2020 with 14 community members present and also July 28th 2021 five social pinpoint comments were received by staff in relation to this case which can be seen in attachment k except for the future land use designation staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies if the request is approved the flim designation shall be amended to maintain consistency thank you and staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions we're going to open the public again with the applicant presentation jared edens is i think really representing the applicant tonight and jared you'll have 10 minutes to give your presentation yeah thank you can you hear me okay yes okay good thanks yeah jared edens with the edens investments we're actually the developer on this project i appreciate your time tonight i'm just going to and i appreciate brook summary and her work on the project i just want to highlight a few things for you guys as she mentioned we're looking at about 5.8 acres on massy chapel road it's currently zoned rr we finally arrived at a density of a pdr of about 4.9 which is 28 townhomes for this application you know that's a lower density what you normally see for a townhome application you see typically you know six and a half to seven and a half sometimes upwards of eight depending on the design for townhomes um there's a reason we ended up at where we are and i'll get to that we started at 40 units with our original application which is you know about two years ago um with two neighborhood meetings one september of 2020 another meeting in july of 21 we made a couple of changes you know as a result as part of the process of those meetings that that end up affecting our yield so we we added the 100 year stormwater detention to the site which is something that we've you know i'm a proponent of as a standard and and you see that on on our applications and we also we added some buffers there's you know three property owners in particular that's uh their homes and and rear lot lines are closer a period of being more impacted than some of the other neighbors so we added a we have from a 20-foot buffer to a 30-foot buffer for three of those owners but just those two small changes you know that the pond again the pond gets approximately you know i'd say 25 to 50 percent larger when you when you do the 100 year storm and when you add the extra buffer it it caused our density to go from 40 to 28 so um so we're at about 4.9 which is i think is a pretty reasonable density for the area just a couple notes on transportation we did so the sidewalk to explain a little bit further um you know back when charlie reese was on city council and i remember back at the grip and place rezoning he mentioned the phrase that he mentioned a public benefit you know he said it'd be nice to see some public benefit or for some of these rezoning cases not just your standard traffic improvements that are required for tias but some different things so uh you know we've done that on a couple projects and for this one i looked around to sort of see what we could do here um you know i noticed there's a there's no the uh the americans tobacco trail is about a thousand feet west of where our driveway would connect massy chapel road and from there it's only about 0.6 0.7 miles from that point to the retail at south point so what we committed to do um a sort of a public benefit that would i think it benefits some of the owners on abron drive and also the new property owner here is we're going to fill in that gap of sidewalk it's about a thousand feet of sidewalk that'll now you know it means every new resident in this development you know the 28 new residents here will have a direct pedestrian and you know bikeway connection from their front door to the american tobacco trail which goes to the retail and whatnot you know i think that's a good amenity and and i thought that was a good public benefit for this project i'll also note because i'm i'm always interested to see what these staff reports say uh massy chapel road has a current capacity of about 14 000 cars and a current traffic of 1900 cars a day so uh obviously well in the capacity now we didn't do a traffic study or anything for for such a small project i do want to make two additional proffers um you know normally these were we make these at city council but i know that this comes up at planning commission it's come up earlier tonight so i just want to go ahead and address it um you know we we don't have an affordable component here it's 28 units i think you know i've got some other stuff coming you know some other ideas on affordability on larger projects it's really hard to pencil it out here uh we will be making an affordable payment uh you know the rate we used for years uh from when mayor shul helped sort of start the fund and up until you know recently was 150 a unit uh we upped that uh at the grip in place council meeting to 500 a unit so we'll be proffering uh it's a 14 000 payment to the affordable fund we'll also be proffering the school's payment you know the standard is 500 dollars a student the staff report says three students that's that's 1500 dollars i mean you know that that's okay but we you know we'll proffer $5 000 for the schools i mean you know 1500 just sort of won't do much so um so those two payments you know 14 000 for affordable and 5 000 per schools will be due prior to the first final plat for the project i think is how we word it on the zoning conditions um just in summary i think it's a good use for townhomes i mean you know it's adjacent to some heavy retail um it sort of can serve as a transition you know when you land plan areas you sort of have the retail in the in the middle and you have you know apartments and townhomes to sort of transition out the singles it's sort of a transition you know between the retail and some of the singles that are that are south of it um you know great access to the trail and south point i mean it's uh you know i measured from the driveway connection it's 0.8 miles to to the south point retail i think it's a reasonable density you know it's a good it's less than what you see um but i think for the location i think it's a reasonable compromise uh but yeah that's that's my main point i'd be glad to answer any questions you have and i appreciate your time thank you thank you jared we have three people who signed up in advance to speak in opposition to this case um those individuals are welty white jeremy tar and sydney ranson um you all have two minutes each to make any remarks um when i uncaught on please state your name and address and make your comments uh we'll begin with welty white uh good evening um my name is welty white and i live uh at 78 38 massey chapel road and looking down on the plat um we are the farthest to the i guess would be the east side on massey chapel um and my wife uh is with me her name's melody white um um i just i wrote a little something down here i said we have seen all the development in our aerial area from rural farmland to now we've been here for 22 years we are private people and we concerned about the traffic's headlights that are already shining into our house from the chelsea meadows housing development entrance and we're also worried about the headlights on this development there's going to be a traffic circle or turnaround for that development in our backyard um right now um we we we enjoy our time in our yard in our privacy here um i don't to word i'm not not forgiven anybody that wants to build on their property but the headlights the noise and the security issues i have from this possibly this development is a concern for us so we we also are concerned about having uh having the land disturbed from all the construction because we are currently on well and septic the septic system that hendrick's car dealership took over that those people that lived in those neighborhoods had serious problems with their septic systems over the years um and i'm worried about the water table being disturbed and aqua fear that might shallow well about 60 foot which is towards my back of my property um is a concern for us and i know that the new development the septic system is down at the bottom on the north side where the creek is and i was wondering if the project does go through is there going to be any um any way that we would possibly be able to tie into the septic mr right would um you've reached your two minutes okay thank you thank you um up next is jeremy tar please state your name and address and you'll have two minutes to speak good evening commissioners can you hear me yes my name is jeremy tar my wife and i own property at seven four and nine abron drive which would run along part of the development we know north cailine's growing rapidly especially this area folks need housing we get that but the unique features of this development in our neighborhood really make it not a good fit this is not a situation of multi-family housing being built kind of in a new lot beside our neighborhood or across the street from our neighborhood as you can see from the polygon this is being built around and above many of our neighbors tenants of the 25 units are going to drive down a narrow road squeeze between some of our homes and then park behind our homes and then go up to the residences that are going to look down into our backyards and into our windows we strongly oppose this project we ask that you recommend to the city council to deny the rezoning request if the project does need to move forward we'd ask that you could consider the following mitigation steps when i say we have speak from our wife and me not other neighbors um we're concerned about seeing light from the parking lots from the buildings and the cars from our backyards and windows this is based on our experience with the recent Hendrick dealership that's much farther away but the lights burn bright each night and still affect us despite the mitigation and the buffers and all that were put in place so we'd ask that you require berms with tall evergreens or opaque fencing they have to be high opacity during the winter as we experience about half the year with no leaves on trees some of the measures you know work in the summer but not for about half the year concerned about traffic to reduce car and foot traffic appreciate the proffer of sidewalks would ask that those sidewalks run from Fayetteville road all the way down to the tobacco trail to allow residents to go left or right out of the driveway to have multiple options of how to get to south point the neighboring retail also would ask for an active transfer sorry you've hit your two minutes i'd also ask for active transportation lanes so folks can bike not just walk and for construction to not occur on weekends or holidays or evenings thank you thank you um Sydney ransom you have two minutes to speak how you doing my name is Sydney ransom i live at seven nine two four master chopper road i'm basically located at the very end of the access road my issue is privacy and security um it's basically been a nightmare for me i think it started around four years ago they put a sign at the bottom of the road saying that some property was for sale and that's when i had a lot of trespassers i had to construct a fence to keep people out my yard people are literally driving in my yard um talk to the person who owned the land at the time and they said that's the first time i learned that the hill was privately owned it should have been a county dedicated road um another issue i had is eventually once they started doing the surveying um i had an issue trying to exit my driveway and i contacted Eden's land but i never got a response for that and also i had trucks in my yard as well and just to paint a picture of my house we've been there for 42 years um it's a private property private area so i don't really have a direct view of any of my neighbors and i have no traffic at all it's literally zero so you're talking about going from zero to a 28 town home um project also um i'll be surrounded behind me to the side in front of me by townhouses basically peering down on me so basically that's my main concern just privacy and then from a security standpoint i've never had anybody breaking through my house but i'm assuming because nobody knows my house is here now i'm going to be basically on a public street and i have to consider um not just the people that live in the townhouses but the services such as taxis um uber school buses you know literally going from zero traffic to like a huge whole neighborhood pretty much being built on top and around and it's my main concern and that's pretty much all i had to say about that right now thank you um okay i see one participant has raised their hand to add comments on if anyone else would like to speak on this item please go ahead and raise your hand at this time again a reminder if you're on the phone to do so by pressing star nine um brian albrecht you'll have two minutes to speak please say your name and address and make your comments thank you very much my name is brian albrecht and i'm here with my wife nicky uh we live at 78 40 massy chapel road we're one of the two i guess three lots that are immediately south of the proposed townhome development um as mr edens had mentioned there were three lots that would be most severely impacted by the housing uh i guess encroachment or whatever you want to call it um as both mike and i believe jeremy had stated this property is a really unique shape it's essentially like a pork chop the tail is the road going in which obviously is needed for road services there's a huge cliff kind of at that back corner and then the creek beds there which is and then with the water retention pond essentially all of these 28 units are going to be squished into the two acres that are immediately abutting both my house mike's house next door and our neighbor on the other side so it sounds like it's a relatively appropriate sort of a slightly higher development property realistically from what mr edens has already showed us at the townhome meeting it's going to i have a 200 foot frontage at the back of my property the diagram he showed us was a three story building 150 feet long one and a half units basically staggered across the back of my property so instead of having a nice townhome community where you might have small units broken up amongst the property separation things like that we're essentially going to have a commercial-sized wall a townhome wall across the back of our property um this is essentially an islanded community it's going to be cut off from everything the driveways over a thousand feet long it's it's it's really cut off it's just a high dollar super high density townhome community that could be better developed and also last statement just like mike said this area has historically horrible soil for septics some of us have already spent exorbitant fees having to go through to repair failed septics please please please in your recommendation make sure that our properties are considered when you consider future use don't cut us off from getting into the city if we don't have access to wastewater treatment our properties then become useless um we don't accept we don't expect it to be free but we hope that the plan to consider long-term use including us who aren't specifically part of this plan so thank you for listening to us um we do hope the property is developed smartly brian thank you thank you um okay i'm next we're going to go to nancy friche we have two minutes please state your name and address um here this is chris peter some from stuff i'm having trouble getting dana c's account to uh there we go i think it's working now okay i'm on abron drive and we already have a lot of traffic and this is the cul-de-sac and getting out onto massy chapel is not the issue right now but if we add 30 more cars coming out of a driveway that is what 30 feet from massy from our street getting out and in is going to be difficult and then getting in and out on 751 at one end of massy chapel and they'll road on the other end right now it is extremely difficult we're going to add more traffic we're going to add more noise light water problems so i i think this is too much in a tiny little space there's only one entrance in and one entrance out if something happens to their driveway they're stuck please do not approve this thank you um up next we have mandy tenamore and mandy please state your name and address when you're up two minutes to make comment thank you my name is mandy tenamore i live at 7408 abron um and we just wanted to add our voices to our neighbors uh we're worried about the light pollution unfortunately we've learned the hard way from Hendrick that you know things that look good on paper don't always play out well in real life the the light pollution is in our opinion significant from Hendrick and it probably will just get worse with this development we're also worried about traffic and to add to Jeremy's point of connecting and giving people of this development a different way to get to south like maybe they could connect to i know there's a sidewalk out past Hendrick um so maybe they could connect that way just a thought but um just adding our voice to our neighbors concerns thank you thank you uh is there anyone else who would like to speak this time uh marx sinonson i see you've raised your hand please state your name and address your up two minutes to make comment okay can you hear me yes marx simonson i live at 7407 abron drive and uh again like my neighbors i have a lot of similar concerns um the light pollution certainly is one but they're the substrate that uh upon which uh the eden the uh mr eden is proposing to build is on a sort of a area that uh where the the stability of the soil and i realized they've probably done i think someone said there's already been core samples done so hopefully they've already sort of dealt with this issue but i know that a lot of our houses have foundation issues uh related to sinking sand essentially and uh that they're literally building on a cliff as uh brian said earlier um um that's even worse than most of our houses which are built on flat surfaces um now admittedly they're at the top of the cliff but um you know what is at the bottom of the cliff is first off you know there's a lot of washing of water that goes down that way but then there's this area called fern valley at the bottom of the cliff it's full of ferns it's full of wildlife it's beautiful um it has already suffered some uh degradation because of the hendrick uh um development and uh but luckily there's still a lot of wildlife back there um we're concerned about everything from the light pollution the noise pollution the added traffic the added foot traffic um and just the density of this just doesn't seem that practical especially looking at the pork chop shaped property that that it will be built upon thank you um okay seeing no other residents who should speak at this time uh jared you had about four minutes left of your time if you'd like to make any further comment or rebuttal yeah i appreciate that i was uh i appreciate the neighbors uh being here and i was taking notes as people were talking i'm trying to address some of this stuff um the headlight concern i understand that for sure but like you know when you look at the topography um you know where the roads and where the units are going to be on our site is it's a good 10 to 15 feet lower than the homes that are up on massy chapel road so i mean i'm not sure what kind of light pollution would would get through from that grade difference but i think a lot of that light is going to be below them and um i don't think very noticeable um you know i understand that the problems with well and septic i think staff understands there's issues out there as well so you know part of our extension agreement here and part of the annexation uh requires that we provide a uh you know sewer connections to the upstream property owners you know as much as we can so that that's in in riding that's the legal agreement was with the city our design and site plan i have to accommodate it obviously they're upstream of us so that's something it's very easy to do to put some manholes up there uh and if then the if those property owners wish to connect on then they can annex and have public water and sewer and i think that but you know that that does alleviate that concern you know we can we can help out there um lighting in general you know street lighting and i think staff maybe can can help speak to this but you know the udo does have built-in uh requirements for for lighting and spill over at the property line you know the engineer landscape architect typically has to take a light meter out you know at night time walk the property line measure the foot candle requirements make sure it meets codes you know there is protections in i don't think south point mall you know the auto mall is a good comparison uh one they're they're gray they're much higher in grade than we are compared to the properties on abron drive and on massey chapel road uh the mercedes is on the other side of the of the channel and it's up above the stream and it's pretty high up so you know we're below all the surrounding properties so all of our lighting you know street lighting and everything is going to be below grade relative to our neighbors and i guess the um the one thing i'd ask to look at is you know look at what the alternate is i mean you know we've had cases before and i've been listening this evening and you know we want to have some residential density near some amenities and near some some things we can get to and this is it you know you can you know point eight miles is not a long bicycle ride to to go have lunch or do whatever you know from your house so you know the alternate is is a you know a three or four lot large lot subdivision with a one and a half to two million dollar home that sure i mean that's maybe that's great and maybe some people prefer that but it you know is that the best use of of 5.9 acres adjacent to a car dealership at south point you know i don't think it is and that's why we took on the project in spite of its shape and you know that the project does rectify some things you know some of the driveways some of our neighbors drives you know aren't on their properties or on our property that connect to massey chapel you know this is going to rectify that you know clean up the existing drives i think we've built in some protections i just think it's the best use of the property so thanks for the chance to answer some of those questions and i appreciate you know the questions you have thanks thank you jared this time we're going to close the public hearing and i've been up for commissioner comment and question i see that her lane thomas has raised her hand um so i'll go ahead and recognize her lane before we get into comment and question thank you earling thomas city transportation i did just want to make one comment before you went into your um conversations and um regarding the offsite sidewalk um proffer just noting that it is conditioned upon the available right of way and it does appear that you know with massey chapel road not having curbing gutter there's a ditch the sidewalk will will be required to be located behind the ditch um so there is some concerns that right there there will be issues with right of way availability so i wanted to daylight that and perhaps you can ask the applicant for um some assurance or if they've done some due diligence in that area thank you earling yeah um mr eaton let's start there um yeah it's a great point and i appreciate her bringing it up because you know we put that in there because you know you you know i've had much larger projects with offsite sidewalk improvements and you don't ever want an entire project to be held up because of a five-foot right of way strip you know that one property owner community may not want to give up so you always have that clarification you know the beauty of these virtual hearings is i can go to to gis while earling is talking and measure the right of way of massey chapel road you know where the sidewalk is going to be and it looks like it's about 60 feet which is a typical ncdot you know suburban right of way it's only a two lane road um we often have three lane roads you know with sidewalk and shoulder and ditch sometimes in those locations that'll fit in the 60 foot right of way so i feel confident that you know no extra right of way is going to be needed we've got a lot of space there uh to put the shoulder and ditch and fit that in i mean just a typical project 60 feet would be more than enough so you know i think it's going to get installed right thank you for that um earling would you mind commenting on mr eden's response to that and if you have um if you think that that's accurate i earling tom is transportation will say generally speaking 60 feet um should be enough right of way but oftentimes road roads aren't necessarily centered in that right of way and you know maybe the ditch is further off the um edge of pavement than you know one would think it does appear from street view that there will be some challenging spots so i just don't want to see the applicant make a proffer that does ultimately hold him up if if he hasn't done that due diligence okay thank you mr eden's yeah i was just looking at the the topography i mean the topography along in the right of way is is pretty good so like i said i mean i i don't foresee that being an issue with making the installation it's a you know typically it's just not an issue do other commissioners have questions or comments commissioner cease thank you just a question on that item and a related aspect to it somewhere um maybe it was in the staff report maybe it was in the eden submittal package um you know i'm looking now actually at the uh attachment g the head i guess it's the bike and pet advisory committee staff analysis and one of the things that they asked for was to provide that sidewalk or provide payment and lou and i don't see the payment and lou aspect included um so mr eden's is that that something that was considered yeah the the problem with you know you know i don't think bike ped deals often with the city engineering department and the payment lou process involved with you know that's in a pretty extensive process durham very rarely engineering for years has a very rarely would give you the payment lou option it's got to be a complete i mean it's got to be a rare situation because developers because i you know i would have done it to be honest with you many times you would just say well we'll just do the payment lou you know we don't want to deal with this grade or with the extended this culvert or things like that um so you know we include that language because i mean to be honest with you when i talked to rob and those guys at engineering i it's never brought it it's like a no i don't mention payment lou because it's it's either you build the sidewalk or you build the sidewalk has been the options in the past okay thank you for that response so i'll just point out based on what i heard from erlene that there is a difference of opinion at least as being expressed to us tonight regarding the feasibility of constructing the sidewalk for this 1200 plus feet whatever it is towards the connection to the american vehicle trail and right now what the applicant has offered is to construct it if the right of way allows it and if the right of way doesn't allow it nothing gets constructed and he still complies with the development plan and that seems a little problematic um and perhaps it's problematic hanging that on the engineering staff too and that the payment and lou may be an easy out but i really appreciate erlene raising um raising the item for concern because it's one of many items concerning uh with this project and i'll leave it to uh that that's all i have for now and erlene i see uh raised your hand again so i'll recognize you at this time yes thank you erlene thomas transportation i just wanted to point out that payment lou is not an option in the county so that perhaps is why that um he was not added to the proffer thank you that's very helpful other commissioner question a comment commissioner baker cherry i've got a couple questions here um so i was taking notes when people were speaking and i think that they were several pretty reasonable um comments and requests um a couple of which the applicant also addressed so i wanted to to bring some of these up um several neighbors brought up the issue of the septic system and potentially tying into a new sewer line mr edens uh spoke to providing the sewer and making that available to upstream property owners and um cannot can can staff confirm that that is um that is accurate um as as described by by mr edens i assume i assume it is but i just want to want to get confirmation that um the property owners will be able to tie into a new sewer line that's provided by the applicant i believe he is correct um i will have to double check though okay yeah okay um the other issue was a light coming from car dealerships car dealerships are very bright and use a lot of light um at all hours of the day so that's a very um i think very reasonable concern um there is a pretty significant natural buffer um both on the on the site and off the site and um and mr edens spoke to that to that buffer so my my question to staff is is that something that you believe is accurate that the that the existing buffer is sufficient to ensure that um the bright lights coming from the car dealership are not going to significantly impact um the the neighbors that spoke is that something that we can confirm and maybe maybe you need some extra time you mean the can you clarify that again you mean the lights coming from the dealership yeah to the north um well that dealership's already built out am i misunderstanding your concern um that if they're above grade um then they're already being impacted by the dealership or are you concerned about the lights coming from the proposed development the lights from the existing dealership um because the natural buffer to a certain extent will be removed for the for the new development the question is would it be removed to the extent that it would have any impact on on those neighbors it doesn't look like it would but uh and mr edens spoke to that but i just wanted to confirm if that was something that's happened they don't think that we could verify that one way or the other we don't have an analysis and that's good enough i just wanted wanted to check thank you sorry for the clarification yeah um one thing that was raised by a neighbor um that it wasn't addressed by mr edens um i'm going to ask this to mr edens um one of the questions was um for there not to be construction to occur in evenings and on weekends um mr edens is that something that you can speak to yeah um no i think that's a reason you know that comes up often at the neighborhood meetings and stuff and but it rarely makes it to zoning conditions on plans you know rarely i don't know if we ever see it on on the plans but i mean i'm not opposed to that at all because you know it's a reasonable request and you know we want to be in and out and as quiet as possible so i don't know what if staff has any guidance or what typical hours are but you know obviously you know you try you try to take advantage of some of your summer hours during the summer right because it's when it's dry that's uh you know some of the neighbors spoke to um the soils out there and they're correct you know they're they're muddy clay soils that are that are slimy and winter and hard to grade so you know in the summertime you want to take advantage of that time to get your grade and done when you can when when things are dry but no that'd be fine you know some sort of um i hadn't had a chance to get there on what the time obviously you're strict and you know saying no weekends would not be an issue but i would just have to question like what would be a proper time like on the evenings but we're not opposed to that at all i mean it's reasonable um and one thing i'll say is i i know there's uh mr k hails there's something that you want to want to say yeah i don't i don't want to interrupt but i want to make sure your questions getting answered fully um going back to the sewer your first question you know if it's a private drive it would be a private sewer underneath um so that distinction is probably important for this conversation um and then i think the other part to that is uh mr eden spoke to if the nearby property owners would like to connect to that drainage basin that's in the farrington drainage basin um they would have to annex in and then there would be a sewer capacity analysis done and that would be a voluntary annexation that's of their own volition so i think those are two things that are important to point out especially the fact that if it's a private drive it would be a private sewer okay thank you for clarifying that i think that's really useful information um and if anyone is confused by that by all means um we should ask that question to alex so you can clarify for anybody um i i do appreciate the um the intended commitment um for the sidewalk i understand that there's a little bit of uh concern over whether in the feasibility of it um but the intent there is something that that i do appreciate um and then i'm only staying on questions for now um one one neighbor did raise some concern about sort of the the bulk design and materials of the uh future townhomes and that was something i wanted to raise as well um so mr eden would you would you mind just speaking a little bit to that concern by the neighbor of kind of looking back and just seeing a kind of large structure a large wall that it is officially townhomes but is not potentially in does not contain a design and materials that is um reasonable to the neighbors is can you speak to that and maybe maybe if necessary we can have some discussion over how to address that concern yeah no i i appreciate that this i was just i was looking at the topography as you were talking um you know the lots up on message apple road um where the homes are i'm just counting two four six eight so like you know where our townhomes and road would be internally is a good 20 plus feet lower than the the the where the homes are on message apple road so that much very much minimizes you know the visual impact you can't see it you can't be impacted by you know we're 20 feet lower now we also like i said we widen the buffer you know from 20 to 30 to help out with that um if i could have done 50 i would have done 50 we do 50 on a lot of projects i mean that would pretty much kill it because like i said we're already down to sort of a really low unit count but i mean i think just the the topography itself sort of helps provide a buffer for for materials and lighting and everything because we're just so much lower than than our neighbors and also on the sewer thing you know keep in mind you know yeah we annex property all the time that has private sewer you know almost every town home development in town is annexed with private sewer so even though our sewer is private you know we would they would still have access to it our neighbors would and and what i was going to clarify that thanks okay that's all my questions thank you thank you commissioner baker um commissioner busby thanks chairman dahlia and i think i'm going to mostly build on commissioner bakers line of questioning which i really appreciate uh i guess the first question is just a follow-up actually i think commissioner baker was or i think it was jared was wondering if there was some existing language that has been used for addressing the the noise issue and you know making sure that the construction isn't happening on weekends holidays but trying to think through uh weekdays and once an appropriate time so i guess the first question will be for staff is is there a language that has been used in other cases around that kind of question that we could look to have available if the applicant is open to it the neighbors are asking for it seems like that's a win-win it'd be great to be able to actually put it in as a you know a written proffer thank you i'm not currently aware of any language but um we can definitely look into that um and see if there's anything that we can we can use thank you and and i know i mean you know jared mr reidens comes to us a lot and i know that he uh you know is is going to be very trustworthy to work on this issue as it moves forward to city council so i'm not asking that that's something that needs to be dealt with this evening but uh if that's something that that he's open to and the staff's willing to work on it i think it'd be great to be able and then and it may be something that doesn't exist maybe it's something that we can then have if this is a future question especially as we have more of these unique infill proposals that are taking place so thank you on that i think my other questions are mostly for jared jared i think the first thing and you walked me through this and it was very helpful but i think it would be useful to have you do it again tonight is i asked you uh you you reached out and offered to meet with any of us and and i took you up on it and it was very helpful just to hear about the project a little more before tonight's meeting i asked you to help me think through so if someone is living in this new development and they are looking to walk or bike down to american tobacco trail can you walk through how would that work between the required sidewalks that you'll be building but also you know crossing the street you know to get from one side of the development over to the other side down to massy chapel over to the american tobacco trail can you just walk through the full sidewalk complement and how that would play out yeah so the um so the code requires you know all all new streets public or private and have sidewalks on both sides right so you know the access road because our property is like a flag right so the flagpole of the flag the access road uh there'll be a private drive you know all the way into where the units are we have sidewalk on both sides five feet sidewalk so that you know if you live in the development um you know you probably should walk on the sidewalk not ride your bike but you know walk or ride your bike on the sidewalk um you know you can get out all the way to the where the entrance is we have the extension from that point running west on massy chapel road it measures to around a thousand feet in the gis when you get to that point you're at the american tobacco trail which is you know probably eight to ten feet wide at that point uh it's about point six miles north to where you have all the retail um you know restaurants things like that so i mean i think it's fairly convenient you know i think it's it's a really good amenity and you know i think it's time to take advantage of it if we can but that's sort of how it works great thank you uh i have another question but i see mr k hils raise his hand so i'm i'm gonna pause and let him jump in i'll try to i was gonna say um so they already answered the question about you know traffic and construction and timing and we don't have other examples of that but you know we've worked with edens and willing to work with him on figuring out what that language could be however uh if there is a discussion around lights we heard that from the community and neighbors we have had commitments in the past specifically lit up a lot of park had commitments on restricting the height of light poles in the parking area using cutoff fixtures for the lights and that could be one commitment that would be possible to help address some of the the light potential issues that we might have thank you actually it's great timing because i had two final questions and one was about the existing light and i i did recall i couldn't remember which case but i recall we did see something recently so thanks for reminding us uh and so mr edens i jared i just wanted to see thoughts on that i mean that that also might address some of the concerns about the light coming off of the development i know you're below grade from the neighbors but it's another good faith opportunity and effort that could be made no i i think it's i appreciate alex bring those up because we you know we've done that before it's it's been a while but yeah i mean they're shielded light fixtures i mean the advantage to having a private drive is we have more control or maybe a little bit more control over the kind of fixtures that go in and things as opposed to you know public city streets where duke has a little bit more say so i think maybe orlain can speak to that but no those are good those are good the proffers and i mean that's sort of what i mean that's what the planning commission you know we're we're trying to make the projects better before they move on i think that's a good suggestion and and works for everybody so i'm not sure what the standard height restriction is i feel like it's you know 30 feet i'm not sure certain i know there's standard wording for shielded fixtures that we that we would gladly incorporate but um yeah we could do both of those things for sure that'd be great and again i'm not suggesting we we add that definitively tonight i'd want to get the language right and i understand that there's time before this goes to city council so uh but just having your commitment to work on it work with staff and have something that could be added when you get to council i think would would be really great my final thing was on ongoing noise issues so you've talked about the construction phase but then in terms of just the day-to-day living phase the the only other thing i would hope you might consider is especially as we move toward the adoption of electric vehicles which are much much quieter i don't expect everyone that's going to live in this area would have an electric vehicle but over time you you may have residents that will choose to have an electric vehicle we've seen proffers to put electric vehicle charging stations on new developments is that something you are willing to consider yeah no yeah i like that idea also and we have done a lot of our projects and and you know this zoning was filed so long ago that it sort of predated some of the the extra stuff that that people have been adding but i think you know two two charging stations would would suffice i think we could supply that i mean for 28 units that that should cover the neighborhood and hopefully some visitors from time to time so we could add that proffer yeah that's great thank you those are my questions i did want to do one one final thing was that i know when jeremy tar was speaking he was going through a list of pretty thoughtful neighbor or at least things that he and his wife were thinking were worth considering and we ran out of time i was going to see if he had any other items that were on his list and give him the opportunity to finish those suggestions for our consideration thank you commissioner can you all hear me yes thank you i appreciate the comments about addressing the things i mentioned the one i ran out of time for was to address noise and ev chargers and and appreciate commission you bringing that up um i'd encourage this body to recommend more than two ev chargers if you have 28 units how many vehicles is that going to be the trend during the life of this development if it goes forward is going to be to have many more evs than two per 28 units so it's a relatively inexpensive time to add ev chargers again evs are basically silent and that would help with some noise issues i think consideration of active transportation lane um to the developer i think mentioned as an aside that and we're not supposed to ride bikes on sidewalks if someone is going to bike from the development to the american tobacco trail to south point um you know they would need a safe place to do that another noise issue was about i don't know if there's a way to address um emptying dumpsters i assume they're not going to be deliveries but that is something that neighbors have experienced a lot of noise middle of the night emptying dumpsters and and beeping on on deliveries so i i will stop there and appreciate the the extra few minutes to make those final points great thank you and i guess my final question chair and then i'll hand it back to you it's just jared any any final feedback on those comments you've been really receptive to hearing the neighbors and addressing a lot of those concerns yeah i mean the you know the active transportation lane you're like a four or five-foot bike i mean that's a great idea but you know we've just had conversation about worries about right-of-way constraints and getting sidewalk constructed so you know i mean i hate to commit to add the five-foot bike lane along a part of massy chapel and fit the five-foot sidewalk in you know within the 60-foot right-of-way so i mean i think that's a good idea and and those get installed as properties developed and roads are widened and and they put those lanes in but you know i'd be hesitant to add any more to our plate for the massy chapel okay thanks jared and and thank you chair i'm indelia that's it for me thank you commissioner busby are there other commissioner comments and questions all right so i'm gonna start with a question of staff and i'm gonna go ahead and apologize for being a little bit pedantic um there's been a lot of reference to the possibility of neighbors connecting to sewer in the future and i just wanted to ask staff to briefly describe the voluntary annexation process so that folks at it tonight are aware of how they could take advantage of that in the future if they so desired gonna assume that question i can take that question alexander cahill here planning department so the annexation process for the neighbors that are interested is a legislative process meaning the city council will vote on it the steps just to kind of make it succinct you'll fill out a petition that petition will be routed to other departments they'll review it they'll check for sewer capacity roadway capacity and some other factors including emergency service response and then once it's gone through the review process it would go to the city council they'll deliberate on it there'll be a public hearing just as there is tonight and then they would vote to either approve or deny that annexation one other important part of that is the city doesn't pay for the cost to connect to sewer and water so the connection costs would be at the individual homeowners expense and there would be a utility extension agreement essentially that you would work or negotiate with the city on to make that happen if the annexation were approved thank you alexander um or they appreciate that um because i want to recognize a couple of folks that have raised their hand first we'll start with mark simonson oh i just wanted to add that um i um my neighbors and i have been speaking a little while this meeting is going on and i don't see how um the elevations could be correct that mr edens is talking about because my property is definitely underneath uh so my property sort of the back end of my property a but maybe not directly a but what will be the development but i'm definitely a lot a lower lying than the development will be especially if they're multi story um uh townhomes um so i think for it gets too far along someone needs to check whether these elevations that we're talking about are correct thank you is your property to the what direction is it from just to the um uh let me think so that's north that's out so we are to the we're towards so i'm on abron drive so we are towards the uh west yeah yeah okay yes um thank you for that mark um before we go to brian um staff could you um discuss some of those the topography and verify the numbers there of whether this site would be i guess above or below an elevation or commissioner sees you may also jump in if you would like brook or alexander sorry about that um we would have to double check on that um i don't know if jared has anything he'd like to add the ceremony we can also come back if you need a second to double check on that um alexander might do when you all want to jump in yeah i'll go and alexander maybe you're gonna say the same thing i'm just looking at the existing condition sheet on the development plan and it lays out the topographical lines so it is all going down and away um it looks so the high point is 296 294 298 and then it slopes down to the north and west okay jared if you want to elaborate anymore but it looks like that's what's going on we are definitely downhill of all of our immediate neighbors i mean i've had some neighbors describing it as a cliff right so it's um it can't be a cliff and not be downhill so but it we're downhill from all of our surrounding immediate surrounding neighbors thank you um and then brian albrecht um you also raised your hand so i'd like to give you a moment perfect can you guys hear me yes okay thank you and uh just very very specific point and i guess i'm second-believering it from your question about the city sewer as well um we understand that the connection to city sewer would be voluntary per per annexation process and such we're extremely concerned about getting orphaned and cut off from future development um that there's a distinction i heard repeatedly tonight was difference between sewer under a private drive versus a public drive would we be counting on future goodwill of edens to be able to potentially connect to his private sewer hookup also pending city sewer um it's a very real possibility the kentington drive where hendrick was from my understanding they were septic failure for years and years and couldn't do anything we are concerned i'm already on a state permitted septic system because my system failed once i i don't want to get left behind here in durham i can't control that property but we hope that these existing houses here just don't get left due to a technicality and our septic gets permit gets revoked and we can't connect to the city we don't do anything so can you as the the commission here get some clarification about do we have not a guarantee from the city but per rulings private sewer connections have the same sort of mandates that a public street would that we can at least count that there might be an option going forward yeah thank you um jared i'll have you respond to that first and then everyone is also provided insurance yeah so i'm i'm reading the um i signed the extension agreement with the city i think it was around the 18th of april so the extension agreement spells out the you know the water and sewer for the property you know what's required of the developer things like that uh page 13 and it's the project specific provisions these are these are conditions they write up per project they're not part of any kind of standard language uh on the sewer service the uh the last the next last sentence the developer shall extend sewer and easements through the project to its boundaries as directed by the city to allow for future extensions that is from the language from the extension agreement so and we had conversations with the water management about this during the process you know because you it's standard operating procedure when you submit site plans or whatnot that you're to carry the sewer through your project to your upstream neighbors that's just how it's done in all municipalities to allow for that future extension but that legal language is in the sewer extension agreement that we signed uh and so the city will have pure discretion and site plan to tell us where to take manholes to and um i'm tied to that so thank you thank you um and staff can you just verify that information to provide a extra level of assurance yeah so uh mr eiden is correct and i appreciate him reaching the utility extension agreement um everything he said is accurate the only caveat i would add is that is that extension agreement is predicated on the city council approving the annexation um which is a vote that they would determine down the road but otherwise all the information in that utility extension agreement is accurate thank you alexander um i want to um note that we have like had a lot more discussion on this case um than what we typically would and um typically resident comments are mostly dedicated to the public hearing i mean we've given space for residents to speak more during the discussion um but in keeping in mind uh moving forward in this meeting keeping the agenda not too late um i'm going to recognize the folks that currently have their hand raised and then after that i'm going to resume with commissioner comment and question before the vote um so i know that um well to you had your hand raised a moment ago and um if you still would like to make a comment um you may and then jeremy i'll ask um for a like final brief comment and then we'll move on but we'll begin with halte oh yeah so thank you very much for this last comment um it pertains to the sewer hookup um the gentleman for the city i think you did not hear it right he said that if they extend the sewer line we are obligated to file for annexation um no you're not obligated to um annexations of existing property in north carolina are voluntary um so you may choose to and if you choose to it will be up to the city council as to whether or not you may connect to the existing sewer corrects okay so then they'll extend the line to the area to have my prop towards my property and then i will be able to tie in at a later date if i need be that is my understanding alexander could you yeah yeah these are great questions thank you um yeah there's kind of two situations and i'd be happy to talk tomorrow or anytime this week with any of these residents if you want to give me an email i'll put it in the chat um so yes there's two things if you annex into the city and you connect to the city water and sewer that would be a possibility there are also exceptions to that if you have a failing septic system or there are other caveats um you don't necessarily have to annex and you can tie in so we are willing to explore those exceptions with y'all i'll put my contact information in the chat and we'll work with you sometime this week thank you and um yeah just also if anyone listening to this like can't find the right email first we're here you can always email the thank you email and actually with the right with the right folks um jeremy did you have a last comment yes it seems like this a point about that the development is 20 feet lower grade than surrounding neighbors is pretty important given that if that's true it sounds like the the thinking is there would be less of a risk of light pollution and need for stronger lighting controls it is higher than my property just to echo mark simonson's comments i literally drove up there just to confirm that during this meeting um i have a zip line that my kids use from my property line up there down it is definitely downhill um so i just want to um ask it staff or whoever's appropriate person to double check the grade um and and ask again for any kind of a pass you know buffers for the lighting um i understand that the city restrictions about light you know spill over and all that but they're they're just sort of not enough the consequences all winter six months of the year we see the lighting directly so um just want to underscore the importance of the grading and getting clarity on whether it is in fact lower than the surrounding neighbors thank you thank you um okay we're going to return and resume to commissioner comment question so we'll go to commissioner harrod thank you very much chair uh i understand uh the concerns about light pollution uh one thing i was going to ask mr edens uh would you be willing to put a fence along the west your west property line that would take care of the uh headlight situation uh does that make sense uh and not a decorative fence but in some sort of opaque fence opaque fence a wooden fence or whatever the uh along which property line the western property line we're up the back side of the people on the arbor street yeah i mean so the only thing we're going to have there is the access road right so like all the unit and stuff for our further east well i mean yeah that's i mean that's you know that's a few hundred so you're talking about this a six foot i think it's standard is a six foot standard opaque fence along the property line between us and the people who live on arbor and drive that's correct yeah that's i mean go ahead yeah i mean we've got um because it's it's narrow you know we we had to work out a perimeter buffer you know issue with planting through there because of the shape of the property i mean i think we could do that that would um again it's it's not that's that's not a huge expense for us but i think it you know long term it might be a good idea so um i think it would be it would be a six foot fence between our property and the property owners from 74.09 to 74.27 arbor and drive is what i think there's five property owners there um yeah that's that's reasonable uh and the other thing somebody mentioned something about storm pollution well uh yeah pollution along the stream uh so my question is uh you did offer a hundred-year stormwater detention does that uh taking all the water on the site before it leaves you understand my question yeah we have to analyze the um so everything to that and now to everything to that discharge point right so all the water that's going to that point where the pond is we have to analyze the existing hundred-year detent of stormwater rate and then detain to that rate with our pond or or less it's always a little bit less because the way the numbers work out but yeah so that pretty much would take care of that concern i would think unless you got some additional things you could add to that but and i and i just just uh i don't know how these car dealerships and these gas stations get away with it but there is a regulation says that you cannot have more than 0.5 foot panels of light spilling over your property land so as soon as he's going to make mr edens do that and i mean i understand it's a concern but i don't think it's uh too big a concern because of the regulations so that's just my five cents worth and also about the sewer situation uh i don't i don't know whether it would make sense for you to provide an easement through your property for anybody to get through there that might need to maybe we're maybe we're shaking that cap still too much i don't know does that make you sense yeah i don't want to get into the weeds on you know they a lot of this is site plan issues that you work out with the engineering staff you know project project basis and i think the the teeth is in the legal extension agreement um that requires the extension to those property owners so i agree i agree okay looky thank you very much thank you commissioner herd uh commissioner cease thank you well i've been surprised that uh that we've spent as much time over the past bit here talking about the details of this project um i think it's all been very helpful very useful conversation it's a bit striking to me though that um we heard several members of the public all or most all of whom adjoin this parcel with a um single family detached residents that's in the rr zoning and we jumped into a lot of conversations about infrastructure about lighting about grading um and i think that uh maybe i'm i'm still at uh at at a bit of a higher level and that is considering the land use compatibility with what's around it um particularly the zoning compatibility there's rr parcels to the south there's rr parcels to the west yes there's uh larger suburban development further south or south of massy chapel you know quite extensively so and yes there's commercial north of the stream buffer uh in the whole kensington and auto dealership area um and it strikes me that that um we're not and i don't want to be careful how i say this i think we heard unequivocally that those who will be most impacted by this development are opposed to it for very understandable reasons and i think our commission often encounters um circumstances where jason property owners are opposed to the change that's happening that's that's um very typical but here the the opposition is is in my view quite a bit um grounded in very specific concerns very specific specific concerns about lighting very specific concerns about the building mass not the standing building height or elevations mr tars certainly correct in terms of the elevation of his lot relative to the project we also heard a general introduction by the applicant of this being a good way to transition from the commercial to the residential as a planning principle i'll just say that as a planning principle those types of transitions are um are appropriate where you're encountering that going from point a to point b ideally on foot maybe on bike maybe on car that's not the case here this is a flag lot with a you know essentially a 600 foot stem that is 60 feet wide going past one two three four five six seven eight single family homes on large lots that are are and it's just striking to me the differences and the um the ways in which i don't feel like we at least conversationally have elevated the concerns that we heard expressed by the neighbors so i'm going to ask one question of the applicant uh and that is there was a reference to the increased buffer along the south the 30-foot buffer for a couple of the parcels but it doesn't address two of the adjacent owners that we heard the parcel that is kind of the the middle of the the u-shape that would be surrounded on the three sides doesn't have the benefit of that expanded buffer and normally i'm not i'm no fan of buffers but if you're on an rr lot in a townhouse development is occurring which consists of lots of parking lots driveways and three-story buildings then then a buffer is a you know has has some some basis and rationale so there's that parcel where it wasn't indicated and there's also the the massy chapel facing parcel 78 38 the last one to the east so my question for jared is why did you not in going to the trouble to add the additional buffer width for the other two parcels why did you not do it there yeah the the reason is it is the well the one parcel you reference 78 38 um is about 45 feet deeper than the parcels adjacent to it to the west so you know in effect they're because of the shape of those parcels and because they're deeper i didn't that that's the main reason i didn't add a buffer because the parcels themselves are deeper than the ones next to it so um that's that's the main reason for that one yeah just the shape of the parcel you have to take everything into consideration so okay thank you for that um a few more points and i'll also defer to you chair amandolia because i know we're coming up on a time break i think um but i have some more comments but what i'm hearing in that response from from mr. eden says he they want to take advantage of the adjacent properties you know deeper backyard to effectively serve as a buffer um it strikes me as not uh consistent with the thinking on the other parcels so we also have this you know 600 well 440 feet plus another 200 feet or so so nominally 600 feet of roadway constructed on just a 60 foot right of way which is which is ample if the adjacent uses are compatible but the adjacent uses here are the backyards of these rr zone tracks uh and this is a strikingly different approach to the first case we talked about at length tonight that being the um the uh courtyards at fairington or whatever it was called the patterson mill country store site which was attractive land of 20 acres not five or whatever this is that sat there in a with development occurring all around it for years and years for decades that could have you know could have pursued or could have been taken as a potential development site but was was patient effectively was patient patient ownership waiting waiting for clarity granted on infrastructure waiting and transit infrastructure in that case waiting for perhaps a whole lot of unrelated reasons to the parcel itself but now the time is right i would say this parcel is is the opposite this development proposal is is premature it it's it's the time's not right it doesn't serve as a transition i would suggest that based on what we heard from the adjacent property owners that they're pretty comfortable that the transition they have right now in terms of this track being undeveloped is is as good as it gets until there's more clarity as to what can be done infrastructure wise that partially is the sewer but also is uh a means of accessing massy chapel road um be a pedestrian other modes of transport bike whatever you not just to the west not just the american track of acro trail but also the 530 feet roughly to the east in which case the you know the world would open up a bit via sidewalks throughout those subdivisions sidewalks along Fayetteville the the crossing of the the tobacco trail um it just seems it strikingly early isn't quite the same race it's just not i this seems like a premature or at least an incomplete proposal in my mind and a proposal that is um like incompatible doesn't doesn't adequately describe my sense of how a collection of three-story buildings would sit hidden behind you know these six or 11 single family homes so i i think it's a really problematic um proposal at least as presently configured uh you know the concern about the 300 foot long building we haven't had the benefit of seeing any of that information because we don't see that information the way pdr submittals are prepared these days and i think that's problematic but a text commitment that would indicate a you know maximum of four or five units per building could go a long way towards alleviating some of those concerns and we have seen that on small town helm infill projects like this and this really is an infill this is still ex-urban rr land uh in my view that um it's the timing just doesn't seem right so i'll stop there for the sake of for the sake of time and a break you commissioner cease uh mr edens do you have any comment on the recommendation of having a maximum number of town homes and one i guess building yeah i mean um you know i hadn't thought about that i mean you know as a general design you try to avoid the the sixes if you can i mean some developments you they have eight you know sticks of eight which that's hard grade wise also and you try to get away from that i mean um i don't think i mean i i haven't you know like i said we're limited on our units we're already limited with the space we've got to work with and to just arbitrarily you know is there a really a big difference between a five-unit building and a six you know i'm not sure but but to make that arbitrary change that's not something i could do to not know okay so i want to try and vote on this before i break um the one thing i would like to know um is so i don't always agree with mr edens and i don't always love the application superings but what i will note is that you can see a striking difference of having an applicant who lives in Durham versus one that doesn't and that is clearly evident from the first two cases that we discussed heavily tonight compared to this one mr edens to provide every request that the residents had but there was a lot more conversation about it and there was a lot more offered from the first two cases and i just want to recognize that and um i hope that people yeah will just see the value in having folks who live here um helping figure us figure out how to develop this um that doesn't necessarily speak to like all the prison cons of this specific case but it at least shows that this might be better than it would be if it were a national developer um okay we have like two minutes before our next break uh so i would accept a motion at this time i would like to know that i believe there are at least five additional offers that were made or reference tonight i know i think four were like official which was a um commitment to uh for a donation to the affordable housing bond a donation to dps um to ev charging stations on site um which i would actually jared ask you to clarify is can we make it so that those are at different make sure that those are different units and that's not just like one townhome has two charging stations um yeah i think we could i'm not sure how to word it to to make them spread throughout somehow but i understand you you want one in one part of development one sort on the other end but um i don't know i hate to wing it right now but there you know there's a distance you could specify but you know on each side it would be a different distance that would make sense to have them apart you know five parking spaces are you know nine feet wide that's 45 feet you know if you want to say they're they're at least 50 feet apart so they're not sitting at the same unit you know like i could agree to to whether at least separated 50 feet horizontally and that's just what i'm comfortable with winging it on the spot you know could be more but that's that's how we could approach it i guess okay and i'm sure that's something that you could also work out with staff between now and council um the fourth one that i know you said was a six foot fence along the western portion of the site um an opaque fence um and then i know two other items that you said that you would work with staff and i'm not sure if we can count these as official proffers yet but i just want to reflect an understanding that you will discuss with staff about some light fixture requirement to reduce light pollution and coming up with some agreed upon language on times that construction will happen to reduce noise during construction if i'm staff or jared if i missed anything let me know yeah i also just wanted to clarify as well for the two proffers for the contributions that will be prior to site plan approval so it will be a contribution of 14 000 to the dedicated housing fund and a contribution of 5000 to the Durham public schools and those are both prior to site plan approval great and then also um i believe we talked about removing the contingency in the sidewalk commitment as well okay so with all of those proffers i would accept a motion to move this forward to the city council with a payroll approval mr chair i would like to make a motion that we would take case number z20 quadruple zero five zero the massy chapel townhouse rezoning with the appropriate proffers that have been aforementioned to be forwarded to the city council with a favorable recommendation by commissioner morgan have a second second seconded by commissioner cut right uh maybe is there any discussion on the motion and maybe a little call vote amandolia yes speaker yes batista no no busby yes camera no cut right yes dirkin yeah yeah harrod no low yes look iver yes morgan no cease no common williams no zaria williams no it is a tie 77 which i believe account means a uh uh failed okay um great thank you mr eden thanks staff um and thanks to the commissioners for a really great discussion um we're going to take a 10 minute break at this time i'm going to since we went over a little bit i'm going to make it like 12 minutes we'll start back at 9 55 have you experienced changes in durham that negatively affect your everyday life many in the community have the city and county of durham want to correct those issues and ensure the future changes work for the entire community they're listening and want to hear your ideas for making durham a place where everyone thrives that's why the city and county of durham are inviting all members of the durham community to take part in the creation of the new comprehensive plan which will determine the vision for growing durham over the next 30 years this collaboration between the city and county of durham and the durham community is the result of the new engaged durham initiative which seeks to ensure that all community stakeholders are involved in the shaping of city and county projects help build a durham that works for everyone here's some tips to ensure that your garbage and recycling gets picked up one your carts should be put out for collection before 6 a.m. on your collection day two your carts should be at least three feet from all other objects such as mailboxes telephone poles fire hydrants trees and other carts three your carts should be no more than three feet from the curb four no vehicles should be blocking your carts the mechanical arms on our trucks need direct access to your carts and cannot reach around vehicles to find more information about garbage and recycling pickups go to this web address did you know the city of durham has interpretation and translation services available the city adopted a language access plan to provide language services and help non-english speakers have access to city services and programs without a language barrier through the city's language access plan residents have the right to request interpretation and translation services free of charge receive translation of vital documents and emergency communications in spanish and submit complaints of language discrimination or on the failure to adequately provide services in accordance with the city's language access plan policy for more information on the city's language access efforts visit durham nc dot gov slash language access sabia que la ciudad de durham cuenta con servicios de interpretación y traducción la ciudad adoptó un plan de acceso al idioma para ofrecer servicios en visitos y ayudar a que las personas que no hablan inglés puedan tener acceso a los servicios y programas de la ciudad sin la barrera del idioma por medio del plan de acceso al idioma los habitantes tienen derecho a solicitar sin costo alguno servicios de interpretación y traducción recibir la traducción de documentos importantes y de comunicaciones de emergencia en español presentar una denuncia de discriminación por motivos de idioma o por no recibir servicios de manera adecuada de acuerdo con la política del plan de acceso al idioma de la ciudad para recibir más información sobre la labor de la ciudad relacionada con el acceso al idioma visita durham nc dot gov diagonal acceso have you noticed more electric cars on the road recently they are gaining popularity as more models become available and charging infrastructure continues to expand let's discuss some basics of electric driving there are two types of electric vehicles battery electric vehicles are powered solely by an electric motor with rechargeable batteries plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are powered by a combination of a gasoline engine and an electric motor with rechargeable batteries electric vehicles offer drivers multiple benefits including fuel and maintenance savings enhanced vehicle performance a fun driving experience and environmental friendliness there are many types of electric vehicles to choose from and new models continue to enter the market for your typical passenger vehicles there are electric sedans suv's and trucks for medium and heavy duty vehicles there are electric vans buses tractor trailers and specialty work trucks and we can't forget about the two-wheel vehicles electric motorcycles and bikes are quickly becoming rider favorites all of these vehicles get their fuel from the electric grid by plugging in to charge there are three levels of charging level one level two and dc fast charge level one charging uses an adapter to plug in to a standard 120 volt outlet providing around three to five miles of range per hour level two charging uses a 240 volt outlet and provides 12 to 60 miles of range per hour level two charging stations can be installed at home and are commonly found in public locations including shopping centers downtown communities downtown communities multifamily housing and workplaces dc fast charge stations provide the quickest charge adding about 60 to 80 miles of range in 20 minutes dc fast charging is usually located in high traffic public spots and along highway corridors while drivers tend to do most of their charging at home there are multiple apps and websites to help locate public charging stations with electric vehicle and charging options growing daily drivers are zipping around their communities and traveling the country cleanly and quietly with plenty of places to plug in along the way we're going to begin returning from our recess okay um we're going to start our final public hearing of the night this is case z21 00042 Durham county utility building and we'll begin with the staff report hello again this is Brooke roper with the city county planning department oh are you able to see my screen sorry my volume is off yep we're good okay great um i'll be going over z21 00042 Durham county administration building the following information summarizes the application the applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of one parcel of land located at 6001 and c 55 highway totaling 40.37 acres the current zoning is commercial general with a development plan office and institutional with the development plan and residential suburban multifamily with the development plan the applicant proposes to change this designation to industrial light the property is currently designated industrial and commercial on the future land use map the proposed zoning is inconsistent with this designation so if the proposed zoning is approved staff recommends a change to the flume to designate the property as industrial the existing zoning is commercial general the development plan off oi and rsmd the site is surrounded by residential suburban multifamily commercial neighborhood and plan development residential 5.949 the aerial map shows the general location of the project again the site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of tw alexander drive and nc 55 property to the north is zoned rsmd and has a townhouse development called alexander place the property to the south is zoned c n and includes a utility development or an electrical substation the property to the southwest is zoned il and is currently vacant the property to the west is zoned c n and rr with the triangle wastewater facility development and the property to the east is zoned oi d and is vacant there's no development plan proposed with this request and therefore no commitments can be proffered the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on september 23rd 2021 with one member in attendance there have been no social pinpoint comments received by staff in relation to this case and except for the future land use designation staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies if the request is approved the flum designation shall be amended to maintain consistency and staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions you may have thank you thank you bro we will go ahead and open the public hearing and we'll begin with the applicant presentation um i have a fairly sizable applicant team tonight um the people that i have on my list as registered are steven miller renda haze bright yashua al anubia zach pierce holly waterman paul young and stephanie brixie i'm not sure who will be speaking first or if you're also in the coordinated um but i would like to open up to the applicant for a 10 minute presentation sure thank you my name is paul young and i'll be giving you a short presentation here at the beginning again thank you commissioners for your time um as i said my name is paul young with dtw architects located here in durham um you heard the rest of the team but i will sort of mention what their roles are yashua al anubia is with clh design along with steven miller brinda haze bright is with the durham county engineering department and stephanie brixie is from the durham county utilities department so um durham county desires to rezone this site from commercial general office and residential suburban multifamily to light industrial for use by their public utilities division public utilities division is responsible for the collection and treatment of wastewater within those areas of the county that are not connected to the city wastewater system or on septic systems utilities division is also responsible for the operation and maintenance the wastewater treatment plan on the opposite side of the road from this site the current durham county utilities administration building located on the treatment plant site is no longer able to handle the staffing storage and maintenance requirements for the utility division durham county determined that expansion of the existing facility was not feasible due to the surrounding floodplain and the need to reserve room for future growth of the existing wastewater plant rezoning the 6001 highway 55 property to light industrial will allow the durham county public utilities division the ability to grow and proximity to their wastewater plant provide service for the expected growth of the county sewer collection system lastly in the event of a county wide emergency the county has a need to co-locate a backup emergency operations center in this part of the county since the utility division is part of critical services required to operate during an emergency the co-location of a backup emergency operations center within this this new facility allows for multiple uses within a single facility that's all i really have for you and i'd be glad to address any questions you might have thank you we have um no one signed up and indicated that they wanted to speak in advance we did have five people register for the meeting all said that they either were not speaking or were undecided um so at this time if anybody would like to speak either forward against this case please raise your hand reminder that's on the if you're on the phone you do so by pressing star nine okay seeing none we're going to close the public hearing open up for commissioner comment question commissioner batista yes thank you just for clarity is this is it is the intended use here for wastewater or something else the intended use here is to expand their office facilities their warehouse facilities and their their laboratory facilities which exist on the other side of the road now but have grown too cramped for them okay thank you thanks commissioner batista are there questions and comments see i see we have an attendee that has raised their hand i'd like to recognize um i'm going to do my best with the pronunciation and please correct me if i'm wrong um ashwini kukarni yes um please um yes to make your statement um i live across the road in 728 colby place i recently moved i received a notice i really don't know how this whole process works but i've been listening to other stock i just had curiosity questions in the sense that when you classify it as industrial my worry was whether it'll be like a manufacturing facility how much of traffic would be expected to increase because um i think a lot of people have not even moved into the area yet because the phase two is still under construction and i think that's why not many residents must be on the call um i don't understand the whole process so i apologize if it's not a relevant question but my worry mainly was if it'll turn into like a manufacturing sort of a setup which is very close to a residential neighborhood right now thank you for that um i'm going to direct my question to staff first to talk a little bit about the distinction between industrial and industrial light zoning because the intensity is different there um so yeah i would love for staff to speak to that yes of course um so yeah as uh chair amandolio was mentioning um the intensities for industrial versus industrial light are a little bit different so industrial has heavier uses um i don't have it pulled up right in front of me right now but um industrial light you know in the name it's it's lighter um less intense use um i can provide a little bit more information or a section of the udo that provides way more detailed in that but yeah thank you bro and then to the applicant would you respond to the question about kind of the intensity of industrial or the use that would be a lot of the site and um yeah speak to that concern of there being heavy manufacturing yeah the the county will not be doing heavy manufacturing on this site um this is a government use nine to five um except when there are critical emergencies um this is fairly a a government use so really really the the reason we are um having to zone to industrial light is that we do have a portion of the building um that has warehouse facilities for parks for pumps um for the wastewater treatment plant and the only way to get a zoning that that allows that is industrial light thank you um and then also there was a question raised about traffic generation and for that um the staff report indicates that this proposal would introduce approximately 500 more um car trips vehicle trips than what currently would exist at that site if it were developed at its max capacity um so it's a relatively oh i'm from my perspective relatively minimal impact compared to what is already allowed at that site um and i also see that pot pin b has raised their hand um i'd like to give them a chance to speak and raise any questions yes thank you so much uh yeah similar to ashwini i would also be moving in that neighborhood the alexander place that's right across the street and and i know that there is a water treatment plant in front on the other side of 55 but the distance between that plant and this extension that you're talking about is not going to be the same so my concern is about noise and all that stuff like is it going to be loud yeah again this is a government use the majority of the programmatic element for this is office space um as i sort of stated there's also a secondary component um for about uh 50 to 100 people to gather in the event of a emergency situation and then the last portion of this is a warehouse um it's a nine to five operation unless there's a critical issue in the city and the county water sewer system then there would be four or five people there at night but they would then leave and go take care of whatever the emergency is they will not be there um all night long thank you commissioner baker yeah i know there's no no development plan so we can't really have any idea of what's going on on the site um but it's a 40 acre site which is pretty large it's like a neighborhood and um so i was just wondering if the applicant could speak at all to any of the arrangement of the buildings on the site sort of informally not making any commitments but just kind of speaking generally to arrangement buildings on the site and also any sort of innovations in green building and energy efficiency and um you know on site renewable energy or anything like that that that um that i know is is a value of of county government operations yeah certainly um you'll notice uh at the intersection there first off um that is actually the low point um and it is probably the point at which we will be developing a stormwater structure but certainly want to do that uh with uh with goals in mind the county has a goal of um lead gold for this site um and for this building for new buildings so that certainly is a high bar to go go towards um there is a reuse water line on the other side of highway 55 that actually comes out of the wastewater plant um and one of our goals is to try and tap into that to use it both for flushing toilets but also for cooling water for the hvac systems um so that's something we're exploring as to the arrangement of the buildings um there's there's certainly not allowed a nice flat area there um that was cleared a long time ago by the ncdot um the the arrangement hasn't been completely thought out yet and i'll just be honest with you um but we do have to we're trying to pull it away from the railroad tracks at least so it will be towards the highway 55 side most likely of the site okay thank you yeah and of course you know we're always looking for opportunities i know this is um you know way way out there it's going to be government use most people are going to be driving but any opportunities there there are for um you know walkability or you know for people that are working there are going to want to go get lunch people um i'm going to be moving into these uh the the residential area to just to the north and so there there are going to be a variety of uses and and just keeping that in mind and um sort of keeping those goals certainly certainly and the county does have a um you know a program to um incentivize their um the the employees to maintain a healthy lifestyle so we will be looking at that and what possibilities we have on the site to incentivize that okay thank you thank you commissioner baker other commissioner questions and comments uh the only thing i'll say is that um with a site like this where it's locally owned county owned um i hope that we continue to think strategically about how we use this land because it's a very scarce resource particularly in this market and um i appreciate the need for more facilities for um workspace and storage facilities for county government and hope that we pursue maybe more ambitious things in the future as well with trying to put some housing on county owned land when possible um but um that's more a broader comment than speaking to this specific application but if there are no further questions and comments i would accept a motion on this case at this time mr chair i'll make a motion that we take case z 21 triple zero 42 the Durham county utility administration building case to be forward to the city i guess for city council for with a favorable recommendation second moved by commissioner morgan seconded by commissioner baker is there any further uh discussion on the motion and seeing none may we have the roll call vote amandolia yes baker yes batista yes lesbian yes camera yes got right yes yes harrod yes low yes macgyver yes morgan yes peace yes carmen williams yes zori williams yes passes united that's right okay thank you staff and thanks to the applicant um that concludes our public hearings for the night the only item that i see we have left on our agenda is just a reminder that we'll be having an additional meeting in june that'll be june 23rd at 5 30 and that will help us get through a backlog backlog of cases that we have um michael did you have any other comments or announcements for the planning commission no um it was just uh also wanted to remind the commission that um both both agendas will be packed they'll they'll be very similar to this agenda um but we also wanted to thank you for taking the extra time um to have that extra meeting and i know not all of you can make that extra meeting and that's perfectly understandable um but um it does help uh uh due process in getting cases moving along at least whether they can all make it to city council in a time in a manner um there's a few there but um the ability for planning commission to make uh adjustments here and there we try not to ask too often of you to do that so um again we do thank you uh for for providing that extra meeting thank you um and just as a reminder to everyone who is watching and all the planning commissioners that comment period for the um draft policies of the Durham the new Durham comprehensive plan is open um to make sure you go to the engaged Durham website and add any comments and i know we just had a recent discussion about it um fellow commissioners and we have had plenty of chance to provide input but make sure we're doing our best to get the word out with that i will adjourn this meeting at 10 16 p.m. thank you all right