ask it before it's my last question. Um, and and um Daniel is there is there? um You're indicating that you cannot that you don't wish to make the payment in lieu Is there a hardship for you in terms of making that payment in lieu? I understand finance is not an issue But I'm just curious why that's not Being considered Well, I mean it it's currently the The option in place, but that would That would not motivate us to continuing the sidewalk on the Neighbors property to reach the state park and that that's an additional cost for us And so trying to mitigate the cost of installing that sidewalk with the fee Um is of course of interest Thank you. Well, as I was muted any other questions for the applicant. All right on this wrestle. Do you have any, uh, Or is there anyone else here to speak in favor? Or do you know col would you mind? Stop sharing your screen for a moment. Or do you or chris rather? um All right, uh, is there anyone here to speak against this? Do we have anybody registered? I'm Assuming no. All right, then that is a no. Um Espresso, do you have anything else that you'd like to to you know before we go into deliberations? Yeah, I would just like to say that I think in terms of the spirit of the code and its intention to provide pedestrian connection to the things that People want connection to that this proposal To extend the sidewalk does that very well and that it connects our neighborhood to the state park state park access Which is what most people in the area are are interested in Most I ran into somebody this morning who said They walk down there all the time and that would be lovely to have this Sidewalk extend all the way to the state park. So Thank you. All right, uh any uh discussion But this is again, this is a variance. So there is no staff recommendation This is chat. Are you starting your polling the board now? I'm going to I I will request everyone say something you don't have to but I I certainly think that it is a is a fair thing to do and something that is a part of our duty as a board member I agree and welcome that uh that that thought process. Um I I'm having a hard time understanding if if there is a fee and lieu option available Um Could not the city use that fee and loo to extend the sidewalk and remove the need for the variance altogether. Um, You know, I I don't know the answer there, but I I I I'm I'm torn on this one. I'm hoping other people have some some perspective Brian did you have something I saw your hand raised? Yes, this this is actually something that christa and I discussed Uh, pursuant to the rules if if you are inclined to deny A request and you do need to discuss what the reasons are for that pursuant to the rules for 4.4 d um So that when there is an order there is um Discussion in the record to actually draft the order since That's required. So um That is a requirement. Thank you sir. Um tisha Yeah, I saw your hand raised Yeah, I am uh a opponent of Sidewalks in general and then one of my pet peeves of derm is a lot of sidewalks that just end randomly So I I like the that side of this, but I am still a little bit fuzzy on on the change in the zoning and the need for the the the variance On the on the other side, but I I like their solution and I I'm inclined to Like it Thank you, uh mike Yeah, I I think for me, um I I feel like there is a hardship here You know, there was a there was a commitment made during the rezoning process at the request of the planning commission to Preserve these trees at that time that was agreed upon because The udo only required sidewalk on one side of the street Um since that time the udo has been changed to now require sidewalk on on the second or on both sides of the street um in that Therefore would you know prohibit the applicant from being able to meet the the zoning requirements Um, potentially have to rezone the property in some fashion to remove that that commitment so I feel there is a there is a hardship here and I'm still Um still a little bit torn uh as as with mr. Meadows on on the fee in lieu If that can't be done for the additional portion of the walkway But I do I do appreciate their willingness to continue on the west side of the street to the state park as they have presented today All said, uh anyone else? So I see I concur. It's it's a tough one. I know they got caught between uh one commitment, uh to uh Take take care of the trees and then they moved the goalpost and said now you have to put it on both sides now they're not the same people but Uh, they got caught between trains um I think it's a novel way to Provide more Usable sidewalks And The alternate the alternative would be fee and loo and then they don't have to do anything Uh staff would just like to say um for clarification that the extra sidewalk does not Um make they meet the requirement for both sides. That is just something to providing um For for for the the propaganda. So that doesn't necessarily meet the requirement of the ordinance to provide It's not an option to provide extra sidewalk to meet that ordinance. Um, that's just something that they're doing Um on their own that does not meet our requirements just to clarify Thank you Ian or mike. Do you have anything? I've got a few thoughts as well, but Rachel, I'm in support of of the granting of variance for this And as well And mr. Terry It's one final clarification. Hopefully for for coal if my understanding is that sidewalk is now required on both sides of the street is Constructing it on the west side not satisfying that requirement. And then we're only really talking about a fee and loo for the east side of the street So they are providing it on the west side of the street. Um, and not the east side of the street. Um, so the payment and loo Would would be for the the sidewalk that they're not providing correct Thank you. All right, um, you know, I've got a share of some thoughts that Regina and chad mentioned, uh, as well Um, I should agree with them all. Um, you know, and also think I wrote the question here on on my Notebook of saying, you know, does this make the spirit purpose and intent? I think it does. Um, I look at Putting this on the other side and thinking, you know, a bunch of crisscross Ramps going, you know, because of the grading and understand topographical issues there And you know, people would probably just walk the street instead of walking on the sidewalk. So that makes a lot of, you know You know, what's What's the the purpose here? Uh, and I have to agree Mike, I don't know if you are tearing. Did you have your hand raised or do just not rate lowered from before? Sorry, I just didn't get lowered. I'm sorry. Okay. Got it. Um All right, then, um, any other thoughts? Does anyone want to offer a motion? I'll make the motion I hear if I make a motion that case number b 21 whole bunch of zeros five an application for a request for variants from the Sidewalks on property located at 39 12 river munt road has successfully met the app Well requirements of the unified development ordinance is hereby granted subject to the following in conditions the improvements have to be Substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application We've got a motion for approval by mr. Lacey. Is there a second? One more second Miss one more second, um Susan Mr. Kip. Yes Mr. Lacey Yes Mr. Rogers Yes Mr. Meadows No Mr. Redschluss Yes Miss. Why more? Yes Mr. Tarrant Yes Motion carries seven to one Motion carries six to one By a vote of six to one your variant your request for variants has been approved Well, you'll get an order shortly and we appreciate you becoming coming before the BOA this morning Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you Madam clerk, would you like to call the next case? Case b2100009 a request for a variance from the project boundary buffer requirements The subject site is located at 218 north dillard street zoned office institutional and in the urban tier This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified Notarized affidavits verifying the signposting and postings and letter mailings are on file And the seating for this case is Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers Mr. Redschluss, Miss. Why more and Mr. Tarrant Here I am. I need it again. All right. Thank you for that All of the folks who plan on speaking please turn on your video and we'll administer the oath before We continue So it looks like we're just waiting for Dan and Ed to turn on their screens If they're not gonna speak. Oh, they're not. Okay. Uh, well if you the those who are please raise your right hand if you and Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth in nothing but the truth Scott I gotta have a verbal yes on everybody. Sorry guys Yes, Jeremy. Yes Yes, sir, and I also need a verbal yes on do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes, sir Yes, thank you guys Eliza take it over Good morning Yes, morning everyone Eliza Monroe speaking from the planning department. Um, I Would like to request that the staff important all materials submitted be made part of the public hearing At the public hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted So noted Thank you very much Case b2 1 0 0 0 9 as a request for a variance from the project boundary buffer requirements The applicant is culture Joel Thames pa and the subject site is located at 218 north dillard street The case area is highlighted in the thick red. There's a overlay over here So we're not talking about 513 or 510 holly or 212. We're just talking about 218 north dillard Street the site is zoned office institutional or li and is located in the urban development tier As you'll see on the screen the site area is currently vacant For the nature of this request a project boundary buffers are defined as a portion of a property designated between designated to mitigate impacts between different land uses section 9.4 the unified development ordinance provides the standards for the type Quantity and location of buffering lands buffer landscaping So the type of trees and shrubs and the amount of trees and shrubs required is noted within that section Per section 9.4.3 of the union a 20 foot wide buffer With a 0.6 opacity would be required along peach street Peach tree street where the proposed development is adjacent to a right of way that is less than 60 feet wide If the right of way was greater than 60 feet wide then they would not have to meet this requirement The right of way is also across from a parcel that is residentially zoned as you'll see over here where it's zoned rum In that case the applicant is requesting to permit a five foot average project boundary buffer along peach tree Peach tree street where the project boundary buffer is required UDF section 3.14.8 establishes four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant a variance These findings require approval are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application Both of within your packet staff will be available for any questions as needed throughout the hearing process And the applicant did provide some additional documents that staff will pull up as needed when asked to Thank you Eliza any questions for Eliza before we move on I'm seeing some shaking of heads, but if I missed someone that raised a hand physically, please feel free to unmute yourself Um, all right. I don't see any. Um, all right. Well, we'll turn it over to the applicant Good morning everyone. Um, it's still morning. Thank you for your time today. I know y'all've had a long agenda Um, I will try to be brief which is difficult for me those that know me Um, my name is Scott Harman was center studio architecture in downtown Durham We are on the design team and the ownership development team for this project um, we are, uh, experimenting with the new housing type. Um, that is sort of born out of some of the Changes in the expanding housing choices. Uh, that was implemented by the city to give the private sector opportunities to address some of the housing crisis In this community. So we're creating a series of 19 townhomes each with five individual dwelling suites That could be rented out at a much more affordable rate for someone who wants to live in the Cleveland Holloway neighborhood or downtown We are also providing commercial space At the corner. This is a in my opinion a a The commercial space is at the far right in this image here At the corner of Dillard and Holloway street This is a gateway location in the downtown right in the middle of I believe Durham's first historic district and uh, we wanted a a neighborhood facing commercial cafe type establishment At this location. We think that's something that uh, it's just good urbanism I think it's being a good neighbor And I think it's something that the surrounding stakeholders and neighborhood would appreciate in this location um I don't mind having an edge A buffer to our property. I just feel strongly that it should be a friendly edge A lot of the whole concept of boundary buffers is based on segregated land uses, which I think is problematic And I know that there are times when Uh, they're perfectly appropriate Where what you're trying to do is create a condition where you don't see each other I think in this context, I think that's really bad urbanism. I think it's being a bad neighbor I think it's not good for safety So we want nice plants and a low fence Where the neighbors know where the edges are but that we can see one another We can protect one another and we can participate in each other's lives in the neighborhood So we're just simply asking for the opportunity to put in A boundary that uh that accomplishes that I think That's all I want to say our design team and site team at uh, culture jewel and Thames Have some additional technical aspects of how we're uh impacted by Disordinates and our uh requests for the variance and i'm happy to answer any other questions that y'all have And thank you very much All right any questions for mr. Harmon before we hear from anyone else This is chad. I just want to encourage the applicant to explain The hardship of complying with uh with the code requirements I believe that he alluded to some design considerations and desire and so forth But to to enhance that and talk about, you know, the hardship of compliance would be very helpful. Thank you Sure. Thank you chad So one as you can see in the diagram Increasing the boundary buffer would reduce the number dwelling units that we could Provide and so less housing is less impact on the housing crisis of Durham Secondly a boundary buffer as prescribed by the ordinance there would create an unsafe situation where our neighbors Would not be able to see what was going on in the adjacent apartment community right across peach tree Which is also a residential use? normally between two residential uses like that a boundary buffer of this magnitude would not be required but because of the unique Uh configuration of an odd zoning island or peninsula here It is technically required although. I don't think it is That providing it is in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance in terms of what it intends So again, we're not trying to eliminate a boundary buffer. I'm just trying to scale it down to one that is appropriate and supports a safe Defensible visible neighborhood interaction In this very close to the center of downtown urban environment And scott and chad this is this is jeremy anderson with cjt I'll cover a few of those things if if uh If you want me to continue with a little bit of the technical presentation At this point, but if you had questions for scott still I didn't want to cut you off Now we'll turn it over to you Okay, great appreciate it. Um And chad appreciate that question because I appreciate your clarity on earlier cases today. It's uh, You're uh, you're trying to decipher a lot of information and pair it down. So Uh, again, good morning, uh chairman rogers vice chair meadows and members of the board My name is jeremy anderson landscape architect with cjt colter jule temps 111 west main street in durham I have a degree with of landscape architecture from north calinus state and had been practicing Landscape architecture planning for about 20 years in the triangle area um I'm the project manager for this project as well as you know, many other multifamily and townhome projects in the downtown area you know in the past five or 10 years so uh Familiar with the udo familiar with requirements For a site like this and also had visited the site many times, you know in preparation of this meeting Um, quickly. Thank you liza for your your presentation and your your staff report. I think you cover the issues very well I'm here just to to provide a little more background information In regards to the current site condition expectations of the development As outlined in the udo and specific site conditions unique to the site um Finding number one the unnecessary hardship um The area we're focused on this what you see on the screen here is the overall development, but uh, the one parcel which aliza alluded to was really the parcel at the corner of Dillard hallway and peach tree. So it's the the convergence of all three of those right-of-ways And it happens to be kind of the narrow pinch point of our site um That previous slide and you don't have to go back, but it's okay. It showed the 10 foot Right-of-way dedication that we're being required to dedicate along peach tree I think it was in a in a in a purple color there So we've got 10 feet already taken from the site that kind of restricts Makes this this narrow corner of the site a little bit narrower And then the requirement for a 20 foot landscape buffer Um, you know scott alluded to really Pinsch is down this corner It would uh, it would reduce the number of townhomes by two or three also Probably reduce the commercial space is something that's not usable. So It's about 30 feet from the existing property line that we're we're having to set aside That we couldn't put a building in or couldn't put parking in and would be essentially a heavily landscaped buffer and That's got alluded to that's not that's not what the division is That's not really promoting good urbanism good walkability safe pedestrian, you know case In the circumstance Finding number two is hardships peculiar to this property In addition to the narrowness of the lot at this point that was outlined in number one Um This zone this this property is still zoned. Oh, and I as Eliza mentioned, uh, it's kind of odd. It's Peninsula within the downtown district It's dd zoned downtown Durham or downtown design district all the way around it except for this one property line um, if it was If the zone the property next to us was dd We wouldn't have a buffer like we have like we don't have around the remaining piece of the property Um Or if it was zoned potentially something else something more residential We may not have the the extent of the buffer we have here but because landscape or because landscape buffers are are Based on the underlying zoning, which is you know office and institutional here um We are Being buffered as if we are an office and institutional use and not the residential use that we're proposing um Finding number three hardship not as a result of any action taken by the owner There's been no changes by the owner that would has has resulted in this hardship And number four consistent with the spirit intent intent of the ordinance So the variance request again is is to reduce the area you see in green here as a 20 foot landscape buffer to an average five foot width along this area And what that generally means is we're going to take the same Same amount of area we need to within this green box and kind of redistribute it So that it's narrower in some areas and wider in other areas to get the same square footage But planted up in a in a in a more urban more pedestrian friendly manner so Again landscaping is still going to be proposed in this area as you can see here and you can see on the rendering But again something more pedestrian friendly streetscape friendly versus a densely planted 20 foot buffer Or wall that would kind of block off the the residential to the to the west of this or east of excuse me Furthermore, there is a sidewalk being proposed on peach tree currently there is not so that is within the the right-of-way dedication You see there so We're we're hoping there'll be some more pedestrian activity along peach tree and again having a 20 foot dense buffer there It creates some safety concerns If you have something that you can't see through The parking lot that you see there Now being allowed to to be placed here if this is approved Provides approximately two spaces per unit, which is what the udio would require And it will be screened through the udio requirements for for vehicle use screening as well as a fence along the sidewalk so Landscaping and and you know appropriate measures are still there to to kind of buffer the property Again the buffer flexibility allows for Kind of maximum residential units as well as the commercial space at the corner of Holloway and Dillard Which we think is very important and Overall the the townhouse the proposed townhouse development we think is is in keeping with the density scale size of units you know That the adjacent residential Is there's there's apartments duplexes triplexes To the east of this and and this is in a similar scale keeping with that So to conclude in my professional opinion That unnecessary hardships result from the strict application of the ordinance It is also my professional opinion that the hardship is not the is not Caused as a result of any action taken by the owner And also in my professional opinion the requested variances Is consistent with the spirit purpose and intent of the ordinance For the reasons described above And with that that concludes my testimony and I will Throw it back to the board for any questions you may have for the development team All right chat. I guess you have a question for mr. Anderson. I do. I have two questions. Um As I understand it the the property which I guess is to the east On the screen, it's the it's the property that where the two text boxes are located Correct. That's a that's a multifamily use. Is that correct? That's correct. Yes. Okay. And so because This property is inside the downtown design District And that property isn't That's what's triggering the requirement for the perimeter buffer That you're seeking the variance from is that accurate No, actually neither of these properties are within the Downtown design district that were then would that buffer be required? uh If If the brown property you see on here the rum which is the adjacent Multifamily if it was the kind of gray purple color, which is the downtown then it would not be If we were I mean depends there's various scenarios, but If we were downtown design district and that property was not I think there would be a 10 or 15 foot landscape buffer But both of them are outside the the dd so it's treated like any urban Project understood and one last question, which is you are planning to include Some landscaping in this area, but it is short of Of the 20 foot Requirement and is that right? That's correct. There'll be uh street trees some additional trees on site probably more ornamental and landscaping at the edge of the parking lot between the parking lot and the right-of-way to To screen the cars, which is a you know an important Design consideration. So yes, there is landscaping still placed in this area. Thank you Eliza Monroe before mr. Before delacy chimes and I just wanted to confirm What Jeremy was just talking about about the design districts So no project boundary buffers are required within the design districts unless the proposed project is adjacent to a residential district that's in the Residential district are used in the urban and suburban tier so to confirm what Jeremy was stating about this Cool color back here If they were a part of that cool color They would not necessarily need to have a project boundary buffer If this one they would both have to be within the design district If this one was in the design district, they would still have to have that requirement Just because this one would still be in the urban or suburban tier Just to clarify that. Thank you. Eliza Regina Thanks. I was just Hi Scott. I've got a question. You talked about these townhomes as being sweets How could you elaborate further and tell and tell us how This use differs from the cocoa brown Property next door to the east Uh Yes, so imagine what what what what we're creating is Townhomes for co-living where there are five different Adults living in the unit together They're sharing a kitchen facility and they're sharing laundry facility, but they have private bedroom private bathroom for each Person and it's a fairly generous, you know Uh, it's a fairly generous private suite and so And and this is entirely allowed In the current ordinance with this zoning and in particular because of the recent changes with expanding housing choices to create more flexibility for different housing types The cocoa brown area is is is rum. That's just multifamily apartment basically apartment flats um In in the written report from Jeremy, you'll note that the density per acre of that parcel is actually higher than the density per acre of ours um And I think that is I think that answered all your questions. Please. Let me know if I missed. Thanks very much Yeah, it did. Thank you very much and thank you for coming up with novels housing solutions. It's oh, you're welcome very important Uh, Eliza and our staff wanting to chime in one more time with one more clarifying thing um, if you'll if you'll note in the staff report, uh, I simply refer to it as multifamily Suites the distinction that mr. Harmon use is not Within our udo like we don't have a suite uh distinction So in the staff report, uh, we note, uh, the rum zone parcel as multifamily and this one is also considered multifamily We do not have a sweet distinction within the udo Thanks, Eliza. Um, mr. Kipp Hello Just wanted to get some clarification here peach trees peach tree play seems extremely narrow of what's actually Paved it's a it's a wider right of way, but I've driven down that I considered an alley and I don't think you can get two cars down there Without pulling off into the ditch So it just that's a little bit concerning Uh, so just so I understand it so instead of the 20 foot boundary buffer You're proposing a five foot boundary buffer And the balance 15 feet is basically going to be parking for those first However many spots 10 spots Is that right? That's true. That's correct Okay And and to to touch on the peach tree width. Um Yeah, we we're aware and we we had some conversation with transportation about the width of it Could it be closed? Could it be converted to an alley? We're not showing any driveways off that partially for that reason because it's we don't want to add additional traffic to it, but Transportation is going to keep it and add additional 10 footer right away. So We're not I think it was recently paved, but it's still you know on the narrow side, but um Great, thank you. I have another question work workforce housing. So Is it just workforce housing because there's five suites or is there actually some kind of deed restriction? On who can buy who can rent? um in the I mean, I'm using the term to generally describe what I would consider missing middle housing This is housing that is not affordable with a capital a using tax credits or subsidies But so it's entirely market rate housing, but you know, just the goal That we have been focusing In the studio on a couple of our most recent projects is how do we create a place for someone who wants to live in the downtown? neighborhood that they can have their own space That for under a thousand bucks a month and there if you look at all of the new apartments that are being built um, you know, this is uh, you know, if you go look for a for a one-bedroom Apartment somewhere in downtown right now or even a studio. You're going to be paying 12 13 $1,400 a month so this housing type allows us to to To to simply just create more affordable housing in terms of the amount that you're paying And so we use the term generally not not legally or specifically And it's it's not going to work for everyone But I mean, it's a it's a housing type that you are starting to see a lot in tier one and tier two cities that are trying to find creative ways to just Allow more flexibility different different ways for people to live together co-living is very Very popular and and the better examples of it are definitely providing places very stable desirable places for people to live With a greater sense of community and connection to their their roommates and neighbors And and also addressing, you know, affordability in general Um, Eliza, I'm right with the playing department here with a couple of more clarifications. Um, so at this time there is not a workforce housing language within the unified development ordinance The only language you do have is affordable housing and I want to make a distinction that affordable housing does have specific criteria That must be met in order for property to be deemed affordable That includes market values or a report that's submitted to various city departments. So at this time the housing If you'll as I noted in the report, we're just distinguishing it as multi-family And this time we don't have workforce housing as a distinction within the udo So, uh, thank you, mr. Harmon for providing additional clarification about what that meant But there is not anything within the udo in which we require the applicant at this time to provide a report or annual report or sorts to keep that Intent in line to ensure that it's being met. So just to provide some clarity there Mike Taren, if you've got a question Yeah, I just um, just kind of thinking about this and thinking about, you know, how cities grow and develop in the street Street networks are created every time, you know, we always end up with sort of odd parcels such as this that Are very difficult to develop in any fashion So in that regard just the the geometry of this particular property, I think is Creates a hardship that That um, you know, I think is inappropriate In the fact that this is oh and I, you know, just on the outside of when the dds was created It seemed like it could have been easily captured in that in In that, you know, creating the project boundary buffer in somewhere in the urban setting is You know, not not really appropriate in my in my professional opinion um So I think that is a hardship as well that further restricts the development potential for this particular property um, I do appreciate the um the applicant not Trying to, you know, reprieve themselves from meeting that commitment, but instead extending that total buffer area along along peach tree To create a to create an edge along the entire property instead of a buffer. I'm just a portion of it and I think In doing so that that really does better meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance in this particular case um, I I appreciate the Presentation here today and I think I'll support this application Mr. Taren any anyone else any questions for the applicant? I concur with, um, mr. Taren is scratchless Just because of that the unique uh peninsula parcel. Um, but it's a well thought out project and I'm definitely for The variance Thanks, sir Lacey I concur um, it's novel housing and it's uh It's a very tough little peninsula. Um Um, and I think it's a very clever solution to the problem This is chad since we seem to be in board discussion. Um, I'll just say, you know in my Observation, we've got a convergence of zoning standards versus some policy issues You know, we've got a desire to address a housing crisis. We've got some weird zoning configuration here Um, it you know, it's not lost on me that these are two multifamily uses. They're side by side Normally, we wouldn't buffer those Um, but because they're in just different districts where we're requiring this buffer Um, and you know, certainly this is a downtown area And I have to agree with all of the comments that you know, large suburban style Use buffers probably aren't appropriate in downtown. So I too support the variance Thank you anyone else Tisha, how about you? I am in support of this. I think it's a great solution for you know, multifamily affordable housing and certainly um, the buffer was was put in there for other uses and other Restrictions, but I think that they've had are proposing a great Solution to it from what the restrictions that they have been dealt Uh, Eliza Moro staff, sorry to be that stickler, but uh, this is not deemed affordable housing by the UDO standards Sorry My turn I think um, can we say not ducidly expensive? Maybe maybe um, you know, I I share everyone's thoughts, you know, one of the things uh We have discussed when it comes to variances Changes in design. So, uh, can you change the design to meet? whatever You know say so that you don't need a variance. I think this is Uh, a clever design and I think it's well suited and and Certainly meets the spirit purpose and intent I think that we need to Just because this project is sexy and something new is not a reason to approve it Uh, I don't think that we should apply different standards to this project than we do any other variants just because we like it Uh, I actually think that's incredibly inappropriate But um, I obviously support this and I support, um Yes, but I've made some notes to uh to to go over the next time we have a variance request and decide to wait and discuss some of these same things um but um Those are my thoughts person thoughts. Does anybody else have any, um Any any anything they'd like to have This is this this is Chad. Did you call for anybody in support or opposition? I don't remember if that happened if it I appreciate you saying that I was just looking around to make sure that we I see I was going to ask if there's anybody else to speak in favor Scott is there any I mean, I see other people on the call, but I doesn't look like they're going to be speaking I I don't know no no one else is no one else from our side. Thank you I was there anyone here to speak against this? Uh, or in opposition. I'm I don't see anybody on here, but Within the on the call I don't say I guess not Um, well, this is a variance again. There is no staff recommendation Is uh, would anybody like to offer a motion? Lacey I hear by make a motion the application number b 21 hold bunch of zeroes nine a request for a variance from the project boundary requirements on property located at 218 north dillard street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application right, we've got a motion by mr. Lacey to approve Is there a second Meadows And I'm a second my meadows before we vote. Uh, Cole's got his hand up. What's that? What you got Cole? Maybe that was by accident Well, we'll assume it was um Susan, what'd you call? Miss. Why more? Yes Mr. Retchless Yes Mr. Tarrant Yes, mr. Lacey. Yes Mr. Meadows Yes Mr. Rogers Yes Mr. Kip. Yes Motion carries seven to zero If I vote a seven to zero your request for a variance has been approved. We appreciate you coming before the BOA You'll get an order soon. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Hope you get some lunch soon We will that's thank you very much Before this case, I don't know if there's interest in taking a quick break or if we want to just power through it Thoughts mic you got it. You want a five minute break? please All right, well, let's take a five minute break. It's 1203. We'll be back at 1208 1210 let's make it 1210 All right. I think we've got every one. It's uh mic and regina but once they get back we'll Get started Susan would you like to call the next case? Case b21 00010 A request for a variance from the requirements to not place the service area along the street frontage And for a service area to be 20 feet from the building corner The subject site is located at 509 north mancomb street in a zone downtown design support one And in the downtown tier This case has been advertised for the required period of time And property owners within 600 feet have been notified Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file The seating for this case is mr. Lacey, mr. Kip, mr. Meadows, mr. Rogers, mr. Wretch less miss wymore and mr. Tarrant All right So everyone who plans on giving testimony on this will need your uh video on And dan jewel Raised his hand. That's what it says Jacob yes is uh Is this the case where one of the members will be recusing themselves? No okay, so Well, the the motions at the end were I've been or withdrawn so they won't be heard today. I think that was what would be recusing Um, so everyone who plans on giving testimony will need you to raise your right hand You swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth Yes from everyone Yes Preston, yes Dan Yes, Lindsey Yes And do you all consent to this remote meeting platform? I'll need a verbal yes from everyone. Yes Yes, yes Rice and Powell, did did you take the oaths were on video? Uh, I I was not on video, but I I said yes in my office by myself Go ahead for the sake of the the record uh administer those do you uh, if you'll raise your right hand Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, sir. Um Cole is this one yours is take it over Okay Mr. Chair Yes, Krista Kukro city attorney's office. Um, sorry, I know that uh, mr. Wardell just brought this up But I do want to clarify Mr. Meadows, is this the one that you were intending to Recuse on? No, ma'am. This is I'm good for this one. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'm tired. I apologize to everybody I forgot to send you a note. I apologize. Okay. Thank you Okay Good morning again, uh, I guess good afternoon now. Um, I'm cold in a good represent the plan apartment Uh, planning staff request the staff for and all materials submitted the public hearing to be made part of the public record With any necessary corrections as noted. So noted. Thank you, sir The 21 00010 is a request for variance from the requirements Um, to not place a service area along a street frontage and for a service area to be Um, at least 20 feet from the building corner Um, this case area is Highland ride the site is in the downtown tier Dd Design downtown design district and is within the city of durst city of derms jurisdiction The existing use is a commercial retail, which right now is advanced auto parks Um, Lindsey Lindsey Kredgman on behalf of the developer scp dc LLC request the variance from the requirements that service areas not be placed on street frontage And the service area should be at least 20 feet from the building corner The site is owned downtown design district support one and in the downtown tier for unified development ordinance section 16.2.3 a three Unless the development site is be found sorry is Bound by right of way on all sides no service area shall be permitted along the frontage of the streets The applicant proposes to have a service area along the frontage of north mangam street It's only frontage This is a service area that is for a parking garage entry and a stairwell In addition the applicant requests a variance from udo section 16.2.3 b1 Which takes the service area shall be at least 20 feet from any building corner with street frontage the service areas propose 16 feet from the corner of the building um section udo section 3.14 b establishes the findings listed below that the board of adjustment Must make in granting a variance These findings and review factors are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings and review factors Are identified in the application both within your packets Staff will be available for any questions Well, the map we have here is not of the case that we're looking at Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, let me let me let me pull it to write one then. Uh, thank you for pulling that to me Um one second It's pulling up And the applicant does have um exhibits that they have so I will present those as needed This is one of the ones under review because we don't have a clean copy um, but here's the service area That they're referring to where the entrance will be to the garage And here's the corner of the of the building right in this area okay Any questions for Cole to have what you got I My question So there's an advanced auto here. It's coming downward the the applicant the applicant is seeking to put I guess some um some Apartments and uh some it appears to be some structured parking and it's the the the auto entry um That's located on the on the front of the building that's requiring this variance or is there some sort of other aspect to this To this entryway other than just automobiles getting to the parking deck. I'm I'm confused about that I'm sorry. What was what was the first part of that? I'm sorry. I know I got the last part But you dropped out for me a lot. I apologize So the first part was just you know, it looks like this is an application to build apartments in a parking deck and The variance is for a service area But to me it looks like the service area is simply the access to the parking garage. Am I missing something? No, that that's correct. Um, that that is uh as our udo defines it it defines as uh as entrances to parking as a service area Okay, so that's how the udo defines it the the reason the ordinance is needed because um, generally Uh, when you have an alley, um, you have to use that for access. I see. Um, but in this case They feel like the alley isn't sufficient Um, so they're proposing to get a variance from that to place The service area on that street frontage Will there be access to the it appears as though there's access to the alley as well Am I reading that correctly from? Um, I'll I'll let them talk to that. Um, to To I think it might just be one-way traffic, but I'll let them speak to that to be more specific. Thank you sir. No problem Any other questions for call before we hear from the applicant? I'm just looking through here. I don't see any Um, would the applicant come forward? I'm not sure who is speaking first Yes, hello, uh chairman rogers and fellow board members. I'm i'm dan jewel with cjt Thank you. Uh, Cole. That's a good exhibit to start with. Thank you so much for bringing that up if you can just leave that up for For the time being great. Um, again dan jewel cjt We are the uh, civil engineers and landscape architects for this project Uh, our office is just five blocks down mangham street at 111 was main and I reside at 1025 gloria avenue With me here this afternoon our lindsay christman of the project architect with client design Who will also provide testimony as well as preston roister A professional engineer with our office and the project manager on this as well as brison powell with the development team who will Help answer questions. Uh, and and thank you for all the time you're putting in this morning to hear all of these these cases um Cole the image seems to have disappeared. Is there a way to bring that back up again? Sorry, is that better? That's perfect. Thank you. Sorry about that. We'll go with what we got. All right Um, again a bit of background on my credentials. Uh, I have a professional degree in landscape architecture from perdua university I've been practicing as a licensed landscape architect for 38 years now Uh, the last 35 of those 36 of those in north carolina with the bulk of that experience in durham Uh, most of that work involves design and preparation of site plans Very similar to this project specific to this case The udo has made a a generalized attempt to establish a set of prescriptive design rules On try and make them apply to every situation. That's what a form-based code is um But every site has quirks. Uh, every site has situations every site has things that are specific to to Each so there's there's no such thing as chapter 16 of the udo being able to accommodate One size fits all for everything. Um, I know a bit about that I was privileged to sit on the citizens advisory committee that helped guide The creation and adopted of the udo 15 years ago And I also served on the citizens advisory committee that helped with the creation of the Downtown design district mapping and rules chapter 16, which is why we are here today And those rules were always intended to have some flexibility in cases with hardship, which of course is why we are here with you today In this specific case a hardship is created by a couple of factors The vision for downtown that chapter 16 of the udo Guides and the reason that we have a downtown design district is for a denser or more urban form of development That promotes a mix of uses And a high level of much needed housing opportunities as you all know, we are still On a on a shortage of supply issue to meet the growing demand for housing in Durham This is housing that will allow residents to live downtown support all of our great Local businesses that have been suffering a bit here over the last 12 months And our proposal furthers that vision providing by providing just those housing opportunities In a scale and a forum that is prescribed by the udo For better or for worse though The need for parking is still a reality in 2021 As much as I hold out hope that at some point our culture will meet move beyond being car dependent We are not yet there The market still demands parking And the banks still demand parking in order to get a project finance And parking is at the crux of our variance request And I think this will explain mr. Mr. Meadows question a little bit more Our initial design proposal was in fact to allow all of the parking to access the alley in the rear So that dark gray area on the the left side of the page that you're you are looking at The udo requires that if you have an alley, you're supposed to access the alley Unfortunately, we ran into thealities of what is a relatively narrow one-way alley as all alleys in Durham are And what that alley could accommodate And most importantly What the city transportation and public works departments would actually allow us to do That portion of the alley that stubs to the rear of this property again the gray area in the the exhibit you're looking at Is is one way We were able to successfully request a variance through the public works department from their reference guide to allow Two-way traffic on that stretch of alley But we also had to commit to actually a very novel solution that we have A traffic control gate signal so to speak so that only one car at a time could go in and out of that alley So we were able to solve the problem of being able to access that alley at all Otherwise we would have ended up as was a situation like a a roach motel car could cars could go in but they could not go out So public works granted that And although that solved the two-way situation The folks in city transportation Still said the amount of parking that you are providing on this site Is more than can be accommodated in an alley in a public alley of this scale so Because of that they required that we actually disconnect the lower level of parking and I failed to explain So this site slopes To the to the back toward the alley So there's a lower level of parking that is a full floor below the mangane street level And then there's a street level of parking on mangane street, which is sort of the the view that you see here today But the transportation department did not want all both levels to exit and enter in the alley on the back therefore We were we were required To have an additional access On mangane street and that is the location There in the the the the right side where it says auto entry service So half of the automobile traffic will use that one and the other half will be the lower the lower with with no connection in between So short of eliminating that second level parking which would have reduced the building program to a size that is Not feasible to develop but most importantly for you is certainly not in keeping with the goal for a bigger lively or more populous downtown A smaller building would not have contributed to that goal There are also specifics having to do with the width and configuration of the site And the dimensional requirements that that Are required for parking decks that would require that the driveway on mangane Be located where it is Thus requiring the very modest reduction Of the required 20 feet of separation from that upper right corner of the building to the service entry Rather than the 16 feet That we are able to do because of all of these issues Keep in mind that's a reduction of only four feet of that width Which is literally a step and a half or a blink of an eye if you're walking up the street Past the property also keep in mind some day that there will be we're sure another building Built to the north of this site meaning that The goal of not having a big Unglazed openings of the of the building will actually be met through a nice continuous storefront at some point in the future So before I turn it over to the project architect Miss kreshman to speak a bit more about the technical issues having to do with the parking layout and also How our variance request is still very much in keeping with the spirit Purpose and intent of the ordinance I'll close my testimony by saying that in my professional opinion Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance And that the hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to this property And that those hardships did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner So, uh, thank you for this time and I'd now like to turn it over to uh, Lindsay That is your question specifically to dan It is I have a few questions, but the the one that is most specific. I just needed a piece of clarity Then you mentioned that the um Was it the city that said you must have a second egress? Um, was was that um Was that the direction from public works or or quote unquote the city? Um, or was this second method of ingress egress? Uh from the from the applicant's volition So it's a combination. We need two levels of parking to support the project the scale of the project The city would only allow us to access the lower level from the alley They would not allow us to access the upper level from the alley Okay, and one more follow-on question Um, is it possible to change the configuration of the alley? Does right of way or space exist to uh upgrade that so that the the level of traffic Created from the use could could use the alley. Is that a possibility? Uh, no, sir. It is not because we did explore that too much length There there are ownership issues on either side of the alley. We don't control those and It's not simply the the gray stub of an alley that the transportation folks felt we That could only handle so much traffic It's also that portion of the alley on the the far left that uh goes from uh street to street along the back of the Uh, the the senior center. So we we tried but we couldn't get there with ownership and volume Thank you Tisha, um, you have a question Yes, hi, um, I do for mr. Jewel. Thank you for your presentation I I just need a little bit more clarification to what follow on to mr. Meadows question um The mangum street where it says auto entry would also be the exit for that level. Is that correct because there's only one they're not connected By levels. Is that right? Dan jewel again. Yes, ma'am. That is correct Okay, and then same with the lower level would only be alley exit and and an entrance Yes, ma'am. Dan jewel again. That is correct Thank you Dan, yeah, I'll turn it back over to you. I know you were had someone else Yes, I'd like to uh With your permission allow our project architect, uh, lindsay krichman to speak a little bit more about the peculiarities of the Parking and how we still meet the intent of the udio already lindsay Good afternoon, lindsay krichman as dan mentioned. I'm the architect and project manager. I'm with client design associates I am registered in i'm registered architect in north carolina with the masters of architecture from nc state university I have been designing projects in the dd district of durham for a little over 10 years now So I have encountered a lot of different conditions where sites do not Meet the direct intent of the udio as as dan alluded to This is definitely one of them. Um, I will say that we identified these issues very early on and we Brought them to the attention of coal and bow before we even had the first round of site plan comments So we're at the point now where we have an almost completely approved site plan Some middle package in this variance is kind of that last piece to approval We have done everything that we can On the design of the building to Get this to meet the intent and the spirit of the udio Dan did a very good job of describing this exhibit and how You know, we're being pulled from two directions from transportation and the udio Pulling this project to choose two different sides of the site So we've we've compromised and you know We have one entrance on one side and one entrance on the alley side, which I think is a great solution to reduce the traffic impact To both the sides of the site Another thing that we did regarding the function of the building to meet the the intent of the udio is that You can see on this exhibit that we move the trash and the move in And all of that the things that you think of that are actually service We've moved them all to the alley. And so that is definitely the intent of the udio So all of that service function will not be a long man gum The only service that we have a long man gum is that in and out entrance into the parking deck and then the code required stare egress That is required on this side of the site for fire safety And I wanted to point out one other thing about this part of the variance is We did reduce as part of our Working with coal on this we did make sure that our total service width along this frontage Is less than 20 of the frontage Which if service was allowed on man gum street on this site that is the udio requirement So we would be meeting the udio if it was allowed on man gum street Um Eliza, I believe you're presenting now. Could you go to the next exhibit? I want to talk a little more about the second part on the second variance that we're requesting this goes hand in hand if We're saying we are allowed to Have this auto entry on man gum If we do end up saying that that is going to be granted The geometry of the building is what Causes the second variance to be needed. So the width of the hardship for this part of the variance Is i'm going to do my best to describe it and definitely if you have questions. Let me know The width of the site We started laying it out and we've studied this parking configuration Of a lot of different ways We have to connect to the existing alley and you can see we're kind of flaring the alley to even get into the drive aisle So we've pushed the building to the south As much as we can and then we laid out our typical Parking bays which are required dimensions per the udio with drive aisles and parking stalls And when we get to the northern edge of the property We have a 10 foot setback from the private property line and that is for fire Code required separation and then also constructability so that we're not encouraging on the private property the adjacent private property so what that does it It's a the hardship is the width of the site So it makes that last bay of parking an angled parking bay So in order to keep our parking ratio as it needs to be for the site we Have those angled parking spaces and we've aligned the drive aisle with that We've increased it as much as we possibly could on the site and it got us to 16 feet. We're really really close The udio doesn't want to have a service area on the corner That's the intent of the requirements so you can see the Kind of rendering blow up to the right of the exhibit We created this active view space With a good amount of glazing and an entrance to the street so that you're not seeing service on the corner We've pushed all of the service area the riser rooms and all of that back from the street over 20 feet So we are complying with the udio as far as how far back the service areas are Um from mangam. It's just the drive aisle geometry that is causing the 16 feet Um, and eliza if you can go to the next slide. Um, I'll just end The last point is looking at this corner um To the right is the drive entrance for mangam flats. Um, currently and of course that could be developed in the future um, but walking down the street here you can see the You know the to the right the bottom right corner is where that active space is if you're walking as a pedestrian If this was a 20 foot wide space the pedestrian experience would be equal I don't think anyone would really see the difference if that was shifted over But it would have huge ramifications to the building and the feasibility of This development working Um, and I will leave it there for questions Chad, do you have a question for miss correct? I do I do. Thank you. Thank you. Um, thank you for that Would you Were there um any other additional design considerations regarding the entryway or or the the driveway proper for the vehicle entrance mangam I assume that the standards that we're dealing with are trying to you know, keep our our building facade pedestrian oriented and minimize the The amount of automobile character Um to the building facade. Can you talk a little bit about anything that you guys did As part of your design to address those kinds of concerns If anything Yes, definitely. Um, Lindsey Kretschman We looked at a few different locations for this auto entry and we settled on this location because It can integrate into the architecture. And so when you look at this building, it isn't prominent It's not something that jumps out to you as a service area The other part of it is we wanted the rest of the space To be contiguous. So when you're walking as a pedestrian, you have as much contiguous storefront and active area as possible Rather than placing it, you know, in the middle of the site or something like that Did that answer your question it did. Thank you. Will there be any sort of roll down gate or any sort of Appartenance that stretches across the entrance that raises and lowers as vehicles come and go or will it just be open There is a security gate.  Um, I believe from the right of way so that a car can pull in and Wait behind the gate without blocking traffic Okay, so there's a there's a There's a recess in the building wall that's at least 20 feet deep for a vehicle to sit And as while the gate's coming up Um, and what is the material of the of the gate? It will be um powder coated steel. So in dark color. Um, thank you Any other questions for the witness? Mr. Rogers dan jewel that does conclude our testimony. Thank you Alrighty, thank you. Um Any questions, you know any final thoughts on on uh any Not final thoughts but questions for the applicant just one more time This is chad. I have one more question for the for the staff Which is uh, where are we on parking? Are they providing proposing more parking than would be required or How how did that fair? So parking for the design district. Um, there is no minimum requirement. Yeah so The parking to provide and is I guess, um, that's what the applicant wants So to the applicant, um, how many spaces per unit are being provided? We are providing one space per dwelling unit, which is, um, I I crunched a few of the numbers looking a few years back at the multi-family projects in downtown Durham Um, the parking that's provided for those projects is one per bedroom So if that was translated to this project, we would have 25 additional parking spaces So we are pushing the envelope to have As few parking spaces as we possibly can. Um, and we're getting there. We would love to design a project with less and less parking So we really can't afford to lose any Or it it isn't leasable for the units Thank you All right, any any other questions for the applicants? All right, um, is there anyone here to speak against this application? Um, all right, uh, darlene wall. I'll give you a Couple of minutes Okay, um, my name is darlene wall and i'm president of public hardware our business is next door To the plan project at 599 north manham street. We've been here since 1995 um My problem I have I know they have their building Units for occupancy and that's that's a good thing. I understand the need for parking um, but what I don't Agree with is the fact that that park that alley The tenants were becoming through that alley to get to that lower parking day my only issue with that is the fact that central park Middle school is right behind this building that they're going to feel And that alleyway goes right behind central park middle schools And they don't have a lot of room back there But you know, they have a picnic table when I'm walking my dog sometimes I can see a class out there or a few kids out there just you know messing around but this I feel it's too close I feel it's it's going to cause a potential problem In in meeting ways, you know Kids are kids They're throwing a ball and you know, they're not going to be looking behind them As much it could happen. That's all that's all in life. Um And I and I just think that It's it's a uh I can't find the words I'm thinking about I just think that it would be a hazard is to those kids It could be and then there's the fact that when school is in session um, the parents do go down that alleyway they and probably 15 minutes school when school is getting out A lot of times there's parents parked on manningham street to get to the alley down seminary street And down in the alley that's on the backside of the storage place right behind us And so that's my main issue is the Is this too close to the school? That is my issue. I have no problem with them building the stuff next door. That's A good thing for dawn You know, but that is my only issue And I feel like that was enough for me to be able to speak up about it and I appreciate you giving me that opportunity All right. Thank you, miss. Well, are you worried about traffic? Is that what you're saying? I don't Know Just The small size of that alley for one thing. I know they're trying to extend it out I'll have or how many feet but it's so close to that school and the other and alley. I think it's alley 27 It it goes behind the storage place behind us And then it meets where they would be required to be able to go up Into I mean go down into the park and they that they're proposing But that to turn to get to that parking deck Is right and right at the back of that school I mean, it's right there. I think it's something that you should be looked into And you know, whatever you decide you decide But I really feel that it should be considered Okay. Well, thank you miss as well. Uh, is there anyone else Here to speak against this uh case looking around Going once Going twice All right, um All right, uh, any any thoughts from the board board members deliberation I have one more question for dan rexles here. Absolutely. Mr. Richard Um, maybe it's for cole too. Is that did I hear that was a one-way alley? Uh, yeah dan jewel. Uh, yes, sir all all alleys in Durham are officially one way My experience is that People only driving on them one way at a time But nobody right but but officially officially they are all one ways. Yes, sir And what is the direction of that alley? I cannot answer that Cole would you know I also do not know the direction of that alley This is chat.  What's the name of the road? Hold on a minute. Let me pull this side That's right. Yeah, and you uh, you turn so you would be you drive along the school You come you turn in at the storage place go down the hill and then come along the school Uh and turn I guess left or right on boundary I guess and that is morning drop off at that school That's seminary if he turns it into souls Yeah Alley's seminary and then hunt is that's it. Sorry hunt So you get on on seminary uh, you you you travel I guess in a northerly direction on the alley, which would be Unfortunately, it's kind of hard looking at the site plan, but you travel north on that alley Gotcha. Thanks, Jen All right any other questions for staff or or the applicant or Make sure I'd uh any deliberations thoughts This is a quest for variance. So there are as no staff recommendation at the tisha. Do you have something? I will just say from personal experience at that alleyways is quite congested already as it is with traffic going to and from that school and as is hunt street and seminary and also behind public hardware All that stuff is really congested during the school hours of time based on my experience of having uh gone back and forth there many years, but um That's just my opinion traffic Mr. Lysie you have that and yeah, um oops Okay, uh We're talking about four feet right Uh It's 16 feet instead of 20 feet for the front That's what we're talking about is a four feet and then the additional thing we're talking about is uh Agress and entrance from in the lower levels through the alley And transportation has already said yes, it can happen. So I'm sure they've uh done due diligence as the professionals they are and I don't really see that there's a barrier And we're talking about four feet. We're not talking about um putting a A garage entrance or exit right at the corner, which would be I think dangerous because when you come around the corner You don't know that there's a going to be a car waiting to get on So I think that they've done the best they could do with the to accommodate all of the needs So I'm going to vote in favor of it Thank you. Mr. Lysie any other thoughts Uh, mr. Tam. This is chad. Um, you know, this is a use that's allowed. Um, I think they've tried to be judicious in the provision of parking Um from the testimony received it was the city that was compelling them to to put this entrance On on mangham. Um, because the alley is too small Uh to accommodate The traffic they did relocate the trash Uh the moving area to the back. So to me that was a move that signals consist an attempt for for consistency um You know the I agree with um With mr. Lysie regarding the de minimis nature of the the second variants. Um, doesn't seem like That's a a major A fatal flaw in the request and they Have done some design consideration to to try to address, you know that that address the city requirements. Um, so I too Am i'm going to support this if we want to um densify downtown Uh and want to provide housing alternatives Um and have to recognize people still drive cars Um and that those cars have to operate on the transportation system that we have Maybe not the one that we want. Um, then compromises like this have to happen Thank you Well said mr. Meadows uh mike tan I um, I completely agree with with mr. Meadows mr. Lacy and I'd like to thank the applicant team for A very thorough and clear presentation and walking through each of these findings that I think you You know certainly helped um provide a good good overview of what What we're considering here today You know I am Certainly also supportive of this. I feel like you know what we're talking about four feet on the building corner Um, it might be a different situation that this property was actually on the corner of an intersection But having pulled the the building back 10 feet from the property line you actually are 24 feet from the property corner versus Um, you know just the 16 from the physical corner of the building so Um, this not being a service i.e. trash and loading You know where you have trucks backing into it out of the right of way I think I think you've done a done a great job meeting that particular criteria So again, I appreciate it. I'm supportive of this uh this application uh anyone else I Concur when mr. Turret and um jad Is delacy well spoken and uh to preserve more time. I will not speak but I am for the variants If there's no more discussion does anyone want to offer a motion? Delacy Just delice I hear may by make a motion that the application number Be 21 bunch of zeros 10 an application for a request for a variance from the requirements To not place a service area along a street frontage and for service area to be 20 feet from the building corner on property located at 509 North mangan street has successfully met the apical requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions That the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application All right, we've got a motion to approve by mr. Lacey. Is there a second? wretchless second Second by my gretch less Susan will you take it over mr. Lacey? Yes, mr. Kip. Yes mr. Meadows Yes, mr. Rogers Yes Mr. Wretch less Yes Ms. Wymore Yes, mr. Tarrant Yes Motion carries seven to zero A vote of seven to zero your variance has been approved We're gonna form a order soon and we appreciate you coming before the BOA this afternoon. Thank you so much. Okay Thank you very much good continue on our agenda here. I see no old business. I see no new business And now to the approval of orders Lacey. I have new business. Oh, you've got new business here. Yes, this will be my last meeting Um, I've uh submitted ray recommend my resignation to the mayor Um, it's been a great ride eight years here two years another sworn committee and uh The other 15 and various boards and commissions. Um, and so I'd like to thank you all for being this is the hardest job Of any committee or I've been on and I really appreciate the professionalism of these volunteers who Just care for the city and the county Um, so thank you all for your service. So Regina. What if we don't we don't accept your resignation, huh? Too bad, buddy. Stevie already did But thank you for the kind that words I truly appreciate your your commitment to this uh to this group and as well as you know, as your Two years as chair as well Just before me. So, um, Wishing nothing but the best, but thank you. Yeah Okay, now you can do the order All right about the orders, um The first one the only Pete. There are three of you who can vote uh and make a motion That's going to be mike tarrant in kip and chad meadows on this one. Uh, so This is from previous meeting b two Need a motion and a second for each of these Uh, but b two zero zero zero zero zero five one. Is there a motion to approve from one of those three people? Meadows move approval meadows first. Who's the second? Tarrant second. Oh can't make okay parent second Susan you want to take it away? Did you say the only three people that could vote was delay c one more and Nope Tarrant kip and meadows Gina Cannot vote those three and those those don't okay. Mr. Kip. Yes, mr. Meadows. Yes Mr. Rogers. Nope. Mr. Wetzel. I can't I can't vote I'm sorry. Just just the three uh, uh, tarrant kip and meadows are the only people who can vote Can okay. Let me start this over mr. Tarrant. Yes, mr. Kip. Yes, mr. Meadows. Yes Motion carries three to zero. All right Our next one is b two zero zero zero zero four nine Everyone who will see today is is eligible to vote on this one need a motion and a second Meadows move approval Lacey second Okay Mr. Lacey. Yes, mr. Kip. Yes, mr. Meadows. Yes, mr. Rogers. Yes, mr. Wetzel. Yes one more Yes, mr. Tarrant Yes All right, here he's seven to zero b two one zero zero zero zero three everyone is also eligible to vote on this one Need a motion or a second meadows move approval meadows. Who's the second? Mr. Lacey. Yes, mr. Kip. Yes, mr. Meadows Yes, mr. Rogers. Yes, mr. Wetzel Yes, one more. Yes, mr. Tarrant. Yes Motion carries seven to zero. All right. Now our next one will be b two one zero zero zero zero five Chad is can't vote on this when he voted. No, so From the other six we'll need a motion and a second Lacey some of the Lacey and who's in the second Kip second Kip second miss Mr. Lacey. Yes, mr. Kip. Yes, mr. Rogers. Yes, mr. Wetzel. Yes, one more Yes, mr. Tarrant Yes, motion carries six to zero All righty our next one will be b two one zero zero zero zero nine Everyone's eligible to vote on this one need a motion and a second Motion wretchless wretchless first. Who's the second? Mr. Lacey Mr. Tarrant Yes, mr. Wymore Yes, mr. Wretchless Yes, your Rogers Yes, mr. Meadows. Yes, mr. Kip. Yes, mr. Lacey. Yes Motion carries seven to zero All right, our final one is b two one zero zero zero one zero again. Everyone's eligible to vote I need a motion and a second hold on Krista Um, Krista could go to the attorney's office since there was opposition on that one Uh, I believe it would be appropriate to come back with a order on it. That's right. That's right No, we won't vote on that one right now Uh Well, Regina, I don't want you to go Oh, that's sweet, honey It's been a good run, but um, it was time. Yeah, I understand completely understand. It's good to have you here. Um, Let's I don't know what else to say about it. Regina. Thank you for the peer support and um, you're definitely a great role model to follow And uh, you've helped me out a lot on this board. Thank you. It means a lot coming from you, Michael Thanks for your leadership. You've been wonderful to work with I'm really happy to have met you I and I you and I love your comfy chairs Thanks Thank you, Regina You're awesome Thanks, Regina from staff Thanks, Eliza. You've been swell Thank you Great working with you as chair and as a member so many wishes in your next endeavor. Thanks a lot All right guys. Well our next meeting will be April 27th at 8 30 am Until then I will see you then if there are motion for adjournment The lacy so move In a second I See you guys today. It's been fun