 There's 19, 20, we have another 20, so that's four. On two for 21, one for 19, are you numbering? Yeah, that's Pinecrest. I'll say a word to me the whole night. Not nice, I thought that was really nice. Hi, 20, how many do we have? Hi there, they're rushing in. What do you need, the item number, it's a little intimidating. Good evening everyone, we're glad to have you here tonight. I certainly want to welcome everyone to the council meeting tonight. On the 17th of December, 2018, we're very glad to have you with us today. I hope that you will please join me in a moment of silent meditation. Thank you. Council Member Rees, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, good evening everyone. If it's your practice to do so, and if you're able, please join us and rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. This is to the plight of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much, Council Member Rees. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Mayor Schuyl, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Here. Council Member Alston. Here. Council Member Calaierro. Here. Council Member Freeman. Present. Council Member Middleton. Here. Council Member Rees. Here. We have two ceremonial items tonight in a minute. I'm sure I will get the material for the ceremonial items. We'll move on and we'll come back to the ceremonial items. If you're here for one of the two ceremonial items, sit tight, we'll get to you in just a minute. All right, we will move on to announcements by the council and we'll come back to our ceremonial items. So, are there any announcements by the council? Council Member Calaierro. Good evening. I just wanted to say that aware in Durham that there has been an increase in armed robberies apparently aimed at the Latino community in Durham and there was several shootings this weekend and we recognize that many in the community are scared. And there have conversations with our city manager Tom Bonfield and our police chief CJ Davis have happened over the weekend and we will be holding events early in 2019 to give an opportunity for the community to share concerns and also open up conversations. Thank you very much. And I look forward to participating in those conversations. I know that we all do. So, thank you so much. And thank you, Mr. Bonfield and to Chief Davis. We need to pay a lot of attention to this. And I know that our police department will do so and so I appreciate it announcements. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to acknowledge that we have joining us tonight several supporters of the resolution that's on our consent agenda to repeal the Hyde Amendment. They do not wish to speak but I just wanted to acknowledge that they were here tonight. Do y'all wanna stand up? Thank you for being here. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Pro Tem and thank you all for being here. Mr. Mayor. Council Member Reese. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, you and some of the other folks up here in the day has maybe wondered why you have a very strange looking collection of cards held together by a binder. I want to explain what that's about. This past Friday, Council Member Freeman and I had the privilege of attending something called the Reality Cafe, which I think Mr. Mayor, you attended earlier this year. This is a pretty special meal that served to guests twice a month here in the city of Durham by members of a faith congregation called Reality Ministries. And what makes Reality Cafe, the Reality Cafe special is what makes Reality Ministry special and this is quoting from their website. The ministry, the mission of Reality Ministries is to create opportunities for teens and adults with and without developmental disabilities to experience belonging, kinship and the reality of Christ's love. The Reality Cafe team is made up of Reality Ministries congregants both with and without developmental disabilities. I have to say it was one of the kindest, warmest rooms I've been in in quite some time and I think Council Member Freeman can back me up there. And Mr. Mayor, as I said, you attended earlier this year. The food was phenomenal, which brings me to the recipe books in front of you. These are my holiday gifts to you, Mr. Mayor. These are my colleagues on the city council, to the city manager, the city attorney and city clerk. This is a book entitled World's Greatest Big Time Pretty Reality Cafe Recipe Book 2017-2018. This is a book of recipes from dishes served at the Reality Cafe over the last couple of years, including in many cases the photographs of the folks who prepared each dish. Proceeds from the sale of these recipe books, which came from my own personal funds, not city funds, by the way, support the life-affirming and faith-affirming mission of Reality Ministries and if folks wanna learn more about that, they can search for them on the internet. So, happy holidays to everyone. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much, Charlie. Other announcements, Council Member Middleton. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and good evening to everyone. Mr. Mayor, I wanna associate myself with the comments of my colleague, Councilor Caballero with respect to the amount of gunfire in our city on this weekend. For many of our residents and citizens, this is a season of light and hope and peace and expectancy, and I know for many of us that was rocked this weekend by the amount of gunfire and I wanna also associate my comments with the commendations of our police department and I know with the election of new leadership, there's a great deal of expectancy with respect to law enforcement and our judiciary and I applaud those elections and I share the anticipation. But I also wanna give voice to folk in the city tonight who see it beyond just a law enforcement issue. I think this underscores our need for our shared economic prosperity plan, which is forthcoming, because we understand that there are causes. We stand in solidarity with every community, every community in this city who wants to feel safe and at peace, our Latino brothers and sisters, our Asian community, as well as the whites, African-Americans, all of us in the bull city. So I want to associate myself with Councilor Caballero's comments. I also wanna say that in addition to the great work that I know our I team is doing with respect to gunfire, we know we operate in a legislative context where we don't have many options. I intend also to continue to push and to give voice to us to exploit every tool that we can on dealing with this problem. And let me be clear, crime and Durham overall is down. We know that we're prospering. We know that this is a great city, but the problem of accessibility to guns and gunfire is an American problem and it plagues many, if not all, great American cities. So I wanna be very clear, overall things are going well in Durham, but we know that this is a problem and it's a problem that's unique to America and I intend on continuing, as I was saying, to push for us to exploit every tool that we can from technological to economic to law enforcement as well. My prayers and heart, my heart and prayers go out to folk that have been affected this weekend, but beyond that, after we say amen, after praying, I'm hoping that there will be some sustained and meaningful action taken by this government, not only at the national and state level, but locally as well. And I know we will because I know the hearts of the folk that sit on this dais. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council Member. Any other announcements tonight? I have one other announcement, which is I wanna appreciate our city clerk and the clerk's office for the wonderful reception that we just had for all of our board volunteers. The city council appoints 160 members to various boards and commissions. It's everything from the DPAC oversight board to the airport authority to the housing authority to the environmental affairs board appearance commission. We have many racial equity commission. We have many of them. And tonight we had most of those people were here with us for a wonderful reception to honor them. And this is the first time we've done that. And I wanna thank the clerk and the clerk's office for just a wonderful event. So thank you all for putting that together for all of us. And I also wanna especially thank those members or those boards and commissions who serve. It is a volunteer task and I see Council Member Eugene Brown here in the front row nodding in agreement with me. The folks that serve on these boards and commissions work very hard on behalf of all of us. And I just wanna express my gratitude. I do wanna welcome you, Council Member Brown, back to the chambers. I don't think we've seen you in a while and so it's good to have you back. All right, any other announcements by the council? I'm now gonna move to our, are we ready for the ceremonial items? Great, okay, thank you. Now we'll move to the ceremonial items. I'm gonna take this out. Is that okay? You have to be smarter than me to do it. Okay, there you go. We're gonna begin with the Neighbor Spotlight Award. And I'm gonna ask Marianne Cobbs if she would come forward and any members of her family or community that she would like to come with her. Please come everybody, come on up and join us here. Hey, come on up and join us right here up on the podium. You've got a good support team. Ms. Cobbs, I am going to, well, I'll wait just a minute. I'm so glad everybody's here. Come on up. Ms. Felma, come on up here. Good job. Okay, I'm gonna move this just a little bit. Ms. Cobbs, this is great. So this is the Neighbor Spotlight Award and I will be reading a little bit about Ms. Cobbs and then Ms. Cobbs. I'm gonna turn this microphone over to you for a minute or two to make any remarks that you would like to make. How does that sound? Great. Marianne Cobbs is the recipient of the Neighbor Spotlight Award for the month of December, 2018. The Neighbor Spotlight Award recognizes community members that have gone above and beyond in volunteering their time to serve this community. This month, Marianne Cobbs, a resident of the Merrick-Moore community, was nominated and selected because of the wonderful work she has done in her neighborhood, including, but not limited to, supporting the younger generation in rebuilding the Merrick-Moore community club, hosting annual national night out events, advocating with neighbors to address concerns as his repairs for neighborhood streets, volunteering and activities to support the less fortunate, including the food pantry at the Holton Resource Center. Ms. Cobbs, I wanna congratulate you on being the December Neighbor Spotlight for the city of Durham and I wanna thank you for all the work that you do to improve our Durham community. Congratulations. I'm gonna hand you this Neighbor Spotlight Award and I'm gonna give you the microphone and tell us a few things. First of all, I would like to thank all my friends, neighbors that came out to support me tonight for this award. I want to let you know that I will be advocating and lobbying for the Merrick-Moore community and for my friends and in including the food pantry at Holton. So I am glad to receive this award and thank you for coming to support me and nominating me for this award. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for selecting me and I really appreciate everything that you are doing for the city of Durham. Thank you. I'm not sure we'd have kept you that, but you're lucky to have it. Thank you. Thank you, congratulations. Thank you for being here, everybody. Oh good, Jacob's taking our picture, come on. Thank you, Jacob. Thank you, everybody. Thanks for being here. Really appreciate y'all being here tonight. Thank you. Well, welcome to stay, but if you leave, you won't hurt our feelings. Thank you. You can watch it live and I'll be excited. Thank you. Clearly amazing. All right, I love the neighborhood spotlight and this is a wonderful award for Ms. Cobbs. And now we're gonna move on to our next ceremonial item. This is not a proclamation or award. This is, we will be hearing about the 115th anniversary of the Bassett affair and I'm going to call up Valerie Gillespie, Duke University Archivist and I'm also gonna call up Mr. Eddie Davis, our public historian and I look forward to what they have to say to us. So come on up. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's my understanding from reading the press accounts that you all had a very long meeting last time and that was a early, well late night meeting in the early part of December. And as the mayor has mentioned 115 years ago, there was another late night meeting in early December that took place with another policy-making body here in Durham. And tonight we are honored to have two people who might be able to share just a little bit about the Bassett affair. The first person is the University Archivist at Duke University, Ms. Valerie Gillespie. And following her brief presentation, we're going to invite, if we can, former city council member Eugene Brown because he actually lives in the abode that was built by Thomas Bassett. So I'm sorry, John Spencer Bassett. So let me turn the microphone over to Ms. Gillespie. Thank you so much, Mr. Davis and Mayor Shul and the city council for inviting me here to say a few words about this important historical event that happened at the turn of the century in Durham. Known as the Bassett affair, this event was seen as a beacon for academic freedom, thrusting both the city and the college into the national spotlight. As some of you may know, Trinity College, later to become Duke University, arrived in Durham in 1892. College leaders hoped that moving to the young and growing tobacco city would help stabilize the institution financially and grow it into a more prominent college. It moved from the very rural Randolph County to the west of here and it opened in Durham with fewer than 200 students and just 13 faculty members. One of these faculty members was professor of history, John Spencer Bassett. An alumnus of Trinity College and a native of Tarborough, Bassett had earned his PhD at Johns Hopkins. He was passionate about using primary sources like diaries, letters and newspapers to investigate history. He believed the writing of history should go beyond veneration and anecdotes and instead be handled professionally with a scientific gathering of facts, relying on these primary sources to make an informed argument. This was in contrast to many other historians working at the time who viewed the past in romantic and non-factual terms many times and particularly when dealing with issues of race. In 1902, Bassett began publishing the South Atlantic Quarterly, a journal devoted to the kind of rigorous and scientific scholarship he promoted. He described it as a journal devoted to the literary, historical and social development of the South. As the editor, he took the liberty of writing articles himself on controversial topics, including race and although he knew it would likely stir up trouble, he nevertheless wrote an article called Stirring Up the Fires of Race Antipathy. This was published in 1903. His subject was recent incidents in which white people had refused to eat in the same dining room as black educator Booker T. Washington. Washington had incidentally visited Durham and Trinity seven years earlier. Bassett objected to such treatment of the distinguished public figure. He wrote that Washington was, quote, the greatest man, saved General Lee, born in the South, in 100 years. Such a statement did not go over well with some white North Carolinians, particularly Democrats, who are actively supporting platforms of white supremacy at that time. The Democratic press, including the Raleigh News and Observer and its editor, just Diefas Daniels, were outraged by the favorable comparison of a black man to the Confederate general. Not so subtly, these media outlets referred to Bassett by printing his name, as you can see on the right, in an unflattering way. They suggested that no one should send their children to Trinity and that Bassett should resign immediately. Back in Durham, Bassett had the support of President Kilgo and his fellow faculty members as well as the students, but the public pressure was mounting. The case came to a head the night of December 2nd, 1903, when the Trinity Board of Trustees gathered to review a letter of resignation that Bassett had submitted to them. After many hours of debate at 3 a.m., early in the morning of December 3rd, the board voted not to accept Bassett's resignation by a vote of 18 to seven. Students were gathered outside the building where the vote was taken and they excitedly built a bonfire and rang a college bell. The entire faculty, the president, and all of the students have been prepared to resign if the board had allowed the resignation to proceed, but Trinity had upheld the freedom of scholars to investigate and conclude what they believed. While some of the press continued to grumble, the case gained national attention as you can see with some of these headlines, and Trinity was widely admired for its stand on academic freedom. Two years later, President Teddy Roosevelt came to North Carolina on a tour. An admirer of this stand for academic freedom, he invited Bassett to join him in Raleigh and to ride with him on his private train into Durham. The train stopped on Main Street by Trinity College's gates near to the entrance of today's East Campus. The city was ecstatic to see the president arrive. One onlooker remarked, quote, the whole town was decorated with flags and buntings by the yards and every factory school in place of business suspended. Roosevelt told students to repay their alma mater by making it, quote, evident to the generation that is rising that you are fit for leadership, that the training has not been wasted, that you are ready to render to the state the kind of service which is invaluable because it cannot be bought because there is no price which can be put upon it. The values of academic freedom and free inquiry have indeed been carried forward in our community in Durham and beyond and we are proud to call Durham the home of the Bassett affair. Thank you. So Mr. Mayor and Council, if you will indulge Mr. Brown just a few moments and ask, we ask that he can tell us a little bit about living at 410 Buchanan Boulevard. Thanks Eddie. North Buchanan, by the way. There's a South Buchanan as well and we sometimes get mail from them. We bought the home in 1980 and I'm glad we bought it then because we could not afford it today, believe me. My wife, Signa and I have enjoyed living in Trinity Park at the time it was considered somewhat of a student slum neighborhood and that has changed over the years. In keeping with the spirit of John Spencer Bassett we have remained active in the political scene and as a result we've had quite a few notable politicians at our home for parties and fundraisers. A few I should mention would be Kitty Dukakis, Gary Hart, Harvey Grant, Wib Gully, occasionally even Steve came over and of course my former boss Joe Biden. So it has remained a political active hub and we have tried to maintain the spirit of Professor Bassett. Thank you. Thank you so much Eugene. Thank you Valerie. Thank you Eddie for a great presentation and I think that we all need to maintain the spirit of Professor Bassett and it's a great history lesson for us. I wanna just remind everyone who's here tonight and who might be watching that we are grateful to Eddie Davis who is our public historian who is bringing us these history moments periodically as we approach Durham's Susque Centennial year, our 150th anniversary and we're going to be remembering Durham's history, both the challenging moments such as this and the lighter and more joyful moments as well during this next period of time. So I just want to remind everyone of that and look forward to that. So thank you all so much. All right I'm going to just take a moment to just make a personal comment out of order of the announcements. I would have made it during the announcements but I didn't think about it till now. Colleagues, I was thinking as I was looking out into the audience tonight sometimes about the very deep personal connections that we all have in value so much and I was seeing two of my friends here, Tommy Clayton and John Burness sitting together. John's younger brother Andy was my college roommate and very, very close friend many years ago. Tommy's sister Eleanor Ann was, is the, for many years in the retirement community my parents lived in was in Lynchburg, Virginia was their next door neighbor. On Monday nights Eleanor Ann and Joe and their other neighbors get my father who's 94 years old and they take him to dinner and gather around him and support him in his old age and have been just absolutely wonderful to him. So I just wanted to say we all depend on those really deep networks and relationships and I just wanted to thank you guys and your siblings for their part in my life and my family's life. All right, I'm gonna now move on to the priority items by the city manager. Mr. Manager, any prior items? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening everyone, no priority items. All right, thank you, Mr. Attorney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, no priority items. Madam Clerk. Good evening, Mayor, no items. Thank you so much. We're now going to move to the consent agenda. The consent agenda can be approved by a single vote of the council. If items can be removed from the consent agenda by any member of the public or by a member of the council and if our item is removed, it is then heard at the end of the meeting and I will now read the consent agenda items. Item one, approval of city council minutes. Item two, Mayor's nominee for reappointment, Raleigh Durham Airport Authority. Item three, Mayor's nominee for appointment of Durham Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Item four, resolution calling for repeal of the Hyde Amendment and supporting the right of all people to safe and comprehensive healthcare. Item five, grant contract with legal aid of North Carolina to provide legal representation to city of Durham residents facing eviction. Item six, subrecipient contract award of community development block grant CDBG funds to CASA, formerly known as community alternatives for supportive abodes for rental housing rehabilitation Maplewood Underwood Apartments. Mr. Mayor, can I hold that either? Okay, we're gonna pull item six, okay. Item seven, grant contract with urban ministries of Durham UMD to provide case management services. Item eight, amendment number one to the unscheduled pipeline repair contract with Carolina Civil Works, Inc. Item nine, phase three, roof replacements at various department of water management facilities. Amendment two to engineering services contract with Raymond Engineering, Georgia, Inc. Item 10, property donation agreement research triangle regional public transportation authority go triangle for the Durham Arch Light Rail Transit project. Item 12, janitorial services contract for the Durham Armory January 2019 to December, 2021. Item 13, NC department of public safety division of emergency management, 2018 hurricane Florence Mutual Aid grant project ordinance. Item 14, revisions to the city code of ordinances pertaining to small wireless facilities response to federal communications commission order FCC 18-133. Item 15, utility extension game with Joe F. Barini construction company, Inc. to serve Rocky Ridge, phase four. You have heard the consent agenda and with the exception of item six, I'll accept a motion that we approve the consent agenda. Move to approve. Been moved and seconded that we approve the consent agenda. Madam clerk, we please open the vote. Please close the vote. Could I ask, I know it's probably, it's not in accordance with all the procedures but if there is just that one item that there's a question that we could possibly answer quickly, I know we've got extensive public hearing items tonight, the staff won't have to stay till late, hopefully answer a quick question. Yeah, thank you very much. The motion passes seven, zero. Thank you very much. We will now move to item six and I'll ask council member Freeman for questions. I had a specific question. Is someone from CASA here? No, madam, council member, no one, we don't have anybody from CASA that's here tonight. I have a grave concern. It was brought to my attention apparently that CASA does not accept section eight vouchers. I have not heard that. I would have to confirm that, not heard that. Is it possible to delay this item until that can be confirmed or denied? Like I really feel some kind of way about them discriminating on basis of source of income and receiving funds from the city. What I'm gonna ask Reginald is that you check that out now, we'll hold this item until you're able to check that. If you could be in contact with some CASA people that would be great. Thank you very much. All right, we'll now move to item, to our general business agenda, the public hearing items. The first item was item 19, zoning map change or West Point 751 revisions four. Good evening. Good evening with Sonja. Before I get started, I just want to make note that all of the planning and zoning matters before you tonight have been properly noticed in accordance with state and local requirements and affidavits of such are available in the planning department. West Point at 751 revisions number four. Good evening. I'm Jamie Sonjak with the planning department, the city council approved a zoning map change and development plan or West Point at 751 revisions four on April 4th, 2016. That was a legacy case Z1500027. The approval changed the zoning from the property to commercial center with a development plan CCD and stipulated a maximum of 120,000 square feet of office medical, office hospital use, 18,000 square feet of retail, 16,000 square feet of restaurant use and a hotel of 217 rooms. The applicant, Robert Schunk from Stuart is requesting some minor revisions to the text commitments. The first is to add medical office and hospital as an additional use to PID 213146. That's the building envelope B. And the second is to stipulate no south facing building signage except on buildings in envelope B and D. No other changes are proposed to the rest of the approved development plan. Further unified development ordinance, any revisions to text commitments are considered a significant change and require a new hearing and recommendation from the planning commission prior to the case being heard by the city council. The planning commission at their October 9th, 2018 meeting recommended approval of the proposed by a vote of nine to zero. Staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Two motions are required for this application. The first is required to adopt a consistency statement and the second is for the zoning ordinance. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you very much, Ms. Sunyak. You've heard the report from staff and I'm gonna declare this public hearing open. And I'm gonna first ask if there are any questions for staff by members of the council. If not, I see we have one speaker on this item, Robert Schunk. Are there any other people that are here tonight who would like to speak on this item? Mr. Schunk, you have three minutes. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and city council. Just wanna thank staff for their work on this project and I'm only, I'm here for any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you so much. Colleagues, any questions or concerns? Anything for staff? Or Mr. Schunk, all right. Thank you very much. Any, anyone else that would like to speak on this item? Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? If not, I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back for the council and I'll accept a motion on a consistency statement. So moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. We adopt the consistency statement. Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Motion passes seven, zero. Thank you so much. Are we now in a motion to adopt the ordinance amending the UDO? So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded. We adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. Motion passes seven, zero. Thank you very much. We'll now move to item 20, zoning map change for Pinecrest and I'll ask for the report from staff. Good evening, Jamie Sanyak with the planning department. Request for a zoning map change has been received from Pinecrest Duke LLC for six parcels totaling approximately 9.11 acres, generally located at 1050 West Forest Hills Boulevard. The subject track is currently located in the rural suburban 20 zone. The applicant is requesting a zoning designation of planned residential development, 6.000. The area is designated as medium density residential. That's a six to 12 dwelling unit per acre on the future land use map, which is consistent with the rezoning request. Key commitments on the development plan associated with this request include setting a maximum of 46 dwelling units, designating single family detached and townhouse as the permitted building types, providing a 20 foot boundary buffer along Westwood Drive and West Forest Hills Boulevard, dedicating a 50 foot wide greenway easement with a five foot wide natural trail and stipulating no commercial uses. There are several other text commitments within the staff report. The Durham Planning Commission at their October 9th, 2018 meeting recommended approval of the proposed by a vote of nine to zero. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Two motions are required for this application. The first is to adopt a consistency statement and the second is for the zoning ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sunyak. You've heard a report from staff and I'm now going to declare this public hearing open and I'm going to first ask if there are any questions for staff by members of the council. Just one. Sure. Nine zero, there were missing votes. Is there? There were several members absent. That's correct, right? Nine to zero. Yes, nine zero is correct. All right, well now we have a number of speakers on this item. Let me just make a quick count here. Well, we have on the order of 15 speakers or so on this item. I'm going to ask, first of all, are there any speakers in opposition to this item? Is there anyone here speaking in opposition to this item? Anyone speaking in opposition on item 20? Okay. I'm going to ask, is there someone who is organizing the speakers for the proponents of this rezoning? Mr. Spaulding. Mr. Spaulding, I wanted you to come to the podium and let's talk about how much time you and the speakers need. Could we talk about that a little bit? Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, my name is Ken Spaulding. I represent the applicant. 15 speakers, may I just ask them a question? Yes, sir. The proponents of you would very much like to speak and those that want to waive your time. Raise your hand for those that absolutely want to speak. Okay. We want more than one, okay. Then we would say no more than five at the time. That's good. I think what I'll do is this, Mr. Spaulding, I will give you all 15 minutes. Let's see how it goes. If there's more time necessary, we can do that as well. Okay. All right? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, members of the city council. As I said, my name is Ken Spaulding and I represent the applicant in this matter. Involving Pinecrest, which is the estate of Dr. Mary Siemens of the Duke family. I want to thank personally, Bob Chapman, for bringing me in to help on this because my mother and Dr. Siemens were extremely close. Back during the times of the riots in Durham, when Durham was about to burn and was on fire, my mother had started the Women in Action for the Prevention of Violence and its Causes. One of the first people who came forward to work with her was Dr. Siemens. And the important thing about it was that men ran Durham at that time, both in the public sector and the private sector. And in a way in order to try to appeal to Durham leaders to find a way to bring it in to the violence, bring it in to the riot and bring it in to the fire. They wanted the women pulled together to try to prevail upon the men to see that we need to do more in Durham to work together. My mother and Ms. Siemens continued to work throughout those years to make Durham a better place. Dr. Siemens was not only a philanthropist, but in a sense a civil right activist who came from the Duke family and who contributed to our community in a most meaningful manner. I also want to thank James Siemens for bringing us Bill Clark, who is a custom builder. They did a national search to get someone to make sure that this was a development that was one that would follow the legacy and the heritage of this family. I announced tonight that unfortunately, James, who had worked with Phil Clark, gone down to Atlanta to make sure that those homes were the types of homes to be built here. He passed this morning. As Dr. Siemens was a woman of compassion and passion, so was James, just like his mother. One of the last things he said to me about your planning commission was that Mr. Spaulding, I appreciate not only the work you've done, but I appreciate the kind remarks that the planning commission members made about his mother because he wanted to make sure that his mother's wishes would be carried out to where they would be friendly neighbors, not opposed in opposition, but neighbors that were able to find a way to have whatever would be done with her estate would be welcomed by her community. The family wanted this use of Dr. Siemens' estate to be developed as a special place in a special neighborhood. We are creating a place respecting the life, heritage, legacy, and tradition of the Duke and Siemens family. We also wanted to respect the wishes of the city of Durham through its comprehensive plan and through you all's guidelines and requirements, but we also wanted to respect the neighbors who were not here tonight, but who opposed this project in the beginning, but who are not here tonight because of the fact that we have worked together as Dr. Siemens would like for us to do, as James would like for us to do, to be able to come with a solution and a project and a development that all of Durham would be proud of. We have given our most earnest and sincere efforts to reach these goals. We have weighed in juggle to make sure that we met the requisite density while at the same time recognizing that we wanted to have a development that was compatible with the neighbors and homes there. We feel that we have created or will be creating a future place which will be unique to Durham, the Triangle, and the state of North Carolina. Our goals were to be able to respect, buffers the ecology and environment. We wanted to make it aesthetically pleasing to match and go with the existing homes. We wanted to have a strategic array of homes in a strategic location. We wanted to be respectful of the use of this estate of its natural beauty and to preserve history that existed on those premises. Staff has assessed our adherence to our city's policies and rules and plans and procedures. The neighbors have come together to support this project. The planning commission voted nine to zero with wonderful remarks that you will see in your staff report in support of this development. So we respectfully, you as well, that we want this not to be just a development, but we want it to be a testament to the life, history, dignity of Dr. Siemens and her family. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Spaulding. Mr. Chapman, let me just say when, as Mr. Chapman's coming up, I will hear from him. If there are anyone else that would like to speak at this point, feel free. Everyone who would like to be heard will be heard. Go ahead, Bob. My name is Robert L. Chapman, 2525 Lanier Place. I spent the afternoon at the Siemens' house, owner of Boundary and Rosemary and Chapel Hill with Margaret and several friends. James was one of the kindest, most considerate, most thoughtful people I've ever met. He would have had to be being the son of Mary Siemens and Dr. James Siemens. He also probably had to be because his name was James Duke Biddle Trent Siemens, which was quite a, but I knew James and New Margaret for over 30 years and had a good time working with them over the last five years on what should happen with Pinecrest. It was really too much for one family. And looking at all the alternatives, traveling to Atlanta, meeting Phil, and then watching and learning as Phil brought the neighborhood together, which I was so impressed with. And James was so happy about, James, I don't think I ever saw him happier recently, other than his birthday party, which was last year. Then after the planning commission meeting, and Margaret just wanted to say, carry on and let's move forward with the plan. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this time? All right, yes. Please identify yourself and... April Johnson, the second of Director of Preservation Durham. Andrew Henson, Board President of Preservation Durham. Okay, go ahead. You have three minutes. Good evening. I just wanted to say we're grateful and pleased that the developer, Phil Clark and his associates worked so diligently with the Forest Hill neighborhood residents to come up with a agreeable plan for this property. We support that they protect the historic building and that they include development that fits well with the neighborhood. So we urge that you vote to approve this change. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard at this time? Mr. Perness. In deference to the time I will, and to Mayor Shul, I will refrain from regaling members of the council with stories my brother has told me about what it was like to be a roommate with our distinguished mayor before his hair turned gray. My name is John Perness. I live at 1506 Kent Street. I've lived there since, I think, around 2000. And it's directly across the street from the property in question, the Pine Crest property. I believe we have more frontage in relationship to the property than anybody else in our neighborhood. And I watch with interest as a group of our neighbors raised, in some ways, understandable concerns about the project and was pleased to see the developer and the neighbors come together to agree that the project should go forward after considerable negotiations, which of course led to the unanimous vote of the planning board. The main thing I would like to say is I think Mary Siemens would be proud that this is what has ended up about to happen to her property after all these years. She loved Durham. I believe at one time she was a member of this council. Yeah, she was. And she just loved Durham with such a passion and would not want her place to be a place of real contention. And I think we've ended up in a place where it is not. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're ready for those stories, John. Oh, they'll be forever secrets. He just kept stepping. Never should have said that. All right. Is there anyone else would like to be heard at this time? Yes. Please come up and identify yourself. Hello, my name is Josh McCarty. I live at 1613 Biven Street, which is about a block away from the property. And I just wanted to say briefly that I was enthusiastically in favor of Pinecrest and really excited about the opportunity it would bring. And I started to hear about Mr. Siemens. That's really sad. And I just wanted to express my support for Density and creating walkable urban environments in our city. And I think it's gonna be really important for us as a community to be able to pay for our services and infrastructure as we go forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McCarty. Are there any other, anyone else like to make a comment at this time? Thank you. Please give us your name and address. You also have three minutes. Yes, real fast. Ray Williams, 1709 Wallace Street. Just wanted to say Phil has also done a great job reaching out to other neighborhoods adjacent to Pinecrest. Former president of Long Meadow. He was very concerned that Long Meadow was also on board. And I'm an architect. I work with a lot of developers. I appreciate Phil's well-intentioned here. Thanks so much. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak at this time? Is there anyone else that would like to be heard? Mr. Stanzial. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. George Stanzial, president of Stewart. I live at 115 Cofield Circle. I just wanted to actually just finish up with a few facts here. As a follow up to Mr. Spalding's very on point comments and in addition to the 19 meetings that we've had with the neighbors over the course of the last year and a half, we've worked very closely in particular with the Durham neighbors together group and have reached a lengthy agreement with them on a number of items that relate to such things as density and residential housing types, boundary buffers, a path along the existing stream, an entrance relocation, recorded architectural guidelines, as well as our intention, and this is important, as our intention to seek a by right 20% reduction in density at site plan approval. This will allow us to stay within the comprehensive plan of six to 12 units an acre, but that will allow us to build only 38 units within the zoning boundary. So there's a by ordinance with an approved development plan we can request a 20% reduction in density and we've agreed to do that. Our effective density at this point is 4.17 units per acre and is very consistent with the surrounding densities in both Forest Hills and Long Meadow. And just to point out that this isn't just about Forest Hills, Long Meadow is right across the street and we've engaged with those members as well. While we completely understand that DNT does not represent all of Forest Hills, we've listened to all the neighbors and incorporated many of the conditions and requests we've heard from them on a consistent basis. They've been included in our development plan commitments. We're hopeful that you will see that we have truly made an outstanding effort to understand and be empathetic toward our neighbors and concerns and feedback. We've been inclusive, we've listened, we've been communicative through 19 meetings, multiple and consistent emails, letters and listserv throughout the process of the past year and a half. We've made significant changes to our plan resulting in a lower density by 30%. Reduction in housing, which was the original basis for the creation of this unique place and physical changes to our plan, some of which have had some relatively significant impacts. We hope you feel that you will, as we do, that this will be a high-quality, unique community in Durham and most likely in the Triangle. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stanzial. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this item? Anyone else that would like to comment on this item? All right, I'm now going to ask if there are any questions or comments by members of the, questions for staff, by members of the council or questions for the applicant. Mayor Pro-Tim. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question for the applicant. Ms. Ma'am. Thank you. Could you describe how your project, like what aspects of your project changed as a result of conversations with the neighborhood? Density for one thing. It went down from around 50, 58, down to in the 40, lower 50s and then we were able to get it to work out where it got down to 38. There was, they wanted a path, a connection path. We were able to deal with that. We were able to show, give them a sense of the quality of the architectural aspects of it, which you'll see in your report. It's, and the, also assure them on the traffic by not doing a TIA, but doing an on-site traffic study during a period of time to let them know about that, to allay as many of their fears and concern about the changing of their neighborhood. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Other questions for the applicant or for the staff? Council Member Middleton. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for the applicant. Would you mind telling us what the price points are for the units? Good to see you. Yes, what was that again? The price points for the units? Price points, they're from 800 something, seven or so on up to 950, 950,000 in the general area of what you have there. This will provide an opportunity even for people who live in Forest Hills with the very, very, very, very large houses that they have. It will give them an opportunity, as some have expressed, to sort of move over and still be in the Forest Hills neighborhood, but to be able to retire and continue to have their homes there. That's why I said in my statement about the diversity of homes. If you really look at it, downtown, you have a lot of density and a lot of condos and apartments and all that type, but you don't actually have as close to the middle of town as you do with Forest Hills to be able to also have a diverse type of home which is attached and detached in a very well-planned neighborhood sense, not just in a condo sense and not just in an apartment sense. And so you're able to have in the downtown urban tier, you're able to have this type of combination of homes and at those prices. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I have a question for the applicant. Mr. Spaulding, have you all considered a contribution to the city's Affordable Housing Fund from the developer as well as their nine students being added to Durham Public Schools and have you all considered a contribution to the Durham Public Schools on behalf of these students? Yes, we've considered that. And at this time, based on all that's been done with this project and scaling back, we would have to indicate declining that at this time. Thank you. Questions? Council Member Alston. I think I know the answer to this, but only because you've mentioned downsizing for folks. These are not age-restricted. No, no, no. I didn't think so. I just wanted to confirm that. No, but older people are going to be interested. Let's start to say seasoned people. Are there questions for the applicant? I have a question for staff, actually. Council Member Freeman. Specifically around the on-site traffic study. I know that request has come in often. Is there, I'm recognizing that this is not a requirement. Is there, like, is there anything you can glean from the way in which this traffic study was done that might be applicable to future traffic studies? I believe Bill Judge is coming up to address that. Yes, Bill Judge, transportation. Yeah, traffic impact study was not required of this development due to the number of units. I am not certain if the applicant maybe did want to share with the neighbors. If so, they did not share it with our office, so we have not seen anything. So just to follow up on Council Member Freeman's question, that study was privately, that was a study that was privately financed by the applicant then? Is that what I'm interested in? Yes, it was privately financed by the applicant and the study was done in an absolutely voluntary, but again, trying to lay any concerns that residents had had. One of the things we did in that study, you actually had individuals who actually did the traffic count situation and they would go to areas similar to what we would have in this development, such as I think, what's the name of your townhomes? Weldon Downs off of Hope Valley Road and then over Crosdale and the account there. And what we found was that actually the table that you all use for determining traffic and traffic counts, we found that we were only like one car or one trip different from what we found on actually on the ground checking to make sure what it was. And the residents and neighbors were very pleased that we were able to do that and show that consistency with you all's established plan. Thank you. Other questions for the applicant or for staff at this time? Specifically around the reduced units from 58 to 48 and then down to 38. How is that factoring into this price point? Is that why it's so high? We had always planned to have them competitive or comparative to what's existing there now. And so even with more, we still would have wanted to have a high level there. So it's that high because there are areas that call for this in the urban tier and not just the suburban part of Durham. So that's the relationship, I guess, best answer. Thank you. Thank you. Let me just be clear about one thing and make sure I have my understanding right, that what we're voting on tonight is not a density of 38. What we're voting on tonight and what has been stipulated in the development plan is 46, is that correct? 46. When you say that, and Mr. Stanzi, I believe you said that there's been an agreement. That's not an agreement with our planning department. That's, I would assume, so sort of informal agreement with the neighborhood is what you're referring to. Is that right? That's a corollary agreement. This would be, what, 46? And that would be equivalent to six units an acre. Okay. Other comments or questions? Councilmember Caballero? Yeah, why are you going from 46 to 38? Excuse me? Why are you going from 46 to 38? Like, why are you going down again? I said we had to do a lot of juggling to be able to get, to meet the comprehensive plan and to meet the requests of the neighbors. And in the process of doing it, we had to restrict our actual rezoning plot to be able to keep it within, within requisite six to 12 units an acre. Does that help you at all? Yeah. Yeah, George, you can go ahead too. So. Just real quick. So what the planning commission voted on would have been on the 46? Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure, so you have, okay. The 46 allows us to stay within the comprehensive plan. And it's six units an acre. And we had to, as we were going through all of our meetings with neighbors, we had, we were constantly adjusting and reducing the size of our zoning boundary in order to stay within the, we were not interested in changing the comprehensive plan. So the only way that we could do, we could meet the comprehensive plan and get to a number that the neighbor who was happy with was to reduce the size, get down to six units an acre, 46 units, and then take advantage of the 20% reduction at site plan, which gets us down to the 38. Thank you. I just also want to acknowledge that you are going to have a high bar now with community engagement in front of us. Well, we've always had a high bar. Yeah, I'm just saying like, how many meetings did you all have? I just hope that this is a very affluent community and they have a lot of, and we've seen this with other communities. I just hope that when you all have projects for maybe people aren't as organized that you do the work. Thank you, Kiltshield. Madam, Madam, Council Member, may I just respond to that? I think you were fine with George Stanzel and with me. I think council members know. It was not just the influence of the neighborhood. We've had, we have done this in all types of neighborhoods and worked extremely hard with those neighborhoods that certainly aren't anywhere near as affluent here, but our task has always been and the council has always respected the fact that they want these developers to come into Durham to respect how you do business and you do business by making sure that we are going to work with neighborhoods to be not only consistent with the plans but to also be compatible with their neighborhoods or to be an asset to their neighborhood. So I can assure you that our history of 30 years of working here on these in Durham, that this council and other councils will tell you that we are one development team that will make sure that every neighborhood, regardless of how much they have and how much they make and the value of their property, that they're gonna get the same respect. And I think this team and this developer recognize that and they know that's how we operate and that's why they hired us. Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you. Other comments from other questions for the applicant or for staff at this time? Just have a few comments if you want to. I'm gonna close the public hearing and then we'll have comments, okay? Is there anyone else that would like to be heard on this matter? Is there anyone here in the room that would like to be heard on this matter before we close the public hearing? Mr. Pollard, we have three minutes. My name is Larry Pollard. I live at 1902 Cedar Street, about two blocks from this proposed redevelopment. At our first meeting with the developers and with the neighborhood people, I told everyone, I've lived in the neighborhood for 70 years, 70 years. And I had seen lots of change over 70 years. So I'm not afraid of the change that will come. I'm confident that it will be a positive change, not only for our neighborhood, but for the entire city. And I look forward to seeing these gentlemen complete their task. I have felt all along through the negotiations with our neighbors and with the neighbors negotiating with the team that there was progress being made on getting this project to fit in and to be the right type of project that the Siemens family and all of us who live in the neighborhood would like to have. And I want to congratulate the team for what they have done, to meet with us, talk with the people involved and to position us for the future. And I think it's gonna be a grand future. I look forward to it. I commend them for the efforts they have made. In closing, I would like to say that I am very sorry about my dear friend, James Siemens. And I hope that this will be a legacy to his memory and his family for a long time to come in our city. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Is there anyone else here who would like to be heard on this item? It's a public hearing item. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard? If not, I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed and I'm gonna now ask for remarks for members of the council, if any, and then we will be voting on this item. I'm gonna just begin by saying that I hope that you all will please pass on Bob and others, our condolences to Margaret and the family. It's a tremendous loss. And James was a friend of mine as well. Mary was a good friend and Jim and Jenny. And I know that James's loss is just a terrible loss. And so I hope that on behalf of myself and the council and the community, you will pass that on to Margaret. Council members, we now have this item before us and I'm gonna ask for any comments that you may have and then we will take the matter up. Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member Freeman. I would also like to add my sincere condolences for the Seaman's family and friends. I recognize the history and the magnitude of what this estate means to the Durham community and I am so grateful and thankful I've had the opportunity to watch this process unfold the way that it has. Again, similar to last month's, sorry not last month, but the last council meeting where you have a situation where folks who are of means creating more transparency, more accountability, more conversation about what the way in which planning and the planning process works explicitly. The way in which developers work with the community and making sure that they fit in and I really appreciate, like I think it's under said how many man hours have gone into this not just from the developer side but from the community side. These are volunteers, people who live in the neighborhood who decide to lead a charge to make sure that what their neighborhood needs gets addressed and I am so thankful that I have had the opportunity to watch this happen. I mean, speaking as a former member of the planning commission, I've said it about a lot of times. But it's important to make sure that we're not just, as council member Cabrero mentioned, paying attention to this in the instances where it's a matter of people with means and specifically I'm thinking around how in which we're moving forward with light rail and lots of other different projects, it's important to make sure that you engage the people where they are, how they are to address their concerns because otherwise it just builds into an argument. And I mean, I realized, I think I was on the planning commission when it initially came up and I know like the tenor of the conversation was not this admirable. There wasn't 15 folks in support of and no one against. And so I recognize that this has taken a lot of work and I really am so appreciative. This speaks volumes to who Mary Duke Biddle Siemens was and the work that she's done in this community with your moms, Mr. Spaulding and so many others and so many will continue to do. And I'm just, I mean, I have a great deal of gratitude for the way that things have worked out. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Reese. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You told me a year ago, six months ago, not that long ago that we'd be here tonight without folks in opposition to this rezoning. I would have said you were insane. But here we are tonight. And I think that's a testament to two things. Number one, the hard work that the development team has done. I've never seen a development plan with text commitments quite like this. I've only been on the council for a little over three years. But I can't remember 19 text commitments and five separate design commitments, especially one that actually cites a piece of literature, the field guide to American homes, the second edition in talking about the general architectural style of the residence that'll be built in this particular project. And second, I think to the folks who live near this project, they are, I think many of us were copied on a number of emails about this particular process early on and to see that community willing to work with y'all to find an answer that works for this particular part of our city was truly inspiring. And I think that's a, like I said, it's a testament to them, but also to you and your team. And I really appreciate that. So that's the only thing I wanted to add, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Anyone else have comments? Council Member Middleton. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to all of you. I wanna congratulate the developer on what seems to have been a rather aggressive campaign to achieve cohesion in the neighborhood. I also wanna congratulate you on your business acumen. It seemingly, and I don't wanna mischaracterize what I heard, it seems like the price points were static. And yet, moving from one level of units down to a lower level of units is still maintaining profitability with lesser units, but the static price point is commendable. I just wanna say for the record though, I lament that somehow we got below a threshold where a donation was possible to our affordable housing fund, but commend you on still your profitability and for your successful campaign with Residence State. I intend to support the rezoning. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council Member. Any more comments by members of the Council? If not, we have in front of us, would anyone like to move to adopt the consistency statement? I'll move. Second. And move that we adopt the consistency statement. Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Consistency statement passes 7-0. Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt an ordinance to amend the UDO? I move. Second. That we adopt the ordinance of many of the United Unified Development Ordinance. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. And we will now be moving on to, we'll be moving back to item six. Thank you all for coming tonight. We're gonna be moving first item six, Ms. Sonjak. I'm gonna ask Mr. Johnson if he would like to... Also note, Council Member, three minutes left for the ask. Item six. Okay. I think we'll... Council Member Freeman, we're on item six. And so if you could come back and did you have a question for staff on item six? Okay, go ahead. Just for clarity on the Section 8 vouchers. Reginald Johnson, Director of Department of Community Development. In response to your question, Council Member, I have confirmed that the Casa does accept Section 8 vouchers. I have confirmed that with the DHA tonight as well as it does appear on their website. And we know from our monitoring that the majority of the persons in Denson and as well as Underwood and Maplewood are received vouchers. And I just wanna make sure that I'm clear. So I received this information based on someone who has a Section 8 voucher and they called in to see if they could be accepted. And so it might be advisable that they speak with their staff about letting folks know that the Section 8 vouchers are actually acceptable. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll now move to act on item six. Do I hear a motion to, I believe we can do this with a single vote? Can we not, Mr. Attorney? That's correct. Thank you. Can we now vote to approve item six? I'm sorry, can we have a motion to approve item six? Second. It's been moved. In a second, do we approve item six? Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Motion passes seven, zero. Thank you very much. We'll now move to item 21. Zoning map change for Shell Oil Gas Station. Ms. Sunyak? Good evening, Jamie Sunyak with the Planning Department requests for a zoning map change has been received from Ash Miller of MLA Design Group for a 2.879 acre track of land generally located at 1102 NC 54 at the corner of NC 54 and Barbie Road. The site is presently split zoned with the front portion being residential suburban 20 and the rear portion being office and institutional. Ms. Miller proposes to change the 0.65 acre portion of the property which is residential suburban 20 and 1.35 acres of the office and institutional to a general commercial, I'm sorry, commercial neighborhood with a development plan CND. The development plan associated with this request proposes an expansion of an existing gas station which will include a total of eight fueling positions and a pay station building. The property is designated commercial and office on the future land use map. There's no change to the office designation. The commercial designation is consistent with their zoning request. Key commitments associated with this plan include limiting the use to the fuel sales, dedicating additional right of way along Barbie Road and NC 54 to allow for constructing additional turn lanes and other roadway improvements. The Durham Planning Commission at their October 9th, 2018 meeting recommended approval of the proposed commercial neighborhood CND zoning district by a vote of nine to zero. Staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances to motions are required for this application. The first is to adopt a consistency statement and the second is for the zoning ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sonjak. We will, you have heard the report from staff and I'm now going to declare this public hearing open and first I'm gonna ask if there are any questions by members of the council for the staff. Hearing none, I'm gonna, we have two speakers who've signed up to speak on item 21. Mr. Daniel Dinsbier and Mr. Scott Miller. Mr. Dinsbier and Mr. Miller, would you all please come over here to my right? And both speakers are proponents. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on item 21? All right, sir, are you a proponent or an opponent? All right, that's fine. I'll hear from these two gentlemen and then I'll call on you. All right, thank you. Sir, please give us your name and address, please. Daniel Dinsbier, I'm from 1540 Salish Creek Parkway, Winston-Salem, I'm with Quality Oil Company and I've got our civil engineer here to answer questions. I think the staff report has covered what we've done to make this a safer place to do business and it's an existing location as most of y'all are aware and so we're just trying to become a conforming user. Thank you. And as you're, Mr. Miller, would you also like a speaker here to answer questions? All right, thank you very much. Sir, please come forward to the podium, give us your name and address and then you can ask your question. I apologize for not pulling out of form, it's my first time at a council meeting. No problem. Russ Gilbertson, I live at 1509 Catch Fly Lane, which is the Middles at South Point neighborhood right behind that gas station corner. And the two questions, and I've not had an opportunity to review the materials. The current pumps that are there do not appear to allow the 54 extension to go through unimpeded when that extension goes through and I was at 12 or 15 years. So I'm curious if this zoning change makes a setback requirements for access to the actual lanes because there's quite a bit of traffic when people try and pull in to get gas there. That was question one. And question two is the sidewalk ends where Middles at South Point, the developer finished and it's now just basically wide open are there plans to finish that sidewalk up to the Barbie 54 intersection? Mr. Two, thank you. I'm gonna, Ms. Sonjak, would you say they were both questions for the applicant would be able or would you, are there questions that you have the answers to? I would say there are questions for the applicant at this time. All right, thank you. So he is accurate, it's correct that the pump in their current position are in what would be the right of way. And we are proposing to dedicate a new 35 foot right of way strip through there. We've worked closely with Bill Judge in your transportation department. We've created a bike lane. We are extending the sidewalks down through there. So we've actually addressed those two issues in our recommendation for what we're doing. Thank you, Ms. Sonjak, do you agree with that? Yes, I do. Thank you. Sir, did you hear the answer to your questions? All right, great, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? Anyone else that would like to speak on this item? If not, I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back before the council. We would need first in motion to adopt a consistency statement. Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry, Council Member Reese, my fault. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I wanted to thank the Durham resident who came tonight, even though we'd never been to a meeting and never spoken up. You had questions and you got them answered. I respect the heck out of that. So thank you for doing that. You did great, you were great. Yep. I'm actually a little upset because he stole one of my questions, Mr. Mayor. And I vaguely knew about the sidewalk led here that confirmed, but the one thing I've heard about this intersection is those gas pumps on the corner. Well, not so much from the 54 widening perspective, but just because folks who live in that area have been concerned for many years about the safety of having a pump so close to a very busy intersection that's getting much busier, thanks in part to decisions made by this council about zoning in that area. And so I'm really excited to see that that hazardous situation will be mitigated by this plan and intended support. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, council member. And now are there any other comments by members of the council? If not, I'll accept a motion on the consistency statement. Second. I move that we adopt the consistency statement. Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Motion passes seven zero. Thank you. And now I'll accept a motion to adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. So moved. Second. And moved and seconded that we adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Motion passes seven zero. Thank you very much. Thank you all for being here. And now we'll move on to item 22, consolidated annexation for Ravenstone Conover. Good evening, Jamie Sonjak with the planning department request for utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation and initial zoning map change has been received from John Blackley Eden lands for a 0.469 acre track acre parcel of land located at 629 Conover Road. The parcel requesting annexation and the adjacent lot fronting Conover Road, which is already within the city limits are owned by the same owner. The applicant intends on combining the two lots and making them one buildable lot to be developed with one house. The site is presently zoned rural residential and staff recommends an exact translation of the zoning designation, which is the least intense designation based upon the size of the lot and the suburban tier policies. The parcel is designated as low density residential on the comprehensive plan, future land use map, which is consistent with the rezoning request. If approved, the annexation petition and the initial zoning change would become effective on December 31st, 2018. The public works and water management departments have determined that the existing water and sewer mains have the capacity for the proposed development, budget management and management service departments determined that the proposed annexation will have a positive fiscal impact immediately upon annexation and additional information can be found in the staff report. Staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Three motions are required for this application. The first is required by law to approve utility extension agreement and the voluntary annexation petition. And the second is to adopt a consistency statement and the third is for the zoning ordinance. Thank you, Ms. Sonjak. You've now heard the report from staff. I'm going to declare this public hearing open. I have one person who has signed up to speak on this item, Mr. Eden's opponent. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on item 22? Mr. Eden's. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just hearing in case there's questions. All right, thank you for being here. Council members, well, first of all, let me ask is there anyone else that would like to speak? If not, I'm going to declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back before the council. We could adopt the, if there are no questions or comments, I will take a motion to adopt the ordinance annexing ran at Ravenstone con over into the city of Durham. So moved. Second. Second. And moved and seconded that we adopt the ordinance annexing Raven con over into the city of Durham. Madam clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Motion passes seven zero. Thank you very much. The second motion would be to adopt the consistency statement. So moved, Mr. Mayor. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the consistency statement. Madam clerk, please open the vote. See you already have. Thank you. Please close the vote. Motion passes seven zero. Great. Motion three to adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. Come on. Second. And moved and seconded that we adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. Madam clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Ordinance passes seven zero. Thank you. Thank you for being here, Mr. Edens. I will now move to item 23. This is the consolidated annexation for Carrington Woods. Good evening, Jamie Soniek with the planning department request for utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation. And zoning map change has been received from Glenwood Homes LLC for a contiguous 8.57 acre track generally located at 833 Clayton Road. The subject site is presently zoned residential suburban 20 and the applicant is requesting a zoning designation of residential suburban 10, which is consistent with the low density residential designation on the future land use map of the city's comprehensive plan. No development plan was submitted in conjunction with this request. Please note that the unified development ordinance permits the same uses in the RS 20 and the RS 10 districts. If approved, this request would allow for new lots at a minimum of 10,000 square feet instead of 20,000 square feet. The public works and water management departments have determined that the existing city of Durham utility mains have the capacity for the proposed development. The budget and management service departments determined that the proposed annexation will become revenue positive immediately following the annexation. Additional information can be found in the staff report. If approved, the annexation and zoning map change would become effective on December 31st, 2018. The Durham Planning Commission at their August 14th, 2008 meeting did not recommend approval of the proposed residential suburban 10 zoning district by a vote of two to 11. Staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Three's motions are required for this application. The first is required by law to approve the utility extension agreement and the voluntary annexation petition. The second is required to adopt a consistency statement and the third is for the zoning ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sunyak and thank you for the good job you do on these public hearing items, we appreciate it. You're welcome, thank you. We're gonna, I'm gonna, you've heard from staff I'm gonna declare this public hearing open. I have one, two, three, four, five speakers. I have one speaker, Jacob Levan, who is listed as a proponent. I have Kenneth Wiggins, who's listed as an opponent. And I have three other speakers who listed themselves neither as proponents or opponents. And so I'm gonna ask those folks if they're here today to please identify whether or not you're a proponent and an opponent. Let me explain why I'm do this. I have to give equal time to proponents and opponents on a public hearing matter. And so it's important to know which you are. I'm not asking this just for an idle reason. So is Ms. Lillian Grace here? Ms. Grace, are you a proponent or an opponent of this reader? Opponent, okay. Natalie Russell, Natalia Russell, I'm sorry. Opponent, okay. And Quincy Ratliff, okay. Opponent, all right. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Levan, great. Mr. Levan, I'm going to, let's see. So we have four opponents. Is there anyone else who is here tonight that would like to speak on this item before I parse out the time for this item? Anyone else? All right, Ms. Levan, I'm going to give you 12 minutes and I'll be giving each of the opponents three minutes each. Okay, so the opponents and the proponents will both have 12 minutes. You don't have to take the entire time, of course. Neither side does, but that's the amount of time that you have. All right, well, I'm Jacob Levan at 9220 Fairbanks Drive in Raleigh. I'm here on behalf of the Penny Engineering Design, which is the firm that was hired to carry out the design of this proposed neighborhood. I won't do too much recap, but as you know, the property's currently zoned RS 20 and we're requesting it to be rezoned to RS 10, which is consistent with the Durham Futureland use map. The property is about eight and a half acres surrounded on all sides by RS 10 zoning. And each of the three surrounding neighborhoods, as you can see on your map, also have stubs to our property. And according to the UDO, we are required to tie our proposed streets to all three of those stubs. So we'll kind of be the interconnector of the whole community, I guess. We have applied for a utility extension agreement and it's our intention to extend the public utilities into the proposed neighborhood. In our experience, the RS 20 lots are typically found more in areas that don't have access to public utilities and therefore need more space on their lot for their septic system and their well system and things like that. And that paired with the surrounding zoning, albeit an RS 10, we feel that these are pretty good reasons that the RS 10 lots would better suit the not only the proposed development on our part, but also the surrounding area, being that they would be the interconnector of all the surrounding developments. While we did not have a provide a development plan with this request when we started the process, we do have current sketches. And with our current sketches, we have been able to fit a maximum of 23 lots on the RS 10 and 16 lots on the RS 20. I realized without the development plan being officially attached, the numbers probably don't mean much, but I sure you were talking about a difference of at most seven lots. So we feel pretty strongly that the difference in the impacts of the RS 20 zoning versus the RS 10 zoning will be pretty minimal. It also appears to us that this community area was kind of well planned by the city of Durham, as well as the surrounding developments for a continuation of a similar neighborhood, which would require the RS 10 zoning. For all of these reasons, it seems to us that it would be kind of an oddity to place an RS 20 neighborhood right in the center of an RS 10 community. So I don't think I need the rest of my nine minutes. And I'm sure there's other people here that would like to speak. So I'd like to defer the rest of my time to them. Mr. Levin, the way we do this is after the opponent speak, if you have additional comments you would like to make, you can reserve the rest of your time, okay? Thank you very much. Alrighty, now we're gonna hear from the opponents. And first I'm going to call Mr. Kenneth Wiggins. And I'm gonna ask all the speakers to please come over here to my right now to line up over here. That will be first, Mr. Wiggins, second Quincy Ratliff, third Lillian Grice, and fourth Natalia Russell. And the four of you all could come over here to the side, that would be great. And I'll begin with Mr. Wiggins. Could you please come to the podium and give us your name and address? And we're glad to have you and you have three minutes. My name is Kenneth Wiggins. I live at the 14th Meadowcrest Drive, which is behind the artist being developed. And I'm not a very good public speaker, but... Mr. Wiggins, not a problem. Yeah, but just wanted to just kind of voice my opinion on what's going on because it's happening in our backyard. So we've had just two meetings with the committee, and I guess the committee kind of said no to the project. And I guess this one would be more to come here also. First, we were kind of concerned about they were gonna develop wetlands, which behind us, if I've been there for 15 years, and when I first moved in there, they said that, you know, those developers will have them behind us forever. But of course, times have changed, things have changed, and here we are. So when we met with the developer, first we asked her for a development plan, and that's like a library we met at, and she didn't wanna meet any of our requests. So she said she wasn't gonna have a development plan. So we were like, well, okay, then how can we know what you're gonna plan to do behind our residents, you know? And she said no, she wasn't gonna do that. So when we met here with the committee, we presented that to them too. And some of the concerns that we had were that the area was already really congested. It's across from Southern High School, and like when the school's in, and we're trying to get out of our development, it's really tough, trying to get on the Clayton Road. That's one of the main issues we brought up. We also was asking her about exits that would be some development, like on the Clayton Road and some other developments that my neighbors were at. She was like, well, she couldn't promise us how they was gonna do the exits and how the traffic's gonna flow and all that. So we were like, okay. And also, it's like we weren't trying to stop development or stop growth or anything like that. We just was trying to come and talk and fight for how it's gonna lessen the impact of our community and where we live. So we wanted to make that clear to her. We weren't trying to like, we don't want nothing built behind our homes or we're so used to nothing being back there that we weren't gonna change. That wasn't an issue. We just wanted to find from her just how much of an impact it would have. And she wasn't really giving us any indication of that. Like at one point when we came, it was like 17 homes. Then it was 23 homes. And then if she didn't have a development plan, it could be up to maybe 30 homes. And we were like, well, that's the big difference between 17 or 18 homes and 30 homes. Because we know we have a lot of foot traffic, kids going to school, people trying to get out to go to work. A lot of things are going on right there in that little area. So I was gonna say, I'm sorry. But that's why I wanted to say that we just trying to lessen the impact of what's gonna go on. Thank you. You did a very good job, Mr. Wiggins. Thank you. We'll now hear from Mr. Quincy. Ms. Quincy Ratliff, I'm sorry. Ms. Ratliff, please give us your name and address. Welcome and you have three minutes. Okay. Quincy Ratliff, my address is 3219 Woodland Park. My house is the main entrance of which they were projecting to have Carrington Woods flow into, which is at the corner of Woodland Park and Dairy Road. I support everything Mr. Wiggins said. We're not opposed to the growth of the area. We were just not clear on what their development plan is and we have not been given one as of today's date. And the other concern was who's gonna hold them accountable to the number of homes that they place in those on that lot or on that property. Our questions were not addressed. So that's why we're here again today, trying to figure out exactly what are the plans and no one is addressing the safety or the lack of safety that's in that area. With Southern High School being there and the students walking to and from school, we do not have sidewalks in that area. Also the pedestrians who have to walk for city transportation sidewalks are not there either. So our concerns are more so, or my concern is more so safety and also the main entrance being next to where my home is, which we have a high degree of traffic in that area. And we have already had three accidents on the Woodland Park Road. So if those concerns could be addressed with us, if someone could sit down, maybe the developer could sit down and actually address that with us, we will be more than happy to assail whatever they, whatever it's workable between the groups. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Radcliffe. Now, Lillian Grice, please. Ms. Grice, welcome. You also have three minutes. Could you give us your name and address? Yes, my name is Lillian Grice. I am at the corner of Two Metal Crest Drive. My concern is the same as my neighbor's safety. I've had several, I've been in my home 24 years. I've had several cars run up into my yard, into the trees behind my yard, one this close from hitting my house. That is a sharp curve and it's a blind spot. And a lot of times when you're trying to get out, you're this close to getting hit with someone coming from the opposite direction. My concern is if you're gonna build a development, why can't they have their own entrance as opposed to opening up these other roads? Because now you have twin legs, you've got all these other developments that will also come through. So it's not just us, the new development and the development on the other side. Now you've got all the twin legs, people coming off channel road, the bus garage is there. So the traffic is just, sometimes you just can't get out. So that's my concern being on that corner. Also digging up my yard. It's been several times I've come home and the city has dug up my yard. No one notified me, my yard is painted different colors. There are wires running, I know I'm on an ease way, but nobody notifies me when work is being done. So I'm wondering, is this the same thing that the guy is talking about that they're gonna have to run everything through my yard for this new development, being that I am on that corner? The questions have not been answered. Thank you, Ms. Greiss, I appreciate it. Now we'll hear from Natalia Russell. Ms. Russell, please give us your name and address and you have three minutes. Thank you, mayor and members of the council. My name is Natalia Russell. I resided 3301 Woodland Park and my house is directly on the corner of which the main entrance for Carrington Woods is supposed to be built. I feel like I'm reiterating a lot of the concerns because like all my neighbors and I concur with everything they said that none of our concerns that we brought up and I think it's been a total of three meetings has ever been addressed. So I won't stay long because they brought up a lot of things, concerns still with the foot traffic of the students, the safety of our students at Southern High School. As stated earlier, there are no sidewalks. So there are students, a good portion of them walking to and from schools during peak hours. Woodland Park, right after you pass Freeman, there is a really sharp curve before you are able to access Woodland Park. I myself have been, almost been in several accidents because people are coming around the curve so fast and they don't realize that people are trying to access the Twin Lakes neighborhood. One of the other concerns was, has DOT come out and actually assessed the neighborhood properly? Have they ever come out? That was never really answered. And when they came out, what areas did they assess? Because there's currently, well, even back in August, there was two new subdivisions coming on Freeman Road. Those subdivisions are now in development. Construction is taking place. And there are two substantially sized subdivisions that are going on Freeman Road. So that those two subdivisions, I don't think was assessed in this plan. And once they're built, that's gonna already impact the neighborhood that's already congested. I will add that going to work on a day-to-day basis today with the current traffic is tedious. I sat on Clayton Road, trying to access Cheek Road for a matter of about 25 minutes. And this was between the hours of 7.30 and 8 o'clock in the morning. We have not even addressed when there is extracurricular activities. That's other high school, basketball, football. I mean, none of those things have been addressed as far as the current traffic. And we're talking about adding more traffic. I mean, I have a lot of concerns being on the corner that this is going to be a main entrance. How would that work with the buses? Is there a bus that's gonna be able to access Carrington Woods? I mean, it's nice as the neighborhood sounds. It doesn't make good sense for the existing residents of Twin Lakes, Metal Crest, Clayton Crossing. I'm opposed to it totally. I know that they can build, but it doesn't make sense, excuse me, to me to wedge another neighborhood in the middle of three existing residents. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you very much for your comments. Alrighty, Mr. LeVan, you have some remaining time. Adam Clark, do you know how much remaining time Mr. LeVan has? Mr. LeVan has nine minutes. Mr. LeVan, could you please respond to some of the concerns that you heard from the neighbors? Yes, sir. Well, first of all, I wanna thank them for coming out and speaking their mind. While they do oppose me, I do respect that they came out here and took the time out of their schedule to come to the meeting. As for their concerns, Mr. Wiggins mentioned something about the wetlands on the property. We since have had a stream determination performed on the area, and I don't wanna say it wrong, so I'm gonna read it straight off the paper. Each stream that has been checked has been determined to not be at least intermittent or is not present. So that's about all I have for those streams. As for the safety factor on Clayton Road, I don't have the exact numbers. I think they're in your packet, and I know that transportation can attest to this, but the current capacity for Clayton Road, I believe, is around 11,000, and the current AADT on the road is only 7,000, and I believe our development's only proposing maybe 100 to 200 trips a day on the road. So it's minimal impact. Even if we got our maximum 23 lots on the property, we're still significantly smaller than all of the surrounding neighborhoods. That was the primary reason for not having a connection to Clayton Road, but the other reason is that the NCDOT requires a minimum of 1,000 feet between intersections of this type, and we simply do not have that room to put an entrance onto Clayton Road. So that's why we had to tie it to the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the UDO, which required us to step to all three of the existing stubs, and that's all I have for that. Thank you very much. Can I ask you that the applicants, I'm sorry, the opponents, also raised the question of the development plan. You said that you're gonna put 23, no more than 23 units there, but as you know, you were able to put more units there. Could you talk about why you all decided not to include a development plan? Yes, sir. Well, honestly, at the beginning of the process, looking at the future land use map and the surrounding areas, we thought that this was gonna be a very straightforward zoning request, so we did not attach a development plan to it. We did have a neighborhood meeting, although it wasn't required, and most of these neighbors, as well as others attended the meeting. We did provide the sketch of the 23 lots at the meeting. It was on a board, up on the wall, for everyone to see. We talked about it at the entire meeting. So that sketch has not changed one bit since then, and it is still a maximum of 23 lots. There is, with the open space requirements, and the fact that we have to stub to all three of those roads, there is no way that we have fit more than 23 lots on that property. I don't know where the number 30 came from, but 23 is the max that we will be able to get. Thank you. Thank you. I'm gonna ask the staff some questions. A lot of questions. So, do you have any comments on the wetlands streams question that the opponents raised, and Mr. LeVance comments? So, if Jamie Sanyak with the Planning Department, if there are wetlands or streams that need to be regulated, they would have to adhere to the UDO requirements. Wetlands over one acre or more would be subject to buffer requirements. The applicant, as indicated, has the ability to ask for a stream determination to determine whether or not a buffer is required that can be done prior to a application or during the application process at the time of site plan. So, if they've made that determination at this point, then we would adhere to that. Right. I just wanted to make clear to them, the opponents that if I'm stating this right, Ms. Sanyak or wrong, tell me if I'm saying this wrong. So, the applicant, if there is a wetlands or an intermittent stream there that has to be protected, there would have to be buffers provided, and that would happen at a later point in the process at site plan. So, that is something that would happen later on down the road, but there would be a requirement to protect any wetland or intermittent stream with buffering. Is that right, Ms. Sanyak? If there's no development plan as part of an application, then it would be at the time of site plan that those issues would be addressed. So, it seems like one of the big problems with the development and the opponents is the situation with the three-stove outs as well as the situation on Clayton Road. The applicant says that because of the distance required between intersections, that he's not able to put at least the way I heard this, he's not able to put an exit from the development onto Clayton Road. Is that true? You're gonna ask for reinforcements for Mr. Jones. Always a wise idea. Yes, bill judge, transportation. Since there's not a development plan at the time of site plan, the ordinance would require a connection to all existing streets, which would include Clayton in this case. However, as the applicant has indicated due to the existing intersection spacing in the curvature of the road, it's very likely they would likely go to NCDOT to get basically a letter from or decision from them that they would not allow it, in which case the planning director would likely rule that it would not be required if DOT is not gonna allow the connection. So if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that you think it likely that the state DOT would not allow the development to put an entrance onto Clayton. Correct, due to site distance concerns and intersection spacing concerns along Clayton. Okay. And Mr. Judge, I understand you say that even if they did allow that connection to Clayton, the UDO would still require the interconnects to all the three existing stubouts. Yes. Thank you. So the developer, so without a development plan, I think I'm hearing you say that either with or without the development plan, with or without a development plan, it's unlikely that DOT would allow the entrance onto Clayton. Is that correct? That's correct. I guess the only difference if there were a development plan, there probably would be a arrow shown there with a asterisk or a note saying that they reserve the right to request a waiver at time of site plan for that connection. And is there a likelihood that that waiver would be granted given if DOT disapproved it? Well, no, I would defer to the planning director, but if NCDOT did not, I mean, if NCDOT indicated that an entrance would be allowed, then I think it would be required if they indicated it would not be required, not be allowed, then the waiver would likely be approved. I'm just trying to be clear that, again, that is it your estimation that DOT would not allow an entrance onto Clayton Road? Yes. Okay, thanks. And that means that there are the three stub outs that the development is required to connect to. Correct. If there was a development plan, that might not be true. Is that correct? Correct, although, I mean, if there are wetlands or other environmental features near any of those three, they could get a similar waiver to Clayton, just like we discussed. And what would that waiver mean? And they would mean to basically show what environmental feature there is there that would prevent the connection. In order to, they would have to, I'm sorry, I'm asking questions, I'm my ignorance is showing up, but if they have to make the connection, they're required to make the connection to the three stub outs, unless there's an environmental feature that would say they would not. That would preclude the connection, yes. And that environmental, is that true with or without a development plan? Yes. And if there was a development plan, how would that change that situation? Well, just because of some of the existing conditions that they would pick up, we probably have a better indication whether or not there were those features there. Got it. And Mr. Judge, what would you say with your expertise would be the best way to handle the traffic in and out of this potential development? Well, we do prefer the connectivity in each direction to basically spread the traffic out as much as possible so that it's not all concentrated at one point. I think a lot of the concerns I heard from the existing residents out there, primarily, I think she indicated around 830, which is a peak time for Southern high school traffic countering. So while there's not a capacity problem on Clayton Road from a 24-hour standpoint, we certainly probably are short periods of time, particularly associated with the high school where traffic is significant. All right, thanks. I may have some other questions, but I'm gonna now ask if there are other questions for the applicant or for the staff from members of the council, council member. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question for the applicant, Mr. LeVan. You don't mind? Thank you so much. You said you anticipated it being a pretty straightforward rezoning in the President's mind to have a sketch made. Who made the sketch? Excuse me? Who made the sketch that you alluded to? My boss, Penny of Penny Engineering. She developed the sketch plan. Okay, and forgive my ignorance, is the sketch significantly less expensive to generate than a development plan? Yes. I'm sure it was. All right. I think it would be, council member Milton, maybe one thing that would be interesting for people to know is what the cost of a development plan is. So maybe we could hear from the planning staff about that. Would that be helpful? Would to me. Good evening, Pat Young with the Planning Department. So the cost of a development plan vary significantly based on the size and complexity of the development plan. But a development plan of this size would approximately, would start at about $15,000 and go up to about $25,000. Thank you. 15 to 25, you say? Mr. Mayor, could I just interject real quick here? A planning commissioner, one of the planning commissioners explained the issue around development plan. And I'll just read what he says. In other cases, planning commission members have been sensitive to developers' objections to the cost of development plans for relatively small projects. In this case, this is from Tom Miller, by the way. In this case, there really is no material cost issue in as much as the developer is able to produce her own development plan as the developer. This is not a small nonprofit, like with the case we had, I think the Shriners came before us with commercial development. This is a developer who can produce a development plan but has not. That's, I just wanted to add that when you were talking about cost. If I may just thank you for that. I think that's an important interjection. Was the sketch produced in anticipation of concerns raised by opponents or did you have it from the beginning? When was the sketch produced? I don't believe the sketch was produced at the time that we had gone to originally start this process. I can't speak for her. I wasn't hired until a couple months ago. So I wasn't around when the project originally started. So I can't answer with too much detail around when sketches happened and why exactly the development plan wasn't attached. But that's all about all I have to say about that. I'm sorry. Now then, thank you, Mr. Levand. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Thank you. What about this issue that council member Reese makes, Mr. Levand? Do you think that's legitimate? That is my reading of Mr. Miller's comments that we're not just that this was a develop, let me, maybe you can help me, Charlie. It wasn't just that this was a developer but that there were certain particular, trying to pull this up. My computer's not helping me at this minute. In this case, the developer is an engineer and informed that she'll be doing her own land planning including preparation of a site plan if the zoning is approved. So what would you say about the cost of the development plan, Mr. Levand? The engineer, penny engineering is not the developer. Glenwood Holmes is the developer. Glenwood Holmes has hired penny engineering to go about this process of getting the rezoning so that they have an idea of how many lots they're gonna have on this piece of property. So, so, so, Glenwood Holmes would be paying for the engineer for the development plan. Yes, sir. I assume it would be 15 to $25. Right, exactly. Okay, questions. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We've had a couple cases lately where the issue of developing on wetlands has come up and I'm just wondering if we have a definition of wetland. What makes an area a wetland and then what are the requirements related to that designation? Thank you for your question, Pat Young with Planning Department, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. We defer, we require that the applicant consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, our local district is based in Wilmington, North Carolina, and they have very detailed criteria that look at things like aquatic life, aquatic vegetation to define in their field verification required. Army Corps staff reviews this documentation and determines whether it is or is not a wetland. What our ordinance says is that if it's both determined a wetland by the Army Corps and it's an acre or larger, if it's smaller than an acre, it can be filled or modified. That's very standard with other ordinances in North Carolina. So it's larger than an acre than it can be developed at all? That's correct. It would have to be retained and buffered. But that designation hasn't, the process of getting that designation or not hasn't happened yet for this development? That's correct. And that's part of that 15 to $25,000 cost associated with the development plan is doing that site work at this point in the process. But they have to do it at some point in the process. Yes, with the time of site plan. Okay. This is a traffic question. What are the anticipated trips per day for this kind of development? And then therefore what would be the increase in trips per day with a change from RS 20 to RS 10? So, bill judge transportation, the single family residential homes generate right around 10 trips per day, slightly over 10 on average. So whether it's, yeah, RS 20 or RS 10, it's really, yeah, just the number a lot. So it's almost twice as many. I think at RS 20, we estimate at worst case, 15 single family lots, which generates 183 trips and RS 10, 30 single family lots at 347. Okay. Thank you. And a question for our applicant. Do you know what the price point is gonna be for the houses? I do not know that information. I'm sorry. That would be up to the developer. I don't know that they have decided which product they're gonna build on these lots. Okay. So I'm not aware of the price point. Square footage. Okay. I'm sorry. We're not to the point yet where we've decided what product is going on the lots. Okay. Thank you. No problem. Alrighty, any other comments or questions? Just to clarify. Gels, we're all still. Typically, you noted that Penny is an engineer. Is she an employee of Glenwood Homes? Is she what? Is she an employee of Glenwood Homes? No, sir. So it's a different firm? Yes, it's a different firm. Penny Engineering is a firm that had a contract. Linwood, Linho, what is it? Glenwood Homes, right. Has a contract with Penny Engineering to do this design work. Is that right? Yes, sir. That's correct. So the Penny that's on the Glenwood Homes materials is a different Penny. Excuse me? I'm just trying to clarify that the Penny that's listed as an employee within Glenwood Homes is a different Penny. I mean, this isn't a huge issue. I just wanted to clarify if she was. Not that I know of. I'm not sure. I'm sorry, I don't have the answer to that. Okay, thanks. Questions or comments? Council Member Freeman? I have specific traffic related questions. Just recognizing that a few of the residents mentioned the curves that are in this section of Clayton. And I'm guessing if there were to have that stub-outs, the three stub-outs and the traffic coming out of all of it. Is that assessed at a different level when there's a school nearby? So, yeah, we are, I guess, looking at this area as well as Chandler and Freeman Road as part of our Vision Zero program. These are old sort of county roads that have a lot of curvature and not very forgiving shoulders. So I think the city actually does have a sidewalk project closer to the school right at the corner of Clayton and Freeman to try to make some improvements there as well. But yeah, so generally that's sort of how we're handling it. Could, and I'm not sure who would answer the question, but I'm trying to get some kind of confidence in addressing specifically what you mentioned around the Vision Zero at a rate that doesn't increase the amount of accidents in this area based on any additional cars or any additional developments being built in that section. I'm trying to think of, so based on your Vision Zero approach, financially for the city, how much of a burden would this create to create an annexation of this section? That's the question. It doesn't really have any impact in that. I mean, these are existing conditions. We have existing city subdivisions in the area. So, I mean, whether this is approved in annexed or not, we're still gonna have those same concerns in that area that have to be addressed one way or another. And does the timeline move up with an additional development or does it stay the same? Generally, it would stay about the same. I mean, particularly given the size of the development, the more development, the more the traffic and the more pressure puts on an area, particularly safety and potential, but this is relatively small. So, I doubt it would have that significant of an impact. I'm wrestling with the fact that it's not specifically this development, but it's the development in that area that's created this burden and how we address it is my concern in annexing this section. Does that make sense? I'm sorry. Yeah, no, it does. I mean, anywhere we have these old Tulane sort of county roads, whether that, I mean, Dearborn, Cheek, I mean, we have them, unfortunately in far too many areas, but the more development, the more traffic, lack of sidewalks, the more pressure it puts on those areas for improvements. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Are there other questions at this moment? Council Member Milton. Thank you, Mr. LeVan. I think one, maybe one and a half other questions. Is it, is it? Sorry. Sorry. Is it a fair assertion that Glenwood Homes at some point does plan to develop this property? That it does at one point. Does plan to develop. That's right. At some point. Either way, regardless. Right. One of our commissioners who was already alluded to, Mr. Miller said, made a comment that should a developer decide to memorialize their assurances to the neighborhood and the development plan, the council might delay its decision to allow time for that. Would that be particularly injurious to you? Would you, if we were to delay this in light of the concerns of the neighborhood and also in light of the fact that you, you're going to ultimately develop. Right. Would it be particularly injurious to you if we, if we delayed this? I don't believe so. I don't want to speak too, too much to the, to Penny. Unfortunately, she had a long planned obligation to be out of town for this. So that's why I'm here in the first place. But I don't think that it would be much of an issue. Thank you. Mr. LeVan, I want to make sure you understand what Council Member Milton is saying. He's saying, not just that you would delay, but you would delay and produce a development plan for this. And you're saying you don't think it would be much of an issue. I may be wrong. You may be an issue. It may not be an issue, but... I don't want to give a yes on that. I will suggest, Council Members, that we hold this public hearing open. Mr. Attorney, is that good? And that we, would it be best to set a date certain? And so why don't we set a date certain? What would be, I mean, let me ask Mr. Young, maybe you can help me out. What would be, if they are to produce a development plan, this takes time. Right, so Mr. Mayor, again, Pat Young with the Planning Department, if the applicant chooses to produce a development plan, we would ask that the item be referred back to the administration rather than continued because the time it takes to produce that plan and to review that plan is uncertain. Now, what could be done is that a date certain be identified for a continuance. And then at that time, we could ask for it to be referred back to the application that has decided not to submit a development plan or has submitted a development plan and has an indeterminate time for it to be set or it could be referred back now. Again, I would ask that that be done at the applicant's representation about whether they intend to submit a development plan or not. I understand. And Mr. Mayor, if I might clarify, I thank you for your clarification. The spirit of my question was not to, for us to impose a timetable on you, my assumption is that the development plan is an inevitability if you're going to develop the land at some point. You know when, well, you're not you person, but your outfit knows when that's going to happen. We're not going to happen. And my question was at that point when you make that decision and bring that development plan when it's financially feasible or fits into your timeline, would there be any injury in the interim if we did not approve this rezoning? I think you answered it. But I appreciate the clarification. Mr. Mayor, could I ask that? Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Could you clarify, we're entertaining a lot of words here between site plan and development plan and I don't think that necessarily, if I understood correctly, a development plan is going to come under any, every scenario or just... Right, so just to reiterate, Mr. Manager, so a development plan is voluntary on behalf of the applicant. It does have a lot of the details that have been discussed here tonight, like it can identify the exact location of access points, it can identify the maximum number of units, it can identify the type of units, things like buffering, well, and to be preserved or stream buffers, but it is not required, it's voluntary in the part of the applicant. All of that information would be required to be submitted at what's called a site plan, which is later in the process prior to a building permit being approved. And that's done pursuant to the approval of whatever zoning designation council chooses to put on the property. And is the cost associated with both of those similar and duplicative or could you give some comment about that? Yeah, yes, it is. There's a lot of overlap in the content of a development plan and a site plan. So if you do a development plan, the cost of site plan is somewhat less because a lot of that site work has been done, but it's still, there's still additional cost. So. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So the, let me just try again on the some questions on the transportation, Mr. Judge. The, my understanding what I'm hearing you correctly the ability of the applicant to put an entrance out onto directly onto Clayton Road is quite unlikely under whether or not there's a development plan because of the DOT prescription, proscription. Well, correct. I mean, if there were a development plan and CDOT typically reviews those, so we would most likely have that determination resolved as to whether or not they were gonna permit an access point, whereas without the development plan, they have not been involved in the process to this point. Right. So in all scenarios, it seems what is most likely is that it would be the traffic would flow through the roads that would be connected to these stubouts. Is that correct? Yes. And so if there was a development plan, how would that change what happens at the stubouts? What would be, what would be different if there was a development plan? How would that change what happened with these stubouts? It's unlikely there'd be anything different. And like I said, unless they were to identify some sort of environmental feature where they weren't able to directly connect streets at those stubouts. So depending on where it was, you might end up with just putting a cul-de-sac bulb or something off the end that wanted a stubout rather than connecting a street all the way through or some sort of T-type turnaround, but. If there was a cul-de-sac put at the end of one of the stubouts, this would force more traffic through the other road that was other two roads, which there was not a cul-de-sac. Most likely, yes. Okay. Okay. What's the name? Yeah, I have some thoughts to offer, but yeah. Isn't it also true that while the development plan probably wouldn't change the required connectors here because of what we know about what DOT is likely to do on the other potential exit, the reason the development plan is advisable in this situation isn't because it would change the need for the stubouts, but it would tell us with certainty the number of units that are on this development property. And that's the reason that the neighbors are here tonight isn't because they oppose development on the property, although they would certainly prefer that, I'm sure. It's that without a development plan, there is no way for the developer to make any commitment despite the representations to us tonight about the number of units that will be on the property. That's the, it's not that the stubouts would change, that we don't know, aside from a sketch that was drawn up earlier this year that shows 23 lots, we don't have any way to enforce that or hold the developer accountable. And that's why the folks are here. I think that's why the development plan is important. Thank you. All right. I think it's also, I mean, it's also important to note that the way in which this process works, there's a lot more, how do you say it? Like, I mean, I just can't help but think if this were Jordan High School, there'd be a difference of appeal in this conversation. And so it's just kind of unsettling to even consider it, recognizing that there's been so much development in this area already and the traffic concerns have not been addressed. I'm, I mean, I'm very hesitant. And so that's why I put out there, like I put forward that that question around recognizing that we're behind the gun on this. We're pushing ourselves even further. Thanks. Could you speak to the level of service questions on the roads and question, Mr. Judge? Yes. So the adjacent roadways are operating, as I said, below level of service D currently from a 24 hour peak hour, but anywhere where you have a school of the size of Southern High School, they're very likely are some potential 30 minute windows around operating of the school that cause some congestion in the area. Can you speak to the safety, the pedestrian safety in that area as well? So, well, there's, yeah, I mean, there's limited sidewalks or not a very well connected sidewalk network in the area. So the areas that have developed or have been annexed have provided sidewalk where the areas that are not. So there are sidewalk gaps in the area. All right. Other comments? Mr. Mayor? Mayor Pro Tem. I would support leaving the public hearing open and setting a future date at which the applicant could be present to answer some more questions. I'm not opposed to approving this rezoning without a development plan. It's small, it's low density and I don't think, I think the problems that we've heard from the neighbors and that we have heard from our staff that exists in the area will exist regardless of whether we add 20 more units of housing to the area. So I think dealing with those is kind of a separate question, but I do feel like we've had some questions about this proposal that the applicant might be able to more effectively answer and would like to hear from her directly at a future date. Thank you. Thanks. Any other comments? All right. Council member Ray, sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Under normal circumstances, I might be willing to support a delay in our ultimate consideration of the merits of this proposal. However, this must feel like deja vu to the folks who live near this property. The original planning commission hearing in this matter was in June. It was delayed for two months for this very reason because there was no development plan and no way for the developer to commit to what's on their sketch. They had two months in which the planning commission told this developer, engineer, the applicant, sorry, the applicant, go and work with the neighbors and come back with a development plan that allows you to commit to them the things that you've said. They came back in August. The developer had refused to do that. That's why one of the reasons the planning commission voted two to 11 to reject this proposed rezoning. It comes to us today. Now, three months later, four months later, since August, these questions are not new. These issues are not springing out of whole cloth today. These are well known. The developer could have at any time put in a development plan that would answer these questions despite the fact that she had a longstanding commitment and couldn't be here. The development plan could have answered those questions for us, but instead, we're here. And I don't think it's fair to ask these folks to come back a fourth time to City Hall to give the same comments, to pose these same objections and the applicant understood the situation back in August and knew what they were gonna do. And I think that I would oppose leaving it open and I think we should decide the merits tonight. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. All right, I'll just make a couple of comments. I just wanna say to the neighbors, first of all, thank you all for being here. We appreciate it and understand your concerns. The way I'm hearing this, and I'll just interpret it, I'll give you my interpretation, my colleagues may differ. I don't think that the difference in, that there's gonna be, there's not much difference in traffic that's gonna occur on these roads in any significant way, except there will be some small additional traffic at that bad rush hour that you all are accustomed to when Southern high schools in session in the morning and after. I don't think other than that that the, as I read, and as I listen to Mr. Judge and as I read this, that there'll be other significant traffic impacts, whether or not this is developed at 23 lots or 34. So I don't, I'm not persuaded by that that is an important concern here because I don't think anything is really, I think that even if it developed at this, at the by right ability is, I believe 16 lots, is that correct? So the developer can now come in and build 16 lots by right, they can just do that. And so the question is, it's seven more or 16 more, will there be a significant difference in traffic that you all were noticed that would be something that would justify us denying the developer the right to, or the ability to add more density on this land. I do think that the R10 designation is actually a better designation. Most of the planning commissioners agreed. I didn't see much difference of opinion on that. I think that it does come down to, I would agree with council member Reece. It seems to me that the one thing that development plan might be able to do that would be important is to provide assurance on the number of lots. I don't see any other significant ability it would give. I know that at least one of the planning commissioners argued that it would give some more assurances on the traffic that would matter a lot. That seems unlikely to me, but I agree council member that it would give more assurance on the number of lots. So I think that's the question we're deciding. Do we want to hold this item open and ask the developer to, I think that maybe you were asking Mayor Pro Tem that the developer come back and give us some other kinds of assurances on the number of lots besides the letters available in the development plan. You know, those assurances would not be legally binding, but they could maybe give us some more comfort. So we have a couple of options in front of us. I actually believe it's my call and whether or not the whole public hearing open or not, but I'm interested in any thoughts at all. I mean, we can vote tonight or we can hold the public hearing open and we can try to get some more information from the applicant at a time certain in the future, you know, a month from now if it's not gonna be a development plan, right? Is that right, Mr. Young? Mr. Mayer? Yes, I think just... That's correct, Mr. Mayer. Pat Young again with the planning department. If the applicant decides to submit a development plan, we would ask that this item go back to the planning commission. So again, if it's continued, we'll be with the presumption that there would be no development plan, just additional information from the applicant available. Two cycles, okay. Council Member Capuchero. I just wanted to say that if we do vote tonight, my vote will be no. If our standard is going to be that developers really work with neighbourhoods, which we just saw very, very robust process, then that is the commitment level that I expect from developers. There's been plenty of time to do a development review. I appreciate you all coming out. I think this is exactly my... This is what I was speaking to earlier. There was a community here in a part of town that is more affluent, that has more means, and they were treated very differently than this community has. So if we vote tonight, my vote will be no. I would encourage the applicant to come back so that we could ask questions if that's the way we decide to go. Mr. Manger, goodbye. And I just want to make sure that I reiterate that beyond the traffic concern, what I'm hearing is a concern about safety. And so it's not just the cars, it is the pedestrians. It is the students who walk those streets to catch the bus, and not just the school bus, but the public bus. And recognizing exactly what Council Member Caballero mentioned, we've been having this conversation at length for communities that do not look like this community sitting in the audience right now. And I think it's just appalling that the developer is not even here to have this conversation. And as Council Member Reese pointed out, it's also kind of just disappointing that this process has gone on for as long as it has. So this is why I would also be opposed to holding it open. I think that we should vote. And I mean, just recognize that this is not what's best for the city at this point. Mr. Mayor, is a question to the developer still in order since you've closed? Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead. I haven't closed. Mr. LeVan, you've heard a tick talk in this process concerning the planning commission that it was, matter was carried over and then revisited again. And if you can't speak to this, forgive me. In the interim between the first time this was heard by the planning commission and coming back, is it your understanding that you guys were supposed to be working on a development plan in that interim period? Do you know? I think the main issue with developing the development plan for the developer was that they did not want to get that process started and commit to something without knowing what the zoning was going to be. So I fully agree with commissioners that want to vote tonight. I don't think anything's going to change to roll this over for another month and put the neighbors through another meeting. I think that as the, I don't remember who said it, but someone mentioned that the development plan is voluntary. So I would request that the city council see that if that's the main issue that I don't think it's very fair a voluntary development plan be the deciding factor between RS10 and RS20. All right, thank you, Mr. LeVanne. Well, that's pretty clear. I'm going to declare this public hearing closed and the matter is now in front of the council. We would to approve this development, we would need. Mr. Mayor, I just want to make sure that I address the comment that was made about the deciding factor being a development plan that would not be the case. It would actually be on the basis of what's best for the city. Thank you. Any other comments? We have a motion, we could, I would accept an emotion to adopt the ordinance annexing the Carrington Woods developed into the city of Durham, effective December 31st. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, I do have one question. The annexation and the rezoning, are those separate items that we're going to be voting on? Is the annexation dependent on the rezoning? They are separate items that you would be voting on. The annexation is not dependent upon the zoning. However, the zoning is dependent upon the annexation. That's it. If we were to annex the property, if we were not, if we didn't annex the property, can the developer still develop it, RS20? They could develop it as RS20, correct. Okay, we do already have access to the city, like city utilities that would allow them to do that or no, under the current zoning. So the current zoning that's on this property is county zoning, even though it has, because we have emerged ordinance and emerged department, it's the same designation, but that's RS20 city designation would have to be applied at a later date. So hypothetically, you could annex it and then subsequently within, I think it's 30 days, I'd have to check the statute, apply RS20 or some other zoning designation. Okay, so if they were to develop it. But we couldn't just directly translate without you all's action. Okay, so if they were to develop it now, RS20 with county zoning, it would be like wells and septic systems? That's correct. And it's very unlikely at that size that they'd be able to accommodate well and septic tanks. They probably have to be much closer to an acre. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Good questions. Alrighty, is there a motion to adopt the ordinance annexing to Carrington Woods Development to the city of Durham? So moved. I can't. Alrighty, Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? The motion fails for three with council members. Hamilton, Caballero, Freeman, and Reese voting no. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney. Do we not, should we be voting on that other two after this fails? None of the subsequent items are required with the failure of the annexation. I want to thank the neighbors for coming very much and also want to thank the applicant. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to item 24, Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment for Omnibus changes 12. Thank you very much, Michael Stock with the Planning Department and knowing the mayor's joy of omnibus text amendments, a little delayed Hanukkah gift. I call this this period every year taking stock. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate that. A little delayed Hanukkah gift for you. Related Hanukkah gift. TC-18002 is a text amendment for technical revisions and minor policy changes to various positions of the Unified Development Ordinance or UDO. The amendments are identified as necessary corrections, clarifications through organization or other minor changes to clarify the intended regulation to codify interpretations of regulations or reflect minor policy changes that are not solely technical in nature. The details regarding these amendments are found within your staff memo and in your agenda packet. The JCCPC was presented with the draft for review and comment on August 1st, 2018 and no substantial changes or modifications beyond any technical corrections were requested. Planning Commission recommended approval 9-0 during October 9th meeting with referral of the neighborhood protection overlay process revisions that were originally part of this to be referred back to staff. So there any neighborhood protection overlay process amendments are not part of this. Thank you. As a reminder, city council will be required to take two actions. The first would be an action on the appropriate statement of consistency that's found as attachment A. The second would be an action on the ordinance amendment itself attachment B and there's one adjustment to that ordinance that staff would like to meet. The effective data that ordinance staff would like that to be revised to January 15th, 2019 to coincide with port of commissioners action that will happen later next year due to their missed meeting on December 10th. So it's the co-coordinate both actions. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. You answered my question about the NPO. Is there any other, are there any other questions that you've heard the staff report? I'm going to declare this public hearing open. Are there any questions for staff? If not, is there anyone that would like to speak on this item? I see Mr. Bill Ripley is here. Mr. Ripley, are you a proponent or an opponent of this? A clarification and let me introduce myself. Bill Ripley, 511 South Park Drive. Mayor, fellow council members, appreciate your time. I've reviewed the changes in the ordinance and for the most part, I don't have complaints but I do have some suggestions. I know that Mike and some other folks are working on expanding housing choices and there were some things I think the council and others are in favor of as the overview states to often over time zoning rules have restricted development in many neighborhoods almost exclusively to single family dwellings eliminating many of the small scale and often more affordable multifamily options than once existed. Often referred to as missing middle housing, this project will explore ways to eliminate regulatory barriers and expand the choices that people have when it comes to housing types. But part of that same goal is anytime there's changes or to the ordinance that are more restrictive or compound development efforts that increases the cost of housing. And I mostly do small development residential and a couple of things in this proposed change. One I'm most concerned about is CBUs but I will get to that, I will mention two more. I don't know that it matters much but I was curious as to why we have a townhouse development ordinance but we're restricting, we can only have 25% of two unit buildings. We can have six unit buildings, eight unit buildings, four unit buildings but we're restricting to 25% of the total buildings to be two units. I don't know that that's, it's a restriction but I don't know it's any good for the city of Durham or there's any rational planning reason for that. Second, we have to deal with links and nodes on our new streets, new neighborhoods called the SACS connection points. And in doing such, the threshold we have to meet is sometimes hard to do because we can't find enough connections and people won't call the SACS which are somewhat prohibitive by links and nodes. And so the ordinance on page 18, here changes the degree of a road curvature from 75 degrees to 120 degrees which means we don't get credit for a node on a 75 degrees anymore. So it's more difficult in some small infill neighborhoods to meet that criteria. But most importantly is the CBUs and the mailboxes are required by the post office and we will install those. Most developers have been installing them for a couple of years now. The boxes themselves are not an issue. As I mentioned to staff several months ago though, if you have according to this chart, excuse me, didn't know there was, did I have to- I'm gonna give Mr. Ripley another minute. I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a clock here. I should have told you my apologies. Page 26, 5.4C1, the restrictions and the table of parking places for a CBUs is of two houses, we have to have two additional parking places. So if we build a two house community, we have to build a parking space and a second handicap accessible. That's over burdensome for two, but nobody's building two, but even 10 or 20, we shouldn't have to build parking spaces dedicated just for a single street or a small neighborhood. Carry and Apex have rules that accept units of 15 or 20 houses, but they do not require parking. So I would suggest that it be worded such that we can have up to 20 CBUs or 25 CBUs before parking's required. If you got 10 houses on each side of the street and nobody has to walk 350, 400 feet, that's my suggestion. Thank you. Mr. Ripley, thank you very much. I'm gonna ask staff, Mr. Stock, if you could respond to the, were you able to follow Mr. Ripley's concerns? One, as I understood, is the restrictions on the two unit buildings. One has to do with the road curvature and credit for links and nodes there and the third had to do with the CBUs and the parking requirements related to those. Those were the three that I heard. Did I get that right, Mr. Ripley? So for townhouses, right now you don't, you're not allowed any two unit townhouse development. So it was requested through other developers to add some flexibility to that requirement and it started at 20% and there was a request to up to 25% through the Planning Commission meeting, which we felt was reasonable through expanding housing choices. We're looking to expand that even further to create more flexibility with townhouse unit design. So what you're getting right now is more than what is actually on the books now. The links and node methodology, it's actually clarifying the methodology for curvature in a road. Right now it's a 75 degree kind of bend and the details of it are such that we found that actually through discussions with our development review team that developers tend to game the system in terms of where that 75 degree bend really is in a road. The number that is proposed is actually already in the ordinance and was used in a different definition within the ordinance and it was a much clearer measurement methodology to use achieving the same thing. And the third with the CBUs, USPS requires parking access, accessible parking and we developed these numbers based upon other ordinances that we found throughout North Carolina and other jurisdictions actually throughout the nation. The parking numbers that are in there can be achieved. You don't even have to meet them if you're already providing parking. If it's more of a group parking part of a clubhouse and such like that, if you're placing the units there but there would be some minimal parking requirements if you're spreading out the units throughout a single family subdivision. If I can get in with the planning department just to quickly add to Mr. Stock's comment on the CBUs. It's our understanding that there's no minimum size of subdivision that's better exempted from the CBUs by the US Postal Service. If indeed the Postal Service will allow smaller subdivisions like Mr. Rook will be describing three units, six units to be exempted from that requirement. We would certainly be more than willing to look at modifying these provisions going forward to allow for that exemption. We're not aware that one exists based on our consultation with the Postal Service. So that's why you see it like it is as Mr. Stock just said. Could you explain that again? Sure, so the reason we're requiring the parking for the CBUs is that the US Postal Service appears to require the CBUs these common boxes for all new single family developments, even very small ones. So what I was trying to get at was that if the Postal Service will allow an exemption from the requiring the CBUs or requiring parking for the CBUs, we would want to incorporate and reflect that. But we don't believe that there is an exemption for even the small subdivisions. I think we agree fundamentally with Mr. Ripley that we don't want to impose costs on small subdivisions because that does reflect the price of housing. But we are just trying to come into adherence to the US Postal Service requirements. I see. All right, thank you. Any other comments, Mr. Stock? That's all I have. Council members, questions or comments? Just a question regarding, there was a comment in the County Commissioner's notes around something around neighborhood led organizing would be prevented. I'm struggling to understand how that happens. I don't know. So with the MPO process, I'm sorry, I'm moving to a different section. There were some restrictions put in place. The MPO process revisions were removed from this. Okay. That'll come to you at a later date. All right. All right, any other questions or comments? Council members? All right, if not, anyone else would like to speak on Mr. Ripley, go ahead. Thank you. Just for clarification, San Mathews, who's the growth management for the Durham US Postal Service, says there is no exemption, as staff said, but they probably would look at a two to four lot exemption. However, there is no parking requirement required by the US Postal Service. So Durham is asking for required parking. Kerry and Apex have an exemption for 15 or 20 houses or less, not requiring parking. We do have to do the CBUs, but parking is a new thing that's coming up on this Durham changed ordinance, but not required by the Postal Service. If there is parking, they're correct and it does have to be accessible. I agree with that, but there's no parking required. Thank you, Mr. Stein. Our understanding is that there's required accessible parking at CBU locations. Mr. Young? Just to clarify, we're pretty far in the weeds here, but the US Postal Service does not require the parking, it's the accessibility code of the state building code through our inspections department, has said that because this is a location that needs to be accessible, that we need to have parking and that parking needs to be handicap accessible. We certainly, as I tried to allude to earlier, we'll explore our ability under the accessibility code to grant a lot of exemptions for small subdivisions and bring that back to you in the future. Thank you very much. Alrighty. Thank you very much. Anyone else like to speak on this item? If not, I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back before the council. I will need two motions, one to adopt the consistency statement, two to adopt the ordinance. And I'll just say before we have the motions, Mr. Ripley, I appreciate your coming and I appreciate your raising these things. We are also, and I was glad that staff talked about coming back to us with the expanding housing choices where we would be able to be looking at an expansion of the less restrictions on the number of the townhouses. And so we'll look forward to get that. We'll be getting that to spring. I did wanna just say that to you. So thank you. All right, council members, do I hear a motion to adopt the appropriate consistency statement? Second. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt the ordinance? If I may, Mr. Mayor, just with the adoption of the ordinance, a reminder to the adoption of the ordinance with an effective date of January 15th, 2019. Sorry, thank you. To adopt the ordinance with an effective date of January 15th, 2019. So moved. Second. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to item 25, the Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment for Private Streets. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. Again, Michael Stock with the Planning Department. A text amendment TC-18-0006 is a privately initiated request by Mitch Craig of CEGrew Bank to amend paragraph 12.2.2, other forms of access to allow an additional instance where private streets would be allowed. This application would apply primarily only within the county jurisdiction. Additionally, and the reason why council is hearing it tonight, is that the existing, parts of it with existing text is revised to more explicitly require private streets to meet or exceed public street standards and add specific certification criteria. The original request applied the allowance more broadly and subsequent to the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant revised the request which substantially limits its application and addresses many of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission at that time did recommend denial five to seven of the text amendment at September 11th. Board of Commissioners have already heard this item and approved it at its November 13th meeting. As a reminder, City Council will be required to take two actions. The first would be an action on the appropriate consistency statement found on attachment B and the second would be an action on the ordinance itself attachment C. Just to clarify what I just said, the meet of the ordinance that you're looking at tonight is pretty much a county only jurisdictional issue. The reason why you're hearing it tonight is the introductory paragraph in that section revises and clarifies how private roads are approved and that can happen within the city or the county and that's why you're hearing it tonight. So it's a technical change on that part. Thank you very much, Mr. Stock. You've heard the report from staff. I'm gonna declare this public hearing open. Is there anyone that liked to be heard on this item? Hearing none, I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed. Any comments or questions from council members and if not, I'll accept the motion to adopt the consistency statement. I'll move. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the consistency statement. Madam clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Motion passes seven, zero. Thanks. Motion to adopt an ordinance amending the UDO. I'll move. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt an ordinance amending the UDO. Madam clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. Motion passes six, one with council member Freeman voting now. Thank you. Thank you. I believe that there is no more business to come before this body and I'm going to declare this meeting adjourned at 9.50. Thank you all. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, I need to correct the first. It should actually be a no for some reason it didn't capture it. Okay. On the vote, on the consistency statement vote. Yes. On that last item. Both. Both. But on item 25. Yes. Yeah. So council member Freeman, thank you, Madam clerk.