one minute. Reminder to all commissioners, please enable your cameras and microphones. Thank you. We're at one meeting till a meeting start, one meeting till a meeting start. Once again, please enable your cameras and microphones to all commissioners please. Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome to the May meeting of the Durham Planning Commission. Members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final vote on any issue before us tonight. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom virtual meeting platform. In this virtual meeting platform, public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on video by default. To maintain meeting decorum and a discernible record of the meeting, the chat function has been disabled. Speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time. If you have preregistered, your name will be called for you to make your comments. And if you called in before the meeting started and staff was able to get your information, your name will also be called to speak at the appropriate time as normal. You may also call in during the meeting tonight by dialing 1-301-715-8592. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the public hearing you are interested in starts. After all of the preregistered speakers have shared their comments, I will ask if there is anyone else wishing to speak. At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. And when recognized, state your name and address and make your public comments. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, your recommendation is not favorable. Thank you. Can we have roll call? Thank you. Chair Emondola. Here. Baker. Here. Batista. Here. Busby. Here. Vice-chair Cameron. Here. Cut right. Here. Durkin. Here. Herod. Low. McIver. Morgan. Here. Cease. Here. Carmen Williams. Here. I thought I saw you there. And Zuri Williams. Here. Thank you. We are here and McIver are not present at this time, so we're at 12 members. Michael. There we go. Herod is here. Thank you. Sorry about that. 13 members. I'll ask McIver one more time. We'll see if he shows up late, and if not, we can return to the end of the meeting. Very good. Next on our agenda is the approval of the minutes inconsistency statements from our April 12th meeting. Does anyone have any comments or adjustments to the April planning commission minutes? Seeing none, I would take a motion to approve the minutes. Like a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Second. Moved by Commissioner Herod, seconded by Vice-chair Cameron. Is there any further discussion on the motion? May we have the roll call vote? Emondola. Yes. Baker. Yes. Batista. Yes. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Herod. Yes. Low. Yes. McIver is not here. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. Carmen Williams. Yes. Ann Zory Williams. Yes. It passes 13-0. Thank you. The staff or anyone else have any adjustments to the agenda? There are no adjustments that I'm aware of. Seeing none, we will now move to our public hearings for the night. We'll begin with case Z20 quadruple zero nine, 1110 Old Oxford. This was originally continued from our February 9th meeting and we have been requested to refer this case back to staff, which will then restart the process and it will allow for the applicant to go through more community engagement with the community. As a reminder, this is the commercial case that we saw recently in Braggtown. My proposed move forward would be to go ahead and close the public hearing from this continuance and then immediately vote to refer this back to staff. Does anybody object to that or want to discuss that process? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and then I would accept a motion to defer this case back to staff. Mr. Chair, I move that we refer case number 220 quadruple zero nine, the 1110 Old Oxford Road case to be referred back to the planning department. Second. Great. Moved by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Cutwright. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, may we have the roll call. Who? Mendolia. Yes. Baker. Yes. Batista. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cutwright. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Harrod. Yes. Low. Great. And I see McGuy, uh, Christopher MacGyver has, uh, joined us. So MacGyver. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. Carmen Williams. Yes. And Zuri Williams. Yes. Thank you. It passes unanimously 14-0. Thank you. And it's to staff and the applicant for, um, doing the work to get this one right. So next on our agenda is case Z21 quadruple zero four triangle veteran area referral clinic. We'll begin with the staff report, just as a reminder to everyone in the tenants and all the commissioners. We've seen this case recently and it has returned to us, um, because it, um, some of the notification processes weren't correctly followed. My understanding and based on the staff report is there have not been any updates apart from adding in the, um, additional proffers that were provided during our public hearing when we saw this case before. Um, so just wanted to flag that and keep that high and speed discussed tonight. Yes. Thank you, uh, Chair Mendolia. I will briefly go through the presentation. Uh, again, that was, uh, provided for you, uh, in February. Um, and, uh, as the chair mentioned, there was an error in the posting of signs, which required the public hearing to be held again, uh, with you, the planning commission. Um, again, Z21 zero four triangle veterinary referral hospital. Um, can you all see, uh, the screen? You all see the presentation? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, it, uh, 608 Maureen Road is within the suburban tier and in the city. It's just under two acres. The current zoning is CN and RS 10 and the proposed zoning is commercial neighborhood with a development plan. Uh, the existing, uh, future land use map designation is low density residential. Um, and the recommended, uh, change if the zoning is approved would be commercial. There are no applicable zoning overlays and I don't know why it says none on the proposal, but it, um, it is to expand the existing facility, uh, for, uh, uh, veterinary clinic and office uses. Uh, there is the, uh, context map and as you can see, the site is currently has CN zoning on it. Um, and there are portions of the site that are currently RS 10 and the rezoning is, is to reason just the entire parcel to the CN with development plan. There is the site itself is currently, uh, developed and it was developed, uh, used permit, uh, for that use. There are the existing conditions. You can see the existing structure and parking surrounding it. There is an access point onto Linden Terrace and an access point onto Maureen Road. And then there is landscaping to the south and west and along, uh, Linden Terrace and Maureen Road. Uh, here highlights the, uh, proposed expansion areas and, um, the buffering that would be maintained along with the existing and, uh, there are commitments. There are limits on the allowed uses. Uh, there is a prohibition on outdoor animal containment which is consistent with the approved future bike lane. There are some building and design commitments and then they have added, uh, per the February 7th hearing, they have, uh, added the prohibition on, uh, any new access points for construction traffic that they will use the existing access points for that use if the, if the rezoning is, is on the plan that is provided for you in your agenda packet. Um, again, there was a neighborhood meeting held. Um, I do not believe there were any new neighborhood meetings that were held since then or after the planning commission meeting, but I'll let the app can update you on that. And, um, except for the flum designation. Um, it was determined consistent with the comprehensive plan and, um, as a reminder on February 8th, the planning commission, uh, did recommend, recommend approval with a vote of eight to three. And I believe it was, uh, commissioners, uh, Carmen Williams, um, uh, commissioner Cease and commissioners Busby who voted no. Um, the applicant. Is Mike's audio only going up for me? Or is? No, I see. It's the same. I think it's everybody. Okay. Yeah.  I did get a notice that my internet was unstable, um, to go along with me in general. Um, so I apologize and we'll, I'll do the best that I can. Thank you. Uh, at this time, we're going to open the public hearing, but we'll begin with the applicant presentation. Um, the applicant, I'm going to give y'all 10 minutes to present. And then after that, we'll go to resident comment. Thank you. Uh, Randy Herman, um, attorney for the applicant. Um, also the, the applicant is here and our engineer is here as well. If there are any questions for them. Um, again, this is a, uh, a matter that's already come before you. So I don't want to take up too much time, uh, rehashing it, but to, uh, to remind everybody this is a, um, a veterinary facility that is, that mostly does, um, specialized in referral work. They take referrals from all over the triangle. Um, under the existing zoning, um, the commercial portion of the property, the, the property, the, the portion that's zoned commercial, follows the old lot lines of an old lot, um, that no longer exists. And so basically it has the effect of, um, on the existing parcel, uh, restricting where on that parcel commercial structures and commercial uses can be located, uh, which is just created some kind of practical difficulties, um, in making the best use of the site. So the proposal is to rezone the entire thing to neighborhood commercial, uh, while also putting in place, uh, a, a plan, um, such that there are the, uh, we're adding additional restrictions to the use and, and more carefully planning out the use. So although the commercial portion would expand, it would also be, um, more predictably used in the future. Um, this is generally surrounded by residential lots. And so we're trying to work with those, uh, residential owners to minimize the impact on them, um, from the existence of this facility. Um, let's see. I don't know if I want to talk about the, the details of the site plan. Again, we went over that, um, in, in some pretty significant detail in February. I believe the membership of, of the commission is the same. Um, but the, the basic plan is to expand the building, um, to the West and also to explain, expand the parking to the South. Um, there's also a mobile MRI unit, um, which is proposed to be located behind the building. Um, even though it's a mobile unit, it'll be there on a more or less a permanent basis. Um, it just, as we talked about in February, it's easier to take a mobile unit and put it behind the building than to actually install an MRI inside the building, which is why it's also done that way in many hospitals. Uh, and so that would be located in the rear so that it wouldn't be visible. Um, but it would expand the, the ability of the facility to, to handle, um, the kind of specialized treatment and care that, that they do. Um, if any members of the planning commission has any questions, we're having to answer them. Um, but, uh, otherwise, uh, as, uh, Mr. Stock said that the only change, um, on the plan from last time is the additional condition that we agreed to orally in the previous planning commission meeting, which has now been written, written writing. And since we're back, we figured we might as well just go ahead and put that in the written plan that was presented to the commission. Thank you. Um, we'll go ahead and move to resident comments. Um, as a reminder, everyone will have two minutes to speak. Um, we have one person who signed up in advance to speak as an opponent. That is Cecilia Eichenberger. Cecilia, you'll have two minutes. Please state your name and address and make your comments. Am I the only one speaking? You were the only one who registered in advance, Cecilia, and you'll have two minutes to make your comments. Um, I don't really have anything new to say. I'm just concerned that, uh, this, uh, rezoning doesn't open up, uh, a whole new mess as long as they stick with the buffer zones and, um, they keep to the plan that they say, I'm fine with that. Um, we did have, uh, where's Janet for heaven's sake? Janet Mitman. We did have some question for sure about this new building. Is it 6,000 square feet? The whole thing in two floors, two stories? Or was that the actual footprint? We did have questions about that and I don't know why we couldn't find it in a previous session. So that was, that was a concern that I heard come up. Otherwise, I was okay with things, um, you know, except for the, the concerns that other people have said that if everything is stayed with the plan, we're okay with it. I'm not going to enjoy the construction. I'll tell you that. It's going to be really loud and I'm not going to enjoy that, but otherwise we're okay. That's all. Thank you Cecilia. Uh, so those, that's everyone who signed up in advance to speak. I see two people have already raised their hand to speak, uh, as well. If anyone else would like to speak on this item, please go ahead and raise your hand. And if you are on the phone, you do that by pressing star nine. But we'll move to Melissa M. Melissa, please state your name and address and you'll have two minutes. I can hear you, but it's like very, it's breaking, you're breaking up, so it was hard to hear. Okay. Um, I'm probably going to speak, but not for this one. So I don't know how it got messed up. I'm messy chapel. Okay. Great. Yeah, we'll get to that one. Um, a little bit later tonight. That's the dip item on our agenda. Um, okay. Up next we have Anthony Benson. Anthony, you have two minutes to speak. Please state your name and address and make your comments. Okay. Um, I'm Anthony Benson. I live on 3912 Inwood Drive, which is the next road down parallel to Linden Terrace. And it's basically at the bottom of the hill. And we've had some, um, severe flooding on occasion, at least four occasions. My next door neighbor's basement has been completely flooded. And we've had water coming up to the side of the house in the 30 years that I've been here. And I'm very concerned about the additional paving of the parking lots and the additional non-absorption area of having larger buildings at the top of the hill there. Um, and I wondered if the city engineers have been involved or consulted about the runoff problem. Um, because we had some meetings previous years about the additional runoff areas that have been created by the new highway and other things that are all coming down to a drainage ditch behind my house. That's, that's my real concern. And maybe it can be ameliorated with porous material in the parking area or something like that. Thank you, Anthony. Um, is there anyone else in attendance who would like to speak on this item? So please raise your hand at this time. Okay. Seeing none, um, Randy, just so you know, you had about six minutes left of your time in case you want any further comment. Uh, yeah, I'm going to call on Tony Whitaker. You should be on the call if he has anything he wants to respond to about the, um, the water runoff. And also if you can answer the question about the square footage in the new building. Yeah. So I'm here. My name is Tony Whitaker with civil consultants, the engineer for the project. We have consulted with, uh, city engineering, uh, folks in the public works department for stormwater management purposes. We've had those preliminary conversations and we well understand the city regulations for stormwater management. So we've shown on the development plan, two locations for stormwater management devices that would help to mitigate the additional impervious surfaces, uh, mitigate the runoff from those surfaces. So we do believe that we'll be able to satisfy city regulations at a minimum and then some with, um, for both small storms and larger storms. Uh, so we, we feel confident about that and, uh, don't feel that we'll be making that situation any downstream situation any worse at all. Uh, regarding the question, uh, that Cecilia had about the building, uh, the 6,000 square feet would be the total upper limit of all floor area within that two-story building. So there is not the footprint available for 6,000 square feet on one level. So that 6,000 number would be distributed across two floor levels. Thank you both. Uh, at this time I'm going to close the public hearing commissioners. Anyone have any questions or comments on this case? Seeing none, I would accept a motion, uh, Commissioner Cease. Thank you. I just want to clarify, um, for anyone who may be in attendance this evening versus, uh, having missed the last meeting, uh, why voted no last time and why I'll vote no this time. Uh, there's nothing to do, um, no, no major concerns with anything, um, that we typically are addressing in cases that come before us in terms of uses. Although we did hear, uh, both tonight some concerns with regards to flooding. We heard last time concerns with regards to both construction traffic and regular traffic. Um, I'll just point out briefly the, uh, attachment L of the planning staff report addresses the criteria for future land use map change recommendations. And it speaks there correctly to, um, kind of some consistency and intent, uh, between the conference plan to propose flum amendment and associated zoning changes appropriate for the suburban tier. Those aren't my concerns. My concerns are the kind of detailed description that we heard of the existing use, uh, and the fact that that existing use is proposed to be expanded and that this is CN zoning. And so my problem with this rezoning application, my concern, my opposition to this rezoning application is grounded in the intent statement as established in the UDO. So 4.3.2 commercial neighborhood, which is what we're considering first sentence. The CN district is established to provide for modest scale commercial centers in close proximity to residential areas that offer limited commercial uses to satisfy the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. And what we heard is a description of an operation that is not that it's much more than that has much bigger draw. And, uh, so I just wanted to clarify that's, that's why I'm voting against this rezoning proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Cease. Any other questions or comments? And if not, we'd accept a motion. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we move case Z 21 quadruple 04, the triangle veterinary referral hospital case to the city council for approval. Second. I've heard a move by commissioner Morgan and a second by commissioner Baker. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, may we have the roll call vote? Thank you. Amandolia. Yes. Baker. Yes. Batista. Yes. Busby. No. Cameron. No. Right. Yes. Yes. Durkin. Oh, yeah. Oh, sorry. Harrod. Yes. Low. Yes. Giver. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. No. No. Carmen Williams. No. Zuri Williams. Yes. Uh, it passes, uh, 10 to four. Thank you. Thank you, Steph. Thank you to that. And chair, um, if it is okay, uh, commissioners, your morning, welcome to send in new comments, but we will take the comments that you've already submitted from that past hearing and include them as your comments. But if you have additional ones, you still have that same. Um, and I would also just to reiterate commissioner Cease's point, I would encourage anyone who attended tonight that missed our last public hearing on this. All of our public hearings are on YouTube. You can go back and look at the discussion we had. Um, and it was a pretty robust discussion the first time we saw this and will, um, also probably provide some nuance to some of the yes votes on this case because I know there were many of us who, um, I would speak for myself for a moment. I know myself voted yes on this case, despite the use being, um, not exactly what I would ideally want in this case because that did not feel appropriate given the fact that it's already a veterinary hospital. Um, so just encourage folks to go watch that back. Um, because there was some good discussion there with that. We'll move on to our next case. Case Z 20 triple zero 38 courtyard at Farrington. We'll begin with the staff report. Uh, chair, I'm andolia and planning commissioners. Um, it will be presented by, um, Andy Lester. He is, uh, new to, uh, well, he's not new to the planning department. He was with the planning department a few years back in development review and is a recent hire to the land use group. This is his first case and presentation. So, um, uh, just wanted to introduce him. We're excited to have him. He's an excellent member of our staff. Um, and I will, uh, stop talking now and let him proceed. And welcome, Andy. Great to have you. Thank you chairman. Thank you commission. Now, let me share my screen real quick and we'll get started. Please let me know if you can see it. Fantastic. Uh, thank you commission. I'm here tonight to present, uh, the rezoning case Z 20, uh, zero, zero, zero, three, eight courtyards at Farrington. Um, the following information summarizes the application. Um, the proposed site consists of four parcels totaling approximately 21 acres and would include 67 single family residential units with the clubhouse. Uh, the specific addresses are 5109 517 5251 and 5271 Farrington road. Um, in addition to the rezoning, this would require a development tier change. Um, you can see currently it is suburban and the village contact neighborhood. They're proposing, um, a suburban tier. Um, there isn't an appending annexation with this as well. Um, the existing zoning is RS 20 and they are planning a plan development residential zoning district with a density of 3.785. And in addition, this would require an existing change, uh, too low density residential. The overlays of the site include the, uh, falls in noose and then I 40 major transportation corridor. So as you can see, the existing zoning of the site is already RS 20. Now the site is surrounded by RS 20, um, residential suburban multifamily, PDR and rural residential. The existing future land use destination is office to the north, uh, low density residential in the middle of the development site and to the south, it is a design district. If approved, the proposed future land use destination for the entire development would be changed to low density residential, uh, to accommodate the proposed rezoning. In addition to the flume change, um, the development site is split by two, uh, development tiers, the suburban tier to the north and the design district on the south side of the site. Uh, to accommodate the single family development, the design district need to be changed to be suburban tier. Uh, this aerial map shares the general location of the project, uh, to the east is I 40 and to the west is Farrington road. And I do want to bring, um, the commission's attention, um, that is emitted from the staff report. Um, this site is actually, um, listed in the dirt Durham historic, uh, inventory. Um, this is actually the site is the Walter Curtis Hudson farm and the applicant will provide an update with their conversation with the ship. Oh, in regards to that aspect of it, um, the applicant has included graphic and text commitments, including additional right of way for bicycle lane architectural variety of single family detached homes. However, the commitments do not address the Walter Curtis Hudson farm dwelling as listed in the Durham County historic architecture inventory, buried housing and affordability. There's an intermittent stream on the site with 100 foot stream buffer and a 10 foot no build setback. Um, there's a 20 foot ingress egress easement and a 30 foot, uh, deep energy easement that runs, um, along the northern property boundary. Um, in addition, the site features the, uh, Walter Curtis Hudson farm. Um, the proposed conditions, um, the applicant has proposed the majority of the tree preservation area on the south, southeastern portion of the development, uh, for access points, one on the western boundary of Barrington road, um, one on the northern boundary and two on the southern and additional asphalt for a bicycle lane on the western edge of the property and the parking and building envelope, as you can see. Um, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on September 9th, 2020, 36 community members were in attendance. Um, since then three inquiries were received about tonight's hearing. Uh, one social pinpoint comment were received by staff in relation to the case and that is in the staff report. Except for the three CGO objectives, the future land use designation and tier designation. Um, staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies. If the request is approved, the firm designation shall be amended to maintain consistency. And, um, staff may applicant are available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Andy. Um, at this time, we'll open the public hearing. We'll begin with the applicant presentation. Um, I see Neil Gauch is here for the applicant. Neil, let me know who all is on your team and you'll have 10 minutes. Uh, thank you, chair, uh, with Jason Coffey and, uh, James Whitaker are also on from our team. Um, and good evening, uh, chair, vice chair Cameron and members of the planning commission. I am Neil Gauch with the morning star law group at 700 West Main Street Durham. I'm representing the applicant for this rezoning, which is Epcon. Uh, as I mentioned earlier, Jason Coffey from Epcon communities is on the line with me tonight as well as Mr. James Whitaker with advanced civil design. Um, I want to thank Mr. Lester first presentation. I know this is your first one. So first of all, I feel honored and second of all, great job. Um, that having been said, uh, I know Mr. Lester is new to this case, which was submitted back in September of 2020. So I thought it might be useful to give some history on this one. Uh, we had an initial neighborhood meeting for this project in August of 2020 to discuss kind of two paths for the development of this property. We wanted to understand which path the neighbors felt was more appropriate for this property. As mentioned in the staff report, part of the property is within the Lee Village Compact neighborhood here, and the rest of it is within the Suburban here. A PDR zoning district is not allowed within a compact neighborhood here. So before we move forward with the project, we wanted to hear from the folks who live there, uh, what they would like to see, you know, so that was that's what our first neighborhood meeting was about. And in large part, we found that there was overwhelming support for a suburban style of development rather than the compact style of residential development. This feedback directly shaped our application for this project, and it's why we were applying for a tier change for a portion of the property to go from compact neighborhood here to suburban. One important aspect to understand about this property is that the compact neighborhood here in this location does not follow the existing property line. It does not follow any existing easement, natural feature, or other physical feature of the property. This is unusual, though it is not unheard of. But from a practical standpoint, having this property in two tiers makes it extremely challenging to develop comprehensively because of the differing UDO standards applicable in each tier. Put another way, I think anyone looking to develop property probably would apply for a tier change. And we felt our decision to apply for the suburban tier was the right decision in this case, based on the feedback we got from the neighbors. In line with that feedback, we are proposing a suburban style development on about 22 acres. We've committed to a maximum of 67 homes, which puts us at a PDR 3.785. The floor plans being offered in this project, all are single story living with an option to have some finished space on a second floor. We don't know how many people will pursue that option so the development plan provides the flexibility to do either type on each lot as the market dictates. This project also commits to a maximum impervious of 50%, rather than 70%, which is typical in this region and typical of suburban development in Durham. And out of 4.82 acres of required tree coverage, we're committing to 3.14 acres of tree preservation and the rest will be planted back. And I think that's significant because a large portion of this site already is devoid of trees. Certainly the project will require the removal of some trees, but we actually will be saving a fair amount of the existing tree coverage on the site, simply because there aren't that necessarily that many trees. Finally, I wanted to touch on a couple of items from the staff report and the presentation. With respect to the Civil War trails, until the staff report was released, our team was under the impression that the sign within the right of way related to the Civil War trails was city or government signage. We assume the sign would continue to be within the right of way along the frontage of the property. The staff report correctly notes that our development plan does not address the Civil War trail sign. And we already ran this by staff. We're happy to add a commitment that the Civil War trail sign would be preserved and must be displayed so that it's visible from the Farrington Road right of way. We're happy to do that. We had assumed that that was kind of the requirement anyway. Staff also mentioned the Curtis House in its presentation. And again, staff correctly noted that our development plan does not address the Curtis House. The historic component of this property falls under the purview of the State Historic Preservation Office or SHPO. Our team actively is working with SHPO to reach an agreement on how the heritage of this property will be honored. Originally, we proposed using some of the materials of the existing structure within the amenity feature in creating a photographic exhibit regarding the property within the amenity. To our surprise, SHPO was not interested in this approach. And I understand primarily that's because the structure has been altered several times. So the structure is not really indicative of any particular time period. In other words, the structure is a bit of a mutt, so to speak. We still have not reached an agreement, but SHPO seems to be leaning towards the developer being involved in the leaf arm park across I-40 from the site. We're not sure whether that will be in the form of a monetary donation, donation of artifacts, or something else. But we still are working through that. And I wanted to let you all know where we stand on this because we will be required to reach an agreement with SHPO on this before we are able to receive our federal permits for construction. So while our development plan does not address the topic, this is something that will be addressed through an agreement with SHPO. All right, I think that's it. Thank you for your time. And we look forward to your questions and comments. We're available to answer any questions you may have. And I think there are a few people who are signed up if I recall. Thank you, Neal. So we had 27 people who signed up who registered for this meeting. None of those people indicated they would like to speak. All of those individuals either indicated they were not speaking or they were undecided. So for the record, I'm going to just indicate that of the people that registered who were not on the applicant team, 12 indicated they were proponents. One indicated they were an opponent and 14 did not say. Since no one said they would definitely like to speak, we're going to just do this by folks raising their hand. So if there are any residents in attendance who would like to speak on this item tonight, please virtually raise your hand at this time. Reminder, if you're on the phone, you do so by pressing star nine. We'll wait a moment for folks to get their hand raised. Okay, I see one person has their hand raised. Ingrid McIntosh. Ingrid, you'll have two minutes to make your comments. Please state your name and address and then make your statement. Hello, I'm Ingrid McIntosh. I live at 5207 Niagara Drive and that's across the street from the proposed development. And I just want to state my very solid support for this community to be developed. There'll be nothing but a plus for us as far as our property values and so much better than anything else that we have heard is being considered. So please let Epcon continue to develop the wonderful communities that they do in this area. Thank you. Thank you, Ingrid. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this case? I'm seeing no hands raised. Neil, you had about three minutes, 50 seconds left of your time. Do you want any further comment or rebuttal? I'll just say thank you to Ms. McIntosh, was it? And we agree. But yeah, happy to answer any questions that you get. Thank you. With that, we'll close the public hearing and turn it over to my public commissioners. Who would like to start with questions and comments? Commissioner Carmen Williams. Thank you, Chair Emondola. I just wanted to express my support for this development. So my support doesn't come often. So when it does, I'd like to be very vocal about it. I like this development. I like how it's presented. I definitely enjoy the fact that they are single family homes. I'm not sure if they will be aging in place compatible, but if they are, that would create some livability in this area. It's a heavily traveled area. However, the ability, if at all possible, to create wider hallways, which even if you're not aging in place, that's always beneficial. It's nothing worse than trying to get a couch down a narrow hallway and into a door frame. But outside of that, I like this project. I like the tree preservation. I like the considerations that are coming into this area and I think it's hard time that we have some properties where we're not spending $650,000 on a house that's attached to someone else's. So I definitely appreciate this development and our plans to vote for it. Thank you, Commissioner Carmen Williams. Other comments and questions? Commissioner Durkin, a commissioner you are on mute. Oh, sorry, double mute. I have a question for staff. My understanding was that we were trying not to or were actively not permitting age-restricted development, that right or am I mistaken? That is correct. We're not seeking commitments for age-restricted development, but it would be allowed by the applicant if the zoning was approved and they chose for age-restriction. Okay, because there were some conflicting things in the staff report about it not being age-restricted, but then in the exhibit C of the neighborhood meeting attachment, the answer is that the community is intended to be age-targeted. So I imagine that age-target is 55 plus. I would imagine so, yes. But in the past, what has happened is that there were commitments that made it a zoning commitment to make it age-targeted or age-restricted and we as a policy are not promoting those kind of commitments. Can you give us the policy behind that? The community goals and objectives in terms of welcoming neighborhoods, varied households, the neighborhood and housing goal and the objectives under those. Okay, that's helpful. And I think that at least one of the neighborhoods across the street from this proposal is an age-restricted neighborhood. So it seems like there is a concentration maybe of these neighborhoods and that makes me want to not vote in favor of this. I'm just concerned about the concentration in that area. It's a very homogenous style of development. Thank you, Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Busby. Thanks, Chairman Mandolia. I just had a question for the applicant or a couple of questions. So mostly just to start, on page six of the staff report, there's a sentence that struck me and I agree with it. So I'd like to hear your thoughts. It says, this development does not have a significant number of text design and graphic commitments. And so, for example, affordable housing, there's no commitment to even providing funding to Durham's affordable housing fund. There's no additional stormwater commitments. There could be an opportunity for extended sidewalks potentially. So I wanted to hear your perspective on the limited number of proffers that we've seen here. And for context, I recall further down this road, we had a case in the fall that had a significant number of commitments that were offered. And I think I know I voted for it, but a lot of those commitments, including affordable housing, were a big reason that I was willing to support the project. So a question for Mr. Gosher, the applicant team. Sure. And thank you, Commissioner Busby. First, I did want to mention that this project is specifically not age restricted. And kind of to your question, Commissioner Busby, some of the commitments here are related to how the houses will be built, which deal with having first floor living, no steps up to the front door. And those are age targeted features, which we do find an EPCON has found to be pretty critical for an older population. However, specifically, this community would not be age restricted. It is just that the homes are designed so that they are, I guess, more inviting to folks with mobility issues by preventing or not having stairs up to the front door and primarily having all the living on the first floor. And again, with that option to finish the second floor. The limited number of commitments on this, I mean, as I mentioned, this case was filed long ago. And there were a number of issues that came up through the multiple review processes and through the multiple reviewers from planning that we've had, including specifically some of the environmental concerns and getting that cleared up. This site, this project does not impact those, you know, any floodplain and floodway. There is technically a stream crossing on the site, and that is indicated on the staff report. However, I would like to note that that stream crossing is one which actually can't physically be avoided because of the connectivity requirements. In Durham, we have to provide a point of connection in all four cardinal directions. And on the south side of the property, there isn't enough room to provide that stuff without crossing the stream. Now, the portion that we're crossing is very small. And we have been in touch with the Army Corps on this. It's technically a stream because of its depth, but it is not one that provides any real flow that's important to ecological concerns. The streams up against I-40 were not impacting those. Those are the ones that are more important. So, you know, I mean, I would agree that there are not a ton of commitments, but I think that speaks to the simplicity of the project. This project is only a maximum of 67 homes. And I hear your concern about affordability and how there is no specific profit here for even a monetary donation. And that is something that our team is considering and will continue to consider as we work through the process. On a project of this size, I do think it is doubtful that a project of 67 homes will be able to underwrite, you know, the inclusion of affordable units on this property. So, I do think we're leaning towards a monetary donation. And that is something that we, you know, are mulling over and will consider. And, you know, as we get into conversations with elected officials, try to better understand what the recommendation is there. Great. Well, thanks for the background. I mean, it's helpful to hear that this case started a while ago. I will note that two proffers that I think have been quite common at the Planning Commission probably since your case was filed. The first is we often do have applicants being able to offer 100 year stormwater feature commitment on site. And so I wanted to ask, is that something you'd be willing to consider this evening to add as a proffer? I, so I'm not in a position to answer that. And I think Mr. James Whitaker might be able to speak to that. But I mean, it's certainly something we can consider. I just don't know how that impacts this project. And I'm not sure if my client is aware of that either or if that's been studied. So I would say I don't think we can commit to that tonight, but it's something we could consider. Okay. Well, and I think often applicants have been able to think about it. And before we even vote on this case can come back and say if that's something that is an opportunity. So if you want to consider it while we deliberate and come back, that would be appreciated. The second is I strongly hope you will consider offering funding to the Durham Affordable Housing Fund. I understand what you're saying about not being able to put affordable housing units on this site. But that is something that is quite common and I think is really important in terms of supporting one of our biggest priorities as a community. Often applicants are making that proffer here at the Planning Commission. And again, I hope that's something you will not only strongly consider, potentially consider offering this evening before we vote on the case. But again, I'll give you a moment to think about that. And I appreciate your time and your attention and consideration of those opportunities. So that's it for me, Chair Amadouille. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Busby. Commissioner Cutwright. Thanks, Chair. And I think I'll just just to add or to to piggyback on the affordable housing aspect. I think one thing that could be considered that I've heard recently is developers providing a lot or two or three to Habitat for Humanity and actually partnering with them on potentially building homes in the neighborhood. I think that's maybe a consideration that you can put out there as well as you're considering how you can help the Durham community with its need for housing. So I'll just throw that out there as a consideration. And I've seen developers go as far as actually building the houses for Habitat because they can do much cheaper for a simple developer fee. So just a consideration there, something to think about and consider. Thank you, Commissioner Cutwright. I see Commissioner Carmel Williams has their hand raised. Before we come back to Commissioner Williams, I want to make sure anyone else who hasn't gotten the chance to speak yet and ask questions has that chance. Like Commissioner Herrod. Thank you, Chair. I do think this project has a lot going forward. I'll take it like the maximum percentage of impervious area that's good to hear and the bike lanes and so forth. I think as far as sense of plates, we're maybe missing the boat. I don't live close to this but I've been up and down Farrington Road and been in the Patterson Mill Store. It's a very cool place. A lot of history there just like there is on the other side of I-40 where they have a leak on them. So it seems to be like hopefully we could think outside the box and maybe with the community building preserve some of that historical flavor. That's something I'd like to see a commitment to possibly. And then a lot of civil war is not as popular as it used to be but it's still historical importance in our country. So we talked about off-road trails in this report somewhere. So potentially we could combine off-road trails with civil war trails. I'm sorry. I don't know. That's just some ideas that I think would make the project more unique because I don't know. You just go down right down the road and all the projects are delight sometimes. So it'd be nice to add some unique features. Also the PDR part of the emphasis for that is having varied housing units. So I know with 66 units it's hard to do but maybe we could think about that. The developer could think about that a little more as well. And then I don't know. This is kind of frustrating to all of us I think. It says something about the report says something about the intersection of 54 and Farrington Road is less than a mile south of here. And there's some bus routes there. There's potentially a rapid transit station in the far future. I don't know. It seems like it'd be nice if we could have some sidewalks that potentially somebody else could add on to down the road. Just a wish list. So that's all I have to say. But I'm in favor of the project. Thank you Commissioner Heron. Commissioner Cease. Thank you. Hearing Commissioner Heron reference the old store there I have to also admit appreciation of the history and the experience of visiting there many years ago. Probably 30 plus years ago and also in the time sense. And this is both an interesting and a challenging piece of land from a development perspective just because of the proximity to 40 and because of the uncertainty that lingered over the both the light rail project at the time and the uncertainty quite frankly that lingered over just the tier boundaries around those areas contemplating them for future transformation. And hearing the presentation tonight and also kind of knowing the context of what's out there I guess one thing that I wanted to comment on beyond the kind of nod to history is building on Commissioner Heron's comments that I don't think it's just the housing or the house that's there alone that that's of value in terms of the cultural significance of of this place. And I would encourage the development team very strongly and this is this is kind of the an outcome of us being accustomed to having development plans that don't show any details about what happens inside the boundary which is problematic in nearly every case. They're not really development plans they're non development plans they show us where you can't do development and then they don't tell anyone anything about what actually is to happen in a spatial sense on the site. But this site the configuration and collection of the agricultural buildings that are there is is worth really strong considerations preserving and incorporating in some way in the green space that's being preserved and from a planning perspective I know that's possible it's it's it's math and it's not dollars it's acreage and this is a really low density project quite frankly yeah under four per acre it's it's a low density project which in some ways makes sense given the buffer to I-40 the proposed impervious service limitations the existing stream buffer so that makes sense that I would just encourage the applicant team to really give great care in how they treat the collection of agricultural buildings there that that forms the you know that forms part of the story of what made that such a special place for so many visitors through the years and and I appreciate the care with which Mr Booker and and and his family has has provided for that land through all these years and so that's that's one point second point I'll make well two points it's just I reiterate Commissioner Busby's and Commissioner Cutwright's comments regarding affordable housing regardless how many housing units there are there there would seem to be a capacity to contribute something in in monetary terms or other terms to help Durham address our the housing challenges that we're facing there and there are a lot of options there and it would really make for a much more desirable application to have have something included but I wanted point the third point and I'll finish is Neil referenced the string crossing the one string crossing that's included on the development plan in order to provide access to I think it's side access point for one of those access points to to the south and I just want to highlight the importance of both of those access points to the south given that to the southern end of this property is that you know is where the tier boundary is proposed to be reduced but it still is you know it it still is to be maintained to the south and the Lee Village compact neighborhood tier and those points of connection in the future are going to be really critical in in a lot of ways both conceptually and practically in for instance keeping extra trips off Farrington road as the places parcel to the south develop out so I don't want those well let me just say that I don't want concerns about the environmental implications of impacting that stream buffer to some way eliminate the the side access points that are identified on the development plan those those need to stay in place I think through the consideration of this project so with those comments I I do support the project but I just wanted to make all those comments thank you thank you commissioner cease there are other commissioners who would like to ask questions and comments before I return to commissioner Carmen Williams it's seen I'm going to make a quick statement as well because maybe commissioner Carmen Williams you can also help answer some of the questions I have on this case I'm going to admit that as someone who's relatively new to Durham I'm not as aware of the cultural significance of this site as it is evident other planning commissioners are and so I've only had my experience of driving past this area and noticing that it definitely sticks out from what's around it so I would just welcome more context from other folks to plead to speak to that and help me kind of round out my understanding of this site and I just to add to the conversation without that understanding I am looking at the current and future zoning to make a decision and I at this moment am concerned about this proposal because it is and what is supposed to end up being a mixed residential site immediately adjacent to a transit opportunity area and so what I see is a really big opportunity to set ourselves up for success in the future when this interchange at 40 and fairing and 54 becomes a more mixed used walkable area that has dense housing types nearby and so I am currently opposed to this case but I will welcome any other comments and I'm curious to hear folks thoughts on that commissioner Carmen Williams. Thank you chair Emily I can't speak to anything as far as the Civil War is concerned in this area at all I can't help you with that maybe someone else can. I am I guess I'm a little floored because we are pushing very heavily for affordable housing in this area where it's needed just about everywhere in Durham and a large portion of this panel push for market rate housing in a soon to be former projects area that didn't necessarily need it so I guess I'm just I'm just trying to get a feel for my fellow planning commissioners because I think that we have to address affordable housing in a more uniform stature across the board regardless of where developments are going it's a need across Durham and I think that sometimes we may send messages to people that are confusing about whether or not we want affordable housing or we need affordable housing if there's an if then statement. I'm for this project because it addresses a need which everyone on this call is going to have at some point in time unless they're unfortunate and that's the ability to age in your home and with prices going in the way that they're going everywhere developments like this are necessary and it's rare that we find places that are willing to offer multiple access points that help traffic it's rare that we find a developer that will come in and actually consider tree preservation above what's there with the plan to actually plant more trees which helps sidewalks and I understand that this could be a hub going forward we don't know how far in the future because first they're going to have to widen 54 before it can become a major transportation hub that that's going to have and that's going to take some time and there has to be more development in this area commercially for there to need for there to be a need for walkability to help out with transportation because of right now I don't know where they're walking on fairings and road in 54 unless they they're walking to eat and then they're going to burn off what they just ate by the time they get back home so I appreciate everyone's efforts I just I don't I don't see in this particular case the need to force the hand for affordable housing contributions or affordable housing mandates within this project of course we needed everywhere it just seems a little bit more forceful with this where we were a little bit more lacks in other projects and again I just want to show my support for the developer because I like this project and that's extremely rare thank you you commissioner common Williams commissioner cut right thanks chair um I just wanted to comment on on commissioner Williams comments specifically around affordable housing I think that uh stating that this is the request for affordable housing on this particular project is is forceful or heavy-handed is maybe maybe a bit maybe a bit blown out of proportion I think it's been mentioned I don't think anyone's voted against it or or may vote against it because of the lack of affordable housing it's something that should at least be thought about or mentioned in almost every project that's my thought I think some other some other commissioners may agree with that that there's opportunity in room for affordable housing on every project we fully recognize that not every developer is going to do it some projects are thin I mean I get that and it may not be possible right they may not be able to make the numbers work for a variety of reasons um but it should be mentioned and discussed and asked for um and whether or not it can actually be proffered as a whole another ball game but um I think that was a this was a light ask and I don't think a lot of pressure has been put on the request for affordable housing in this particular development that being said I do think that um adults that age and place do have restricted incomes um and affordable housing is important at that level as well so I just think it should be thought about across the board again it won't happen everywhere but it should be at least brought up and asked about and almost every development that's coming through Durham thank you commissioner right commissioner cease thank you and I appreciate commissioner cup right um elaborating on uh his perspective there and kind of describing what I think a number of us were expressing with regards to affordable housing on this particular site commissioner Williams I'd like to just uh and and commissioner amondola um address one other point each of you raised is that when I reference the kind of cultural significance and agricultural significance of this site I want to be clear I wasn't aware of any civil war trails what I was referencing was the Patterson meal mill store and the history of it as an exhibit space for um pharmaceuticals and the country doctor's office turn of the century is what it's described as and I and I say that was ingrained in my upbringing as the son of a pharmacist who was the third owner of a store that had been in existence for over 80 years and so I grew up with pharmaceutical bottles and and fixtures from the 1910s that made their way into my father's garage when he sold the store 20 years ago and and that as he has aged his children me being one of them have faced the challenges of what to do with that stuff and so there was a a sense of affection that my father had with the collection that the applicants family had had maintained and made available for understanding healthcare and and drugs and disease and the ways in which the provision of healthcare was provided 100 years ago essentially and so it's that aspect of the agrarian and and nature in the form of the buildings and their situation on the landscape that I'm speaking to when I speak to the historical aspects of that site and it is in part because I know of the care that that the owners have provided to that place for so long that I have a bit of a trust it may or may not be earned but but I care that they've you know I trust that they've given great consideration into how to allow this property to change given that the you know major infrastructure investment of a light rail is not occurring to the south in in the near future and so you know that I I I appreciate that need for this transforming into something else as far as the aging in place the completely unrelated point and age targeted it is an aspect of why I think those connections to the south are so important because you know aging in place when we talk about health in the built environment that you know there is a long body of research literature understanding that these types of single use single family detached subdivisions not connected to any basic availability of goods and services or jobs or transit or the places where the built environment is not conducive to activity it's not conducive to the physical activity that's so essential and in terms of aging in a healthy way and so there is a bit of a conflict here in terms of age restricted but it's utterly all dependent and and that's problematic but there's a precedent in terms of the subdivisions that are immediately across the street it's a small site and I think as long as the connections are made to the south to allow that to evolve in the future and regardless of what what infrastructure investments are made there what form of transit there is an intensity of use happening with projects both underway and contemplated at the 54 in Farrington and I-40 interchange it's on the corridor that connects to one of the largest employment concentrations we have and in UNC hospitals UNC and downtown Chapel Hill so you know there this is not a this is a you know this is a 20-acre project and it's ripe for transformation at this point in time in this form and you know I support it I again I do encourage the applicant to consider a contribution to affordable housing and I'll leave it at that so I hope that's helpful in terms of the historical aspect. Thank you Commissioner Busby. Thank you before we have a motion for a vote which I'm expecting is probably coming quite soon I just wanted to circle back to the applicant team just to check in thanks to our deliberations you've had some time to think about other additional proffers you'd like to make this evening while we're before we vote on this. Commissioner Busby I just wanted to note that planning staff member Andy Lester has his hand up I'm happy to address this but I know if we want to hear from Mr. Lester first. I'll lead that to the chair. No I want to you respond to Commissioner Busby's question first and then we'll go to Andy. Sure so on the stormwater measure which was something that you discussed earlier I'm going to turn that over to Mr. Whitaker to give a response there. James Whitaker. Yeah hello commission members. This is James Whitaker advanced civil design 51 Kilmaine Drive carry North Carolina. Regarding the stormwater we would be happy to put a restriction on there that we would control the 100 year peak post-developed runoff rate to what the existing 100 year peak develop runoff rate is. That's great thank you and I definitely appreciate that I think anytime we can we can offer that on a site it's helping not only the development but it's helping everyone in the surrounding area especially if we see continued development up and down the corridor so that's that's really appreciated and and then Mr. Goche any any thoughts on the affordable housing I know we've talked about that a fair amount this evening. Yeah so a couple thoughts let me first answer the question I don't think we're in a position right now to make a commitment although I will say that my client has indicated that it likely will make a monetary donation a profit for monetary donation but what that amount will be I don't think we can commit to tonight but on the affordability but I did want to just talk we we feel confident that the price point here is going to be well under the median price point for this for this zip code and now this zip code is one of the more expensive zip codes in Durham so that plays into it certainly but we certainly think we're going to be under that I just want to put that out there. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Goshen and everyone on the applicant team and just hearing that you're planning to likely do that when you go to city council I think I certainly hope you will you will follow through on that I'm sure council will also ask as well and that's it for my questions chair Mendelian fellow commissioners I just wanted to share my perspective as well I'm of a similar mind as commissioners cease I think this makes sense now given that the light rail is no longer moving forward and we're we're going to move in a different direction in terms of our transportation plans given what's already happened historically across the street and in this area and given these additional commitments or a commitment to consider a commitment I think it's important that a part of town that's thriving is willing to support their neighbors in a variety of different ways so I am planning to vote for this case when we get to a vote that's it for me. Thank you commissioner Busby I did want to just state for the record because Mr. Goshe referenced the median price point of this zip code that according to the staff report that median price point is 610,000 and looking at EPCON community's website you can see that they have communities and carry that begin at the 400 and 500,000 range so just for folks listening in that's the point of reference here Andy, your hand raised a moment ago. Thank you chair staff just has a couple clarification questions for Neil. Neil talked about I guess the relationship with SHPO in terms of I think obtaining a permit could you clarify that Neil? Right, sure in working with SHPO so SHPO's authority ends with the federal government's oversight and regulation so to the extent that we need a federal permit which we do SHPO can prevent or I'm sorry maybe a state permit which we do SHPO can prevent those permits from being issued until we reach an agreement with them on how this site would be treated for its historical components I don't know for lack of a better term. And I just wanted to I guess confirm I guess the stormwater commitment and clarify the comment that you made about signage when you first started. Yeah sure so on the stormwater we would commit to treating the 100-year storm if I understood correctly but let me I don't want to use the wrong term so let me make sure with Mr. Whitaker that that is the case we're controlling that 100-year storm. Yeah we would control the 100-year post-develop rate to what the current pre-develop rate is there'd be no increase in runoff from the 100-year storm. There you go. And then on that sign so I could not point on this development plan where that sign is today so the commitment is essentially to preserve that sign but we also want to make sure that it be displayed in a prominent location along the Farrington Road right of way in case it needs to move up or down that road based on how the site develops. I don't want to commit to preserving it specifically where it is today if you know something needs to happen in that location that's what I was saying that so essentially we will have that sign visible from the right of way up here at the red. I think staff will need to try to finalize those commitments. I believe Mr. Stock may have a comment as well. We'll get those the exact wording for those. Neil could you explain your commitments to first floor living and no steps to the entry ways I don't see on the development plan where those commitments are and can you also just for our edification because we're still kind of scratching our heads what state permit is requiring the SHPO approval. Thank you. No SHPO doesn't approve anything right so but we we we have that stream crossing that's being proposed that is a permit that is going to be held up by SHPO. Okay all right that that's what I meant like what permit is requiring being held up okay my SHPO could you clarify the other commitments that you made earlier. Yeah the first floor living and I'm sorry if that wasn't on is not already on the development plan I'll to be honest with you I'm working with Epcon on several projects so essentially the commitment is that there will not be stairs leading to the front entrance of the house or at least to I'm sorry at least to a ground floor entrance on the house. I know we have this language somewhere and if it's not on this case it might take me a minute to find it specifically but it's something that you all have reviewed already in the context of another case if not this one. That's fine we can work out the language with that and for the first floor living are you making the statement that there's going to be basically bedrooms will be on all first floors of all units because right now the commitment is just to single single story and story and a half which doesn't necessarily commit to first floor living. First floor yeah so first floor living meaning that will be bedrooms on the first floor. Okay and we can work out that specific language too. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Are there other commissioners who have comments or questions at this time? So I just I first want to express my appreciation for the explanation of the cultural significance here with the agricultural uses is very helpful for me. I am still in opposition to this case. To me this doesn't look a lot different than what we get in southeast Durham and I think arguably is closer to potential for more services and more connectivity in the future and so I will be voting in opposition tonight. This time I would accept a motion and a reminder that the motion needs to include the stated proffers that were added during the public hearing. Mr. Chair I make a motion that we take case number zero two zero triple zero thirty eight the courtyards of Farrington road with the associated noted proffers to be forwarded to the city council for recommended city council for approval. Thank you. Moved by Commissioner Morgan seconded by Vice Chair Cameron. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes Mike. Just one clarification. The motion will also include the proposed tier change from compact neighborhood tier two suburban. Okay. That is correct. Okay thank you. Vice Chair Cameron. Is there some way we can get a summary of those proffers that were made after we vote as well for comedy? We can provide that summary now before the vote if that would be helpful. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Andy please jump in if I missed something but there is a commitment to treating the 100 year storm event. There is a commitment to a first four living arrangement where there will be a bedroom on the first floor of every unit. There is a commitment to no steps to the ground level entrance to each unit and there is a commitment to maintain the Civil War signage that's in the right of way if there is a need to move that and that would probably be happen if there was a need to move that signage for any roadway widening. I think that's accurate Mike. Okay. I believe we're ready for the roll call group. Amandolia. No. Baker. No. Batista. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. No. Yes. Low. No. McIver. Yes. Morgan. No. Cease. Yes. Carmen Williams. Yes. Amesery Williams. Yes. Okay. It passes nine to five. Thank you to staff. Thank you to the applicant and all the residents who showed up. Thank you very much. With that we'll move to the next item on our agenda. That is case Z20-00044 Griffin residential track. Before we have the staff report I just want to note that we're about 30 minutes out from our first break to give our closed captioners a break during our meeting and so this public hearing will get a little broken up by that break but we'll begin with the staff report. Thank you. Michael Stock again with the planning department before you tonight is case Z20-00044 Griffin residential track. It is located at 4903 Leesville Road in 2755 US Highway 70 located in suburban tier and is a city case pending annexation. The site is approximately 118 acres. The current zoning is rural residential and industrial or RRI and the proposed zoning is planned development residential 3.753 or PDR 3.753. The current flum future land use map designation is oh I'm sorry I did not share screen. Hold on. I have that problem sometimes. Can you all see now? Yes. Thank you. I apologize for that. The there is no change in that the proposal would be consistent with the flum. The current zoning overlay is in the FJB Watershed or Falls Jordan District B Watershed and the proposal is for 380 dwelling units with a mix of single family and townhouse. As you can see the site is predominantly zone I the dirt deep purple there with a southern portion RR and it is surrounded by PDR developments to the north west and the recent proposed parcel K approved parcel K PDR 5.949 development to the east is still RR predominantly our zoning and there is commercial zoning along Highway 70 and as you can see and it does not include this circle which is a property that was subdivided out of the parcels and which maintains a cell a cell tower structure. There is the aerial of the site primarily wooded there is a clearing obviously in the middle and the cell tower is right there. The parcel K development is immediately to the west and is primarily wooded to the north and east and south the existing conditions there is flood plain and streams along the guess the northwest and southeast sides of the development and along portions within the interior. It's also there are identified natural heritage areas and steep slopes that are primarily shown as remaining undisturbed. There are some areas of the identified steep slopes that would be disturbed but not beyond the maximums allowed. And as you can see as the proposed development plan it does show the proposed alignment of the northern Durham Parkway and also alignment of the Collector Street consistent with the Wake Durham Collector Street plan. Does commit to a mix of single family and townhouse units. There are specific active open space commitments limits on flood plain encroachment and enhanced stormwater controls dedication construction northern Parkway and the Collector Street rights of way. Commitments to U.S. 70 and Leesville road improvements per the traffic impact analysis dedication to Lick Creek mean way and construction of connections to that and there are additional building and design commitments. There was a neighborhood meeting held in 2020 where there are seven community members in attendance and social pinpoint comments are provided in attachment. So except for the flume designation actually the flume designation is is consistent but staff also determines that the housing and housing and neighborhood goals and community goals and objectives are not compliant with this request and we'll be happy to answer any questions I believe the applicant is also here. Thank you Mike. We'll begin or we're going to open the public hearing. We'll begin with the applicant presentation and you'll have 10 minutes to present and I believe now you're on this one as well. Yep and good evening everyone again. I still am Neil Gauch at the Morning Star Law Group 700 West Main Street but this time I'm representing the C.S.C. Group we have Steve George and Anthony Catalano from the C.S.C. Group with us tonight I believe and we also have Beth Blackman from the Timmins Group in Caroline Bajarski with Brandy Kemp available and once again I will thank staff this time I've stopped for the report and presentation on this case. I think the big story here on this case is that a majority of the site is zoned I which I think everyone can agree is not in appropriate zone industry for this but we'll say we recognize that this is its own application. The reality is though that this project is not possible without K-Parsal in that way it is kind of the next phase of K-Parsal which is a project by the same developer that was approved last year. I think it's important when you consider this project the development plan commits to at least two different housing options townhomes and single family and the plan is weighted towards townhome it's about 380 homes on 117 acres but when you look at this site in conjunction with K-Parsal you really get the complete picture. K-Parsal encompasses about 140 acres it provides for a maximum of 837 units I will say it's not a project that I was involved in so I'm just reiterating what I understand the zoning to encompass there but you know then the on K-Parsal the mix of housing includes two different sizes of single family homes two different sizes of townhomes and 432 multi-family units so across the two projects you're getting around 1200 new homes on 258 acres and you know I think this developer is really looking at this from more of a long-term standpoint and their approach their development plan is reflective of that approach the project commits to a number of key infrastructure improvements for example the plan commits providing a large section of the northern northern Durham Parkway a portion of the Lick Creek Greenway and a north south collector road both northern Durham Parkway and the collector road are shown on the city's adopted comprehensive transportation plan and I will say the only stream crossings shown on the plan are the ones required to implement those roads as this region of Durham develops over time infrastructure like the northern Durham Parkway and also the Greenway Lick Creek Greenway will become crucial components contributing positively towards the quality of life the developer also recognizes the importance of strong storm water controls and environmental considerations the D plan here commits to providing storm water measures for up to the 100-year storm event the project also limits impacts the flood plane and floodway to only those required for the northern Durham Parkway public utilities like water and sewer and greenway infrastructure so no other impacts would be allowed and those are ones that are you know essentially required uh per the conference of transportation plan and the greenway plan and the project commits to 25.5 percent tree coverage instead of the minimum required 20 percent tree coverage we recognize that one of the key concerns about development in this region is the lack of infrastructure investment the project does not shy away from that the D plan commits to several road improvements in addition to the crucial infrastructure identified in various of the cities adopted plans northern Durham Parkway the collecting road the greenway so yes this is a big project but it is projects like this which can afford to underwrite all the necessary infrastructure which will support existing approved and future development in this area in addition to what is being proposed here so I think that's a really important consideration on this um the project also commits to having multiple uh amenity areas or open space areas which I think is important for the quality of life rather than having you know a centralized amenity that people on the outskirts of the community would have to you know essentially travel to a longer distance to this has multiple I believe it's seven um open space areas that are committed to which I think is pretty you know important and unique and thoughtful for a project of this size um and I think that covers most of the points here uh and uh you know we're we're available to to answer your questions and receive your feedback we look forward to that thank you you know uh so we'll now move to resident comments we have let's see it's like we had two people that signed that registered in advance one person who registered um to speak Caroline chiefs signed up as a proponent uh Caroline oh hi I'm Caroline Bojarski that Neil alluded to this project has been going on so long that I got married in between so if you have any questions traffic related I'm available to speak on behalf of that but um thank you um okay so then we have no one registered to speak on this case if anyone would like to speak on this case please raise your hand at this time I mean if you're on the phone press star nine to do so okay seeing none um to be consistent no I'll offer you the remainder of your time although I'm not sure that you need it I'm ready to receive your feedback and answer your questions thank you thank you so I will close the public hearing and open it up to commissioner question to comment commissioner Morgan thank you chair I have a question for the applicant um you had indicated that you would actually build out the uh northern Durham parkway uh right away that comes across the property itself yeah that's right that's uh so we'll build out yeah that's correct I believe we'll build out that whole portion if I remember correctly certainly we'll be dedicating the right of way for it uh across the site and I believe the way the site sets up we would be building it out let me allow anyone from my team to correct me if that's incorrect but I think you can go ahead with with your line of questioning given Morgan and someone from our team might be might step in to correct me okay um and I guess I have another question about can our road is there a connection to can our road and any kind of commitment to upgrading it from a dirt road to that I saw pictures of you know access coming in from dock nickels road and this was I'm curious was there any kind of commitment to uh in our road itself our our research indicates so I think the the map on GIS and in other locations seems to indicate that the canard right of way touches this property however in our research and title title word we found that that is not the case um and so we are not able to connect to canard I think is the way I would describe it um because there isn't an existing right of way or easement to it I know it looks like that on the map that we what we found that was not the case so we're not touching canard road not connecting to it not improving it yeah kind of if I remember right I drove all the way back there when we had another applicant uh for the property east of there and it looks like there's like a house at the end of can our road that that may be blocking your access uh yeah perhaps I mean I think that's I think that's true that there is a house at the end of there I don't know if that's what's blocking the the connection I think if I remember correctly we just didn't find the right of way actually touched our property if I remember correctly if I could jump in this is Steve george of the csc group what nil is describing is true that yeah canard does not actually touch our property it ends right before the Griffin property begins so we do not have a connection point there okay would there eventually uh be one I guess if there is a I guess it would be dependent if I'm on the property north of your your parcel right we are showing an access point to our northern property line that will not connect to canard today but in the future if the property north of us were to develop I would assume that it would connect to canard and therefore would be required to extend canard to the connection point or provide another connection to our northern access point which we're showing on this point okay I guess one of the thoughts that comes to my mind the sounds like the only real connection is through is dependent upon the development of parcel k and some of the infrastructure that would be around there the the only way in and out of this particular area would be through the northern Durham Parkway extension I would say that's correct which is why I said you know this is really kind of the next phase of k parcel this project is not possible without development of k parcel okay and I guess my other thought would be is you know going to the south in east with the northern Durham Parkway extension I know we have another application that will pick up on the other side of Leesville road but we don't have any kind of plan of trying to align those right-of-ways and have you had any discussion on where that that road may go the northern Durham Parkway yes going to the south well yes I mean in our understanding is the alignment that's going through our property is consistent with what's been adopted in the comprehensive transportation plan which is why I mentioned earlier that the only stream crossing shown on this are ones which are required for the northern Durham Parkway and I think that might be it but maybe also the collector road no I think it's just the northern Durham Parkway there's the only stream crossing shown and the reason they're they're shown and otherwise required is because that's the alignment that's been adopted on the comprehensive transportation plan now we're the northern Durham Parkway goes off-site I will say that's not something we necessarily have considered but we were you know our intent here was to be consistent with what is shown on the comprehensive transportation plan so it just sounds like the only you know the entry and exit point is either through right leaf coming in from the north or through parcel k when that is completed I mean yeah I would say the access to the site is going to be through k parcel for the foreseeable future you know once k parcel develops okay yeah I mean might might be concerned again is this whole infrastructure in this area and certainly we just have no this is yet another one of those parcels that is coming before us where we have no real transportation plan that can connect I don't fault the applicant so much as that we do need to have an overall plan and then we've had a southeast Durham study which has been in draft form and we don't have any real transportation map of what's going on in the area and I keep getting a lot of input from you know the folks that live around me because I live in that area is just how is this going to work how's this going to with the additional traffic especially access and and things like that so I think that really kind of speaks to you know are we are we ahead of ourselves trying to change the zoning here for the neighborhood where we don't have the the infrastructure in place so that's just my comment thank you commissioner organ other commissioner questions and comments and apologies I do want to recognize death blackman who's a participant that raised their hand and wanted to provide them an opportunity to add comment good evening I was just going to chime into what Neil said about northern Durham Parkway we are required to build it across our property k partial would be building the connection point to the existing and then we would pick it up from there those are the only two stream crossings that we have on each side of our property lines and in regards to the zoning and you know the infrastructure not being in place it is generally an unfortunate reality that the infrastructure improvements a lot of times fall only developers and by using this property to build another piece of what you have it does not complete it it does not take it out to leesville road unfortunately but at least gets you another step closer and let me know if you have any questions thank you thank you commissioner batista yes thank you yeah my question is for the applicant related to runoff this lot currently is undeveloped and it's a sizable lot and it looks like all of the drainage that currently would leave that lot goes right to lick creek and so I see that there's a proposal for less than 80 percent pre-development runoff levels how do you plan to do that by converting to up to 70 percent impervious surface thanks for the question i'm going to guess that best black man on our team is going to be the best person to answer your your question is more about the engineering side of that how is it done right okay i'm not going to pretend to know how to answer that question and i'm not sure best if you're able to address um commissioner batista's concerned here staff can we get that thank i'm i think i'm on meeting myself now thank you um yes best black woman simons group again um so we will design stormwater control measures utilizing much likely wet ponds the treatment because we will have a lot of area that is undisturbed as well you know without impervious areas it allows us to work together between that and the proposed development to come up with a plan that works um i don't know that we have actually run numbers regarding the actual impervious that we need on site uh because of the amount of you know floodplain wetlands and buffer areas that we do have but to give ourselves flexibility as we're moving forward with it the 70 percent impervious was allowed in the watershed with appropriate stormwater control measures and the 80 percent reduction going to the 80 percent level was uh a suggestion we worked through with the uh different effects of the stormwater group okay thank you thank you commissioner batista commissioner cease yes a question um something that neil alluded to or stated and something that beth i believe stated um my understanding from what each of you have said is that the applicant is proposing to construct the northern Durham parkway from the area up near well the tax commitments referred to picking it up up near flat river drive to the northwest constructing that all the way across this site to the southeast to site access three is that correct right and where is that stated in the tax commitment or can we make sure that that's added as a tax commitment um yeah i mean i think the tax commitment refers to dedication right correct and then the requirement in the udo is that we would have to build any portion of that which is required for access to our site so i think the way that this is the site is laying out all of it is necessary for access to the site um so i think i'm not sure if staff would support the the commitment you're suggesting but um but no i'm not worried about staff's reporting and i'm wondering if you've stated it and and you've described the ability for a project of this size to help in contributing the infrastructure and miss black oh yeah no i have no issue i have no issue it's not in the documents from based on my interpretation so i'd like that to be stated clearly if that's actually what you're offering what i was suggesting is i'm not sure staff's position on the enforceability of that uh generally our tax commitments have to be in excess of what udo the udo requires and i'm not sure that's in excess but i mean i think it's a true statement staff i guess i would weigh yeah i asked staff to weigh in on that but in general i think we're comfortable i think you could access your site here's why i'll just intervene and then michael can chime in um i'll not intervene i'll clarify why i'm raising the question uh i believe it's quite possible for you to access much of your site without constructing a roadway across your site and certainly without constructing it all the way to side access three but it is being represented to us as constructing it all the way to side access three and that's a really big difference so that there aren't these residual pieces that are unconstructed or not constructed or left to the public dollar down the road when properties to the southeast are built so i think there should be clarity around this so michael did you is is the nuance that neil is suggesting is that correct so let me just read what the current tax commitment says um number one under tax commitments prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy construct northern Durham parkway to ncdot standards from the end of the existing roadway near flat river drive to the western property line at site access number one so i think it's talking about it in reverse from what you were so that commitment's already there and the udo regulations are such that um no more than 90 units could be uh constructed um and coed um if there is only one functional uh access point so a second access point would be functional access point um would be required and that would most likely happen with the construction and connection to the collector street to the uh southwest through parcel k so it is kind of parcel k dependent um for construction and the infrastructure improvements and earlene is raising her hand and she may be correcting me or adding to something so i'll let i'll stop talking so earling thomas on transportation department i will just add to what um mike was saying um and to clarify your question the tax commitment can be revised and staff would support a tax commitment of fully constructing um the northern Durham parkway through the site to site access number three your observation is correct that they could technically only build a portion of it which would not necessarily be required to go to the eastern property line if they didn't need that portion of the room to serve their site so if that is something that this commission desires and that tax commitment would need to be revised thank you um earlene especially for clarifying that i and i want to state that uh i i think not only i don't want to state it in terms of what this commission desires i want to state it in terms of what we as a commission were presented with and i think it should be added to maintain um and we'll make that commitment i mean with that clarification from transportation moment we'll make that commitment that is certainly the intent okay thank you i may have more questions but that's it for now mr.  Durkin you're on you i'm gonna say i won't talk for more than two minutes but i might spur a conversation that requires more than two minutes if you want me to wait until after a break that's fine yeah um let's do that so we're gonna go ahead and take a break for our closed captioners um we'll return at 7 40 p.m we'll be returning in about one minute i'll wait for just a few more commissioners to return and then commissioner durkin you'll be recognized uh commissioner durkin if you want to go ahead and start sure um so the parcel k was referenced as this kind of gone along with that parcel but i believe that um the commissioners that were on the commission at for that case all voted against that one so i don't know how fair or good of a reference that project is in support of this one the other piece is that the big thing on parcel k was the lack of affordable housing given the scale on the of the acreage and the number of units and there they were actually if i'm remembering correctly proffering something along the lines of two percent or something of actually proposing units of offering units not even just a donation to the affordable housing fund and here there's neither the proffer of actual affordable units nor a donation to the affordable housing fund and there i'm not in support of this project for the reasons that were discussed at length and parcel k um we can go through them here um but it's really just the infrastructure impacts and lack of infrastructure is also affordable housing and the amount of development that's happening this area of Durham without having that component involved in any kind of significant capacity whatsoever and so that's my position on this one thank you commissioner Durkin other comments and questions so uh i see commissioner heron has your hand raised you commissioner heron yes thank you thank you chair um i'd like to ask neil uh if y'all are considering something of that nature uh because i mean in terms of excuse me go ahead no i'm sorry you go ahead well i was just gonna say since i've been on the commission um uh almost a year this is the largest project that i've seen so it surprises me that there's no uh offer made no mention made of a percentage anything of that nature so that's the reason for my question sure that makes sense um i will say uh one of one of so the k parcel is a much larger project it did include some affordable housing but it also has multifamily and again that's not a project i've worked on so i'm not speaking from any place of authority on it but my understanding is they were providing affordable housing in the rental units primarily or maybe only and maybe also a monetary donation to the affordable housing fund and that project was much bigger than this one but this project you know it is a large project i'm not suggesting otherwise and i touched on this earlier one of the one of the main things that allows this project to do is to provide all of that infrastructure that is associated with it but i think you know that that is a strength of this project um we've heard over and over that uh development in this area you know needs to be curtailed to some degree until infrastructure is time to catch up but at the same time infrastructure is installed piecemeal essentially by developers for the most part this is a project which puts in a lot of infrastructure um in the northern Durham parkway and the collector road and also commits to building out a portion of the screenway um you know and so a lot of the cost associated with developing the site goes directly to infrastructure so there is not a commitment on this project for affordable housing in is to be included um and this but but this project theme is considering and um i believe will make a monetary donation to the affordable housing fund and it you know my opinion is to be fairly sizable because it's a sizable project however a lot of the cost here is is soaked up in the infrastructure necessary to develop the site regardless of how it's developed these are things that are required primarily from the conference of transportation plan so that answers your question yes yes thank you for that answer uh would you care to be more specific at this point so we the applicant team and steve george is available we've not discussed a number uh that would be essentially that i think that you know that remains to be seen the the housing market as you know is changing pretty rapidly and currently you know we're it's taken a long time to go once you all vote on a case taking a long time to get to city council so you know we're kind of wanting to understand what the market is at a time uh which could be different okay and while we're on the subject uh i think we're adding uh something like 67 students uh to the well to the school system private or public are are you guys considering uh some sort of proper to the Durham public schools uh yes and then we we have been waiting for the staff report on this um you know to make that commitment but yeah we would make a bursting commitment to the Durham public school system um based on the additional number of students that are expected to be generated from this okay maybe uh as we talked about before maybe before the vote uh you could make that a little more specific i mean that's up to you but uh that's a suggestion uh i think that's fair well what what i think that's fair allow us some time to deliberate as we uh as we continue these discussions all right thank you a lot new i see uh jeremy tar has raised their hand recognize jeremy at this time jeremy are you able to unmute yourself to speak no response here okay well we'll move on for now and maybe come back to jeremy later are there other commissioner questions or comments so i have a couple of questions first i have a question for staff i'm curious how the planned Durham north Durham freeway here um played a role in conversations that staff has had about draft place types for this area i don't know if i can speak directly to that role um i know the draft place type actually i'll have to remind myself what the draft place type is if you give me a second unless you already have it pulled up boston yeah i believe it's mixed residential okay um i know most of the place types out there um because there is an interest in promoting um a mix of uses in certain instances but also a good mix of different types of housing um whether there's a parkway going through it or not um is going from just a kind of a planned residential type uh place type to mixed use or mixed uh mixed residential neighborhood or mixed use um freeway uh Durham parkway which i'm going to call it a freeway um and the collector street would only um add to to those place types and would it would have influenced that okay thank you for that um and then question to the applicant um for this case has been referred to a lot as a continuation of parcel k and so given that that's the framing that you've handed us i'm curious why we're going with a lower density on this site than what was offered at parks okay i mean parcel k certainly has some other characteristics that make it more marketable and uh developable for higher density specifically multi-family um this site is not nearly as accessible as parcel k uh as we've discussed you know in this uh in this hearing here um you know and we're going to have to essentially build the northern Durham parkway through the property in order to do it for it to be accessed it does not currently have any kind of frontage or you know viability for an apartment site in our opinion uh apartments are the difference you know in for the density from if you take the apartments out of parcel k the density in parcel k would not be as high and this site is not likely a marketable spot for apartments and so the density on the single-family town of that is similar to parcel k uh in that respect okay thank you for that um so to follow up on Commissioner Durkin's comment from earlier about how framing this uh in relation to parcel k is maybe not uh the most helpful framing in terms of getting the making the commission feel good about it um I did go and look back it was a 1 to 11 vote against the case um the one commissioner who voted in favor of it is not currently on this commission they um were term limited out so just as a frame of reference for what we you know the comments we made on parcel k they still stand particularly on a site immediately adjacent and to me while I am very happy about the opportunity to have the infrastructure here built with the north turn freeway I think that's a huge that that's something a big positive for this site um there's a lot of things about this proposal that to me feel like a step backwards um lower density less affordable housing um and as has been mentioned time and time again this is a very large portion of land um I understand that as it is currently valued that higher density use and more intense use is not as financially viable however I would make a case that once the Durham freeway is built then the value of this is going to go up and more intense and dense use would be appropriate here so I'm pretty firmly against this case um I also just want to note the comment that Mr. Goche made about um waiting to determine the contribution to the affordable housing to the affordable housing fund um and I'm just going to state my my interpretation of that comment was the cost of construction might go up and so we might want to wait to put a number on that in case we want to put a lower number on that down the road to save money around the edges now that might not be accurate or that might not have been Mr. Goche's intention but that was my interpretation of that and um I don't really you know that to me that doesn't feel very in the spirit of making contributions to the affordable housing fund of making donations like that um so for those reasons along with many of the other ones that we talk about time and time again on this commission of unsustainable suburban sprawl that is disconnected and segregated um I am against this case um and I I really really would love to see um something better at this site um particularly given that then the the applicant has come to us before with parcel K and has knowledge of the concerns of this commission and from my perspective it looks like none of those things showed up in this application which is almost offensive and it also it makes it kind of sad and hard to reduce some of these cases and so I really hope and encourage that the next time that um you bring a application to the planning commission that you'll consider some of the comments that we so clearly state on a monthly basis um commissioners cease thank you um yeah a couple of references have been made both by the applicant and in the conversation to parcel K um references have also been made to the draft place types guide and a couple of points and and I don't disagree with much of what commissioner or chair just said chair Anandolia um the proposal before us is carpet housing it's just expansive housing across the landscape single use just as parcel K was just as many of the surrounding tracks here are and all of those in their totality create predictable outcomes of traffic and limited access to services limited access to retail limited access to to civic civic destinations and so in referencing parcel K and in referencing the draft place types I want to highlight just two of two items first of all this is quite different than parcel K in a very um significant way from a planning perspective from a transportation perspective from a land use perspective it's different from parcel K in that it includes both sides of a substantial portion of this future northern Durham Parkway in whatever form that takes although it's on a predictable track at this point with low density suburban sprawl being proposed around it um but it's at the intersection of that proposed right-of-way plus the collector collectors which is also an artifact of suburbia these aren't connectors which are streets that people can walk on and easily access their goods and services but they're collectors which serve cars but that intersection does produce market viability um perhaps not now perhaps not under the low density that's being proposed but certainly with more forethought and care given to market dynamics and land use configurations that could be supportive of different outcomes on this 117 acre track so it's a large parcel there's plenty of opportunity to do more than 3.7 or whatever the number is of a single use so that's one comment to really you know highlight that this is different than parcel K it has much more potential than parcel K because of basic transportation infrastructure as contemplated on plans and as proposed in the project secondly the reference to the draft place types which makes me nervous because those haven't been approved I think there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved before the draft place types map or the draft place types guide can be a definitive guide but it adds context to these conversations so I'll run with it and to to that point this is shown in the draft place types as mixed residential neighborhood the important distinction for purposes of our conversation I think and for purposes of the points I was trying to make regarding the potential for what this could become at the intersection of northern Durham Parkway and this collector road is that the mixed residential is exactly that it's it's it's mixed but it's also just predominantly residential there are also supposed to be in the draft place types guide they're also supposed to be easy access to civic uses to commercial uses to destinations that people can reach um by safely walking biking and rolling within and around their neighborhoods none of that is offered in this project none of that is offered in the proposed land uses none of that is offered in this you know pdr proposition that's being considered so I would argue it's not remotely consistent with the mixed residential neighborhood as a draft place type because it doesn't offer those things even though there's ample acreage to do so there's ample potential transportation structure to do so if this was um something other than just more of the same which is single use auto dependent residential that will forever be uh a traffic problem for those who can afford a car and a pretty isolating living experience for those who are dependent on others to allow them to access their basic daily needs and services and goods um so if it's not clear I'm going to vote against the project thank you thank you commissioner cease uh commissioner morgan thank you thank you chair um you know it's it's one of these issues or these these uh applications that has a number of issues to it um you know in defense of the developers to some what extent we we don't really have a transit type plan and if we were trying to support any kind of affordable housing it is automobile dependent and there's really that issue that it makes it really tough to really to support any kind of affordability in this area my my other concern is you look at northern Durham parkway we're extending it maybe another further closer towards uh us 70 the ultimate plan is northern Durham parkway we'll connect to aviation parkway which is being extended or planned to be extended in wake county up to us 70 and so you know it's one of those things where you know keep harping on the idea of infrastructure it isn't here in this area and you know we're we're building and approving a number of additional things even though I know our commission hasn't approved it but the city council has gone ahead and approved a number of developments which is increasing the number of housing units which is increasing the tax base which could be worthwhile to invest in this area to invest in a few segments that could connect this and make this easier to to manage so in some ways I do say that you know I'm I believe that the developers bring forth a number of items but they have some limited capability or limited ability to do things unless they are willing to build out some of the rest of the roads and other things which could be a major expense and so my concern here is this these developments we had one with 5909 last meeting we have another couple more that are going to be coming up to are up to probably another seven or eight more of these things I study the maps and I see the developments on social pinpoint and we're not doing anything beyond looking at each of the parcels and my concern is is that you know while infrastructure is a big thing I appreciate what the developers brought forward to try to kind of build piece by piece but it would be really great to see the ultimate what the end goal is what we would like to do with our collector streets I mean you know I brought up the thing about the the dirt road which is can our road coming towards the property I know it doesn't intersect with it but that could also provide access but I don't know what it would do to the traffic in the area so my biggest concern I'm not for it but I think for a very variety of different reasons our commission is not in favor of this probably for different reasons and I would ask you know as we make our comments back to the city council is to express your concerns and also express city council to take some kind of action as to try to help these things move along if this is what they want in the area I think we should really be asking for our elected officials if they're going to approve it over our objections or concerns then you know make you know make the investment so this this can meet some of the goals and objectives that we want to see in a comprehensive plan so that's that's my concern and like I said I I'm not in favor of it and only for my reasons and I would address request my other council members to provide that in their comments as well thank you thank you commissioner morgan there are other commissioners who would like to make comments or ask questions at this time seeing none I would take a motion at this time and before the motion I would like to yep get staff to follow up on any proffers also I think mr. gauche we had commissioner here had asked earlier or had suggested maybe you think more about any additional proffers you might make and want to follow up if you had any additional thoughts on that front yeah can you hear me yes okay so specifically I think we were discussing the Durham public school system and we would make a proffer to make a one-time monetary donation in the amount of twenty thousand one hundred dollars to the Durham public school system and that number was arrived at I think it was sixty seven students were stated so that's like three hundred dollars a student okay and were there did did y'all decide on a number for the portable housing fund or are y'all deferring on that I think we would defer on that we have not decided on that number okay Mike do you want to go through the added proffers to make sure everyone's on the same page um yes um one of those was the proffer donation to DPS and getting a final proffer on that the second is that the text commitment regarding construction of northern Durham parkway through the extent of the site will be made and verified through transportation for correctness um the the third one I have and it was something that uh Neil mentioned briefly was construction of the greenway trail my understanding was that it was just going to be dedication is that is that correct it's just dedication of the uh of an easement for the trail or was the trail itself to be constructed within uh for the site um if you look at this is that if you're looking at commitment two oh that's connected to the greenway I thought it was supposed to be constructed in one of these I just I just need clarity I remember asking about this under review and it was first said that it was just going to be dedication of an easement but connections to that we're going to be made is the actual trail itself within the site going to be constructed in addition to dedication of the easement I'll let Neil or Steve they the type commitments just just refer to the easement that was my understanding too yeah so and I'm sorry if I misspoke um I hope if you can give me a moment let me make sure I oh okay actually my client said yeah so I think it is dedication of the greenway easement and construction of connections to that greenway easement okay that's the clarity I needed thanks thank you I believe we're ready for a motion with those additional proffers chair uh chair um I make a motion that we take uh case number z20 00044 which is the griffin uh which griffin are we at there griffin tract here's your griffin track uh uh development track or uh griffin track the case to be forwarded to the city council for a favorable recommendation moved by commissioner morgan do we have a second second seconded by chair cameron any discussion on the motion commissioner cease I'd just like to clarify that the commitment to construct northern Durham parkway within the right of way I'm sorry across the full extent of the property is included yes that is correct that additional proffer and the commitment to $20,000 $20,100 to DPS is also included in this motion did I miss anything Mike no that's correct and it would just be as as uh early noted prior it would be just be a uh clarification of text commitment number one for the northern Durham parkway construction uh maybe have the roll call group for amondolia no baker no batista no buzzbee no cameron no cut right no durkin no thank you harrod no low oh diver morgan no cease no carmen williams no zurie williams no motion fails unanimously thank you staff thank you to the applicant that will move to our fifth item of the night uh this is case z 20 000 50 massy chapel townhomes we'll begin with the staff report good evening are you able to see my screen yes we are and hey grove hello uh this is berg roper with the city county planning department i'll be talking about uh case z to quadruple 0 50 massy chapel townhouses the following information summarizes the application the applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of one parcel of land located at 7926 massy chapel road totaling 5.828 acres the current zoning is rural residential the applicant proposes to change this designation to plan development residential 4.928 the property is currently designated low density residential on the future land use map the proposed zoning is inconsistent with this designation so if the proposed zoning is approved staff recommends a change to the flung to designate the property as low medium density residential the existing zoning is rural residential the site is surrounded by commercial general and rural residential areas as well the aerial map shows the general location of the project the site is located along massy chapel road between Fayetteville road and abron drive property to the north is zoned cgd and includes an automobile sales mall development and south point mall further to the north the property to the west south and east is zoned rural residential and includes single family homes the applicant has included graphic and text commitments including stormwater control measures the installation of a five foot sidewalk along massy chapel road along with design commitments such as covered entryways roofing and building materials and color palette for the full list of commitments please view page six of the staff report this site has access to water sewer and electrical services there is a stream to the north of the site with a 100 foot stream buffer and 10 foot no build setback this site has predominantly hardwood forest with some pine additionally steep slopes are identified on on the site the maximum amount of disturbance allowed is 15 percent of the overall slope area the plan would allow for a maximum of 15 percent of the area to be disturbed applicant has proposed a tree preservation area on the northern portion of the parcel one site access point a sidewalk along the north side of massy chapel road to a nearby parcel with PID 211 002 to the west to connect the adjacent parcels and bmp is on site to be sized to detain the 100-year storm event the proposed development will be limited to a maximum of 28 townhouse residential units along with accessory uses two neighborhood meetings were held in accordance with UDO requirements on September 9th 2020 with 14 community members present and also July 28th 2021 five social pinpoint comments were received by staff in relation to this case which can be seen in attachment k except for the future land use designation staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies if the request is approved the flim designation shall be amended to maintain consistency thank you and staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions we're going to open the public again with the applicant presentation jared edens is i think really representing the applicant tonight and jared you'll have 10 minutes to give your presentation yeah thank you can you hear me okay yes okay good thanks yeah jared edens with the edens investments we're actually the developer on this project i appreciate your time tonight i'm just going to and i appreciate brook summary and her work on the project i just want to highlight a few things for you guys as she mentioned we're looking at about 5.8 acres on massy chapel road it's currently zoned rr we finally arrived at a density of a pdr of about 4.9 which is 28 townhomes for this application you know that's a lower density what you normally see for a townhome application you see typically you know six and a half to seven and a half sometimes upwards of eight depending on the design for townhomes um there's a reason we ended up at where we are and i'll get to that we started at 40 units with our original application which is you know about two years ago um with two neighborhood meetings one september of 2020 another meeting in july of 21 we made a couple of changes you know as a result as part of the process of those meetings that that end up affecting our yield so we we added the 100 year stormwater detention to the site which is something that we've you know i'm a proponent of as a standard and and you see that on on our applications and we also we added some buffers there's you know three property owners in particular that's uh their homes and and rear lot lines are closer a period of being more impacted than some of the other neighbors so we added a we have from a 20-foot buffer to a 30-foot buffer for three of those owners but just those two small changes you know that the pond again the pond gets approximately you know i'd say 25 to 50 percent larger when you when you do the 100 year storm and when you add the extra buffer it it caused our density to go from 40 to 28 so um so we're at about 4.9 which is i think is a pretty reasonable density for the area just a couple notes on transportation we did so the sidewalk to explain a little bit further um you know back when charlie reese was on city council and i remember back at the grip and place rezoning he mentioned the phrase that he mentioned a public benefit you know he said it'd be nice to see some public benefit or for some of these rezoning cases not just your standard traffic improvements that are required for tias but some different things so uh you know we've done that on a couple projects and for this one i looked around to sort of see what we could do here um you know i noticed there's a there's no the uh the americans tobacco trail is about a thousand feet west of where our driveway would connect massy chapel road and from there it's only about 0.6 0.7 miles from that point to the retail at south point so what we committed to do um a sort of a public benefit that would i think it benefits some of the owners on abron drive and also the new property owner here is we're going to fill in that gap of sidewalk it's about a thousand feet of sidewalk that'll now you know it means every new resident in this development you know the 28 new residents here will have a direct pedestrian and you know bikeway connection from their front door to the american tobacco trail which goes to the retail and whatnot you know i think that's a good amenity and and i thought that was a good public benefit for this project i'll also note because i'm i'm always interested to see what these staff reports say uh massy chapel road has a current capacity of about 14 000 cars and a current traffic of 1900 cars a day so uh obviously well in the capacity now we didn't do a traffic study or anything for for such a small project i do want to make two additional proffers um you know normally these were we make these at city council but i know that this comes up at planning commission it's come up earlier tonight so i just want to go ahead and address it um you know we we don't have an affordable component here it's 28 units i think you know i've got some other stuff coming you know some other ideas on affordability on larger projects it's really hard to pencil it out here uh we will be making an affordable payment uh you know the rate we used for years uh from when mayor shul helped sort of start the fund and up until you know recently was 150 a unit uh we upped that uh at the grip in place council meeting to 500 a unit so we'll be proffering uh it's a 14 000 payment to the affordable fund we'll also be proffering the school's payment you know the standard is 500 dollars a student the staff report says three students that's that's 1500 dollars i mean you know that that's okay but we you know we'll proffer $5 000 for the schools i mean you know 1500 just sort of won't do much so um so those two payments you know 14 000 for affordable and 5 000 per schools will be due prior to the first final plat for the project i think is how we word it on the zoning conditions um just in summary i think it's a good use for townhomes i mean you know it's adjacent to some heavy retail um it sort of can serve as a transition you know when you land plan areas you sort of have the retail in the in the middle and you have you know apartments and townhomes to sort of transition out the singles it's sort of a transition you know between the retail and some of the singles that are that are south of it um you know great access to the trail and south point i mean it's uh you know i measured from the driveway connection it's 0.8 miles to to the south point retail i think it's a reasonable density you know it's a good it's less than what you see um but i think for the location i think it's a reasonable compromise uh but yeah that's that's my main point i'd be glad to answer any questions you have and i appreciate your time thank you thank you jared we have three people who signed up in advance to speak in opposition to this case um those individuals are welty white jeremy tar and sydney ranson um you all have two minutes each to make any remarks um when i uncaught on please state your name and address and make your comments uh we'll begin with welty white uh good evening um my name is welty white and i live uh at 78 38 massey chapel road and looking down on the plat um we are the farthest to the i guess would be the east side on massey chapel um and my wife uh is with me her name's melody white um um i just i wrote a little something down here i said we have seen all the development in our aerial area from rural farmland to now we've been here for 22 years we are private people and we concerned about the traffic's headlights that are already shining into our house from the chelsea meadows housing development entrance and we're also worried about the headlights on this development there's going to be a traffic circle or turnaround for that development in our backyard um right now um we we we enjoy our time in our yard in our privacy here um i don't to word i'm not not forgiven anybody that wants to build on their property but the headlights the noise and the security issues i have from this possibly this development is a concern for us so we we also are concerned about having uh having the land disturbed from all the construction because we are currently on well and septic the septic system that hendrick's car dealership took over that those people that lived in those neighborhoods had serious problems with their septic systems over the years um and i'm worried about the water table being disturbed and aqua fear that might shallow well about 60 foot which is towards my back of my property um is a concern for us and i know that the new development the septic system is down at the bottom on the north side where the creek is and i was wondering if the project does go through is there going to be any um any way that we would possibly be able to tie into the septic mr right would um you've reached your two minutes okay thank you thank you um up next is jeremy tar please state your name and address and you'll have two minutes to speak good evening commissioners can you hear me yes my name is jeremy tar my wife and i own property at seven four and nine abron drive which would run along part of the development we know north cailine's growing rapidly especially this area folks need housing we get that but the unique features of this development in our neighborhood really make it not a good fit this is not a situation of multi-family housing being built kind of in a new lot beside our neighborhood or across the street from our neighborhood as you can see from the polygon this is being built around and above many of our neighbors tenants of the 25 units are going to drive down a narrow road squeeze between some of our homes and then park behind our homes and then go up to the residences that are going to look down into our backyards and into our windows we strongly oppose this project we ask that you recommend to the city council to deny the rezoning request if the project does need to move forward we'd ask that you could consider the following mitigation steps when i say we have speak from our wife and me not other neighbors um we're concerned about seeing light from the parking lots from the buildings and the cars from our backyards and windows this is based on our experience with the recent Hendrick dealership that's much farther away but the lights burn bright each night and still affect us despite the mitigation and the buffers and all that were put in place so we'd ask that you require berms with tall evergreens or opaque fencing they have to be high opacity during the winter as we experience about half the year with no leaves on trees some of the measures you know work in the summer but not for about half the year concerned about traffic to reduce car and foot traffic appreciate the proffer of sidewalks would ask that those sidewalks run from Fayetteville road all the way down to the tobacco trail to allow residents to go left or right out of the driveway to have multiple options of how to get to south point the neighboring retail also would ask for an active transfer sorry you've hit your two minutes i'd also ask for active transportation lanes so folks can bike not just walk and for construction to not occur on weekends or holidays or evenings thank you thank you um Sydney ransom you have two minutes to speak how you doing my name is Sydney ransom i live at seven nine two four master chopper road i'm basically located at the very end of the access road my issue is privacy and security um it's basically been a nightmare for me i think it started around four years ago they put a sign at the bottom of the road saying that some property was for sale and that's when i had a lot of trespassers i had to construct a fence to keep people out my yard people are literally driving in my yard um talk to the person who owned the land at the time and they said that's the first time i learned that the hill was privately owned it should have been a county dedicated road um another issue i had is eventually once they started doing the surveying um i had an issue trying to exit my driveway and i contacted Eden's land but i never got a response for that and also i had trucks in my yard as well and just to paint a picture of my house we've been there for 42 years um it's a private property private area so i don't really have a direct view of any of my neighbors and i have no traffic at all it's literally zero so you're talking about going from zero to a 28 town home um project also um i'll be surrounded behind me to the side in front of me by townhouses basically peering down on me so basically that's my main concern just privacy and then from a security standpoint i've never had anybody breaking through my house but i'm assuming because nobody knows my house is here now i'm going to be basically on a public street and i have to consider um not just the people that live in the townhouses but the services such as taxis um uber school buses you know literally going from zero traffic to like a huge whole neighborhood pretty much being built on top and around and it's my main concern and that's pretty much all i had to say about that right now thank you um okay i see one participant has raised their hand to add comments on if anyone else would like to speak on this item please go ahead and raise your hand at this time again a reminder if you're on the phone to do so by pressing star nine um brian