ng that relative to the TIA. And of course there's many locales where the TIA and level of service conditions are not of interest in consideration of development projects precisely because they just propel more traffic. And that's a well-chronical outcome of kind of conventional transportation planning that is rapidly being understood across a lot of cities that are facing a lot of growth pressures. And this is I think a prime example here where if we were to approve a development, a land use and a configuration without a degree of connectivity that corresponds to the intensity of that development and responds to the limited degree of connections that exist in the area present for a project of this size, which again, 36 acres, it's eight or nine city blocks. And if you think about the numbers of streets that might occur across several city blocks to allow many of those trips that are generated to be distributed in a much more efficient way than just loaded on the single intersections. And so several months ago, we heard a great deal of community input and conversation around a project in North Durham and one that had been through the development review cycles in previous years with different mixes of grocery and residential. And a lot of that conversation revolved around, some of it certainly revolved around the provision of affordable housing, but a lot of it revolved around connectivity and limited connectivity. And if this project was to go forward as proposed with zero provision for connectivity in any public degree, that it would only serve to exacerbate all those issues that Commissioner Williams identified. And no transportation plan would adequately provide for connectivity if large chunks of land continue to be ticked off without being able to address that. And I guess where I'm going with this is that the site plan that whether it was included as part of the TIA or the community engagement, it's somewhere in here. And I know it's not part of the development plan, but it's one of the documents that was included in our packet is apartments in a parking lot. And I'm not saying that in an editorial way, that's just what it is. It's apartments in a parking lot. It's residential units that will be solely dependent on automobile connections to access all those things that are in close proximity. And the discussions that the Planning Commission since I've been on it, have been having have sought for ways to provide a better degree of connectivity, provide a better degree of not just connecting people via a five-foot bike lane or connecting people via sidewalk here, but really rethinking how particularly a parcel that's as well located as this collection of parcels is in the larger area can fit better together. So that's my thinking on the project as currently proposed. That's all I have. If I may like to speak to some of the points you made. Number one, as the development plan shows, there's two significant streams or actually two significant streams that cross the property and there were perium buffers and some wetlands and all of that's going to be open. So it's not like all of this is going to be developed. It can't be because that part is being preserved. And in addition to that, we're providing a section of the Glover Greenway Trail. So there's some of that's going to be along these areas that are the lower areas on the site. So we have the connectivity and building part of that trail that's on the City of Durham's plan that will be constructed. In addition, there'll be the bike lane constructed on Andrew Avenue. That will be happening and that's part of this project. So there will be that widening and that bike lane will be done. Sidewalk will of course be done in accordance with the Durham standards. In addition, the access points here aren't from one location. You've got Laurel Road on the north side of the project. You've got Ruritan Road on the south side of the project, both of which provide access. And then of course the Glover Road project in connection with the Laurel Road project will allow for an overpass over the railroad that's already a planned DOT project. So there's a lot of connectivity here. I mean, in addition, this developer is as proffered and is constructing a transit stop so that there will be use of buses instead of just automobiles. So we have bikes, automobiles, Greenway. All of that is being provided here so it doesn't just focus on typical automobile traffic that there are other options here. And as far as a long-term plan, there are other options here. But again, as I stated earlier, not all of this property is being developed because it really can't. And we have some crossings over the creeks but we can't develop those repairing buffers. But a good thing for this neighborhood, and they really, I will tell you, there have been multiple conversations. This neighborhood was really, really interested in getting a sewer extension so that it is closer to the residents. Now, they'll have to take their own steps to make the connection but there's no sewer line extension into this area as it currently exists. There are, where we're coming from the north with some several off-site easements to bring sewer into this development. So that will be made available if at some time the residents decide to do the extensions and the annex into the city so they can get access to sewer. That was primarily what we were hearing from the residents. So there are a lot of positives here that will go on and it'll provide a lot of some density here and some variety. There's single family here but they will also provide some multifamily and rental options for residents in this area of Durham. And that's a good positive thing. But it's set up to handle this traffic concerns. I appreciate you walking us through those other elements and just to try to clarify briefly. I'm not speaking about how residents of this particular project may access the larger transportation network. I'm speaking about connectivity across and through this large assemblage of land which it's not large in X urban or outside suburban areas but it's large in terms of a site that's this well located relative to downtown, relative to RTP, relative to some of the areas. And the proposal at present doesn't include any public connections, notwithstanding the Greenway Tround talking about vehicular connections that can improve our transportation network in this region. And that's a gap that I think really needs to be addressed. Well, we are donating right of way for that Glover project that's a DOT project. So, I mean, that's, and the concern is to allow for, you know, this is on the line that provides passenger service. They're trying to eliminate at grade crossings. And this is right next to the Glover Road Overpass and the donation of right of way will help DOT make that a reality. So that's providing for some definite connectivity that doesn't exist today. So, you know, this does provide that connectivity. I hear you talking about the perimeter and I guess my concern is more about the internal connectivity. Thank you. Well, internal connectivity, you know, we've got the stream crossings built in. If you look at the development plan, they're there and it's going to be easy to get within the site. So that's not a difficult thing. And we're providing connections from the apartment apartments to the Greenway Trail as part of this as well. We had to commit to that. So it will be easy for Commissioner Williams to drive through your project when it's completed or any other per member of the public. Well, I mean, if they want to drive through the apartment complex, I guess they could. But I mean, in reality, they probably won't want to do that. But yeah. Well, and they're in lies. They're in lies, the core issue. Right. Thank you. Thank you both for this discussion there. I acknowledge that Commissioner Sturkin and Carmen Williams have raised their hands. But I'd like to give folks who haven't had a chance to speak yet an opportunity before returning to them, Commissioner Durkin. That's a quick question. Thank you. It's for staff. I know that the Glover Road Overpass Project is a planned DOT project, but is it, are the funds allocated for it? But are we going to pay for it? Carling Thomas Transportation. Yes, that is a funded project that DOT is actively working on. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Miraculous. DOT has funded the projects they planned. Commissioner Carmen Williams. Yes. Thank you for recognizing me, Chair. I just had a few thoughts in terms of the comments made by the presenter. And in terms of the fact that we're creating an overpass to create on-grade crossing, to prevent on-grade crossings for railroad tracks, I guess I don't understand how that helps with connectivity parts, I guess, to keep people from being hit by trains or standing on tracks. Outside of that, I did have questions in terms of, we're creating a bike lane on Anger Avenue. Like, where are these people going on this bike in this sidewalk? Like, Anger Avenue is not a place that you should be riding a bike or walking. And I think through various conversations in other neighborhoods where we've been extremely concerned about having sidewalks and having bike lanes, I think we also can't just write the blank check to say that, okay, well, if a developer decides that they wanna create a bike lane and they wanna create a sidewalk, then that's gonna increase your probability of getting your project approved because it has to make sense. I just don't know where these people are going on these bikes and how safe they're going to be when we've had a massive increase in the number of pedestrian accidents of cars versus pedestrians either on bicycles or like just walking. Like there's several areas in Durham with their sidewalks and people are literally still being run over by cars because of this. And I just think that we need to have a greater consideration for affordable housing, a greater consideration for traffic impacts and not rely on computer models to try to forecast like how many kids are gonna attend during public schools?  Like what if your model only bases it off of whether or not somebody's gonna have two kids and then they end up having quadruplets? Like your whole model is gone. So I'm just, I just think that a common sense approach to actually looking at the area and being frankly more well versed in terms of what Durham is looking for before coming to the mat with a development besides the fact that there's land available would make this a more viable option. And in actually looking at what we as a planning commission has done as well as the residents of Durham are asking for, this project is greatly skewed from that. Outside of the obvious reasons that this is probably just not a good idea for where it's being proposed. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Carmen Williams, a commissioner cut right. Thank you, Chair. I think listening to everyone's comments and looking at this project won't echo, actually I won't elaborate on the details or the specifics that everyone else has already brought up. I think to me what this project points out is how what we're seeing are just marginal projects that are checking the boxes and the burden of responsibility that we all have been expecting to come forth for developers to come to planning commission with. It's not present in this particular project whether it's the responsibility to provide the connectivity that Commissioner Cease talks about or affordable housing that Commissioner Durkin brought up. Those things are expectations for projects now. And I think and Commissioner Durkin brought this up. The expectation is higher. And so we've got to do a little more than check the box and I wrestled with this initially thinking that, not every project needs to have everything but I've sort of changed my mind on that in that it can and that we can push and stretch the expectations for developers. And I think this is a prime example of that where nothing that we've talked about in our previous planning commission calls is being put forth here. It's marginally best and at this moment I'm apt to not approve this project. Thank you. I might have an opportunity to respond at some point. Yeah, I will acknowledge you when it comes when I make my comments. Sure. There hasn't been a question directed at you yet. I'm Commissioner Zuri Williams. Good evening. I have to agree with a lot of the comments already made in regards to affordable housing, also connectivity. I do have a question in regards to construction graphic and if you have figured out how that would be routed throughout this process. And I know that it was mentioned that there would be two phases. So it'd be interesting to hear kind of what the construction timeline is because like Commissioner Williams, Carmen Williams said, these roads are very busy and they are utilized all throughout the day and evening. So it'd just be interesting to hear kind of your thought process with that. And I also have to agree and echo Commissioner Carmen Williams' comment about Andrew just it just does not make sense to have a bike lane on such a heavy, heavily populated road. So those are my comments and question. Tom Mute, your team may respond to those questions. Sure, I'll be glad to respond to those questions. There's talk about the bike lane. The bike lane will be additional pavement. So it's not going to be a bike lane on the existing road itself. We're being required to widen the road to provide that. And in terms of affordable housing, I just made the commitment here tonight that we'll contribute $500 per unit toward the Durham Affordable Housing Fund. So that's a commitment we'll make and as well as a commitment to $100 per additional student in the Durham County Public Schools as a result of this project. So we've made those two commitments. You know, we're also providing the Greenway Trail that is separated, so that will be available. And there are places to bike. If you have a separate bike lane, which you have that separation from the traffic, you have opportunities to go to the other businesses on Miami Boulevard or that are in the area. You do have a chance opportunity to bike for those. Again, the transit stop is going to help in terms of offering that separate option. So we are addressing the affordable. We are addressing the schools. The Glover Road extension is gonna provide more connectivity because as I see it, Erlene can confirm this, but the way I'm looking at it, it's a minor thoroughfare. So this is actually a thoroughfare that will be on the edge of this project. So it's not just the overpass, it actually helps with traffic circulation as well. So that's what I would say in terms of overall. So we're checking those boxes. We're doing those things above and beyond. It's not a requirement to make a contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund. It's not a requirement that we make a contribution to the school system. We're willing to do both of those. And also, there's not always an opportunity to extend the Greenway, a Greenway Trail and have that as part of a project. There are multiple things we're touching with this project that's not just routine. And in addition, in the proffers, as you saw, there are a lot of amenities that are being offered with this complex as well. In terms of the timing, and I'll go to our annexation petition because that's the best way to look at how the proposal is in terms of construction and how things come on board. Right now, we're looking at the first phase, which will be the 306 units coming on board around 2023. This time, since we're getting a little long in the process, it may be 2024, but in the 2023-2024 timeframe, and the phase two is projected to be online in 2026. And that's again, part of our annexation petition that we filed. Construction will be done with consideration of traffic as it always is. It will be done at times that interfere less with traffic. And it will be done with the traveling public in mind, but with this site itself, a lot of the work will be going on on the site itself, not on the roadway, but when the roadway improvements are occurring, again, that will be coordinated with DOT and Durham Transportation to do that in a way that it does not interfere with the traveling public or minimizes interference with the traveling public. Thank you. Would any other commissioners like to make comment or questions, Vice Chair Cameron? I just wanna echo the, I don't know if it's disappointment of the overall project. Yes, the profits were made after we requested them, but we've pushed pretty hard on other developers that have come before this commission that have done a pretty good job of incorporating affordable housing and other sustainable features. And this really has none of those and to allow this to pass without the standards that we set in previous meetings, which has to be a disservice to our work here. That's all I'm gonna say. Thank you, Vice Chair. I meant to go ahead and acknowledge Erling Thomas and would like to acknowledge her at this time. Erling Thomas, Transportation. I just wanted to clarify two items that have been discussed pretty frequently here. One, regarding the Glover Road Extension Project, NCDOT is not constructing that project. It is on the Long Range Transportation Plan that will eventually connect, extend Glover Road over to US 70. That is not a funded project and not being constructed. What DOT has funded and is constructing is the Grave Separation Project, which will extend across Andrew and sort of loop back around into this site and reconnect to Andrew Avenue. So that is what they're constructing. I just wanted to make that clear. The second thing is this project will widen Andrew Avenue to provide the additional five feet of pavement, but a bike lane will certainly not be in place or implemented until there is a more extended section of pavement constructed to accommodate a bike lane. So the pavement will be exist, but there will not be a functioning bike lane along this section of Andrew Avenue. Thank you, Erling. Appreciate it. A commissioner here, Herod. Well, I think I'm a voice in the desert maybe a little bit, but we asked for these things and like bike lanes, greenways, so on and so forth. And I agree that the traffic situation is a problematic. But I'm not sure what we would ask them to do to improve that unless they, oh, no, I'm just not sure what they could do to improve the connectivity. I think they've done what they could. I'm just saying we seem like we're being a little more negative in this situation than we are in other ones. And maybe I'm new to the commission and maybe you shouldn't be expressing these opinions, but we asked for a bike lane to give us a bike lane. We can't criticize it for giving them a bike lane. The thing I'm, because I'm opening up a whole new can of worms, we got this project is defined by streams. And in this overlay, I'm not sure what the buffers are there, but I'm more concerned about environmental issues than I am traffic because we're gonna have traffic whenever we have a housing. And we haven't been concerned about that as much on other projects. So maybe we're evolving into something greater, I hope so. But I'm just coming at it from a different perspective. So that's all I got to say about that, sorry. Thank you. Thank you for that, Commissioner Herrod. Commissioner Cease. Thank you, I just wanted to clarify or attempt to add a comment in response to Commissioner Herrod's observations, since I was the one that raised the question with regards to internal connectivity. Christopher Herrod, you said you didn't know what they could do to improve internal connectivity. In my mind, there are some very simple things that could be done, very simple. And that is a public street access, a public street, or it could be a private street designed to public standards, although that brings up a whole set of questions regarding standards. I'm not talking about that, but a public connection from the north to the south on the eastern side of the creek and a public connection from the north to the south on the western side of the creek would be really, really minimal improvements to the plan, but they would be improvements. And that would be one way of addressing connectivity issues that I raised. One small way, thank you. Commissioner Herrod, would you make a chance to respond? Well, I don't disagree, but with the streams crossing the north and southeast and west, I think you're just opening yourself up for more environmental issues, but- And just to clarify, what I just said would not add any additional stream crossings than what is shown in their present proposal. Okay, okay. Commissioner Morgan. Thank you, Chair. I guess I kind of look at the context of where this particular parcel is. There's a lot going on in there and quite frankly, it's kind of hard to visualize what's going to happen in that area because there's certainly a desire along the US 70 corridor to provide more commercial development along those lines. We're allowing for about 500 more units. We've approved, well, we didn't approve. I guess it, City Council approved a development north of there where there's a lot more development. There's one south of there. So there's a lot of residential housing that's actually being put in place, but it seems to be kind of crowding out the opportunity of doing any kind of commercial development along US 70 in that area, because there's another parcel that's on the other side of 70 there. So when I kind of look at it in context, it is kind of almost, and it's no, nothing against the developer. It's almost kind of like pre-matured for us to really kind of visualize what's really going to go on because US 70 is going to be improved, some of the routing with the DOT projects. And it just seems like the real challenge there is, we're adding 500 more units, more traffic more on there. And I was looking at the traffic study. And if I look at the build, no build type of graphic that's in one of the connections here, a lot of them are still C, E's and F related intersections. So it seems like we're not necessarily improving anything with this development from a traffic perspective. So my concern is, I know there's only so much a developer can do, but where's the planning in context of what does this area, where is this going to go? And I do think that we should have a little more vision from a planning perspective as to what's going on. Not, that's what I'm wanting to look at because we're getting these parcels and these applications. But my big concern is, where is the development going to go? Where's the planning? I know we do a number of things with the new comprehensive plan, but I think there's going to be some things where commercial development's going to be needed.  So that's just my comment along those lines. And again, I appreciate the work that the developers brought to the table, but I guess we really, we have asked for more and we do want more just so that they understand what potentially the vision is for this area. Thank you. Thank you. Before I make my comments, Tom, I said I would acknowledge you again. I think you got a chance to respond, but wanted to give you, I acknowledge you one last time. No, I mean, I can only reiterate what I said earlier. I mean, there are a lot of improvements that are being added. And if you put commercial here, the traffic would be worse. Traffic distribution for commercial is much worse than residential. So that really wouldn't help things in this area. There are a lot of projects on, you know, Commissioner Morgan was correct. There are a lot of projects that are on the drawing board and in progress, including the improvement of Highway 70. I mean, those type of things are going to happen. But in accordance with our TIA, we're not making the situation that exists there worse as a result of this project. We're doing improvements so that it doesn't create any adverse impacts on what's going on there. But the larger long-range projects are going to occur and they're already planned to occur to address traffic in the area. But in this instance, we're not just focusing on automobile traffic. We're, as I said earlier, building a transit stop and in Greenway. Yes, I know the bike lane won't connect, but it'll be that section of Greenway in front of this project.  So this is really a well-planned project. It's respecting the, you know, an environmental side of things, respecting the riparian buffers, respecting the wetlands, putting the Greenway there to enjoy. The outdoors is certainly a very good thing. I know I enjoy the Greenways in my community.  This is an opportunity to develop it in a really responsible way and to add some improvements to the community. In this community, when we met with them, they wanted the sewer. They didn't express concerns about anything else. They said just how can we get sewer closer to us? That's the predominant conversation and the ongoing conversation we've had with those residents. So I do want to re-emphasize that again. Thank you. Okay, so I have a few comments. No real questions on all of this. As the first question, I'll kind of bounce off of what Tom was just saying. It is a little bit odd to me that there was a long list of community members notified for this and we didn't hear from any of them. Like, usually with large residential develops like this, you expect that. So I'm not sure how to read that. Maybe everything is just fine and dainty, but looking at the engagement plan, it's pretty, well, first off, it seems like the last meeting that happened was maybe in 2020, which I know time is abstract now, but that was a pretty long time ago. And when you read the engagement plan, the point in the engagement plan is you're writing what you're gonna do for engagement, but it's clearly written in the past tense of what had already been done, which to me, that's concerning. That's not the purpose of the engagement plan. Now, I recognize that's something that we have implemented more recently. And so maybe it was implemented after the fact of the engagement regardless. That's something that stuck out to me. I have a little bit more of a nuanced view on the whole bike lane thing. I think we need the bike lane. I'm not gonna complain about it, but I just also don't think we should boast about connectivity when it's a bike lane that's not connected to any other portion of a bike lane. So I kind of agree with both sides of what's been said there. What really sticks out to me about this is, now we have a draft place type guide or in a draft place type map. So draft is emphasized in the situation and they have not been passed by this body or the council or the county commissioners. So like all of those caveats, but based on our draft place type guide, this would be zoned planned suburban, which includes existing neighborhoods and is not a desired future use in Durham. That's weird to me considering that we're seeing this case right now and it's zoned as it's used that we say or that it's drafted to be zoned as the use we don't think should be happening in Durham moving forward. And immediately north of this parcel is a mixed use development as zoning, draft zoning. So that's one thing that just really sticks out to me is we're already drafting this as something that A has happened when it hasn't. It's just not coming to us. And B is not a desired use for Durham moving forward. So to me, like I look at that and I know that that is not binding that we have not passed those draft plans yet, but I am starting to think in that mindset of like, where are we going? And if we're going in a direction where plan suburban is not a desired place type, and then we shouldn't be zoning this for plan suburban, we should be zoning this for something else. So I recognize the efforts that the applicant has tried to put forward. I echo a lot of this sentiment that we on this commission have really up our standards and we have high standards for what we want to see. We've talked a lot on this commission about how proffers to the affordable housing fund like they result in very few actual affordable units developed. And I think we're hoping to see more affordable units committed through rezoning moving forward because it's such a need. And we believe that we can get more units higher density with more affordability. So those are my thoughts and comments on this. I think that's all I have at this time. If any other commissioners have questions or like to make comments, I welcome it. Apart from that, I would welcome a motion. I do want to make one clarification if I might on the community engagement. We did a community meeting in December of 2020. We did another one in the summer of 2021. The community engagement plan requirement didn't come in until after we had already done those. But what we did is we maintained contact with several of those that had come to both neighborhood meetings and had ongoing conversations with them as part of this project. So I did want to clarify that. That's why that unfolded the way it did. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Chair, if there's no one else going to add, I'll make a motion for case number Z21 quadruple 05 and your avenue apartments with the appropriate proffers and suggestions to be forwarded to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Let's get it lighted. Second. Great. Moved by commissioner Morgan, seconded by commissioner, right? Michael, did you want to clarify anything before we hold the vote? Just to note that we will work out the specific wording for the two proffers that were made, the one for the $500 per unit prior to certificate of occupancy for donation to the affordable housing fund and then $100 per additional student to Durham public schools, again, prior to certificate of occupancy. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Okay, maybe have the roll call vote. Sure. Amandoya. No. Busby. No. Cameron. No. Cut, right. No. Durkin. Herod. Yes. Low. That was a no. No. Okay. Morgan. No. Cease. No. Carmen Williams. No. Amzuri Williams. No. And the motion fails. One to 10. Thank you, Michael. Okay, we're gonna move into our last case up tonight. This is case Z21-EE015 Cedar Trace, and we will begin with the staff report. Thank you, and let me pull up that presentation, and hopefully I'll be able to share, give it a shot. Can you see that? Yes. Excellent. Thank you very much. Michael Stock again with the planning department. Case Z21-005 Cedar Trace is a, considers five parcels off of Carr Road in the suburban tier. It is already in the city, and it's just under 17 acres. It's currently zoned residential suburban eight, and the request is residential suburban multifamily with a development plan, RSMD. The current flum is low-medium density residential, and the recommended flum change, if the zoning were to be approved would be medium density residential. Again, this site is also in the falls, Jordan Watershed, and this is a maximum proposal for 200 apartments. As you can see, it is the collection of parcels off of Carr Road, which is also off of the US 70 service and ramp. And as you can see there, the aerial shows the massive construction for the East End connector going on. It is, Carr Road does dead end, basically to this and other parcels at this section. The only primary access to the site will be from Carr Road and from US 70. Again, it's a maximum of 200 units. This is an affordable housing project. They are committing to 60% AMI for 30 years. The other access points, project boundary buffers and free preservation areas are obviously committed including the parking and building envelopes. The plan is actually very specific in terms of its location of buildings. There's also an amenity building included. The maximum previous service would be 70%, and that's what the maximum allowed by the watershed. Again, here's the site. It's a primarily hardwood mixed hardwood site. And then there is the plan itself, location of the buildings, identifying the heights of the buildings, identifying the minimal, the clubhouse amenity area and the access points. There is a stream that runs along the south. No, I'm sorry. My mistake. And then there was a neighborhood meeting held in accordance to UDO requirements March, 2021. And the social pinpoint comments that were generated through the online site have been provided along with the engagement plan. Staff has determined that it is generally consistent with goals and community goals and objectives and the maintained policies of the current 2005 comprehensive plan. And again, if the zoning project is approved, the flum designation would be amended to maintain consistency with that zoning. And the applicant is here to answer questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. We're going to open the public hearing and we'll begin with the applicant presentation. So we have several members of the applicant team with us tonight. I'm gonna read off everyone that I have and then turn it over to the applicant team. See Josh Leib, Dan Papst, CJA Tyree, Jonathan LeCourt, Toby Coleman and Dustin Mills. I'll turn it over to the applicant team now to do the applicant presentation. You have 10 minutes. Toby, are you prepared for me to show your presentation? Yes. Okay. All right, can y'all hear me? Yes. All right, great. This is Toby Coleman. Apologize for the delay there. This is Toby Coleman. I am a land use lawyer with Smith Anderson here on behalf of the developer Taff Mills Group. Dustin Mills and CJA Tyree are with Taff Mills. I think you also listed Matt Louder with Bowman North Carolina, who's the project engineer. So we have a healthy group of people who can answer any questions that I cannot. If you can go to the next slide, Mike. So as Mike outlined, this is a rezoning of five parcels on the south side of Carr Road off of US 70. This is right above where US 70 and Miami Boulevard split and US 70 becomes a limited access highway. It's also right where the new East End connector is going in and a lot of the improvements that you're seeing in this overhead are related to the East End connector. If you look historically until about four years ago, this portion of Carr Road was a dirt road, pretty much accessible only by a defunct side road that served primarily the industrial properties in the church to the north. Now that you've got the East End connector, it's become a property that's located right off of an exit from US 70. It's about a mile south of Holloway Street and is about 1.3 miles just by Google Maps from a number of amenities, including grocery stores and other things. So close proximity of amenities for residents who have a vehicle. If you go to the next slide, Mike. So as discussed, we're seeking a rezoning from RS8 to RSM with a development plan to facilitate a 200-unit low-income housing tax credit project. I would call it a LIHTEC there on the site. And because it's a 4% LIHTEC's tax credit project and that will be helping to finance the project, the entire project will be income restricted. I do wanna note that the proposed condition is actually 60% of the units affordable for households earning 60% AMI. And we're happy to discuss that a little bit more as needed. But what that means is all the units will be income restricted. There'll be no market rates. Practically, what does that mean? Well, in your staff reports, you get the housing median rentals for the area. And I believe staff reported it was a little over $1,400 was the median rent for a 933-square-foot unit in this general area. CJ or Dustin could give you more details, but they informed me that today, if this project were here today, a 1,035-square-foot two-bedroom apartment in this development would rent for $900. So again, we can go through this and I know that there are members of this board who have a lot of knowledge about this, but there's a lot of affordability and income restriction requirements that would be imposed by covenants of financing partners, including the federal government and potentially if we get gap financing with the city. The tax commitment of 60% of units affordable for households earning 60% AMI is to show our commitment, for Tath Mills to show its commitment for affordable housing. It is not an indication that for some reason it wants to do 40% of the rest of the market rate. It's rather that there's some, as you've I think heard with the Carver Street assemblage, there can be some income averaging and other issues that come into play. And we wanted to make sure that the tax commitments didn't limit the ability to do that because if you can take in some higher incomes in some circumstances, there can be lower income units. A lot of that depends on things that have yet to be determined like gap financing. The project will provide some fundamental improvements to the area, including paving and widening car road. Again, there's portion of car road that's still unpaid and extending water right into the neighborhood along car road. And then Seward is going to be coming into the neighborhood from the South. This is an area that currently doesn't have it. And so what could benefit some of the other properties on the block? If you go to the next slide Mike, I just want to note that this is a project that's proposed by a well-established affordable housing developer, Taff Mills Group. If you haven't heard of them, they're a North Carolina based company based out of Greenville that develops, constructs and manages affordable housing throughout North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. As I've already indicated, CJ and Dustin, I'm going to be turning to them a lot if you ask detailed questions because they know their stuff. This is what they do and this is all they do. Over the last six years, they've built about 900 plus units of affordable housing and the triangle, the triad in Greenville, among other places. And they, you know, they build with an eye towards keeping, owning and operating them. You know, they're not looking to flip them.  The budget is incredibly tight. So, you know, in terms of stormwater, in terms of tree conservation and other things, Taff Mills Group is proposing what's required by the UDO. It really doesn't have a lot of give in its budget to do a lot more. What it's shooting to do is provide affordable housing for Durham, you know, obviously a very needed thing. Obviously, you know, that may mean that it can't provide extras that you may ask of market that you might typically ask or see from market developers. And we hope you keep that in mind. With that, we're available for questions. Only other thing I'll note is, you know, we did have a couple of neighborhood meetings. There was, we actually had a second one in, I was looking back in September. And in both neighborhood meetings, we really didn't hear much from neighbors. Not sure if anybody signed up, but you know, mostly we heard good things in support. We're available for questions. Thank you. We have one person who signed up to speak that is in attendance. That is James Anthony. James Anthony, I'll give you two minutes to speak. And as a reminder, please say your name and address and make your comments. Hi, I'm Jim Anthony. I'm in Raleigh, North Carolina. And I appreciate the opportunity to present to you all. I am the owner of the property today. We've been working with Taft Mills on a number of projects. They deliver exactly what they say. They're going to deliver. They are trustworthy and high quality folks and projects. We're excited about bringing this project to Durham and really appreciate your support. We think that we've worked really long time to get this right and hopefully you'll agree with us. That's all I wanted to say. You Jim, are there others in attendance who would like to speak? Please so please virtually raise your hand. If you're on the phone, press star nine to do so. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and we're going to move to commissioner question and comment. Commissioner Durkin. Thank you. So I have a couple of questions. I guess it's probably not that surprising. In the staff report and the for the housing section, it does note the 30 year commitment for 60% of AMI. But then the next sentence that the remaining 40% of the units will be offered at market rate. So that's in conflict and what's been described. And I want to make sure that it's crystal clear what the developers plan is. So if they could address that question first and then that will inform how my next question. Yeah, this is totally Coleman. I'm going to hand this off to CJ or Dustin, but I will just say that that, you know, again, we've had conversations with staff. I thank you for highlighting that. You know, we had said throughout the process and I thought that there was an understanding that it would not be, that it is not market rate because of, well, the reasons commissioner Durkin that you know very well, this is a single project. And so it couldn't be under federal, under the arrangements for financing. One thing I will, again, I think probably the issue has come up just because of the 60% for 60. Again, that is really related to how staff members have communicated to us their preferred definitions either under the UTO or otherwise for quote unquote, affordable housing, for quote unquote workforce housing and those sort of things. But with that, I'll hand it over to CJ if he's on. I know he's been listening. So let me make sure. Oh yeah, I think they're bringing him in, okay. Hello. There we go. Okay. I was trying to talk. Thanks, Toby. To expand on that, we had originally, I think, stated in our proposal that it would be 100% affordable but we were leaving a caveat that we may want some units to be affordable at 80% AMI. And you know, Toby can correct me or staff can correct me but my understanding of the dialogue we had with city staff was that 80% affordable isn't considered affordable in the city UDO. And so they didn't want to call the 80% units affordable. And so that's why we changed the terminology to say 60% at 60% or less. We are committed to doing 100% at 80% or less. And the caveat there and the reason we're looking to leave the door open for the 80% is we can potentially offer lower rents to 30% AMI households but in order to do that or not in order to necessarily but it helps to offset that with some 80% units as long as the average is at 60% or less. This is, I know Aaron, I'm sure you're very familiar with this but just for the nuance of it is it's a relatively recent addition to federal law that says you can add 80% units as long as your average is below 60 or at or below 60.  And that really allows us to target a much wider audience being able to serve both 30% households and 80% households instead of just doing all 60% AMI households. And so we're really trying to maintain some flexibility to be able to target both what we call extremely low income to 30% households and also the 80% households which historically have been underserved in the affordable space because affordable housing is capped at 60% and then there's really nothing that serves as 60 to 80% AMI or really 60 to 100% AMI. So what we're trying to do is have what we call diverse price points and all affordable at 80% or less with our average at 60% or less. And what we tried to do, it's obviously a very long complicated answer but we were trying to say that in a way that would fit within what we understand the city's context within the UDO of how they define affordable housing but we're happy to add whatever text is appropriate that accomplishes in a shorter version of what I just said. So Michael, if you're around if you can come back on is there a way that we can state that the remaining 40% are income restricted without having to tie it to the definition of affordable housing in the UDO and 60% AMI? That was the exact reason I raised my hand. We can work out the commitment to address that directly and I apologize for the confusion that that has caused from staff that was not our intent and that commitment can be worked out. It does not have to be tied to a definition from the UDO. The definition of the UDO really gets to the affordable housing bonus use of that but if an applicant wants to commit to a different range of AMIs, we're not gonna know in order to make use of LiTech that's a commitment that's very easily put on to the development plan. So we can work with the applicant to make that happen. Okay, great. That seems like an easy solution. So that one is solved. CJ, I think the next question is for you. What's the status of your conversations with the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency? And just, I- Yeah, we- Are you doing 4% out of the right if you're doing 4% credits? We're doing 4% credits so they are by right and it is a non-competitive credit historically and again, I won't get into all the nuance but there is some question about whether they will become competitive in the future but the North Carolina has an application deadline in January which we applied for the credits. There were only, I think, 17 applications in the state so we know that they will not be run out of credits basically so it is a by right credit. The application is in. We will formally get the award letter in August is the typical time frame. It's usually between the 10th or 15th of August but as you stated, this is a by right or a by right, it's not a competitive tax credit and the state will not be oversubscribed in this calendar year based on the applications they got in January and as long as you do the outbreak which is what we specialize in you do get those credits. Okay, and I guess what says HFA knows about the project and have you heard anything from staff at all in response even if they haven't formally responded to your application? And so it's nice to know that the entities that we're depending on to fund these things now at least have them in their pipeline. Yeah. They're only in a pipeline. Yeah, the NCHFA has a very, I don't know if transparent's the right word but a very methodical process where they try not to have communications outside of the formal application process. Again, we're familiar. Dustin Mills is my partner and I, we combined have been doing this about 35 years and we know North Carolina well. If you don't mess anything up in the application we will get a formal market study as part of the application process. That would be an opportunity for the agency to say they think the rents are too high or the unit mix isn't right or something like that but that's really the first communication we would expect from them. But again, this is a process we've gone through with them before we're very familiar with. Okay. And did you submit the application for the Durham gap funding for the result in a 30% band? Correct, we did. Okay, great. Those are all of my questions. Happy to support this project. Thank you. Thank you. You commissioner, Carmen Williams. I'll be brief. It's been a long night. Typically I have issues with whether or not you can get in and out of these projects as proposed and what the traffic impact is gonna be. I have none because you're gonna improve car road. I don't want these potential neighborhood people having to drive on a dirt road or rocks or any of that. So write it down. Again, I am for this project. I have no rebuttal. I like it as presented. I look forward to the product that you're going to put out. And in this case as far as traffic is concerned first come first served. Thank you very much for what you're doing. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Bosby. Thanks. I'll just say briefly in the previous case, commissioner Cutwright, I thought spoke really eloquently about Durham and this commission. We've raised our ambitions for what we want. And this case is an example of what we want. And so I'm really excited and look forward to supporting this. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I'm gonna be a little annoying and ask a couple of lie tech questions because I've been very interested in the balance that our state puts on us. So first you said something in your conversation with commissioner Durkin that piques my ears a little bit. You mentioned that there's a possibility the full percent credits may become competitive. Is that, can you elaborate on that? Is that like a- I will try to stay brief because unfortunately this is my hobby and career. So each state it's always been non-competitive only because there are fewer applications. Each state gets what they call a volume cap and there's always been less applications than there has been volume cap. And so we always call the 4% credit non-competitive and that's not by design, that's just by the fact that people haven't been applying for all of the cap that's available. About a year or two years ago there was a tax law change that made 4% deals basically get additional tax credit subsidy available to them and suddenly deals that didn't pencil before as a 4% deal all of a sudden do. And so last year in January, NCHFA got something like 40 or 45, 4% applications which was almost double what they normally get. And so they kind of ran right up to their cap. They weren't, they didn't have to turn anybody away but they were kind of right at the cap. And so there is some question about whether states will start to run out of cap and have to make it competitive. There is also, I will just bore you some more, there is a federal legislative fix potentially in the works that we are as an industry we're lobbying hard for that would basically double that cap that each state gets and effectively ensure that no state runs out of that volume cap. And again, I know Commissioner Durkin does this space well. I don't know if you would agree with everything I said there, but I think that sums it up from our perspective. I agree, I do agree with that. New York has had volume cap issues. And so that's why I was concerned that North Carolina Housing Finance Agency just knew about it, it was in their pipeline. I didn't really think that we had the same volume cap issues that we're dealing with in New York, but it is the same, like projects just get bumped out of the pipeline because there's not enough in cap. That's helpful. Okay, the other question I had, this is like somewhat of an ITAC question, somewhat just a capital stack question. I noticed in your portfolio, you have a couple of complexes that incorporate retail and commercial uses. And I assume that helps provide money elsewhere in the project. What limits you from doing that in this case? Yeah, so two things or three maybe. Taft Mills Group is affiliated with Taft Family Ventures. Taft Family Ventures does all kinds of real estate development. They do student housing, luxury apartments, own commercial buildings, office buildings, warehouse buildings. I believe if you're looking at pictures of something that we have done with that had a commercial component that would have been on our market rate side, we as Taft Mills Group have never done an affordable deal with a commercial component. And it is fairly rare in our space to see that. And the only reason I would say generally that it ever happens is because of a zoning requirement that requires it. And most of the time in my experience, again, my experience is 15 plus years, 40 plus projects, most of the time they actually sit empty. They're net negatives to the project. We have to pay to buy the land and build them and they generally sit empty or rent for very discounted rates unless they are in the corner of Maine and Maine, unless you are in a real already established commercial district. But it's very, very rare. In fact, I can't think of an example. I can tell you it was an affordable deal that had very successful commercial components built into it. Thank you, but Tuple, those are all my questions. I would just say, I've been very excited to see more light deck developments coming to Durham recently. Maybe we see them as frequently as we typically do and they just don't need to rezoning but it's been exciting to get to see some of these cases come through the planning commission and get to support them. And I said this to Kelly development with Carver assemblage like I really welcome this and I hope that I'm not pursuing other opportunities within Durham without running the state of money, but definitely welcome seeing more of this and I'm happy that we're moving this direction. Those are all the comments I have. I would accept a motion at this time unless anyone else has comments or questions. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. I'd like to propose that we use case number Z to one triple zero one five, the Cedar trace apartments to be forwarded, I guess with corrections made to the staff report with corrections be forwarded to the city council for with a favorable recommendation. Second. I moved by commissioner Morgan, seconded by commissioner Carmen Williams. All right, it wasn't the direction of the staff report, but also the clarification on adding to the text commitment about their all income restricted. Right, that commissioner Durkin is exactly right. We will work with the applicant to modify that commitment to match what was just said with the 100% at maximum 80% with an average of 60% and then the staff report can will be adjusted accordingly when it goes to city council. I still second. I'll amend that one. Okay, seconded before the first, so go ahead. Any further discussion on the motion? And I'll take the roll call vote. Great, Amandolia. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Right. Yes. Durkin. Yeah. Harrod. Sorry, yes. Lowe. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. Carmen Williams. Yes. Zuri Williams. Yes. This is unanimously. Thank you. Before we hand out, head out, I just wanted to briefly fill everyone in on the most recent JCCPC meeting. I presented the annual report for the Planning Commission there. I wanted to just reflect some of the comments from elected officials from that as briefly as I can. First thing I wanted to just note upfront, a couple of them noticed or paid extra attention to our attendance numbers and reflected that they would like to see higher attendance numbers. They were not very specific, but they simultaneously acknowledged how much work it takes and how important this is. And I think because of that, we're paying more attention than maybe typically would to attendance. So just wanted to note that. I personally have not thought further about that of like what that means or any implications of that, but just wanted to reflect that to y'all to make everyone aware. Apart from that, they spoke really highly of everything we've been doing. And one thing that I thought was notable that I said I would pass on is that I added some commentary in the annual report about the frequency at which we have this board has recommended denial of cases and elected officials have gone on to approve them. And the kind of like perspective that was brought back to me was that we would be recommended to not just look at the outcome of the vote as a measure of our impact, there are potentially other ways that we are providing impact in our work that does not come through in the end vote. I thought that was a good perspective. It was helpful. And the elected officials did say very clearly that they take our comments, our written comments seriously, they take our voice seriously and they recognize the work that we're doing and the advocacy role that we play. So just wanted to really say that back to y'all. You all can do it, but that way you will, I'm just the messenger, but I thought it would be helpful for everyone to hear that. With that, Michael, do you have anything, any other announcements before we head out? Thank you. Yes, before we head out, we did note that we will send out a doodle poll and I apologize for not sending it out sooner, but a doodle poll for a meeting date adjustment for November since the meeting fall, it's on election day, so please date for your next retreat for with the PUD team with the comp plan. So now for two doodle poll requests, they will be different, but they do want to schedule something with you. Preferably in April. Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. Yep, and just a reminder to do your written comments, they're important and yeah, very useful. And I appreciate you all, you all are rock stars. This meeting is adjourned.


Appalachian Wireless is transforming the way you upgrade your smart phone. Trade in, trade up and experience the benefits of Appalachian Wireless's trade-in program. Get your estimate on AppalachianWireless.com now. Better service and bigger savings, that's today's Appalachian Wireless. The detective had followed up on several different leads, checked the different things out and in December, new information received and he acted upon that information, conferred with a come-with attorney and decided to represent the case for additional charge and it was changed from a second degree to a first degree. He was arrested yesterday, he had court yesterday anyway and then the grand jury was meeting so he was held there and I think I guess the bond was upped on it to 20,000 instead of the 10,000 original.


My wife and I settled in for the evening after a tough day's work. Kids are in bed, we're in the comfort of ours, looking across at our TV, checking out the multitude of apps and debating what we should possibly watch. This became a nightmare. After what felt like an eternity of deliberation, we fell back on an old staple. Everybody loves Raymond. Because we're 85 years old and basic bitches. The point I'm getting at isn't twofold. Nah, it's multi-fold. You see, it's not simply the fact anymore that streaming services have become overwhelming. The options are astronomical. It's that the shows each service provides has also become unbearable. And because of the exclusivity of these shows and movies, that's a weird word to say. Exclusivity. I think I nailed it. It's hard for everyone to even be on the same page about what we're watching. Now, I realize this is the most first-world problem anyone could ever possibly have. There's too many movies, there's too many options. Help me, help my life is so hard. I get it, but for the sake of this conversation, it's the worst thing ever! Oh, cool, Disney Plus just informed me that the new season of Mandalorian is starting shortly and that you should subscribe to Adam Does Movies. Wow, that's weird. Why would they put that in there? They don't even know what this channel is. Crazy. Well, you should probably do it anyways just to be safe. Squid Game was all the talk recently, but guess what? Not everyone owns Netflix. Sure, it's one of the most popular streaming apps, but that doesn't mean everyone has access to it all the same. I miss the days of event TV where the finale of Friends or Seinfeld was on and everyone around the world gathered on their sofas to watch. I miss having the conversations week to week about Breaking Bad and how Mr. White's possibly gonna get out of this one. I long for the day where I could watch HBO with my fellow peers and get disappointed all over again by the finale of Game of Thrones. And even in those instances I mentioned, people were left out. Not everyone had cable. Not everyone had the HBO Now app or their friends had it or their grandma had it and they just took it from them. No. So there was already segmentation. But now, because of the emergence of all of these apps, we have not only split the audience, we've sliced, we've cut, we've diced, we've fractured it off so much that there's just little pockets of people that get to enjoy these shows and talk about them. I can't even count the number of times people have suggested shows to me that were on a platform I don't have access to or have said, you should check this out. Well, I would, but I'm watching 14 other shows right now trying to give things a chance. Every time I open up Netflix or Hulu or HBO Max or one of the other multitude of things I have access to, I am overwhelmed by the new movies that have come out of nowhere.  When did he have time to make a movie about being a pilot or whatever that is? I don't even know. I don't even know. Recently, we started sharing some apps with our relatives so we give them access to our Hulu account and our HBO Max and in return, they give us Peacock and Universal Plus. So they're getting a much better deal here. Also, they're not paying for the Peacock premium or whatever, so there's commercials.  Commercials? Are you cheating me with this? Pony up the extra couple bucks. What is this, 1972? I don't wanna watch 10 minutes of show and I'm gonna be treated to 16 different horse pill medications. It's a separate thing. It's not part of this. There are seriously like 15 movies I wanted to watch and review on the channel, but I don't have the time and these movies just keep coming at me like a tsunami of garbage and most of them are just that. Most of them are just shit because the name of the game now isn't making good quality content, it's just making content because they need to pull in as many eyes onto their app as possible. They need to stay relevant, they need to stay in the newsfeed on Twitter, they need to stay on Facebook, having people talk about the new hot show that's out. These services are often month to month so you can just cancel at any time and jump over to the next one and that's what a lot of people do.  They're going to green light everything from the little boy who has the super ability to see half a second into the future to the trans mom who's just trying to make it through the day. Everything is on the table. There was a brilliant episode of South Park years and years ago, I know that's redundant, a lot of South Park's brilliant, but Cartman pretended to be the Osomo 500 or is it Osomo 5000? I think it's 5000. Anyway, he's just in a cardboard robot box and somehow he ends up falling in the hands of a movie executive who wants him to program as many new hit shows and movies as he can and Cartman just keeps saying, um, okay, this one stars Adam Sandler and he's on a beach and every one of them start Adam Sandler and it was always some stupid off the cuff idea. Netflix literally did this a few years back by signing Adam Sandler to make like six garbage movies. They don't care whether it's rebooting an old classic for nostalgia's sake like that 90s show or Fuller House or Saved by the Bell on Peacock. They don't really care if it's good. It's just going to bring in different walks of life. And speaking of Peacock, really NBC was this the best name you could come up with? I get that your mascot's a Peacock. That doesn't mean you need to name the app that.  Hey, you want to watch some Office on the Cock? Hey, check out Parks and Rec on P. What are we doing here? I guess the full blown takeaway is I miss the days of being charmed. I miss the days of being wooed, of being enticed to watch something, a movie, a TV show.  I like being wind and dined and it seems like they're not even trying anymore because they don't have to. They just have to get out material. All right, I said a lot. I don't have a solution to this problem. I don't think there is one. It's just we live in this time now and this is what we have to deal with. I'm out of touch. I miss the good old days where you could walk into the box office and see the one new movie released that week and talk about it with your friends. It could be terrible, but it's all you had.  Don't get me wrong, but man, it's tough to weed through it all. And I wish that we could all kind of share in some of the good ones together, but it seems like this group over here is talking about Yellowstone. This group over here is talking about Ozarks. I mean, you're never on the same page really and it's unfortunate because there is good products being made. They're just lost in the shuffle. I'd love to hear from you now. Let me know in the comments what you think. Like the video if you had a good time and make sure to subscribe if you haven't. I put out a ton of movie-related content almost every single day now. Take care. Thank you for watching the video. If you made it to this point, now is the time I push my Patreon. Patreon.com slash Adam does movies or you can join here on YouTube via the join button. There's a $1 tier even. So you can just say, hey, this was funny.   I don't know what that phrase is. Never made sense to me. Here's a dollar and then there you have it. That's it, that's the whole, that's the whole pitch.