Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The 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 will have the final vote on any of the issues that are before us tonight. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom virtual meeting platform. And in this virtual meeting platform, public participants do not have the ability to talk or to be seen on video by default. To maintain meeting decorum and a discernible record of the meeting, the chat function has also been disabled. We will have public hearings on the items in front of us this evening and speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time in the meeting. So if you have pre-registered, your name is already on record. We'll call you when it's time for you to make your comments just like we would at an in-person hearing. If you called in before the meeting started and staff was able to get your information, your name will also be called at the appropriate time. And you're already noticed as a person. So we'll make your mic available to speak. You can also call in during this meeting tonight. You can dial 1-301-715-8592. Again, that's 1-301-715-8592. If you call in during the meeting, you'll need to wait until the particular public hearing you want to speak on is open. We'll go through the pre-registered folks and then I'll provide the opportunity for anyone else who hasn't signed up yet to speak. At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hand and you can do that by pressing star 9 on your phone and then we'll call on you to speak. We ask that when you give your public comments, you start off by giving us your name and your mailing address and your home address and then you can make your public comments. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is not favorable. Thank you again. May I have a roll call vote please? Good evening chair and planning commissioners. Commissioner Emondoya. Here. Commissioner Baker. Commissioner Baker. I think he's on the call. I can't hear him though. We'll circle back to Commissioner Baker. Chair Busby. Here. Commissioner Durkin. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Present. Vice-chair Kenchin. Present. Commissioner Landfreed. Here. Commissioner Low. Here. Commissioner McIver. Here. Commissioner Miller. Here. Commissioner Morgan. Here. Commissioner Williams. Here. And I'm going back to Commissioner Baker. Here. Can you hear me now? I can hear you. Yes. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Uh huh. Thank you. We'll move forward with the approval of the minutes and the consistency statement from the August 25th, 2020 meeting. And I know those were emailed to all of us about a week ago. Any adjustments to the minutes or consistency statements? I will note, Ms. Smith, the version we got by email, there were a bunch of placeholder notes in the minutes that I think they're just generic placeholder things. I don't know if that version is what is posted publicly online, but we should. I don't think we need to make any adjustments. I think we should just kind of clean that up before. Okay. I'll check that out. I'm sorry about that. I'm not sure what happened, but we'll definitely check into that. Okay. Any other adjustments? Hearing none, I'll take a motion to approve. So, Mr. Chair, when were these minutes set out? I've not seen these minutes, any final minutes. They were sent via email. I don't know. Do you have the date, Chair Busby? I'm looking right now. They were sent before our meeting last week. Right. I think they were sent before the meeting last week. They were sent on the 14th. That's right. Thank you. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move the approval of the minutes of our August 25th meeting along with the consistency statements attached to those minutes. Second. Thank you. I moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Baker, and we'll have a roll call bill, please. Commissioner Amandoya. Yes. Commissioner Baker. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Keenshin. Yes. Commissioner Landfrey. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner MacIver. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know of any adjustments to the agenda, Ms. Smith. Any adjustments that we should know of? No. We just don't need to forget about the new business item at the end of the meeting. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. And I'll give you a chance to let us know about properly noticing our hearings tonight. You're muted. Yep. Thank you for the reminder. Sorry. Yes. So I would like to go on the record and state that all public hearings were noticed in accordance with state and local law and the affidavits for those are on file in the planning department. Thank you. Mm-hmm. We have two zoning map change proposals in front of us this evening and we will start with the 4-1-1-5 Angier Avenue case and that is case Z-1-9-000-1-4 and we will start with the staff report. Good evening. I'm pleased to have those with the planning department. I will now be presenting case Z-19-000-014 and A-19-000-07 for 4-1-1-5 Angier Avenue. This case was previously heard at the June 2nd Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, a motion to recommend approval failed one to 12. The applicant has since made additional commitments and seeks to be re-heard by the planning commission due to these revisions before moving forward to the Planning Commission. Sorry, before moving towards City Council. Revisions include design commitments as well as properties to school and housing funds. The development plan attached to your staff packet is current. As a refresher, this case is located at 4-1-1-5 Angier Avenue and includes three parcels totaling 20.35 acres. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from commercial general and residential suburban 20 to residential suburban multi-family with a development plan for maximum of 115 townhouses. The next slide shows an aerial as a reference of the location. And staff is available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. And we will open the public hearing or, I guess, re-open the public hearing since this is returning to us, even though it's an updated case. We have one proponent and one opponent that are signed up to speak in advance. So we'll just operate with our normal rules of procedure of 10 minutes per side. And the proponent is Nate Bueller and team, I assume. That's correct. This is Nate Bueller speaking on behalf of the applicant Cambridge properties. We do also have Patrick Biker with Morningstar Law. I believe he may be logged in under the same length that was provided to us here at Cambridge. So he is in the process of changing his name so that he can speak directly following my... Thank you. I see his hand raised. So we'll have him ready to go. Great. Again, Chairman Bosby and members of Plenty Commission. My name is Nate Bueller speaking on behalf of the applicant Cambridge properties. We have provided a slideshow to Grace, I believe. If you could please pull up those slides. Once again, we came before you all first on June 2nd, 2020. I just wanted to give a brief reintroduction to Cambridge, our experience as well as kind of the history behind this project and where we are to date. Next slide, please. Cambridge properties is a development group based in Charlotte, North Carolina. We've been around for roughly 30 years and have historically focused on delivering quality residential and retail projects across the Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham metro areas. Next slide, please. Again, on behalf of Cambridge and Morningstar Law Group, Patrick Biker as well. Next slide, please. Diving in at a high level and backing up, we originally filed our initial zoning submittal for this project in early 2019 at which point the initial filing was targeting a multi-family designation of 280 multi-family units. Based on neighborhood meetings and subsequent discussions with the surrounding residents, we amended that initial filing and refiled our zoning submittal for a maximum of 115 town and units. Following that holding subsequent neighborhood meetings, we received much more positive feedback from the surrounding residents and based on our analysis of the market as well as the growth in that area, we felt this was a better use that was more in line with current growth trends. We have tried to take the feedback that you all provided to us in our June 2nd meeting related to architecture design commitments and a few other elements and directly address that with our attempt to put forth to you all a stronger and better qualified plan that falls more in line with some of the feedback that we had received. One of the concerns that was raised in that initial meeting related to our inability to make relative design commitments to our unknown-at-the-time builder partner on this project, we are pleased to be able to announce that we are working with Ashton Woods on this development project and based on their success with the nearby Ellis Crossing project, we feel very confident in their ability to deliver a high-quality project in this area. With that being said, I'll pass it off to Patrick Beiker for additional comments. Thank you all. Good evening Chairman Busby, Vice-Chair Kenshin, members of the board, can you hear me okay? Yes. Great, thank you. Well, thank you members of the board for your time tonight. I want to follow up on the point about this being a townhouse project. I think it's a great location for townhouses because it is essentially an infill development and it's really a great location for townhouse neighborhood with young families because I personally went and investigated this and you can walk to Bethesda Elementary School in less than 10 minutes from the site that's before you on this map. I also want to talk about transit service at this site. Could I have the next slide please, Chris? Thank you. As an infill development, I'm happy to point out that there is transit service through Go Durham Route 2 with a stop that's only about 1,000 feet from this site. My recollection from my time on the Durham Area Transit Authority Board of Trustees where I served from, or when I served from 1996 to 2004 is that we started bus service to connect Durham to the Breyer Creek area of Raleigh. And so there is transit service from this proposed townhouse neighborhood to our downtown Durham station. Many employment locations along Miami Boulevard and Alexander Drive and then over to the section of Breyer Creek that's in the city limits of Durham. Beyond transit service, I want to emphasize for the planning commission the concrete bus pullout and bus shelter that is a text commitment Cambridge has put forward. In my experience going back 25 years, that type of proffer for transit related infrastructure is usually only comes with commercial or office developments and so I hope the planning commission will recognize that Cambridge is going the extra mile in this regard. Next slide please. In addition to the changes we were prompted to incorporate from the neighborhood feedback we also have made changes related to comments we got from the planning commission. Whereas the development plan previously was silent on these points we have made proffers to avoid monotony by requiring offsets in the front facades of townhouse buildings with four or more units and also requiring a mixed color palette. Our commitments also speak to architectural design features and materials requiring 20% breaker masonry on front elevations. The commitments also require townhouses ranging in size from 1600 to 2500 square feet. We have added conditions with speak to the design and connectivity of the community. The development will include a centrally located park of approximately 10,000 square feet and that will serve as an active open space area. In addition there will be an undisturbed open space area of about four acres in size that will be maintained as a natural area of amenity within this development. The internal street network also will be designed with a maximum block length of 500 linear feet to maximize internal connectivity and walkability. Lastly committed to make a contribution of $20,000 to the Durham affordable housing fund and $2,500 to Durham public schools. As you can see the project has come a long way from when the Planning Commission first voted on it back in June. Given the amount of changes that have been made we opted to come back to the Planning Commission voluntarily because we realized City Council has been sending cases back to you when such changes have occurred. You may have noticed in your agenda package that this 20-acre site is currently owned by Greater Life Christian Church and it has been rewarding for me personally to get to know a couple of the church leaders during this process. Greater Life Christian Church started almost 25 years ago and they currently meet at 1,500 East Club Boulevard. Greater Life has owned this 20 acres for over five years and was strongly considering a new building at this location but of course the year of COVID-19 has caused many of us to reflect on how we as local churches should serve the community. And so now I'd like to turn it over to a couple folks from Greater Life to share their thoughts on this proposal. I believe Ken Irvin is signed up or has logged in and after that Nate and I will be happy to answer any questions. We respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. And if Mr. Biker, if the individual who you said was planning to speak next can digitally raise their hands they may be signed in as one of the Nate Bueller lines as well. So if they can press star 9, there you go. If we can unmute that individual and you are welcome to offer your comments as well please. Are you able to speak? Good evening Chair Busby and distinguished members of the Commission. Actually I think Pastor Spell wanted to first share some very inspirational comments with his feelings regarding this project and I know he's logged on as well. So if we could unmute him and allow him to go ahead and address the board that would be most appreciative. We are happy to do that. I guess the same thing if he can press star 9. Okay, I see a second hand raised. Chris, if we can unmute the second hand as well that would be appreciated. They both have the ability to talk at the moment. Wonderful. The floor is yours. Thank you so much Chairman and distinguished Board of Commissioners. This is Pastor Mark Spell. I am very excited to have the opportunity to speak to you all. I am a graduate of North Carolina Central University so I count myself not having been born and raised in Durham but I am certainly a Dermite at heart. So we are excited about this project in that we had the idea and the focus at one point to build on this property but at the end of the day with the changes that have occurred as a result of the pandemic and other activities we have sort of partnered with Cambridge with an idea that an opportunity for improved living conditions for several of our parishioners may be very well made possible by this project. So we are very excited about the opportunity to provide living alternatives for the greater community in that area and so with that I am going to yield back over the key. Thank you. And yes again Commissioner and distinguished members of the Board having the opportunity to be a part of this project and with continued discussions with our church board we thought that this would be an amazing opportunity especially with the style and design that Cambridge has proposed because again once starting out as a beginning homeowner town homes was my first home of choice and we certainly can see the value at especially at being right then at Miami Corridor and it is something that we strongly support because we know that it provides great opportunities for many of the parishioners in our ministry. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Any additional comments from the proponents? I think that's it for us Chairman Busby but we are happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. Thank you. Yeah we may be back in touch once we close the public hearing but I appreciate that. And then I did mention there was one person signed up as an opponent and I will also just this may be a good time as well to ask if you would like to speak on this item if you want to digitally raise your hand now so you can press star 9 and in the meantime I will call on Vanessa Mason Evans to speak. Ms. Evans. It's good to see each and every one of you again this evening. I have been a part of the Brighton Community Association but I also have been connected with Vanita Green and the concerns of what they've been having in their neighborhood. I'm hoping that through the development they have really throughout this through I've heard a lot of them speaking of the parishioners but I want to make sure that the community is also a part of what's been said and done it's great to have development to come into communities but when there's no connections there's questions that should be answered. I want to see development done but I want the development to be done right and at the right time not over burdening the people of the community and not hearing their voices. I don't want to speak for this community I thought more people would be on the call but far as I'm concerned I feel that we need to make sure that the residents have had their voices heard make sure that the spaces that are being built on I know they spoke about being a bus space within that area but I think there should be just more than one bus area. When you're developing an area it should be enough bus spaces within that where people can catch the buses from different angles of that development. I don't know I didn't hear anything about affordable housing either so my concern is are there in affordable housing and I just want to make sure that everybody's voices being heard not just the developers and the church members who have spoken tonight. I'm going to stop right there. Thank you Ms. Evans. If anyone else would like to speak I haven't seen any other hands but again I'll give a moment you can press star nine you can visually raise your hand and we will give you the opportunity. I don't see anyone else so I will close the public hearing and commissioners this is your opportunity to ask questions or make comments so if you want to digitally or virtually raise your hand I will call on you. Commissioner Durkin. I just wanted to touch on the last point that Ms. Evans made about affordability and if that applicant can please speak to the price points I'm assuming the townhomes are for sale rather than for rent and also whether they considered using the affordable housing density bonus. I think I asked this the last time and the answer was no. I just like to point out that at $20,000 donation to the Durham dedicated housing fund doesn't build even one affordable unit. Sure this is Nate Bueller speaking on behalf of the applicant of Cambridge Properties. I appreciate your point as well as the point of the previous speaker regarding affordable housing. One of the things that we've been working to address from our initial submittal with you all related to the comments of the planning commission surrounding both the development quality as well as mixing those with affordability and one of the ways that we've worked to address that in working through comments with staff as well as with our builder Ashton Woods is working to put forth a high quality architectural building product but also one that enters at a price point that going off of what Ken Irvin said enters the market at a level that the first time home buyer can begin to build equity in their home which is in kind of the $250,000 range and I spoke to that previously I believe on our initial submittal at June 2nd. So working with those two elements together that's the way we've tried to work to address some of the concerns around affordability. Another is around capping our max town home unit size and providing for a variety of unit sizes that can provide for price points across the spectrum that I referenced. Coupling those two elements together with our commitment of $20,000 to the affordable housing fund our hope was that in working through that process we could put forth both a high quality product that provides for a sense of affordability given the market. Yeah, it's all. Chairman Bosby can you hear me? Yes. Yeah, it's also important to recognize that we capped the number of townhouses at 115 and that was again because of the communications with the neighborhood for those of you who remember this was the old Bethesda neighborhood which was a quite an annexation battle. Golly one was it 30 years ago and so we've done a lot of outreach through the neighborhood and that's why none of the there there's a they're very nice homes right right here right adjacent to the site here across Andrew Avenue but because those folks are comfortable with the proposal before tonight none of them have joined this and that is because we've agreed to cap the number of units at 115 and so that that you know I think what Nate's points were spot on but you have to recognize that 115 units is a fairly small development and so in order to make the neighborhood comfortable that's the I think the best way to balance the needs for affordability with neighborhood acceptance. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Durkin the floor is yours if you have additional questions or comments. No I just wanted to point out that 250s you know not nothing and looking the benefit or curse of doing these virtual meetings is that I have Google very easily accessible to me and so I looked up Ashton Woods and their product not included a whole lot of affordable options but I just wanted to make clear for the record that saying a price point tonight does not mean that that's what the applicant is beholden to and not and I'm not suggesting that you need to put a price point on as a commitment I think that's a little premature since you just don't know what the market's going to do but I just want to make that clear that you're really not committing to a lower number. Thank you. So I just wanted to say that there's a lot about this project that I like a lot better this time than last time and I wanted to thank the developers for paying attention to the comments that they heard from the commission members. I objected to this project last time because it was an essentially blank one that has a great many things that I've looked for in land designed for projects like this. I note that it's a fairly small parcel it's just 20 acres the density is coming in at around five and a half units an acre is appropriate for the suburban location I'm impressed that there is a developed open space a 10,000 square foot park in the middle that means a lot to me because I think that's an element of good design that should be present in all suburban residential projects and I'm glad to see it expressly committed to here I also like that there will be a mix of materials this will not be a collection of 115 townhouses covered with gray vinyl siding I want to get past that there's still some things about this that I'm not wild about I'm not a big fan of vinyl siding however for some projects it is appropriate I also wish there were commitments present in this development plan that would create front facades that were engaging on a human level and I suspect that what we're going to have here are what are called snout houses in the planning community automobile dominated architecture with the principal element at the ground level are going to be garage doors I do note though that the townhouses will be a mix of sizes and widths I think that's at least some relief in that the developer has made a commitment at least to vary the styles of the garage doors but I'm reminded we had a project not so very long ago it's the one I made my disclosure about where essentially an 11 acre piece of property with 85 townhouse style units there was a commitment to mix up front loaded and back loaded so it is possible to do this I mean this would be a slam dunk for me if that had been there but it's not and so I'm going back and forth and I hope other commission members will chime in with regard to this project I'm open to persuasion right now I think because of the changes that the developer has offered I am bending towards voting for this where I was bending very strongly against it last time thank you Commissioner Miller and we got a few more commissioners with their hands raised so you have an opportunity to listen closely Commissioner Williams is next yes thank you Chair Busby I am working in terms of affordability and the drop in the bucket if you will for affordable housing with the donation of $20,000 to the affordable housing fund with the price point being set at $250,000 and you're looking at $250,000 I think you said 115 units $1,750,000 with the donation of not even 10% of that to the affordable housing fund I find that concerning $250,000 is definitely a lot of money and I do understand that this is backed by a church and that they are involved in the planning and they are encouraging this to assist the parishioners and I want to first and foremost say congratulations to the church who can have parishioners who can afford a $250,000 town hall most people can't do that especially in these difficult times I have extreme concerns about this development in this location given the heavily traveled area even with COVID-19 being very active and J.Avendo is essentially a two lane road and without many points of access it's going to be a major strain in and out of that particular town home not to mention the intersection which is extremely busy with commercial traffic also persons who access Andrew Avenue coming in and out of Durham traveling to Highway 70 the subdivisions as well as the apartment complexes that butt up against the Chinn Page Road and Page Road Access I have extreme concerns about the amount of traffic generated not thoroughly impressed with the traffic impact analysis because that doesn't account for the fact that people will live their lives there they will have visitors they will have different things that go on buses that travel in that area Bethesda Elementary School is a hop-skip and a jump away from this particular intersection where it's nearest there's a water tower right there so I have a lot of concerns about this the architectural commitments that were input for this particular decision it'll break up some of the monotony but architectural commitments don't really help me in terms of speaking on behalf of the community and what that impact is going to look like with school age children elementary school age children not to mention the numerous number of developments in town homes that are also in this area off of Ellis Road which is still yet and again a hop-skip and a jump away from this development in this proposed site though it will fit in other things could possibly take place in this area commercial-wise not just real estate I think that at 115 units and the proposed sites the number of trips to activity on this road the lack of infrastructure that is present in order to support the amount of traffic on and your regardless of direction turning in and out of this particular intersection I think that there's a lot of cause for concern throughout that area yes there is a bus line that is already there that will be provided and it will be upgraded but I would be very interested to see what the trips look like for people actually taking mass transit in that area as frequently as I've traveled I can't say that I actually see a bus that frequently in that particular area and even with the bus stop being there and it's being upgraded how will that impact traffic since and year is a two lane road all of these things that I have to consider and my greatest concern is how heavily congested that area is especially once school comes back in that is massive strength there's definitely more than enough to eat and drink in that area it is relatively close to Briar Creek if you're going to take mass transit you're going to have to come out of there make that right turn on Miami Boulevard to catch that light because if you're going to ride Andrew all the way out until 70 it's going to take some strong maneuvering to be able to get through there to get to Briar Creek to get to the Walmart and as far as I know that is the closest grocery store in that area that will serve that particular community so I definitely have some concerns as it sits outside of architectural commitments I don't see the promise of this particular community being placed where it is I see more of a strain than I see anything else Thank you Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Landfried Thank you I'll start by saying I really appreciate the inclusion of the bus stop amenity I think that's a really important use of space here and I appreciate the developer taking that step I think that's great I have a couple of concerns I'd like to raise one is that it was mentioned that the site it's walkable to Bethesda Elementary but it's quite close geographically but to make that trip you'd have to cross on foot at the intersection of Miami Boulevard and Andrew and there's no crosswalk at that intersection where that crossing would have to be done it's an extremely scary place to cross on foot I think it might be five lanes there and as was mentioned it's heavily heavily trafficked and I would not feel safe walking that route with my child so I just want to flag that as a barrier to the walkability that was mentioned before and also since this is in large part an undeveloped parcel I'm not seeing any commitments to preservation of tree canopy and that's an element that would be important to me both from a quality of life perspective and from an environmental perspective so those are my comments at this time thank you thank you Commissioner Landfrey and Commissioner Landfrey any do you have any specific questions or you just wanted to flag some of the concerns that you have I'd appreciate hearing the developer's perspective on those issues if there's anything to add but just wanted to flag the concerns mainly great thank you I will allow the proponents if you would like to address the concerns that Commissioner Landfrey has brought up you're welcome to do so if I may Chairman Bosby Commissioner Landfrey it's not necessary to cross Miami Boulevard to walk from this site to Bethesda Elementary you can cut through the neighborhood on very quiet streets I believe one of them is called Thomas and then you're on a sidewalk all the way to Bethesda Elementary so if I were walking my son back in the day to the school I would have had no problems with it I walked to Rogers Hur from our house in Rockwood Park and it's an easier walk than we had from our house to Rogers Hur so I just want to make sure there's no misunderstanding about that I certainly would not have brought it up if it was necessary to cross a five-lane road understood yeah and that's helpful thank you I didn't see that Thomas Street option and would again though say a safe crosswalk would help alleviate my concerns there and the walkability in general of the neighborhood is still impacted by the extremely busy crosswalk free intersection at Miami and Andrew but thank you for that clarification I did not see that and this is Nate Bueller speaking on behalf of the applicant as well Cambridge Properties did want to address and kind of go off of what Patrick just referenced as well as previous statements regarding the congestion at the Miami and Andrew intersection I will of note mention the plan and CDOT improvements and while those are currently on hold they are intending to make the intersection of Miami and US 70 into a closed access interchange as a goal of trying to improve the severe congestion issues that are currently present there today and while the timetable of that is currently unknown they are plans in place to do that and that's the very concerns that you referenced so our feeling coupled with the off-site improvements we have committed is that those will help to address some of those congestion concerns that are related to our project especially given the fact that we are downgrading the land use from commercial to low medium density residential which in and of itself has a lower trip generation and we feel confident from our perspective of those commitments have been well positioned to address some of those concerns regarding tree coverage on your other point I will refer you to sheet C2 on our development plan for our commitments regarding tree preservation and replacement of 4.68 acres Commissioner Lampry any final comments before we move to other commissioners no that's fine I'm just pulling up that sheet thank you great thank you and we can come back to you and have any follow-up questions okay thanks Commissioner Johnson thank you Chairman Busby and so I'll start as my colleagues have thanked the developer firstly for actually providing us more information and feedback to make more informed and insightful deliberations regarding what we were initially presented with and secondly I want to ping on to comments that Commissioner Miller stated in regards to certain aspects of what's been presented to us this evening that actually is an improvement from where we started and so I don't want my comments to sound as if I'm working towards a no because leadership in my opinion is working to get to a yes what we have experience and what we have acknowledged from this COVID-19 experience is that quality of life at the local level is very important and so that leads me to highlight comments that Commissioner Williams have made in regards to the reality of this area as it is now and yes the proposal presented tonight has been tweaked to attempt to mitigate or minimize some of the incremental impacts that will be added to what is already there is the question of what is the overall quality of life like regardless in this area I think the transportation and congestion even the applicant has you know acknowledged that congestion is an issue we understand it's part of the transportation plan here in Durham but we don't know when it's going to happen and so it's the question of like are we is now with the time Commissioner Baker has said before you know it's not that you're anti-development it's like but is this the time for particular developments to come to particular areas of Durham and so that is something that I think that you know I'm more on the fence now I was against it initially but as I'm considering it now it's thinking through it's like well yes this the changes that have been proposed minimize this potential impacts that the new development would bring to that project but it's still adding incremental impacts to the overall area right and so again it's a question of here in Durham it's like how are we planning to address what's already here but at the same time we're adding more pieces to the post so I think that's something that you know continues to have me kind of going back and forth regarding do you know yeah nail these things here the one the one question I do have is for either the applicant and or the church leadership of the gentleman's name escapes me the church is a state is it that it is in support of this project and the developer has noted that a price point of around $250,000 and so my question is is there a partnership or anything in place between the developer and the church to ensure that parishioners of that church would actually be able to secure financing to actually participate in some of these units so that's one question and then the second component question is and we've asked this before and it goes to Commissioner Durkin's point about the affordable housing I don't expect every project to come before us to solve the affordable housing the workforce housing in Durham but how did you come to is it $20,000 contribution towards the affordable housing fund it's like what was the ration and you've spoken to it briefly but I'm just curious as to understanding that this project is not addressing affordable housing and in any direct capacity it's like what was the rationale to get into the $20,000 figure that was proper thanks Commissioner Johnson Mr. Bueller or Mr. Biker or anyone who spoke if you're willing to answer Commissioner Johnson's two specific questions that would be appreciated the first is about the church and then the second is about the decision around the amount proffered on affordable housing so this is Nate Bueller in regards to the relationship we've developed with Greater Life Church over the last year and a half to two years with trying to get this project to where it is before you today it's been a very involved relationship we've worked closely with the members of the church and the church board to try to put forth a project that represents some of their goals for the area and goals for this area of Durham while we do not have a formal partnership in place in reference to the comment that was made we have made it a focus of ourselves to work closely with the church and trying to deliver an end product that's consistent with their goals and their views for how this area of Durham should be developed. Following up on that in regards to the commitment for affordable housing we've spent quite a bit of time trying to reconcile the comments made in regards to architectural quality and those made in regards to affordable housing and trying to put forth a project that addresses both of those concerns and based on working through that process and kind of where we are today we came to the value that you see before you I would like to make a note that well I don't have a specific figure for you one of the things that we are seeing across the triangle and across the Charlotte metro area as well more and more in these townhome communities are larger investment groups or other investors purchasing blocks of townhomes for future for rent product to try to address some of the purchase versus rent or profile concern that was raised in previous comments so that is something I will just leave you with in addressing those previous two comments I could I just one thing chairman Bosby yes please if it's if it's focused on these two questions it is it applies to the $20,000 for affordable housing the I referenced the concrete bus pullout and the bus shelter that's an undertaking that I haven't priced it out lately for a client or project project but that's an infrastructure amenity that would cost well over $20,000 I think so when you look at what this project is doing in terms of transit and affordability you have to sort of two sides of the same point so that's an important infrastructure commitment that has a significant price tag so I want to highlight that in addition to the since Commissioner Williams brought up the $20,000 for the affordable housing fund thank you thank you any additional questions yes one one question one follow up question I guess this would be for transport someone from staff for what nine regards to the bus pad is this more of a build it and they will come type proper in the sense that if you build a bus pad which allows the bus stop to happen does the bus planning system automatically plugs into the bus pad so that now it will be a pickup spot or is it just an now an option that the city has that will now have to be planned into the transportation planning you know the scheduling system transportation so what will likely occur is the existing bus stop that's located just west of the site closer to the intersection will likely be relocated to this site and the shelter and pad would be moved the bus stop itself would be relocated to this site so there is an existing bus stop just west of this site with service currently being provided and so the people who are currently utilizing that stop would just basically have to locate walk or get to this new one here that would be here correct more than likely happen and that's all for me chairman thank you commissioner johnson commissioner baker it's just a few brief thoughts and thinking about what my colleagues have been saying and when this came to us the first time I was very against it now I'm on the fence sort of leaning towards voting for it they added some commitments that are interesting to me that are that make the development better the connectivity the limited architectural commitments a couple other things also note that when I started on the commission this development wouldn't have needed to have sidewalks on both sides of the street now it will this development wouldn't have needed to have street trees every 40 feet now it will and so just as we add new standards that are just going to be required of everyone these proposals just automatically become ever so slightly better and I also understand some of the angst I mean if you are looking at this site and you zoom out it's a challenging site you've got some pretty challenging issues going on the northwest and south of this site with a limited access road and some sort of industrial type uses and then if you zoom further out I mean it's just a hodgepodge of development out there I mean it's hard to even know what's going on and so you know when we as a planning commission are limited to looking at an individual site how do you find reason in an area an entire region that just has no reason so I understand that angst and it's always a hard thing to balance I also just want to bring up a couple folks have talked about this but affordable housing the context of exactions and the context of impact fees the fact that there are limitations because of North Carolina being a Dylan's role and some of these things being precluded some of these things being legally ambiguous and we just need developers to step up and do the right thing and $20,000 can renovate a bathroom and we need affordable housing in this city and $250,000 isn't affordable housing it's a decent price point but it isn't affordable housing and so we need developers who are willing to do the right thing here and we've had commitments before of permanent affordable housing on site when you looked at other communities with mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinances 10% of units are required to be affordable to 80% AMI in other communities we're limited to just being able to ask for these things but we should ask as much as we possibly can so again some good improvements could be better there's some limitations to this site that make it difficult and so all in all I am on the fence leaning towards voting for this project Thanks Commissioner Baker you haven't spoken yet and you have your hand raised I'd like to recognize you Sure, thank you Chair. I wanted to kind of ask transportation what are the, is there any plans for doing anything with Anger Avenue at all in the future I know we talked about DOT type activity on US 70 and Miami but what is is there anything being planned for that transportation? There are currently no projects on the Long Range Transportation Plan on this section of Anger Avenue Okay, thank you. I think there's a couple concerns. I know Commissioner Williams brought up the fact of transportation on Anger. I definitely know I actually even when we weren't virtual I traveled Anger on my way home coming out of the city and Ellis is actually a cut through and Anger is a way to get back on 70 coming back to my home in Easterham so very familiar with the traffic issues and I know that the traffic light does back up on Miami so there is concerns where there may need to be some kind of relief there. I do think with the future plans of 885 getting finished and 70 and that which would be probably 3-4 years or so finally when some of that may relieve some of that pressure but I do see that that could be an issue so I was for this before I was the lone person for it but I do think it's a good area to develop and there is some things that are interesting and I think certainly with some of the changes that the developer has made I'm leaning towards that again even further but just that it's a good location for that the only issues are transportation and infrastructure around it. Thanks Commissioner Morgan. Before I circle back to commissioners who have already spoken I just want to see if any other commissioners who have not spoken yet would like to speak and then I have a couple questions and a comment as well before we circle around. Vice Chair Kenshin Chair I actually was with Commissioner Morgan until Commissioner Williams kind of talked about some of the traffic issues that I hadn't thought of. My only concern about this project is Andrew Avenue and traffic. I do think it's a good development plan and I do appreciate and applaud the developer for making the changes and I think I'm going to vote yes because I think as Commissioner Morgan said there will be some improvements down the line I think it's going to ease some pressure on Andrew Avenue. I just want to see a part of Durham is just underdeveloped to be developed in a really positive way I think it can lead to some good things so I'm going to probably vote yes. I was on the fence last time too until I heard from Commissioner Williams but I think having said that I think just take a step of faith and hope that things will get better on Andrew Avenue and I think that this development might be the catalyst for making it happen. Thank you Vice Chair Kenshin. Commissioner Miller before I circle back to you I did want to just echo a lot of what all of you have said. I really appreciate that you proactively and voluntarily brought this back to the Planning Commission. I think it's great for us to see this updated plan. There's a lot of good in here and so there's a lot to applaud. I did have a couple of quick questions for Mr. Bueller or Mr. Biker. I know my first question is you had mentioned the input from the neighborhood about the number of units. Were there additional things that you were hearing from the community and could you include telling us the engagement with the community since we saw this in June until today? Sure this is Nate Bueller. Backing up as I've alluded to our initial neighborhood meeting that was held for this project was centered around our initial submittal which was for up to 320 apartment units and the concerns that were raised at that point related to the intensity of the development. The number of stories constructed as well as the traffic that we would be produced as a result of that kind of intensity and number of units. Centering around some of the comments that you all previously made. Going back and working to address the comments, one of the things that we did as I referenced was reconfigure a development from multi-family of 320 units to up to 115 townhome units and in doing that that A decreased the intensity of development and B helped to mitigate some of the additional trips that would have been created as a result of the higher intensity multi-family project. So we felt like that was a good way to address the concerns that the neighbors raised and we've tried our best to work closely with them. In terms of coordination since our June 2nd meeting, we have been very close connection with the church as well as the other underlying property owner that we're working with here who have been in the area for the last 80 years and they have good relationships with the surrounding neighbors as well and have attended both of our neighborhood meetings. So in working to address some of those concerns we've continued to keep them abreast of these updates and during both of our neighborhood meetings we did provide our contact information to reference any additional questions that might have been raised by neighbors. Thank you. My other question and this is a follow up to Commissioner Landfrey's question. She was asking about the tree save and you referenced that it was noted on the C2 document. That's the updated development plan. Am I reading it correctly? It's very, very small print but it talks about what's required and then what's provided. Am I correct in reading that what you're providing is the basic level of what is required or are you going above and beyond the requirement? That's correct. Thank you. I appreciate that. I have one final question but I just want to say I'm in the same boat as many commissioners. Much improved I still have a few concerns. I will say from my perspective the two things that stand out to me that I believe you have direct control over that I think could be stronger and we've seen stronger things from other recent developments which we have unanimously voted down even though they had provisions that I thought were quite strong. The amount of tree save we've seen proposals come in higher than the required amount and we've seen much higher proffers on the affordable housing which is one if not the most important issue in our community and so I will just note that those are two things that I think could be stronger and that's my final question is I think we're about at the point where we're going to vote and I think there's a bunch of us on the fence is there just any final closing statement or things you would like us to consider before we move to vote? That's for Mr. Bueller or Mr. Biker and then I think we'll call on Commissioner Miller and then we'll vote on this item. Sure this is Nate Bueller. Again I appreciate those comments and just to kind of come full circle one of the things that we've done our best to do throughout this process from June 2nd to today is try to address as well as reconcile what in some ways can be opposing comments in regards to architectural quality and affordability and try to present before you a development proposal that addresses both of those in the most comprehensive way we were able to figure out in our experience over the last 30 years. So that being said we feel like we've put forth before you all a presentation and a project that addresses those concerns and the way that we found was most appropriate from an affordability standpoint we feel like we've put forth a price point and a product that can help the first time home buyer help them build equity in a home while still providing commitments towards the affordable housing fund as well as providing for some of the current trends that we're seeing in the marketplace as I alluded to in regards to for rent town home product that we are seeing across many of these projects that we do develop as well as a bus stop. So again I appreciate your time and your consideration and thank you all. Great thank you but to be clear no additional proffers or adjustments to the proposal in front of us this evening. Thank you. Mr. Miller. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask Mr. Bueller about something he said is something that has worried me all along. Did I understand that you said that phenomenon that you're observing in the markets where you're active is that it's that when a developer creates units with lower price points that it's possible to see investors coming in and essentially buying blocks of units for rental investment purposes. Did I understand that correctly? That's correct. We are seeing that in some areas and one of the things that we're seeing is whether it be a 10% or a small percentage of those units are often seen as becoming for rent which we've seen in our experience as a positive in that it provides an alternative to a for purchase product while still providing access to the neighborhoods that are being developed. And again that's a general statement in terms of the exact number but that's just the trend that we've seen. We've also seen a trend in some markets for none of that as well as developments entirely consistent of for rent product which would not be what this development would be but just to generally speak to your point. Thank you. And so I wanted to say Mr. Chairman and other members of the commission I find that alarming and it tends to prove the point is I understand it correctly the median price point or at least listing price point for a house in Durham right now is around $280,000 these units at least the smaller ones are going to start at 250 which is below that but the thing which I think is good because and I may be alone in this we have an affordable housing problem but that's not the problem it's a symptom of the real problem as we have a wealth gap problem and in Durham the wealth gap problem has a strong racial correlation which is deeply troubling but it proves to me that the affordable housing that for the most part is on the ground new housing is almost never affordable. It's a capitalist system we build new housing to make profit and so all of these things have to be taken into account when we create when we change the zoning code to create opportunities for development and redevelopment it is the people who have capital who are nimble enough out there to exploit it for profit purposes the individual and organizations who just barely have enough money are almost never able to move fast enough to take advantage of opportunities we create by relaxation of the code and this is a deeply troubling thing to me we're not getting what we're after when we relax the zoning code and I would like to see us be much more thoughtful and say here's a place where the community is working and for the most part it's affordable and protect those with stiffer regulations while we might in other areas encourage new development and shape how the community functions as a whole in the marketplace to the extent that we can do that with zoning regulations in North Carolina in a way that I don't think we're being as thoughtful about as we could be. I do find it alarming that investors will come in they will not be buying up units to rent them at affordable rates they will be buying them to rent them at as much as the market will bear because that's the way markets perform if this project could mix up its make it street facades more human friendly more pedestrian friendly this would be a slam dunk for me that doesn't mean that it's got everything I want but that would certainly tip it for me but all in all when I look at what I call this Bethesda corner a 20 acre project with 115 townhouse units in my opinion is not a bad way to go and so I'm going to vote for this this time but I will state here as I stated to the developers when I've met with them and also I will state it again in my comments this is not a close to perfect project for me and I'm not looking for perfection it could be better and I believe that as Nate said we are getting incremental changes in design standards that will make what I am at now as I'm closing out my commission service a better understanding of sustainable development and a developing understanding of what equity in development looks like there's a lot for me to learn maybe for everyone else as well but on balance I'm going to vote for this one I wish it was just incrementally better to make me really feel good about it but I do think that this housing in this place as a component of the larger development scheme in this and your Miami intersection is not a bad thing to have and so it's got my support and I hope you'll vote for it as well Thank you Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Lowe I saw you had your hand raised earlier I want to give you the opportunity to speak if you are interested if it was inadvertent that's okay as well Thank you Chair Busby I just want to make an observation or comment I agree that this plan is not perfect there's some things there that we would like to see more of but one thing I want us to take notice of that hopefully not get lost in the shuffle tonight and for me I think I only heard from one opponent of this plan and that's whether impressive to me because usually we have a mass of opponents but tonight we're going to heard one and that for me is a good sign that that's going to push me to vote yes for this project thank you Thank you Commissioner Lowe I was actually going to note the same thing in my closing comment I wish there was a little more here and if neighbors had come to say concerns I would vote no just because I believe we are just clearing my bar but it is going to clear my bar tonight without the neighborhood if you've worked to assure them and give them confidence in the project and you've made significant changes and we've raised the bar for what the UDO requires I'm going to vote yes as well and seeing no other commissioners looking to make questions or comments I will ask for a motion for approval So if I may Mr. Chairman in connection with case A19 00007 and this is the plan amendment case component of this I move that we send this forward to I believe it's the city council with a favorable recommendation Seconded Commissioner Miller do we actually need to vote on that or are we just voting on the map change? Well that's a good question because it's depicted in one way on the agenda but when I look at the staff report it has a plan amendment and but it may be that this is the case where we voted for the plan amendments and against the zoning case last time is that right Grace? Well it won't hurt to vote for the plan amendment twice Oh wait the developer did not take it to council that's right We need to vote for both Whatever got left off the agenda that wasn't oversight but yes vote for both please Alright okay very good so my motion stands Mr. Chair Second on the motion So yeah moved by Commissioner Miller seconded by Commissioner Morgan and we will have a roll call vote please Commissioner Amondoya Commissioner reluctantly yes Commissioner Busby excuse me Chair Busby Yes Commissioner Durkin No Commissioner Johnson Yes Vice Chair Kanchin Yes Commissioner Landfried No Commissioner Lowe Commissioner Miller Yes Commissioner Morgan Yes Commissioner Williams No Okay so it's on the plan amendment It was actually 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 Yeah so it's passed a 7 to 5 Thank you and Commissioner Miller the floor is yours to make the motion on the zoning case please I will Mr. Chairman In connection with case Z1900014 concerning the property at 4115 Anger Avenue I move that we send this forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation Seconded Thank you moved by Commissioner Miller seconded by Commissioner Morgan and the roll call vote Commissioner Amondoya No Commissioner Baker Yes Chair Busby Yes Commissioner Durkin No Commissioner Johnson Yes Vice Chair Kanchin Yes Commissioner Landfried No Commissioner Lowe Yes Commissioner McIver No Commissioner Miller Yes Commissioner Morgan Yes Commissioner Williams No Thank you No problem We will move to the Our next case, our final case this evening This is 2720 Bossett Avenue This was Z1900021 This was continued from our July 21st meeting And we will start With a staff report Or any update to the report Good evening, I'm Liz Trellis with the planning department again This case was previously heard at the July 21st planning commission meeting Where the case was continued Since that time the development plan has been revised with numerous additional commitments These are included in the development plan attachment of your packet The applicant has also identified an additional commitment regarding storm water control Which staff has vetted And find acceptable Next slide, please Next slide As a refresher this case is located at 2720 Bossett Avenue 1035 Junction Road And 2509 Cheek Road It includes three parcels totaling 101 Sorry 101.311 Acres The applicant proposes to change the zoning Residential world to plan development residential 3.159 For a maximum of 320 single family And townhouse residential units The unit makes one include a minimum of 60 townhouse units And a maximum of 124 townhouse units The proposal on that slide is from the previous So please refer to the development plan For the most current description of that Townhouse breakdown Staff is available for any questions The next slide will show an aerial Just as a refresher Thank you We will reopen The public hearing And we have Four individuals Who are proponents who are signed up to Speak and then in advance We had 17 individuals Who have signed up as Opponents And so if it If it makes sense to commissioners I would propose that we Give each speaker three minutes And the proponents Can then make their case And then we can move to any additional speakers Does that sound good to everybody? Okay, thank you So we will Signed up to speak in support We have James Chandler Tim Syvers, Danielle Weaver And Nate Bapwin And Mr. Syvers I believe your plan is That you will make The presentation on behalf of the proponents Using the allotted time, is that correct? That is correct, sir The other proponents are available for questions as needed Thank you Can I have the power point be brought up please? Good evening, Chair Busby Members of the Planning Commission My name is Tim Syvers with Fort Vath Associates 16 Consult in Place Durham, North Carolina I do want to thank the Planning Commission For approving our deferral request On July 21st Since that date I've held multiple small group Meetings with different neighborhood groups To ensure their voices are heard And we've provided over 15 additional text And graphic commitments based on that neighborhood input Which is included in your packet this evening I'd also like to reach out and thank Shea Bullock for taking the time to meet With some of the neighbors and myself To assist in providing some incredible storm water Commitments that I'm happy to share with you this evening This additional time Has also allowed our team to meet With different home builders like KB Holmes And Taylor Morrison who is now contracted To develop the project Next slide please The request in front of you this evening Includes two applications A rezoning of just over 101 acres And an annexation of over 36 acres The project fronts on Cheek Road With single family residential To the north and west And industrial to the south and east Next slide please This slide illustrates there is no change In the future land use map With the proposed subdivision Currently permits up to four units per acre The proposal Is compatible with the existing land use patterns And consistent with the intent, goals And principles of the adopted plans The site is of adequate shape And size and the proposed density Supports the anticipated growth And housing demand in the city Next slide please The project of 101.3 acres Is proposed to be rezoned from RR To PDR 3.159 To allow a maximum of 320 Units This development will include both town homes And single family units To provide a transition from the existing Residential developments on the west To the industrial development on the east The existing residential Developments range from 1.7 Units per acre to up to 3.5 Units per acre The starting prices for these homes will depend On the market but we do anticipate The town homes starting in the low 200s and single family units In the mid 200s I can see you've moved to the next slide, thank you The development plan is pretty busy So I've highlighted a few key items for you The green areas Highlighted the stream buffers While the blue arrows show the stream crossing locations The green arrows indicate Access points and the orange arrows Highlight the access points that will contain A traffic calming device The hatched areas along the project Limits delineate the project boundary buffers The yellow outlined buffer Is the required areas The green outlined buffer locations Are where a required buffer Has been increased To allow a natural buffer And the blue outlined buffer identifies Where no buffer is required by the ordinance But a natural buffer is being proposed As requested by the neighbors The red outlined areas Identify the extent Of the town home locations While the single family units can be developed Throughout the entire project area Not only is this a project Not only is this project a transition Between existing zoning But this commitment provides A transition inside the proposed development As well The image at the bottom right of your screen Clarifies the improvements that will be made To Cheek Road based on the traffic impact analysis That was completed by Raimi Kemp and Associates They include an eastbound left turn lane Bike lanes Sidewalks and two egress lanes From the proposed subdivision Additionally, the neighbors requested a traffic light Be installed at this access point A signal warrant analysis was completed Which indicated A signal was not warranted at this intersection And this report was provided To city transportation And NCDOT For reference Next slide please This slide identifies the 36 acres Of land that is proposed for annexation Along with this submittal The remaining southern portion of the project area Is already located within the city limits Next slide This is a summary of our key text And design commitments As mentioned earlier, a maximum of 320 Single family and multifamily Townhome residential units A minimum of 60 townhomes And maximum of 124 Again, not to exceed that Total maximum of 320 units Multifamily townhomes And parking location restrictions As identified by the red outline earlier 30% of the townhomes Will be limited to single car garage bays No unit will be constructed With a front exterior elevation Or color palette that's identical To the unit on the side of it Each building will include A front facing gable architectural feature We'll be providing a water service To the adjacent community gardens property For americmore community We'll provide a $20,500 Contribution to Durham public schools Which in working with The CFO of Durham public schools Will be directed to the americmore elementary school We'll provide a $40,000 Contribution to the city of Durham Dedicated housing fund as well Next slide, please These Are a traffic and pedestrian Commitments which include As the last project did Construction of a concrete bus or pad shelter Along east gear street Construction of access point Six with an ingress Two egress lanes and adequate storage Construct an exclusive eastbound Left turn lane on cheek road At access point number six Along with bike lanes on the north Side of cheek road We'll construct fossa avenue Within that existing right away To site access two and dedicate 10 feet of additional right away Along cheek road. The average block length Will not exceed 700 feet And traffic calming devices Will be provided at access points We'll construct a sidewalk To provide connection to the existing sidewalk at americmore elementary school Alternatively, a payment allude For this sidewalk may be made If the sidewalk would require modification Of the existing culvert And a sidewalk variance has been submitted And denied. Next slide, please The last image is illustrated Here. The image on the left Shows to scale the existing cross section Of cheek road at the box culvert While the image on the right Defies a possible design for the construction Of the sidewalk which is beyond the project Frontage to connect our project To americmore elementary school. Next slide, please. This is a list Of some of the environmental commitments 22% tree preservation Which is above The 20% requirement Minimum of 30% open space Which is above the 16% requirement Programmed open space to include Three of the items illustrated 3000 linear feet of nature trails A minimum of 20 foot wide Natural buffer with a total Of 25 foot wide buffer Shall be located along the western property Lines adjacent to the existing residential Developments. You'll notice that The 20 foot item is Identified in red. That is because This commitment is listed as 13 foot On the development plan. We are Committing tonight to increase this To 20 foot as requested by the neighbors And finally, a survey of the natural Heritage program will be completed To identify the presence of Endangered plant species. Next slide, please. Stormwater commitments are Very happy to provide these tonight In coordination with the neighbors And city stormwater department. In addition to the peak runoff control requirements Contained in section 70-738 Of the city code, the post Development peak discharge shall not increase From the pre-development conditions At all locations where discharge From a stormwater control measure Will meet the project boundary during the 200-year storm event. Prior to the site plan approval, City stormwater department shall review The erosion control plan to verify That each permanent stormwater control Measure on the site plan is present On the erosion control plan that it is Acting as a sediment basin and the Storage and pound capacity of each device Meet or exceed the depiction of the Site plan as well as the design Calculations contained in the stormwater Impact analysis. And again, that red Is a commitment that we're making tonight Not included on your plan. At all locations where the discharge From a stormwater control measure leaves The project boundary, the post Development runoff rate will not exceed 80% of the pre-development rate For the 1, 2, and 10-year storm events. And finally, the volume of the erosion control Basin shall be increased in size From 3600 cubic feet per disturbed Acre to 5400 cubic feet per Disturbed Acre, a 150% increase. Next slide, please. The final three slides provide A comparison of what could be developed By right with a conservation subdivision And approved annexation versus Our proposed rezoning. The By right subdivision could develop Up to 202 units with no Required mix or location restrictions Where the proposed rezoning is Requesting 118 additional units Will limiting the number And location of town home units As requested by the neighbors And requiring a mix of both single Plans. The nature trails And architectural commitments provided By the rezoning are also not a requirement Of a by right development. Next slide, please. The increase in landscape buffers And construction of Fawcett Avenue to the project site may not Be included with a by right development In addition, the traffic calming devices Block length restrictions And especially the offsite sidewalk And water service to the community gardens Would not be included with a By right development. Next slide, please. Even more important, the neighbors Would not have the increased stormwater control Not to mention the increase in the erosion control Set in a basin with the by right development Where a proposed rezoning is committing To all these items. And finally The financial contributions to The dedicated housing fund and During public schools are not a requirement Of a by right conservation subdivision. Final slide, please. As is evident through this presentation The project design and commitments have been Provided with the existing neighborhoods in To allow a welcoming community for all With limiting the impact on the existing neighbors. I imagine you have received comments From the neighbors about existing flooding Concerns as well. The neighbors Have made me aware of these concerns as well Which is exactly why we have provided The stormwater and erosion control commitments Previously indicated. When these Questions are brought up to the commission The typical response to the applicant is How did you address this? Thank you for asking. As mentioned earlier We're committing to treating the 200 Residents of the city as well as the Residents of the city. We're also Addressing the more frequent storms By reducing that runoff rate of the 1, 2 and 10 year events by 20%. That means the speed of the water That floats off the property today In one of these events will be reduced By 20% after construction Minimizing that downstream flooding That occurs now. We have limited the location of the town Homes away from the existing residential Homes and provided natural landscape Buffers adjacent to the existing homes Where no buffer is even required. In addition, the erosion control basin Sizes are increased over the current Regulations to help control stormwater During the construction process And keep in mind these are all commitments Above ordinance requirements and would Not be included with the by right Conservation subdivision. I do request That you vote in favor of this development That is consistent with the existing Development patterns in the area Consistent with the goals and policies And provides the opportunity for additional Housing choices while supporting our growing city Thank you for your time I'd like to reserve any additional time For responses to any questions you may have Thank you Mr. Cybers You have 20 seconds left I'm sure we will have questions For you as well So I'm sure you'll have opportunity Thank you sir. We will move to the individuals Who signed up as opponents And again as a reminder You're going to have three minutes each I will time you And I will let you know When you hit your time I'll just ask that you finish your thought When we get to that moment And I will read some names in advance And then we'll ask if you haven't been Recognized and you'd like to speak Then we'll move beyond the folks Who signed up in advance The first few names that have signed up And this is just in the order that you signed up Billy D Wasatski Vanessa Mason Evans Ayanna Smith So we'll start with Billy D Billy I see you there but it looks like you're on mute I don't know if you need to come off Of mute to be able to speak Chris I don't know if you have any tech Guidance to give us to help get Billy D Off of mute I submitted on mute request We might need to circle back Okay Billy we'll be back Now the Gina Wasatski Hello everyone My name is Gina Wasatski I'm a resident at 2615 Cone Avenue That's one of the streets that is Going to be opened if this is to be Approved It's heartening to see Some of these concerns taken into consideration By Tim However it seems like The issue of the conservation subdivision Is being presented in a Way that makes it look as if It is going to be detrimental And not giving us nuts but it's my understanding That we'll have opportunities To work within that plan To get some of the buffers that are Guaranteed and seeing some head shaking So apparently not We have been working Really hard to Collaborate with Tim on this Development it's Going to be a huge impact on our neighborhood And many of the other communities around here This is a really Special part of Durham That is incredibly diverse It has a wonderful mix of people And it has a really Lovely feel that we're really grateful to be A part of as we start to raise our young Family here We are really concerned with the Environmental impact of this Development The land that we are on has a pond That is fed by streams that run Through this property We have seen Really really intense flooding Here with Hurricane Michael The pond almost overflowed Into our neighbors property And that property drains over Milan and then into Gear Street So the area Behind our house in this Proposed development has A ton of streams And during these storms It becomes extremely flooded Very swampy And all that drains onto our property Here which then has to go somewhere else And so we're concerned that Any impermeable surfaces are added Back there Any road construction that goes Right next to that area Would be Really impacting our property And the neighborhood as a whole There's a lot of wildlife that comes Through here and also just a Lovely feel of Durham And how it used to be And how it could still be If we are really careful and Considerate and Mindful about how we develop In this community We also have concerns about Affordability about people being Able to stay in this community About our neighbors being able To stay in their houses And Safety as well because the Traffic increase coming in here Of the increased infrastructure with The highways in the area Making this really quiet, safe And lovely neighborhood A place that is just kind of Being opened up to a lot Of increased traffic And we are Really amenable to working with Developers. We know that this Is a really up and coming area We don't expect this place to be Woods forever, but we do Want to have input To have an open conversation. A lot of the concessions here Seem very generous, but they're Just five feet addition Tree buffers. A lot of these commitments are On paper, but The developer can come in and it's Up to them to decide whether they Want to add some of these things or Not. So that pretty much sums All of it up. Again, leaving open That wanting to collaborate, but Also knowing that a lot of these Offers are very incremental. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Wisatski. Billy Dee, are you available to speak At this point? Billy, we'll move on To Vanessa Mason Evans. We'll be back, Billy. Good evening again, everyone. My concerns are the same As Many of the communities being affected In Durham. Having people who are being Displaced out of their homes because Of the cost of the houses. Especially the longtime residents Who have been in these spaces And the income factors are not Meeting with what Durham Is changing to. Making sure to develop again A truly, truly working with The residents of this community Is very important. And the need of affordable Housing is important. I don't Know where you are in Durham. There should be all spaces throughout Durham where there's affordable housing For essential workers and people Who live in Durham and have been All their life. You have a lot of People who are coming from out of town And working, but you have People also who are in Durham And work, but they also Need to have a space where they Can live and feel safe and Comfortable. I wanted to make a comment about Durham. A neighbor Called Or let me know from Their ring and my ring That there were four wolves Loose two nights ago In Durham. Over by William Penn Which is near Carver. So you have to look at when you're Cutting down trees and you're Displacing animals, where are these Animals going? A lot of them are Coming to the residential area. So I wanted to make a comment On how we're building and Developing stuff. I have nothing Against developers. Please Understand that. I just want to Make sure there's spaces for Everybody to live in Durham and Feel comfortable. I've been here all My life. And I feel like people Who have been here all their life Need to be able to stand up Spaces if that's what they want To do. But so many black and Brown people have already pushed For this. I thank y'all for listening To us and giving us a chance To maybe change the platform some. I just want to see the developers Will want to work more and more With communities. Make sure they're Safe spaces as far as walking Because it's concerned too with Over in the Merdmore area there's Goat paths. The same is over here Where I'm at. And there needs to Be more sidewalks. And when These developers build in these Certain areas they need to build Are required to do. So those are just Some of my concerns. Thank you Ms. Evans. You're welcome. Ayanna Smith. I see Your hand raised. I think you're Off mute now. Okay. Good evening Chair Busby And all the members of the Planning Commission. My name is Ayanna Smith. I live at 812 Center Street Right at the corner of Center Street and Cheek Road Before I start I also wanted to mention that the President of our community club Benita Green submitted a Presentation to be shown To the commission tonight And so we're just wondering If you received that presentation And so you can Respond to that Later if you like or now If you like. I'll just say now unless the Staff has seen it I have not Seen it but I hope I hope we will be able to see it As part of this Fine. Okay. And she's listening in right now So hopefully she's able to make Contact with someone while I'm Speaking. But what I would like To speak on tonight is about Just safer streets. I have lived in this community For one year And the two lane highway Cheek Road is In my opinion When I first moved in I decided To walk my dog up to Merrick Moore Which is not very far at all And I was almost hit by a car And so therefore I have not walked up Cheek Road again And so I just wanted to impart That to the commission That there is a lot of traffic On Cheek Road. Right now it Doesn't seem to be because of But typically When school is in The school buses when they drop off They actually stop traffic On both lanes And traffic gets backed up For hundreds of feet And that's dangerous because Students will sometimes Cross at that area And sometimes cars do go around The bus which is not Appropriate And so I just wanted to That I am not Against development at all I'm from Michigan And so I'm definitely accustomed To living in dense communities I did move to this community Because it was not dense ironically But I am not against development But what I would like to see Are safer streets And so if At some point tonight If we are able to get the presentation Going I am going to speak again Thank you. Oh, there it is. Thank you very much for your comments. Let me just pause and ask If there was a preferred Order of speakers For this presentation Because I can work with you To try to tee everyone up In the appropriate order. Okay, so Benita Green was first And then I was second And Benita can let you know who Comes after. What we'll work to do here Is you still have some time Remaining and so Why don't we move to Ms. Green And she can begin And Ms. Green if you don't mind Letting me know are there additional Speakers after yourself and Ms. Smith Yes, Chairman Busby There will be David Corley And Kyle Marion Thank you. We'll move them up in order. Okay. So first of all I'd like to thank all of you Say thank you to the commissioners For allowing us to present This presentation to you If we can move to the next slide please This is the history of Merritt Moore The milliest state on the Rowan Plantation is the original home To what is now Merritt Moore community The community ran along Cheek Road Which was Fish Dam Road Until 1950 Our community was officially developed By VF Pope and H. L. Noelle In 1947 With the first black family To purchase land and build a home In 1940 the Thompson's Many of the first to purchase lots And build were veterans Of World War II Who were released from duty of service Between 1945 and 1946 Merritt Moore High School Which came in 1950 And the Mount Zor Baptist Church Which came in 1952 And was the home of the community Homeowners were made up of families Who owned multiple properties Which were inherited by their children Who continued to either reside in the community Or lease their properties Originally a community of black homeowners We are much more diverse multicultural Community today Working cohesively to establish Our community garden Next slide we'll move to Ayanna Thank you. I just wanted to Comment again about safer streets We would love for the developer to Commit to the complete streets plan To well designed streets That allow safe comfortable travel For pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists And public transit users As well as Installing the traffic control light At Cheek and Fawcett Avenue Next slide please And so if you If you look At this slide you'll see two stars Those stars represent Two fatalities on Cheek Road Unfortunately But also between the years 2015 through 2020 there's been about 112 automotive Accidents And the other thing that you may notice The red dots represents Bus stops And there are no bus stops Along this route, along from Cheek Road and Hardy All the way to Cheek Road Next slide This is Benita again Protection from property owners Protection from displacement So we have a big concern over Our long-time residents here Who are at risk from displacement Due to rising property taxes Home values and property taxes in Durham Continue to rise But incomes do not for many families Black homeowners are taxed at a 20% higher rate than white property owners These conditions can lead to Displacement of long-time homeowners And destabilization Of the neighborhood Next slide please So this map is representative Of The property values within the community The green area Big green area that you see There is property That was purchased by the city To develop into a park So you see that lies within our Merritt Moore community The dark blue Areas The dark blue areas Have property rights from 41.6% And up The The next level The deep blue areas Are properties that are worth 25% And up Medium blue 16.4% To 25% And the light blue is 7.4% To 6.4% So you see the property values Have not Been raised on an equal Basis throughout the community But there are select homes in areas That have been raised higher than the others This puts a strain on the neighborhood As we have Prospectors coming in who are Only Trying to pay about a minimum For a property And then they $50,000 And they turn around and flip it Down And that cost us about $60,000 There is no place for Our People that are on Disability And so security income To relocate to at that rate So we need to really look at the consideration For the property taxes That have been considerably going up Over the past few years We have not had any money invested Back into our community And so, you know, we're looking at great concern for our neighbors in our community here because the taxes continue to rise. There's no reinvestment in this community. We see our tax dollars going outside of the community. So, you know, and we do need the safety issues. We need those sidewalks. We need traffic control and we need public transportation. None of those things that we have, but our grocery stores are located well outside of the community. Next slide. This, and we can turn it over to David Corley. Thank you. Mr. Corley, we'll get you off on mute, and then we'll have Kyle, Mary, and follow you. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. So, yeah, this is just some of the timeline of the meetings that we've had. I think it sort of illustrates how much we've worked with Tim and a lot of other people, city officials as well, to try and compromise and come up with a cohesive plan that could work well for all of these communities involved because there are four communities that are going to be affected by this. So, I think that speaks also to the uniqueness of this property. But we've met with Tim Cybers on several occasions. You know, the first time we had a meeting, the property, the density was around 280 homes total. And we actually, at that point, this was about a year and a half ago, we actually didn't have such a problem with that. We were willing to compromise and it wasn't ideal, but we could work with him. The next time that we met with him would have been 13 months later, and it was three weeks before we met with you the last time when we got that extension. And that was the point where we found out for the first time that these units had gone up from 280 to 320, which is about a 20% increase. And it's a significant increase to find out, especially three weeks before your planning commission meeting. And so we've met with Katie Rose from treesdurham.org, as well as Ricky White, who Katie Rose knows well and we have been in communication with as well. And both of them were very concerned about this situation. And Katie Rose actually brought up the idea of a conservation neighborhood at that point. And actually, we sort of, as a group, we talked about that and that was on the table. But we actually, in really good faith and hearing so much about how Tim Cybers was willing to communicate with us and often and compromise. And as we were told, actually, when someone quoted us as he was the golden boy in the planning department and the city council. So, you know, we took that at face value and we took that with good faith and we tried to work with him on a plan to come up with a compromise. Actually, that would be, would actually afford him a little bit more units. We know the conservation subdivision allows a little bit less units, so around 204. And we actually wanted to see if we could give him a little bit more density. I mean, that's how willing we were to compromise. So, moving on from that point, we met with city council member DeGriana Freeman, who was particularly concerned about the environmental impact in this area as well as traffic concern, being a mother herself. I'm just going to note, you've got about a minute left. So, okay. Go to your main points. Yes. So then we met with Tom Miller, Akram, Nate Baker. We tried to onsite with Akram and Tom Miller and we tried to sort of show the unique habitat here and how environmentally susceptible it is. Then we met with Scott Whitman of the planning department, met with Shay. So I think really, just moving to this list, I think really adjust, again, it illustrates how much we've actually been trying to work. None of us have. This is none of us. This is a full-time job for us. And we've been working really hard to try and work with Tim Cybers in good faith. None of us, I don't think, have a problem with Tim Cybers. I don't think he's nefarious in any way. But we just, we want to see more for a property that is this unique. So I'll just pass it on to the next slide and let Kyle talk. Thank you. Next slide after this one. Kyle, are you, Mr. Marion, are you available to speak? Oh, actually Kyle asked me if you could unmute him just in case. He gave me his number, if that helps. Chris, on the tech side, are we, are we able to work with him? Kyle, as a panelist, he should be able to speak right now. If he called in, he can stop dials at 9. And we can also use that if he's one of the dial-in numbers. It might be this number right here. Phone number adding in 3019. There we go. Can you hear me now? You're good. All right. Sorry, computer audio can be choppy out here. So I wanted to get in with my phone. So, yeah, thanks for the three minutes, by the way. I thought I was going to have to speak a mile a minute. I'll take a deep breath. Basically, I want to start by saying I don't want to be here in opposition. I wanted to be here supporting a reasonable compromise. I do want to quickly first say that one area where I want to applaud the applicant is stormwater protections.  And I don't want to fail to express appreciation for that, even though we only have three minutes. It is also my opinion that, you know, downstream flooding protections should be considered ideally more of a basic expectation of a new proposal than a luxury. And, you know, in my opinion, shouldn't preclude the community from having input elsewhere on the project. Just got signed out, I guess. Can you still hear me? We can hear you. Okay. My video just lost, but I'll keep going. So I'll focus on my main area of disappointment here. I feel like we've been artificially anchored to a largely arbitrary default number, quote, unquote, of, you know, 320 units and 20% tree save. And any movement from that has basically been a non-starter, not really even up for discussion. But I will ask why hasn't the conversation been more anchored to the specifics dictated by a conservation subdivision? You know, to me, this piece of land, as David said, it's very unique and it's exhibit A for why that option exists in the code in the first place. It's a rural residential lot on the outer border of the city. It's a fully mature forest with over 20% acreage being wetland and protected stream area. It's in an area where green space for residents has been pretty fully neglected by the city. You know, I ask if this property isn't deemed appropriate for that type of development, what is? To me, the burden of proof should lie on any developer for this plot to argue why the rules of a conservation subdivision aren't good enough. Why are we allowing them to raise this acreage of forests, fill in the wetlands, build massive artificial drainage ponds to compensate, and create another impermeable, moonscape heat island when the perfect plan for a property just like this already exists? Further, our original asks were not even as restricted as those of a conservation subdivision. And that's kind of the thing. We don't need the developer to fully commit to a conservation subdivision to support this, which would be a max of 204 units and 50% tree-save. We don't even need them to commit to our original left stringent asks of 223 units and 40% tree-save. But as David said, the net result of the entire last year-plus has been going from 280 up to 320 units and from 20% tree-save up to 21 and now 22% tree-save. That's, you know, it's nowhere close to a compromise to meeting in the middle to either the conservation subdivision or our kind of data-backed asks. It feels from a community standpoint like a pretty clear message that resident input doesn't matter on those points. And in our opinion, it's nowhere close to an appropriate use of this unique plot of land. So therefore, again, while this isn't what we wanted, we don't want to be here asking for a flat no rejection.  So we feel kind of forced into a corner of asking you, you know, due to no other option, asking you to vote no on this proposal as it stands, unless the developer is willing to commit to a density and tree-save more in the middle of what they proposed and what is dictated by a conservation subdivision. You know, personally, that's all I would ask here. Yeah, here we are. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Sure. If you don't mind, could you give your name and address? I don't think we got that at the beginning of your comments. Oh, sure. Sorry, lost that in the tech issues. My name is Kyle Marion, and I'm at 1608 Milan Street in Northeast Hills. Great. Thank you. And thank you to the four of you for the presentation. We're going to circle back to the remaining speakers in the order that they were signed up. And so I'll read the next couple of names just so we can get you in order. John Talmadge, Jason, Bezdula, Trevor, Standaford, and Martha McCormack are the next four speakers. And so we'll start with Mr. Talmadge. Welcome. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is John Talmadge. I live at 908 Vergy Street in Old West Durham. And I'm the executive director of bike Durham and speaking on behalf of the organization this evening, speaking in support with the Merrick Moore community and the points that they've raised. But particularly want to just raise the concern about the dangers, the risks of walking and biking on Sheik Road under its current condition while the, what the developer has offered and in terms of sidewalk and bike lane is, is good. And the fact that they've are committing to extend it to Merrick Moore Elementary is, is positive. I would say that they should not have an out on the extension to Merrick Moore Elementary School. And just want to, you know, it's not going to change whether it's safe for someone to go out and walk their dog or try and get to another place on this street, putting all of these homes at this time when the rest of Sheik Road is still a dangerous, narrow and sometimes fast street. The places that anyone can get safely are very limited. And the bicycle lane, if I caught the design that was on the, the graphic is only on their side of the street.  So some of these things are bigger issues about the timing of development and when you have appropriate and sufficient infrastructure to support, support the development. Some of these things are going to have to be fixed in the comprehensive plan, but at this point in time, those remain issues for approving this development. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Jason. Can you hear me all right? Yes. Okay. My name is Jason. I live at 2503 Joyner Road. I live probably about a mile and a half from this proposed development. And I've been sitting in a lot of the meetings that the residents that live right around it have been having. And I, there's not a lot I can add on to what they have already stated, but I can, you know, back up that they've been working really hard on trying to get a compromise with the developer. And so it's, you know, it's a say, I can kind of just state the same sort of things. I mean, as someone who's lived here for, um, in Durham for seven years driving down cheap road, it's an extremely narrow and dangerous road and adding the amount of vehicle volume that this development would, would add is just going to make that worse. And I mean, it's bad enough that we've seen two deaths on that area of road and adding a huge amount of more traffic is unfortunately going to, you know, it can potentially make that even worse and have more people injured or potentially die. And so, um, I just think everyone should consider voting no on this. Thank you. Thank you. Trevor stand afford. Trevor stand afford. Are you with us and able to see you're there? Are you able to speak?  So do you want to give it a try? All right. We're going to move on and we will circle back to you. Martha McCormack. Hi, are y'all able to hear me? Yes, please go ahead. Excellent. Um, I, my name is Martha McCormack. I live at three Jessica court, which is in Milan Woods. Uh, I wasn't able to, I didn't sign in to speak at the last meeting. My major concern and I hear and I'm also concerned about everything that everyone else has spoken about, but Milan Woods has really narrow streets. And one of the egresses from the proposed development is right into our neighborhood.  If two cars are parked opposite each other, one car has to stop and wait until the other car goes by for them to get up and down the street. The number of people they're talking homes, they're talking about putting in there like more than potentially doubles the traffic in our neighborhood. And I've, Mr. Cybers, are you there? He's here, but this is, this is your time to speak. If, if, uh, well, then I'll, then I'll just speak. Thank you. Um, Mr. Cybers, I brought this up when we had the people way back in the spring, we had the people who were supposed just, just the people who are immediately impacted by the proposed development. And you had mentioned that y'all didn't have an access from that end of your proposed subdivision. Did you ever look into getting an easement from there? It looks like there's some empty property all the way over to gear street. And I, I've, anyway, I wish you had, and that's, thank you. That's all I have to say, except please don't let them have an egress into our little tiny narrow-streeted subdivision. And thank you very much. I'm done. Thank you. Next is Camille Jackson. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi. My name is Camille Jackson. I live at 1601 Milan street, which is at the corner of Milan and Wynburn Avenue. And I wasn't able to sign in for the last meeting to express my concern. But I reviewed this proposal in a lot of detail. And honestly, I have to second what everyone else has said. I walk this neighborhood often with my dog. I've lived here 13 years. And I walk up the street from Milan up to Falsett to Logan. And that is going to be the site of one of the entry points. And I just mourn that specialness of that moment because those trees are going to be gone. And there's going to be traffic there. And cars are going to fly by. And I'm not going to feel safe walking my dog. And that is something that I really cherish about this neighborhood. And I'm so sad that we're going to lose it. And I don't know if these nature trails and amenities that the developer has mentioned will satisfy that. But I think part of what makes Durham special is neighborhoods like this. So many kinds of people live here. And I feel like development is inevitable. But we have to figure out if it's really smart. And if we're doing it the smart way. And if there's going to be so much damage to the environment and damage to the people here that already make the neighborhood special. I'm not sure. This is the way to go. And so that's why I signed up to talk tonight. I'm not, as you can tell, a public speaker. But I had to let my voice be heard on this because I love this neighborhood. And I don't want to lose it. And if there's some compromise that can be made, if Tim Syvers could reconsider his, the 320 and reduce that just half of that to reduce the impact and really consider the people who are already here. I would appreciate that. And I appreciate the council. I appreciate the time. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Jackson. And you are a very good public speaker. Thank you. Next, we've got Lorraine Haskell. I don't see Lorraine here, but if you are here, if you can raise your hand so we could identify you. I see a lot of other hands raised and we'll get to those. Okay. We're going to move on. I don't see any new hands raised. So I'm not sure she is here with us. Next is Patsy Woodard. Ms. Woodard, we'll work to get you off of mute. I see that you're with us this evening. Are you able to speak? You should be off mute. Okay. You hear me now? Yes. Please go ahead. Okay. My name is Patsy Woodard. And I live at 2612 Cone Avenue. And I have lived here for 50 years. My property, I have 212 feet property that is bordering this property that is to be resumed. If Cone Avenue is open, it would go directly into all these wetlands that we've heard about. And I'm very concerned about the flooding that would and could get to our neighbors in London Farms. I was wondering if Tim Cybers has given y'all the soil and environmental consultant report that he got. It was made in, let's keep going in, excuse me. It was dated 20, May 2nd, 2018 that was made on the 2728, 2725 Avenue site plan. I didn't know I don't see it in any of the other things that have come in. I am not against developing. It's not my fault that the flood that they're trying to build on this delegate wetland. Please keep Cone Avenue still closed. Since the density has been increased from 280 single dwellings to 196 single townhouses, it really does put the density so big. I feel this land is more suitable now for conservation subdivision. I am not against the development at all, but I do think we need to do this in a right way. I'm also very concerned about the traffic that would be bringing on the very already crowded two lane road of gear street that goes to Milan Street and then through northeast hills. I invite y'all to come out and look at this area again before you resume it. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Thank you, Ms. Woodard. Next, we have Ricky White and then Chase Markovic will be after Ricky. Hi, y'all. Can you hear me? Great. This is Ricky White. I'm the Executive Director of the Creek Watershed Association and I also am a resident of Durham, living at 6202 Delaware Avenue. I just wanted to speak on behalf of the folks in the Merrick-Morrin and the Milan Woods community. I did meet with them out on the site along with a few other folks playing Tom. Got a little bit of a tour. I think that, you know, I do want to commend the developer for the stormwater improvements that they made. A couple of the points that I take issue with would be one, and I mentioned this to the Planning Commission before, natural heritage inventories are meant to be conducted in a way that we can identify species and conserve them on site, ideally. And the preferment, I believe, is to identify the species so that they can be removed if they're found. And so I think we need to be careful about setting that precedent as we did here and as we did on a similar development proposal in Braggtown that Oribath brought to the Council a few weeks ago, and they had already removed those species. I think the preferred situation would be that we use the open space that is designated on the site to conserve rare species in situ if possible. The second is I just want to support the community's desire and Merrick-Morrin's desire in particular for conservation subdivision. There's a lot of consensus around this idea, or at the very least having the developer increase the amount of conserved land to come closer to that conservation subdivision designation. Those are the main two points I wanted to make. So thank you all for your time. Thank you, Mr. White. Chase Markovic is next. Hi. Y'all can hear me? Yes. Hi. So my name is Chase Markovic. I live at 1324 Logan Street in Mylon Woods neighborhood. I mostly wanted to chime in because my property I think is unique in that it includes a portion of a stream that is coming downstream from Harvest Street, and it travels through the wooded area. It's connected to what was formerly designated as a wetlands, which I've gone back there and have checked it out, and it definitely is wet and stays that way most of the year. And so I imagine includes like collects a lot of the stormwater. It also is on the other side of a kind of like ridge that I think is in the path of the proposed townhomes as well as the road that connects the development with Logan Street. And so it looks from the development plans that like this road goes directly over the wetlands area. So I'm specifically concerned about how that changes the water flow directly behind my house. There's already been some evidence of like an especially large amount of water that passes over the property. Getting to the stream, which is as I mentioned on my property. My neighbor is documented. He's lived here for five years. I just moved here last year. But he has documented how much water actually crosses the front yard to go to the stream. And I feel like the ridge behind the house largely directs a lot of that water flow into the stream in a safe way. And so I'm concerned about these townhomes that are proposed and how they would like change the elevation and affect the water flow, especially since that already exists. It's like a natural buffer and I'm very much preserving as much of the natural environment for the sake of animals, for the sake of the mental health of anyone who lives in our neighborhoods as well as the proposed neighborhood. I also am in agreement with everyone on the points of increased traffic. I'm from a city that from many cities that are much more safe to bike. That has been a disappointment in general in how much like biking is dangerous here. So, yeah, any way that that could is, you know, more safer. So I think it's really all that I would like to say. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. The final speaker and then I'll circle back to a few folks with some technical issues is Nick Voss. I don't see Nick signed up, but there is at least one phone number here that isn't identified.  I don't see Mr. Voss with us this evening. I'm going to circle back to Billy D. Billy, I see you're still here. Are you able to speak? Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Yeah, everyone, thanks so much for the time to speak. I'm here in support of the Merrick Moore community and learned of the issues that Vanita Green and others highlighted in their presentation through emails and phone calls over the last few months. And I just want to highlight those same points. I think the question of the displacement of longtime homeowners is a huge issue and should be really considered. Like what is the larger impact of development and how are we thinking of that? As Tom Miller said earlier in the conversation, I think the city is really in a process of just trying to understand what equity in development really is. And I think there's some big questions here about that. Again, the environmental issues brought up by several people, including Ricky Hart, about what does it mean to set a precedent of potentially removing endangered species from a site to make way for development versus thinking about what are some more mindful practices we might have to protect areas. And I think the unique nature of the habitat in this area has been pretty well described. Of course, I appreciate all the comments about public safety as well. So I think I just want to support the comments from this community. And I've been, you know, obviously I'm concerned about similar development in my own community. And I think, yeah, I'm just here to support what the community is hoping for. And I feel like I don't need to belabor the points that have been raised. But I really do appreciate the time to speak. And I do appreciate that developers did make changes in the plans. But it does seem clear that those changes just do not answer to the questions that the community asked in terms of displacement, loss of community identity, environmental damage, and these larger questions of safety. Thank you so much for the time. Thank you. And then finally, we have Trevor Standup Ford. Trevor, it looks like you're still with us. So if we're able to, if you can speak, this is your time. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. My name is Trevor Standup Ford and I live at 20 Alicia Court in the Milan Woods neighborhood. And my wife and I have lived here for 20 years and it's a beautiful, quiet neighborhood. You can walk the streets easily. And my main concern is the traffic. I'm all for the developer making as much money as they can. But I just don't know that they have the right to do that. I don't know if that negatively affects those of us that are already here. And I believe that the surrounding infrastructure needs to be such that it can support all of these homes. And I'm not so sure that the cheek and the gear roads are up to par to support that. And I just definitely don't see the need or the right for them to connect to our neighborhood, which will increase the traffic, making our streets less walkable. And their nature trails don't help us here in Milan to the nature trails. And I also do support some of the other concerns that the neighbors have voiced as far as conservation and kind of the travesty of building over the wetlands. And short and sweet, but that's about all I have to say. I just don't think that it's fair to impinge upon Milan Woods with extra traffic. And if they were to say that the traffic won't be that much, then I say that then there's no need to build the road through our community. Thank you for the time. Thanks for your comments. That's everyone who signed up in advance. So I'm just going to look at who has their hand raised. And I'm just going to call on individuals who have their hand raised, who have not yet spoken in the public hearing. And so the only person I see at this moment is Constance Wright. Ms. Wright, if you're available, you may have three minutes to speak. I'll give it just one more moment. It looks like we're working to get you off of mute. Chris, is there anything we need to do to help get Ms. Wright off of mute? I submitted a unmute request. I'm just waiting for Ms. Wright to accept it. Okay. Zoom bureaucracy. There we go. Okay. Okay. Good evening. And thank you for taking my comment. I just want to say that I do support the Merrick Moore community. Also, they are going through the same things that we in Bractown are going through as far as the environment, the safety, traffic, property taxes, you know, just everything that we are going through. So I understand what they're asking. I think the developers for trying is just not enough. So I'm asking you all to do a no vote in favor, you know, on behalf of them until, you know, we could get some more things straightened out. So that's what I want to say. Thank you. Give it one more moment. If there's anyone who would like to speak who has not yet spoken, you can hit star nine to raise your hand. Chair Busby, this is Tim Syvers. Is the opportunity to respond or will I have an opportunity later? You'll have an opportunity later and we'll close the public comment period and I'll commit that if no one else on the commission asks, I will directly ask you a question to be able to respond to some of the comments and concerns. Thank you, sir. Poncella Brown, I saw your hand go up and then come back down. If you are interested in speaking, you can put your hand back up and we'll give you time to speak. Okay. I don't see anyone else asking. Ms. Brown, are you there? Yes. Okay. The floor is yours. Okay. I would like to ditto what everyone else has said tonight. Cheek Road is very narrow, extremely dangerous. The builders are looking at building sidewalks that go into their community. Okay. If everything is proposed on that side, however, if you are a parent or if you are not, I have seen and identified a six-year-old child get killed on Cheek Road trying to get to school. The traffic is terrible. I would not like to have to identify another child getting killed on Cheek Road trying to get to school. The traffic is heavy. This child didn't live a few feet down from the proposed development. I've also seen other students walking towards Southern High School and with this added traffic, it is extremely dangerous. I would like for you all to say no and think about these students and these kids on these streets trying to get to school. That's all I have to say and I hope you take what I said into consideration. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Brown. I'm going to close the public hearing. I don't see anyone else asking to speak who hasn't spoken yet. So thank you all for your comments. Before I turn to the commissioners, Mr. Severs, I'll give you a moment for any final comments, in particular if they can be couched around any of the public comments that we've been hearing. Yes, Chair Busby, thank you for the time. There was a bunch of comments there and I've tried to write most of them down with just a short response to them. Some of the neighbors did mention about working with me and they have been great to work with. So I do also push that back the neighbors and being open to their willingness to work with us too. We do understand the concerns and I do want to address some of those. The environmental impact, I've already reviewed a lot of the stormwater commitments that we've provided. I actually went over those twice as a clarity point in my earlier presentation. Again, treating the 200-year storm event, treating a reduction of 20% to the 1, 2, and 10-year event which will help with current flooding. The wetlands, it's only about a quarter acre of wetlands on the site that are outside of the stream buffers. There are three streams or four streams that dissect the site but outside of those stream buffers it's only about a quarter acre of wetlands and we'll be working with state and federal government regulations if those are impacted. There was a comment about only a five-foot additional of some landscape buffers. Some of these buffers that we are providing and committed to on the development plan are not required at all and in some cases that but the majority of some of the subdivisions, they're actually none required where we're providing 25 foot in total and 20 foot of that will be natural. Some of the safe spaces, that's been a big key tonight with a lot of the residents and I personally have walked that road and have walked from the project to the school so I can feel it as some of the residents invited me out to get them walking that with me and that is exactly why we provided the text commitment for the sidewalk over to the school. So it's not just in front of our project but we are making that text commitment that I discussed earlier about that commitment to do the sidewalk over to the school. Traffic light was also discussed. I believe our traffic consultant Nate with with Rami Camp will be able to respond to that if there's more questions on that but we did concern. We did go ahead and complete a traffic warrant analysis ahead of now. Typically that's done at site plan. We didn't want to provide false hope. So through working with Erlene Thomas in transportation, we completed that and provided that study to transportation and NCDOT. I do want to note that we are committed to the bus stop on gear street as well and sidewalk will as Commissioner Baker has noted many times that sidewalk is now required on both sides of the street internally and then along our frontage and then our commitment over to the school as well. So about investing into the community the sidewalks are a big part of that providing safe sidewalks, safe streets within the community but also specifically connection to the elementary school water access to the community gardens was mentioned and the financial contributions to not only affordable housing but to the Durham public schools and in this case working with the Durham public schools to specify that that can be directed to Merrick Moore elementary. So it's not just going to all the schools but where this project is specifically committing to working and providing investing in this community by providing that donation to Merrick Moore elementary gear street connection. There was a question about an easement to the gear street connection. I believe it was the lady who wanted to speak to me directly and I wrote down there that please note that that is outside of our project limits. We don't actually connect to gear street and from our project boundary over to gear street is actually owned by the Landon Farms Homeowners Association and there's wetlands in that area and stream crossing. So there'd be a lot of environmental impacts that would have to take place to make that crossing. Not only it's Landon Farms Homeowners Association so it's not it's outside the project limits. So if there's any other questions on traffic I guess is the final item I would like to post that to Nate Bokwin with Raimi Kemps or maybe Erlene with City Transportation. Thank you chair. Thank you. Appreciate those comments especially addressing some of the questions from the public that they had during their public comment period. I'm going to move to the commissioners now and Commissioner Miller I know you've got your raise so we will start with you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. So I have questions for the developer and for the neighbors. A lot of the debate tonight seems to have gone around this issue of conservation subdivision and whether or not and how many units might be built on this site and so I wanted to ask Mr. Severs on behalf of his clients and I know it may be a hard question to answer in the context of a planning commission hearing but is there a possibility of changing of reducing the number of units here recognizing that reducing the number of units means that you might have larger areas of the development would be available for conservation reducing the number of units means a smaller although slightly smaller traffic impact slightly smaller impact on cut-through traffic through the neighbors the neighborhood to the east and so it seems to me that if there I would love to see us close some gaps and it was my understanding that when discussions with the neighborhood first began about the development of this property we were talking about 280 units and I heard a couple of neighbors indicate that there was a desire even if it wasn't a pure conservation subdivision that we might use the development plan process to create something in the nature of commitments that would arrive in something in the nature of a conservation subdivision and that they were willing to reach to the middle especially on this issue of unit count if it would be if it served in larger conservation area so that's the first question and then the other I just noted we just talked about a development that we approved by a highly divided vote where we talked about affordable housing in that neighborhood the contribution to the affordable housing fund was about $175 a unit I noticed that yours is about $125 a unit and I was is there no way where we could at least get up to their minimal figure which would raise you from $40,000 to about $56,000 and then finally I today I went out and I met with Miss Green and we talked about the garden and we and I walked one more time just to refresh my memory about the anxiety that I had walking that distance from the community garden to the Merritt Moore school on that on the verge of Cheek Road and it's frightening and I can't imagine sending a school kid down that way but it's obvious that people do walk there there is a little footpath on both sides it is very frightening and the notion that you would have an elementary child walking along there with or without a parent is terrifying and I appreciate very much your search for a sidewalk solution to that and realize the engineering problem since you and I last spoke Tim have you gotten a clear picture from state officials about whether your engineering solution which would be a retaining wall some backfill and a sidewalk built on that whether or not they're likely to allow that to happen so those are my three questions to Mr. Savers and then I have a couple of questions for the neighbors Mr. Savers Thank you Commissioner Miller so as for affordability and number of units we also need to keep in mind here that with the fewer number of units is a if you will with the reduction with affordability by the number of units provided and yes we started out at 280 all single family homes when we first met with the neighbors as they've said and I've mentioned as well partially through the project we changed that to 320 units which is what our proposal is today to include a town home aspect within this to provide that affordability within the development so by providing the town homes that incorporates the affordability into the design I mentioned earlier that the single families will be starting in the mid 200s while the town homes will be starting in the lower 200s to help bring that affordability into the project so that was one of the main reasons why we were able to add the town homes and do a slight increase in the density as for the donation I do not have the ability to change that tonight I will have to speak with the client about that due to social distancing we're texting back and forth this evening but we haven't been able to finalize that so for right now I'd like to keep the donation as is but I am aware that that is an item that can change between now and city council so I will promise that we will take a look at that and yes as you mentioned about the sidewalk you've walked it I mentioned to you when we met I said go walk it because I've walked it and I agree with you which is exactly why we came up with a commitment that we did however the engineering items will be reviewed at site plan and construction documents we've had minimal conversations but have had started conversations with the city engineering about those items but no solutions to those solutions that was in front of you tonight during the presentation so thank you I guess my question is it's really not the question about affordability affordability is out there but at this point for me and for at least some of the neighbors who spoke it's about closing the difference between you and unit count is one of the dynamics for that I'm not asking you to get rid of a townhouse component as a matter of fact I would be against this project a project of 100 acres that was monotype that was all one type of units we did that we used to do that and we've created some great neighborhoods that way but I don't see us doing that again in the future in other words but still having to mix a townhouse and single family homes is their way to by decreasing the number of units to improve the overall traffic impact situation and also improve your ability to conserve sensitive environmentally sensitive land is there room to move and the answer to that is we are willing to go into a huddle and talk about building fewer units if the neighborhood will come to the to the middle with us or no we can't do that but that's the kind of answer I'm looking for there and the other thing is to I really like the idea that you have put forward with regard to providing a sidewalk not just along your front in John Cheek Road but getting all the way up to Merrick Moore and at least for that distance of Cheek Road providing a sidewalk where none has ever existed and where we already have a safety issue I note that from the map that was provided that the two fatalities that were noted would be within that length of highway so but I would hate to vote for this hoping that that solution would be approved only to find out that after the rezoning was allowed and that the developments moving forward that the authorities with the power to say yes or no to your solution said no I would like to have a yes before I voted on this and but evidently you haven't gotten any clear indication from the city or the state on whether your proposal will be allowed by them and I realize I'm not sure that apart from that solution replacing the culvert or extending it becomes a great big engineering problem and that may even come outside the right of way of Cheek Road and those become things that are probably outside your control so those are my concerns if I may Mr. Chairman could I ask Miss Green and Mr. Marion a question you may which means that they'll have to get have things organized so that they may respond if the developer was willing to negotiate with you on unit numbers and as a consequence of that on the conservation of more property inside this development do you think that as a community as representatives of the community that you could go from the no vote that you've asked for tonight to a situation where you could ask for a yes vote in other words is that are those changeable areas places where we could move pieces on the board and solve this and Commissioner Miller do you want to hear from one of them or both of them both because they represent different sides of the community and I don't expect one to speak for both sure I think they're both unmuted so Miss Green Mr. Marion you're welcome to offer your response specifically to Commissioner Miller's question sure yeah this is Kyle can you oh sorry Benita you can go ahead this is Benita Green and a large part in Merritt-more community a large part of our concern is around the safety issue you know it's it's the sidewalks it's the traffic it's you know a whole big issue there and one of the things that I'll point to is that in the 2019 traffic study that was done there was a traffic control device was recommended by the DOT at that cheek faucet intersection because my great concern there is there's going to be a lot of traffic that's going to back up to that development because now in the 2020 study they no longer require that traffic control device and that's concerning because as you see we have all sorts of traffic that's coming through here we have tractor we have dump trucks cars you know vehicles towing trailers and things we have all sorts of vehicles that come through here we travel at different rates of speed so while yes I want to say it will be great to to vote yes on this just by reducing the traffic from within the neighborhood right now I see that that's so it's a long I'm looking at a long-term game basically you know and while fewer units within the development may for a while decrease that traffic over the long term it's going to be a problem for cheek cheek road once that