Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners. We're an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials will have the final say on any of the items that are before us this evening. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom meeting platform and in this virtual meeting setting, public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen by default to maintain decorum and a discernible record of the meeting. The chat function has also been disabled. Speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time in the meeting. So if you have preregistered to speak on any item that will be having a public hearing on this evening, we will call your name in the order that you signed up just like we would at an in-person hearing. If you call in before the meeting started and staff was able to get your name, your name will also be called to speak at the appropriate time as normal. You may call in to the meeting tonight by dialing 1-301-715-8592. And if you want to speak, you can wait until the particular public hearing is opened and after all the registered speakers have spoken, we'll give an opportunity for you to be able to digitally raise your hand and we'll give you the opportunity to speak as well. You can press star nine to digitally raise your hand at the appropriate time. We ask that everyone speaking during the public hearing start by providing their name and their 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. May we have the roll call please? Good evening, Chair Busby and planning commissioners. We know of one absence for this evening that will be commissioner Baker and one potential late arrival. That's commissioner MacGyver. So can I have commissioner Amondola? Here. Chair Busby? Here. Commissioner Durkin? Here. Commissioner Johnson? Present. Vice chair Kenchin? Present. Commissioner Landfried? Present. Commissioner Lowe? Present. Commissioner MacGyver, I don't think he's joined us yet. Commissioner Miller? Here. Commissioner Morgan? Here. Commissioner Williams? Here. Thank you. Thank you. May we have a motion to excuse commissioner Baker from this evening's meeting please? So moved. Seconded. Moved by commissioner Miller, seconded by commissioner Morgan and we'll have the roll call vote please. Commissioner Amondola? Yes. Chair Busby? Yes. Commissioner Durkin? Yes. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Vice chair Kenchin? Yes. Commissioner Landfried? Yes. Commissioner Lowe? Yes. Commissioner Miller? Yes. Okay, commissioner Morgan? Yes. And commissioner Williams? Yes. Okay, thank you. Great, thank you. So we have three previous meeting minutes to be approved. Those were sent out about a week ago and we can do all of those in one motion. Those are for the August 11th, September 15th and September 22nd meetings. And before we have a motion are there any issues with any of those? They look fine to me, but I don't know if anyone caught anything that we need to change before we approve them. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible in future to send all the minutes to former commissioner member Brian just for review before we vote? I think that's a great idea. I was thinking that too.  I don't know if he will appreciate it, but we could try. Commissioner Miller, would you be willing to make the motion? I will. I move that we approve the proposed minutes that were recited by Ms. Smith. Actually, I believe they're recited by you, Mr. Chairman. Great. Okay, so commissioner Miller, and the motion is to approve the August 11th, September 15th and September 22nd, 2020 meeting minutes. And was that commissioner Morgan who seconded? Emondoya. Emondoya. Yeah, I thought, I thought, I don't know. He beat me to it. Oh, okay. Commissioner Emondoya. Okay. And included with that motion are the consistency statements that are embedded in those minutes. Thank you. Will the roll call please on the motion? Okay. Commissioner Emondoya. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Darkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Kenchan. Yes. Commissioner Landfrey. Yes. Commissioner Low. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. And commissioner Williams. Yes. Thank you. Adjustments to the agenda. I know that Ms. Smith, I know you have something. I did want to note that former commissioner Santiago just got back to me in the past hour. He's not able to make it tonight. We're going to see if he can join us next month. Okay. Well, we can take that off of today's agenda. Okay. I would recommend that we move the resolution for Akram Alturk up to the top of the agenda. And then I know Grace, you wanted to add one other item. Yes. If we can move the resolution for former commissioner Alturk to the front before the public hearings and then add a new business item C and it's just the adoption of the 2021 meeting schedule. Mr. Bosby, if I may then jump in, I know you have an un-seconded motion pending, but with your kind permission, I would like to offer instead, this motion is that we advance the item 11B to the top of the agenda and follow it with a new item concerning our schedule for the next calendar year. We'll put that next on the agenda. That is a valid motion if we have a second. Seconded. Thank you. And the roll call vote. Commissioner Emondoya. Yes. Chair Bosby. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Canchin. Yes. Commissioner Landfrey. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. And I wanted to go backwards if I may and just state for the record that all of the public hearing items have been noticed in accordance with state and local law and the affidavits for those notices are on file in the planning department. Thank you. Thank you. Akram, it's good to see you. We've missed you. Thanks for joining us tonight. I have, you're on mute. I was just saying it's good to see you all too. I'm still learning how to unmute myself.  So Akram, we have a resolution to thank you and honor you for your service on the commission. I'm gonna read it in its entirety. We'll have the vote. And then I know we've said goodbye before but this is one more opportunity for us to thank you for all your great service. This is a resolution and appreciation of Mr. Akram Al-Turk whereas Mr. Akram Al-Turk was the member of the Durham Planning Commission from May 2nd, 2016 through September 15th, 2020. And whereas the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens of the city and the county of Durham have benefited from the dedicated efforts that he displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission. And whereas this commission desires to express its appreciation for the public of a job well done, now therefore be it resolved by the Durham Planning Commission that this commission does hereby express its sincere appreciation for the service render by Mr. Al-Turk to the citizens of this community and that the clerk for the commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official minutes of this commission and this resolution is hereby presented or will be mailed to Mr. Al-Turk as a token of the high esteem held for him adopted this 13th day of October, 2020. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I move the resolution. Second. Moved by commission members, seconded by commissioner Durkin and we will have a roll call vote, please. Yes, I forgot how to unmute myself as well, so. Commissioner Amondoya. Yes. Chair Busby. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Cainchin. Yes. Commissioner Landfrey. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Don't believe commissioner MacIver has joined yet. I don't see him. Commissioner Miller. He said yes. Yes. Okay, got you. Got you. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. And commissioner Williams. Yes. All right, thank you. Thank you. Akram, good news, it was unanimous. The floor is yours. Thank you again for your service. We miss you. Sure, yeah. I said a lot in my last meeting, so I'll keep this brief. I just want to thank you all again. I really love being part of the commission. Love serving residents of Durham. Learned a lot from you all, and so I will miss being on the commission, miss the long meetings, and I will miss living in Durham. I'm probably moving right before Thanksgiving, and it'll be nice to be in Austin, close to family and friends, but it's bittersweet, so thanks again. Well, thank you, I'll work with the staff, and we'll get a hard copy of the resolution sent to you, so you have one more thing to pack and move to Austin. Thanks again, Akram. Thank you. Take care. Grace, we will hand it to you. Next on the agenda is now the 2021 meeting dates. Okay, so emailed the proposal out. It's very straightforward. We didn't move any meetings, all the meetings are the second Tuesday of the month, so Ms. Durkin doesn't have to worry about it messing up her calendar again. We didn't have any conflicts with city council, so it's straight every, the second Tuesday of every month, so I just need a motion to approve that. For now, we can always make adjustments later. Before we vote, we've had this problem in the past, and I forgot to check about it, but it just occurred to me now. Are we confident that all of our second Tuesday meeting dates are don't conflict with election days? As far as I know, I checked earlier, and I know that the November date does not. I did not check the October date, but I can do that and circle back to you if there's a conflict, we can always fix it. All right, thank you very much. Sure thing, thanks for bringing that up. So, Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt the schedule. Second. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Miller moved it. Commissioner Williams seconded, and we'll have the roll call vote. Amandoya, commissioner Amandoya? Yes. Chair Busby? Yes. Commissioner Durkin? Yes. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Vice Chair Kanchin? Yes. Commissioner Lainfreid? Yes, sorry. It's okay. Commissioner Lowe? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Morgan? Yes. And commissioner Williams? Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will move to our first case. This is the 551 Olive Branch Road, and it's case A1900017 and Z1900044, and we will begin with the staff report. Hey, good evening, Chair Busby and commissioners. Alexander Kale here to present on the 551 Olive Branch Road zoning map change. The case is, the agent is Kurt Berger from FFAC Olive Branch East. This is the 551 Olive Branch Road area, right where Doc Nichols Road meets Olive Branch. The jurisdiction is in the city. The site acreage is about 19.61 acres, located in the suburban development tier. The existing zoning is residential rural, and the rezoning request is for a PDR 5.556. The current flum designation is a low density residential recreation open space. This proposal is to build up to 108 townhouse units. You can see the aerial map, the location of the site. This is again, right next to the intersection of Doc Nichols and Olive Branch Road, just east of that. You can see the area photos here. There is a lot of heavily-treated areas and surrounding and adjacent single-family homes near the property. For the zoning context, again, it's currently residential rural, and the proposal is for move towards a PDR 5.556. But some of the tax commitments that we wanna note for this applicant's proposal is limiting the number of units to 108, a minimum 60-foot right-of-way dedication for proposed collector street, a minimum of a five-foot of additional asphalt to be provided for the full frontage of the site along the east side of Olive Branch Road, and that's to allow for a bicycle lane. The construction of an exclusive self-bound left turn lane with adequate storage and the appropriate tapers located on Olive Branch Road. And then the construction of a continuous three-lane cross section on Olive Branch Road as well. Graphic and design commitments on this development plan include the location of tree coverages, site access points, project boundary buffers, riparian buffers and no-build lines. This is 100-foot stream buffer with a 10-foot no-build setbacks and the building and parking envelopes. Additionally, there's graphic and design commitments on this development plan that include gabled roofs, accent materials that include brick or stone masonry, a varied color palette. Outdoor decks or patios have a minimum of 40 square feet will be provided on all dwelling units. Front-facing garage doors that have windows, directive details or garage-style adornments. Windows on the front facade of the dwelling include shutters or trim, and windows which face a public right-of-way on the rear elevation or side elevation of dwelling will include trim as well. For the tree save on this, the required tree save is 20% and the applicant on the D plan is committing to a tree preservation of 20% all through the preservation of the existing tree coverage on the site. Staff has done a review against comprehensive plan policies. It is consistent with the flum designation of low-medium density residential. The suburban tier is defined. Continuous development patterns, the current infrastructure capacity, as you saw in the staff report, the school level of service standard and the development review of adopted and regional bicycle plans. Additionally, additional policies that this is compliant with is the natural heritage inventory, the open-space master plans and the residential as defined. Staff does determine that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan, the public interest in applicable policies and ordinances. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Bozny. Yeah, I appreciate it. We will open the public hearing and of the individuals who signed up in advance, we have, appears we have the applicants as proponents and one individual as an opponent. So we will just provide our usual 10 minutes per side for this hearing and we will start with the applicants. Mr. Neil Gosha, I know you're signed up as well as Ryan Akers, Jesse Hardesty and maybe Colin Brown is listed as well. I don't know if those are all members of your team but the floor is yours for the proponents. Sure, and good evening, Chair Bozby and members of the planning commission. My name is Neil Gosha, I'm an attorney at the Morning Star Law Group here at Enduranga 112 West Main Street. I'm representing the applicant, it was Kurt Burger, I believe he's on the call. I did want to note Colin Brown is not part of the team, I don't think, I do have a few folks from McAdams, Ryan Akers, Jesse Hardesty, I believe Dick Williams might also be on the call. So first of all, thank you, Mr. Cahill for your presentation of the case. As mentioned, the site is right around 19 acres and is in the Doc Nichols, all the Branch Road area that I know you all know has seen a lot of development proposal. This particular project is interesting because the site actually does not have a lot of road frontage. Moreover, at only 108 units, the project is not very large. Nevertheless, because of the cumulative impacts of developments proposed and approved in this area, this relatively small project includes several road improvements. The developer is committing to adding a bike lane along all of Branch Road along this frontage, adding an exclusive southbound left turn lane along all of Branch Road, so cars accessing the site can get out of the way of the road traffic and is providing a continuous three lane cross section on all of Branch Road between the two proposed access points despite not having frontage on that portion of the road. It also is important to note that the internal road network is being coordinated with the adjacent Mungo project in order to provide an important east-west collector for this region. Because Mungo was first to the table, so to speak, it basically got to decide where the collector would go. Of course, its portion of the collector does not actually connect to anything, but the leg that will be built in conjunction with this project actually will get folks out to all of Branch Road. Over time, as future properties develop, that collector street will provide access between all of Branch Road and Virgil Road as properties develop for future. Finally, I wanted to note that the decision to make this a town-home community came from input we received both from staff and from city council members before we filed the rezoning gates. As you know, there is a housing shortage in Durham in our initial discussions with city council about this project. We consider the plans that were entirely single family, entirely towns, or mixed with both. The feedback we got from this big bridge was overwhelmingly for all town-homes, so that is the direction that we went based on that feedback. As I mentioned, we have our team available to answer questions you may have. We hope you will favor this project tonight, and I would just ask the reserves to remain here in time for any rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. As I mentioned, we have one individual who signed up to speak in opposition.  Yes, thank you.  Okay, my name is Anthony Elliott, address 623 Olive Branch. All right, so my opposition to this is this area has traditionally been rural residential. If the builder would like to build rural residential, I have absolutely no problem with that. The other construction areas in this area have already built over 100 houses in this area, with all of which are not filled yet. Once those are filled, and he builds another 109 units, figuring at least two to three cars per house, that's gonna be, by the time all these are filled, it's gonna be thousands of cars coming through this area every day. And if you try to get to work at the same time as everybody else, we'll never get out of this place. It's already gotten so bad with the units at our field that we can't even get to our mailbox in the afternoon. The addition of more homes in this area is gonna be a problem. Understand that they want to develop the area because they own it. The wildlife really has been hit significantly with this. We used to see lots of wildlife crossing our land, deers, wild turkeys, now nothing. The only deer I see now are laying in the road as a grease spot. So I would hope that if they were gonna do this, if they could just use the whole track as wildlife reserve, instead of building another 109 units. That's really my case. Thank you. And then there was a Colin Brown listed, so I'm just gonna, they may not be here this evening or they may have signed up for the wrong case, but if you are with us and you can raise your hand, and again, you can press star nine to digitally raise your hand. And then while we do that, I'll ask if anyone else would wanna speak on this item during the public hearing, you can also raise your hand and we'll give you the opportunity. Well, I don't see anyone else who is asking to speak. And so we will close the public hearing and commissioners, if you can raise your hand either regularly or virtually, I'll call on you, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Miller, the floor is yours. You need to unmute. All right, very good. Thank you. So I wanted to start with questions. There's a notation in the staff report about creating a non-conformity with one of a lot off the property. Can somebody explain that to me and show me on the map? Commissioner, well. Actually from the staff, please. Okay. Alexander, if you can pull up the development plan, I think I'm familiar with the area or the question that Mr. Miller has. I did. So on the development plan sheet, right. So to the left, Alexander, yeah, if you wanna go to the bottom left of the development plan sheet, there's a notation there where that point of access is being shown. There you go. So I would like for Mr. Gose to address this because he's done a lot of research on the order of how this should happen. We made a note in the staff report as to why this would be non-conforming for now until it gets to site plan and is entitled at that point. There is a proposal to put in a 50 foot public right of way there and what you'll see is when that is installed, it will leave, or when that is plated, it would leave a strip. I guess it's, I think it's 50 foot strip that would be technically being non-conforming a lot that the applicant could add to their proposal through their site plan and decide which and how they're gonna use it at that point in time. There's no way to address it at this point through the development plan stage other than to call it out and be sure that it's addressed at the site plan stage so that we don't create a non-conforming lot when that right of way is plated. So let me, if I may, so it's my understanding because this is more than 90 units, we've got to have two access points, right? And so this would be the second access point. Correct. And while, so it helped me understand, I thought the UDO doesn't allow us to create, to do rezonings or approved projects that create non-conformities. Who actually owns this piece of land? So I'll let Mr. Gose answer your question. The, it hasn't been created yet. It's, we called out that it could be if it's not resolved when the access is plated at the time of site plan. We wouldn't allow them to create the non-conforming lot. But I don't understand when you say it could be. It has the appearance that it could be. We would not allow that at site plan. If they could not rectify this situation at site plan, they would be short on access and potentially not be able to build their project. So Mr. Gose, can you explain the background on the ownership and these two lots or this one lot and what's going on please? Sure, absolutely. And so the lot currently is not done by the applicant. However, the applicant does have it under contract. The main issue with the non-conformities is you're right, Commissioner Miller, that above 90 units requires two points of access. And that would be our second point of access. That's why we've shown it there with the error. The problem is the additional parcel is not part of the zoning request. This came up after the development plan had been had been submitted. So what we're unable to do is make any commitment that's related to the parcel that is not part of the zoning. However, so we can't do that through the zoning. If this rezoning is approved, it would not create any non-conforming situation. The potential for a non-conforming situation would come at site plan. Once that additional parcel is conveyed to the developer and if a 50-foot rideway is dedicated through there, then there will be a remainder piece of land that is not conforming with that zoning district. However, the UDO does allow for non-conforming lot sizes if they are part of an open space lot, like common open space lot for the community. That's like where you would see the buffer around the community. Generally, that's gonna be its own lot. And typically it's not usually wide enough to meet the middle lot requirements for the typical zoning district, rezoning zoning district. Same thing would happen here. So the additional leftover portion of that lot that is not part of the 50-foot rideway that's being dedicated would become part of the open space lot for the rest of the community. That would have to happen if you proposed that site plan in order for the project to be approved with 108 units. Otherwise, we would be capped in 90 units because we'd only be able to provide one point of that. So it seems to me that if you have this parcel under contract, you should have included it in the overall rezoning. There is no doubt that if the timing of that were allowed us here, that that would have been the cleanest way to do it. But the... Well, again, I'm commenting, I'm not asking. I'm just uncomfortable with this. It seems to me that this is too complex. I'm not sure it's actually consistent with the spirit of the UDO for us to approve a rezoning which has built into it the possibility of a violation of the UDO. And I know you're in a hurry to get this approved, but I think the thing to do is to fix this and to wait a cycle while you do it. Grace, if this were withdrawn and then resubmitted with this lot that is on Olive Branch Road added, would that be a start over or just a modification to the current zoning case? It could be modified at this time. It would cost a little, may cost them a cycle. And the zoning's not really creating a non-conformity. I think we were mostly just wanted to point out to you all that the second point of access will not be firmed up and actually a real access until the time of site plan. And you're satisfied that the commitments don't require them to build 108 townhouses. It would be up to 108 townhouses. They could not dip below the significant deviation, the significant change, which would be the 20%. They'd have to stay within the 20% of what their density calls for. But they can do that with, that's very close, isn't it? It's close, but I don't, I think it works out. I think we did that math already and it works out. Let me ask you this. Could this be fixed with a commitment that makes it clear what will happen with regard, I just don't, in other words, we would wind up with a project that spills outside its development plan boundaries even if it works the way Mr. Ghosh wants it to. I'm not comfortable with that. The staff had the same problem with this. We've tried to figure out what kind of commitment could be made to make this more clear. However, the, because the property is not included in the development plan, they can't make any commitments regarding that property because it's out there to be. I answered my impression before I finished asking. Right, so we basically told him that he was kind of proceeding at his own risk because if he can't write. I think that there's a. It would be limited to 90 units. I think there's a significant ripeness problem here and I don't believe this is ready for prime time, but I've got more questions. I noticed that there is this through right of way that goes right through the steep slope area. And I'm not particularly happy with that. But I will confess this is a funny piece of property. I have not actually gone on to it. I drove back and forth on knowledge branch road. I parked on Doc Nichols road to look at it, but there's, it rises up a little bit behind these houses that face branch road, but you don't have any clear indication. From my vantage point, I didn't get to see what this looks like back there, but I know that when slopes are steep enough in order to get a drawing on the map, they're pretty darn steep. And I've troubled with a plan that plans for a road. I don't believe anybody's ever gonna build. I just don't see a connecting street going through there. I do not see enough activity and development in this area to justify it. So that's another problem I have with that. I noticed that the, to help me understand, because the design, these design commitments have some wording and I will say that the next case has the same thing. So maybe I can ask the question once. It says that the front facing windows on the units will have shutters. Will there be front facing windows on these units at the ground level? And that's a question for you, Neil, or for somebody on your team. Yes, but I think I understand what you're saying. It doesn't necessarily commit to windows. In other words, will there be ground level windows that are not garage windows or the window in the front door of the house for some or all of these units? In other words, is this a commitment that is a commitment to put shutters on two upstairs windows? No, I think I understand. And in my understanding, yes, there will be windows on the ground floor of at least some of these units that are just windows, not the door, not the garage. All right, thank you. That really helps me understand a little bit. And two more comments. I guess my biggest problem with this is, so I'll have a question for staff. So I'm a dinosaur and you send me a paper version of this staff report. And when I look at the attachment three concerning the future land use map, I don't understand it because there is no legend that tells me what the colors mean. It just shows me the case area and then it says the parcels are described by dark lines. But the map you sent me has several colors on it. And I wanna make sure I understand that except for the part of the map that is designated very low residential, the rest of it is low density residential and then the gray shaded area is recreation open space. Do I understand the map correctly? Yes, that is correct, Commissioner Noll. All right, thanks. So my biggest problem is, is that we're, if we approve these two cases because this is a flum change and a rezoning, we will be creating a 19, well, a 20 acre, I'll give them the other portion of an acre, a 20 acre island of different category and the future land use map in an area that is completely surrounded by lower densities and which in the projects that have been presented to us up to this point have all been for lower densities. So I'm not sure I understand a justification is a simple matter of consistency why this 20 acre parcel, which doesn't even have its own direct access to Olive Branch Road, becomes an island of higher density development than everything that is around it and everything that could be around it and everything that's actually in the hopper and coming. And so I'm very uncomfortable with that. Those are my points, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Other commissioners, any additional questions or comments? Commissioner Amandolia, the floor is yours. Thank you, Chair. I just have a couple of comments on this case. There are two primary reasons I don't like this case. First off, it's an auto-oriented portion of Durham. It's seeking a lot, it's experiencing a lot of development currently and to my knowledge and understanding there is not a lot if any proposed commercial activity in the area. And so even with potential walkability standards, there would not be many commercial activities to walk to and so it'd be more for going on a stroll rather than getting to employment or any kind of services. The second concern I have is the level of impervious surfaces on this site given that it is right next to a future 100-year floodplain and basically the entire site slopes down to the edges. I think that is not good planning for future flood impacts, especially with an area that is experiencing such high intensity development currently because of those two things I'll be voting no on this case. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chair. So my first question is for the applicant regarding the proposed residential units. What is the anticipated price points for these units? Can we believe these units will start about $250,000? And do you have a sense of the average size of a typical unit? Square flip. If someone on the team does, I'm not the best person to answer that. I will leave it just, I hope we don't have to raise their hand to answer that question. Or maybe if you want to continue with your comment. Yeah, yeah, it's not a make a break question but I'll be interested in that. And in hearing the prior questions and comments and responses, so you opted to move forward with this request as is with understanding that if all of your assumptions doesn't play out regarding getting the second access point you'll have to go down to 90 units. And so that potential outcome along with the points that Commissioner Miller raised in regards to the development and the density that it brings regarding the surrounding area. Can you just provide some insight on like one obviously it seems that if you're okay with the 90 with a lower number of units that it doesn't necessarily hurt your economics with it but what's the rationale for wanting to bring this up the maximum units that you're requesting like bringing a level of density that's not necessarily compatible with what's around it in an area that would basically build on to this notion of auto dependent like development. So in regards to what this development beyond bringing additional units to this area of Durham like what is the other benefits that you are seeing or articulate to us like how is this an overall benefit in what you're proposing to bring to this site? So first of all, I'll go back to your previous question about the size of the units. I guess they're roughly around 1800 square feet. And then to answer your question that you just asked so there are I guess three reasons for it. So first of all is we did have discussions with council members before we filed this reasoning. And honestly we were concerned that the density that we're proposing might not be dense enough. So the additional density as compared to the rest of the area was not, we weren't concerned that this thing was too dense or we were concerned that it might not be dense enough. And in fact, that was a lot of the feedback that council gave to the Mongo project the first time it came through to council. One of the other reasons for the additional density here is the need for housing in Durham generally. And in this area in particular, there is the surro of low station, which is meant to accommodate moderate density which is what staff has described previously for surro. It's meant to within this base and provide for moderate density residential. And that's exactly the type of density that we're going for in the project. And then the last thing I wanna touch on was, I'm not sure if any of you all had an opportunity to catch the presentation at the September 24th work session that staff gave to council about surro. But in general, what they were talking about is development of this overall basin and what that might look like in the future. And I think Commissioner Ann and Billy have touched on this a bit, that this is auto-oriented type of development. And I don't disagree. However, what staff has determined is that development in the surro's area is most likely going to be auto-oriented. Ask point blank by city council what kind of trends it would be possible in this area. For example, the bill of judge who was with the transmission department explained that even traditional bus service probably isn't going to be likely here based on the density that surro's could support. So, you know, one thing that staff touched on in its presentation to council was that there are areas in surro that simply cannot be built at anything other than a suburban density. And then there are areas where, you know, like this small pocket, 19 acres, which might be able to support more density because of its, you know, relative, relative to other areas in surro's doesn't have as many environmental impacts. But in the basin in general, there are, you know, natural heritage areas, flood plains, wetlands and that type of thing. And so there are many properties that simply aren't going to be able, even though the basin is quite large, there's not going to be able to support higher density. This is one of those projects or acreages that is going to be able to support more than four years of the acre. And we have tried to provide a density which makes sense in that context. All right, thank you. And so in my general comments from what I've heard up to this point, and thank you, Neil, for the response, is I'm not, so if we assume that we are, say I'm not opposed to the fact that auto-oriented development is not necessarily going to go away just because we understand that there are more environmentally friendly ways to develop land these days. The issue for me is still like, that doesn't mean that if we accept that cars are going to be on the road then it justifies like higher density projects that doesn't fit in with existing landscapes, right? And so for me, it's for this parcel here. And I'm inclined to vote against in hopes of getting something better, but understanding that if we're going to develop this site here, I still think that like what we're getting is like minimum standards in regards to like the 20% tree coverage preservation or whatnot. It's like, if you're going to live in a car-oriented area, like can we do something with these developments to make it, to enhance the quality of life in other areas? And I just feel that with proposals like this, where we're being asked to basically allow something that otherwise would not be, is we should aim to do better than average at best and minimum at worst. And so I just don't see how projects like this, even if they comport on all the other areas or bringing value to Durham from a long-term standpoint when we're seeing like the impacts of building auto-oriented developments and on the flip side, like when we look out west, it's like when you see the impacts on environments when we don't plan forward thinking enough, wildfires and things like that, not saying that this is a one-to-one comparison, but are we thinking more in a forward thinking manner in regards to what are we actually creating on the ground if we're conceding to some assumptions such as, like this part of Durham is going to be auto-oriented, like what should we be looking for other components within these developments that bring some other value that we're not getting because we are allowing or bringing certain types of development? So I'm curious to hear if there's other thoughts from the commission in regards to this proposal, because I think it has implications for others that we'll see going forward and just trying to get a, I'm interested to hear other thoughts, so I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Durkin. I just wanted, I don't have a lot to add to what has already been said, but I wanted to at least echo those thoughts, especially about the auto-oriented development. And I think there is a distinction between being auto-oriented, there's a spectrum, being auto-oriented and then being a lot of transit buses and transit lines that go lots of places. And this is on auto-oriented where you can't walk anywhere. So you could have commercial nodes that you can access, like we'll see in the next case, which I think there's a great distinction between this one and the second case tonight. And you don't have to have intense transit in order to satisfy our desire to not have something auto-oriented, but there is nothing to even walk to. On this area, there's not a sidewalk even along Dr. Dickels, we're all a branch, right? So that's really, I'm just gonna stop there and just say that I'm also a no on this one, thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Lanford. Thank you. Yeah, I echo the comments that have been made before. And I think Commissioner Johnson's point about, looking for other kinds of community benefits, acknowledging that a development in this area is not ever gonna be a transit hub, but that there are still other considerations for quality of life. And I have a question for the proponent. In an email that was sent to the commissioners, there was mention made of a development, I think across the street, Olive Branch West, that had some conservation elements and greenway elements. I'm curious what the statuses of that development and why it wasn't packaged with this one, because it sounds like that might be offering some of the quality of life and conservation benefits that we might look to. But I don't think we can consider those, given that this is a separate project. Sure, yeah, so the main reason that one is not packaged in with this one is because, well, I mean, they're not a package deal. The other one is a conservation subdivision, which is not far away, I think. So we'll be submitting for annexation on that one. And it is the same applicant, but they didn't come together at the same time. So they're not, I mean, I guess I'll put it this way, when we filed that one, we didn't necessarily know the other one was gonna be appointed to this. But with the conservation subdivision, yeah, I mean, I think you're right, there are those quality of life aspects to it, like the greenways and, you know, what Mr. Durkin was talking about about walkability, I mean, if this parcel were located near an area where there was commercial nodes or something like that, sure, it would be walkable, but the fact that it's not located there is something that is just, I mean, we can't change it on this project. And there's a whole wide area here where there isn't a commercial node. I'm not sure this 28 or so does anything to do with why there isn't a commercial node here. And in fact, that is something that the planning staff was speaking with and presenting to council at that September 24th work session, was that the idea that there would be any kind of commercial node or mixed use development in the Searles area probably is far fetched because of significant topography concerns in the area that wouldn't really allow for big box development that you typically see with retail or non-residential development. So, I mean, yes, this area in general lacks a commercial node. I'm not sure that it will be fixed. But, you know, with regard to walkability, this project is up against the Greenway corridor. Does it go anywhere? No. But I'm not sure that's going to change now or later. Mr. Landfried, any additional questions or comments? Thank you. I think for the reasons that have been stated, that I'll also be voting no on this project. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Miller, I see you've raised your hand again. I don't see any new comments from other commissioners. The floor is yours. I just wanted to make an observation. I noticed in the staff report, this is on page three in section D1. In the staff analysis, it says the proposed development plan will allow for more units in a generally more affordable unit type multifamily as opposed to single family. I don't think there's any evidence to base on which to base conclusion that townhouses are going to be cheaper than single family. They might be cheaper to purchase on day one, but townhouses, because there are a whole row of houses, all sharing the same building and same roof, are going to have serious homeowner association dues, which are part of the cost of owning the unit and they never stop. It's relentless. And in fact, having observed the performance of townhouses over time in my job, the older they get, the more expensive they are to maintain and the more the dues have to go up. So I think that has to be taken into account. Sure, the townhouses original purchase price may be a slightly smaller per square foot than a similarly functioning single family house, but you have to factor in homeowner dues. Now, of course, I will be quick to acknowledge that for most of the projects that we approve that contain single family homes, there are homeowner association dues there too. But those pay for amenities in common areas that are not part of the building there, they tend to be smaller, but when all the unit owners in a townhouse are responsible for replacing roofs and for fixing plumbing and those kinds of things over time, those homeowner association dues are not inconsiderable. And so when I see statements like that, that make these broad assumptions that are not borne out in actual practice, I find it a little bit disappointing. Sure, the purchase price might be a little cheaper up front, but it doesn't have to be. As a matter of fact, we have people who are building townhouse units that are very high end and very expensive. And so I think I would accept a staff conclusion that smaller is generally cheaper than bigger, but I don't think that from form to form, you can necessarily say that one is going to be cheaper than another. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. And I'll just add, I wanted to echo what Commissioner Durkin said earlier. I was really struck with this item and the following item, and that the context of this proposal makes a lot more sense in the next proposal and the surrounding areas. So there are a variety of concerns I had coming into tonight and this discussion has helped illuminate those. And so I still plan to vote no on this item and seeing no other commissioners asking to speak, this is an appropriate time for the first of two motions. Then if I may, Mr. Chairman, in connection with case, they've reversed this time, A1900017, which would be the Comprehensive Plan Amendment case. I move that we send it forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Thank you. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Johnson and the roll call vote. Chair, I just want to verify. I don't see Commissioner McIver on the call yet. So I'm not going to call his name unless you tell me different. So Commissioner Amandoya? No. Chair Busby? No. Commissioner Durkin? No. Commissioner Johnson? No. Vice-chair Kenchin? No. Commissioner Landfried? No. Commissioner Lowe? No. Commissioner Miller? No. Commissioner Morgan? No. And Commissioner Williams? No. Okay. It's a unanimous, it failed 010. And Commissioner Miller, if we could have a motion for the zoning case, please. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, with the connection with Z1900044, and this is the rezoning case concerning 551 Olive Branch Road. I move that we send this forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Johnson. We'll have a roll call vote. Commissioner Amandoya? No. Chair Busby? No. Commissioner Durkin? No. Commissioner Johnson? No. Commissioner Landfried? No. Vice-chair Kenchin? No. Commissioner Lowe? No. Commissioner Miller? No. Commissioner Morgan? No. And Commissioner Williams? No. It's a unanimous 010, it failed. Thank you. Our next case is case Z1900057, and that is the corners at Brighter Creek Townhouses South and we'll start with the staff report. Good evening. The anti-culture of the planning department. The request is for Z1900057 for rezoning map change has been received from Steven Dorn of Lenard Corporation and Jesse Hardicy of McAdams Company for one parcel of land located at 4228 Corners Parkway, totaling 18.91 acres. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from commercial general with a development plan CGD to commercial general with a development plan CGD for a maximum of 138 townhome units. No changes proposed to the future land use map designation of commercial, which is consistent with the zoning request. The aerial map indicates the location of the site at Corners Parkway near Highway 70 and TW Alexander Parkway. The site has been previously cleared and graded. Apologize, is the screen not showing up? No. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me escape and it should have come up. I apologize. The screen chair didn't work. My apologies.  So did it. Ah, is it sharing now? Yes. Oh, my apologies. I'm sorry. No problem. Okay, let me start back. All right, there we go. Okay. Let's start all over then. The request is for Z19-00057 for zoning map change has been received from Stephen Dorn of Lenard Corporation and Jesse Horace of McAdams Company for one parcel of land located at 4228 Corners Parkway. The total land area is 18.91 acres. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning designation of the site from commercial general with a development plan, CGD, to commercial general with a development plan, CGD, for a maximum of 138 town home units. No changes proposed to the future land use map designation of commercial, which is consistent with the zoning request. The aerial map indicates the location of the site at Corners Parkway near Highway 770 and TW Alexander. The site has been previously cleared and graded as you can see in the site photos. The area around the site is in various stages of proposed development, proposed and existing development. A mix of commercial shopping centers, residential development and office and medical uses can be found in the vicinity. With some of the commercial uses, a part of the existing CGD zoning development. The site is CGD and adjacent to commercial CGD zone and planned residential PDR zone and RSTN zone properties. The proposed zoning of CGD is consistent with the future land use map. The development plan indicates the required commercial general dimensional standards, uses limitations of three access points, environmental features, required tree coverage quantities and locations, required project boundary buffers and impervious surface restrictions. The key commitment in constricting the site to maximum 130 town home units as permitted building type, a maximum impervious surface area not to exceed 70% or 12.45 acres and completing the following traffic commitments for Corners Parkway and the site driveway, Harris Teeter driveway, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, which include constructing the site driveway as a full movement driveway opposite Harris Teeter driveway, constructing an exclusive eastbound left turn lane of Corners Park at the site driveway and adequate storage and appropriate taper and restriping the northbound approach with the existing Harris Teeter driveway as an exclusive turn lane and it shared through turn lane. Staff analyzed the proposed development for consistency and their comprehensive plan policies and determined that the request is consistent with their comprehensive plan and applicable ordinances. And the staff is available for any questions. Thank you very much. We will open the public hearing and the individuals who signed up in advance were the three members of the proponents team, I believe. Neil Gauch, Charlie Oakley and Jesse Hardesty. Great franchise again. Yeah, whoever's gonna speak, you've got 10 minutes if you need it. Sure, and good evening everyone. It is me again, Neil Gauch, attorney at the Morningstar Law Group, 112 West Main Street. I'm representing the applicant for this project. Mr. Gauchley is on the call on behalf of the applicant, as well as some familiar folks with McAdams. I believe Ryan Akers is on the call and I think you already mentioned Jesse Hardesty and maybe Nick Williams as well. Let me start first by thanking Mr. Koltra for his presentation. Like the last project, this one also is about 19 acres and is for town. The proposed rezoning in this case would allow for up to 130 downhounds. This rezoning is a little strange because the zoning technically already allows for town and development, but the development plan does not speak to it directly. Instead, the development plan is limited to a certain amount of square feet instead of any particular number of units. The proposed rezoning clarifies the requirements for residential development in the area in a manner which is more consistent with how we generally think about residential development. This project is located by our creek behind the area where the Harris Cedar was built. Because of its location, it has great access to retail, grocery, restaurants, transit, and other services, most of which is within walking distance. If you are familiar with the area, then you know that there are several townhounds and single-family homes nearby. You might not know that just north of this site, there is a site plan for multi-family community, so there is quite a mix of housing types in this area already. I do need to address a mistake on the development plan. We have vetted this chain of staff. There is a commitment that says no more than 70% of the homes will be contained in two-car garage. This condition was meant to address rear-loading units, so that condition should be stricken and replaced with a commitment that at least 20% of the homes will be rear-loaded. Again, we did run this by staff already. Basically, the condition is meant to speak to the design of the site. This commission often is touted to the benefits of rear-loaded homes, which tend to create more attractive and pedestrian-friendly streetscape. Because of the proximity of this site to the shopping center, we want the design to encourage folks to walk more. The nearby transit service, hopefully with more walkability in the community, there might be more ridership. This community has a lot of things that make for a great community, walkability, proximity to goods and services, a variety of housing types in the area, as well as a mix of unit types in the community, both front and rear-loaded townhomes. It's close to transit, it's in-built, and it even is a down-zoning. The good news is that the traffic improvements associated with the previous version of this development plan have already been implemented for the most part. So this is a down-zoning that's coming after the infrastructure has been accounted for. Ultimately, this project is an in-built development in an otherwise mixed-use area. We feel like this is consistent with a lot of the things that we've heard from this body and from the city council about new developments, what they'd like to see. So we hope to have your support tonight on them. And again, we have our team available to answer your questions. And thank you for your time. Thank you. So that was it who signed up in advance. If there is anyone else from the public who would like to speak, you can digitally raise your hand at star nine, and I'll just give it a moment to see if there's anyone else who would like to speak on this item. Chad Boyette will unmute you. And there you go. If you can give us your name and address and you can make your remarks, please. Mr. Boyette, are you able to speak? Can you hear me now? Chad Boyette, 4233 Corners Parkway. Great, thank you. We are in anger and just wanted to express support for this project. We think the addition of townhomes next to our retail center will be a great compliment use for all of our retail tenants and help drive sales for all of the tenants in that center. Great, thank you very much. You're welcome, thank you. We'll have the last call on any public comments. You can raise your hand to star nine. That looks like that is it. So we'll close the public comment period. And Commissioner Miller, you have your hand raised. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I wanna make sure I understand the proffer that was made during the applicant's presentation. Could you go over that again for me, Neil? There's a proffer that at least 20% of the units will be real voted. Oh, well, that's what I thought you said. How many percent, what's the percent? 20. 20%. Thank you, that helps. Now, my other questions relate to how this rezoning fits in with the previous development plan for the larger project. So staffs, tell me, jump in when I'm wrong. So some time ago, we approved a development plan rezoning for this property and more property around it that had several different components, a commercial component and a residential component, and that the property that we're looking at today is part of what was previously part of the commercial component of the old development plan. Am I right so far? And the commitments on that old development plan with regard to development intensity for this area, which include, if I understood that map, the old map, include the property that we're talking about today plus the property that is currently developed and being developed as a shopping center. That was all one together, right, on the old thing. That is true. And it said it was gonna be 390,000 square feet of development there. That I cannot attest to, I would need to pull that plan just to make sure, but. I'm just looking at A of your staff report and it says allows for a gross floor area of 390,000 square feet. Yes. We did the 60 acres zone CG. That's correct, Mr. Miller. Sorry, Danny. Danny's jumped in and helped us at the very last minute. Mr. Other's had to be out, so. But that is correct, yes. Okay, well, I hope Emily's okay. And so can somebody tell me how many square feet have been already been developed out of the 390? So I was over there and I drove around, you've got, it looks like there's a Harris teeter in there and more than a couple of other commercial spaces, the commercial spaces, including a couple of out parcels. Did I see it correctly? There is a Harris teeter. There are some other strip parcels in there and another one, another strip parcel in there. I'm looking at it on Google Maps right now. See. Okay, so maybe somebody with a development team or even Chad can tell me what the total square footage of all the current commercial development is. Hey, Tom, this is Neil. Yeah. It's around 240. Wait, so my computer dinged for reasons that are mysterious to me and I did not hear the last couple of words of your sentence. I believe it's around 240,000. 240,000 square feet. So here's. Commissioner Miller, this is Grace. I'm sorry, I'm trying to start my video. On the front page of the development plan, I just pulled it up. There's a chart and I think it does say it's close to 244,000. Yeah, so Neil's pretty much on it. So if I understand the way this is going, essentially if we approve this rezoning, it would lift the develop, right now there's a development intensity limit on the CG portion of this old development plan that limits this whole area to 390,000 square feet of commercial development. If we approve this rezoning today, the commercial development in that overall CG area can still go to 390, right? So it's at 240 now, that extra 150 is still available. That's correct. And on top of that, they'll get to add these townhouses in the section of the property that is the subject of this rezoning. Right, they came back and asked for the residential density because it's very difficult to figure out using square footage for residential. So that's why they're asking for that. But you're correct. They're not proposing to reduce the square footage for commercial in exchange for residential. They're adding residential to the 390. That is my understanding. Mr. Ghosh can correct you if you're wrong. And so Mr. Ghosh called this a down zoning. This really isn't a down zoning. Of course, what does that mean? It is in fact a request to intensify the development of this parcel of the subject parcel and the larger older development plan rezoning by adding townhouses that were not previously allowed without any diminution of the development capacity that the previous development plan allowed. Do I understand it correctly? Everybody's having trouble finding their unmute buttons. Who are you asking? You, you. I mean, I think you're technically correct. That's certainly, I think we are rezoning this section which is CGD and we are adding this, we are adding townhouses to this section. You are correct that there is no, for the, I guess for the rest of the CGD, original CGD development plan area, there is no reduction in the overall square footage. On this parcel, there's a reduction in square footage. I mean, this is gonna go from traditionally being able to build 150,000 ish square feet of retail to now being townhouses. Okay, and so my next question, I'm going to move from questions for which I already knew the answer to a question where I'm not sure I know the answer and I'm going to guess. I'm always troubled by rezonings which pull a parcel out of a previous development plan and change it without revisiting and re-looking at the old development plan together as an integrated development idea. But the reason that you're doing it here is, is that you no longer control all the land in the old development plan and under the new changes to state statute, you are no longer able to apply to rezone other people's properties without their express consent. Is that true? So the applicant on this one is Lenard. Right. Lenard doesn't control any piece of property except this piece that it has under contract. Right, so the reason we can't have this rezoning contemplate all of the old development plan so that we could look at all. We looked at it, we or our predecessors looked at this at the old thing as an integrated multi-use project and incorporating quite a lot of land. We looked at it in an integrated way. We can't do that again now because your client doesn't have the authority to ask for us to look at all of it under the statute as is now written. Is that correct? Whereas once that may have been possible. Yes, I suppose that's correct. All right, thank you very much. Now let me ask you something that really matters to me in this area, because I noticed this is actually the idea that has been prosecuted here with the old development plan and I guess to a certain extent with this because it's part and parcel of the same thing is these multi-use projects are easier for me to get the components I want. So I like the idea that we are thoughtfully placing residential around the place where these people will shop especially necessity shopping like groceries. So I kind of like all of that. I also note that we're right on top of a transportation corridor and that isn't going to change. The one thing, because we're not looking at the overall development plan, just this one section, the one thing that's kind of missing here is what I've called a dozen different things but what I always mean is if I lived in one of these townhouses or one of the even denser residential units that are yet to be built out here, where do I go if I want to stand in a little grove of trees? Where is the place where my kids will walk to throw a frisbee? Where is that shared developed open space, a park or whatever it might be? I know there is no component like that in the subject property that is the subject of this rezoning but that may not matter if it is a required element in something in the old development plan next door. Is there anything like that in the old development plan? Niel. I'm unmuted, right? Okay, there you go. Everyone's having trouble with the mute button. So my understanding is the old development, well, the old overall development plan included CGD and a PDR component. Right. The PDR component would have an on-site amenity requirement, open space requirement. So the multi-family piece which is being built will have an open space component to it and I can't tell you what that is. But you had no commitments relating to what form it might take. It might wind up being incorporated into some otherwise required like riparian buffer. Like riparian buffer. Oh, no, no, the PDR has a requirement for active. So it can't be part of that buffer. Right, right. But it's going to be clear that PDR, like this is not a request for PDR. That PDR is already elsewhere in the overall. So because this is going to be residential in general commercial, it's not going to include that shared developed open space requirement. That component is missing from this unless you commit to adding it. Correct. All right. Those are all my questions, thank you. All right, sorry. Commissioner Miller, this is Grace Smith. I just looked at the legacy plan. I took a quick look at it and it does appear that there are, it looks like there is nine, let's see here, open space. It looked like it was around nine acres committed. It looks, yeah, so they got tree coverage. Open space required looks like 9.8 acres and open space percentage is right at 8%. Yes, I saw that Grace, but I got the impression that none of this is developed open space. None of this is going to be a park. Oh yeah, that, I'm not 100% sure. I just wanted to make, I was just mostly making sure that you knew there was some committed on the legacy plan. Right, because we do have an open space requirement. Right. But there's no commitment that specifically contemplates some sort of recreation area for all the people who will live, either in the subject property or the larger development. In other words, if one of my concerns always, and I have lots of them, but one of my concerns is, is that when we create something like this, it's while it's, you ought to be able to walk to someplace to have some sort of recreation. It doesn't have to be highly intensive. I'm not talking about swing sets and all of that. However, I'm not knocking them, but some sort of open space where people can go and not be amongst buildings and parking lots and those kinds of things. So thank you. I've got answers to my question. So that's, and I need- I don't see what you're asking about to answer your question. I don't see that. Commissioner Miller, this is Danny Caltrow. I just looked up the unified development ordinance for residential development and non-residential districts. And in the suburban tier, open space is required at 18% of the gross area for residential development and non-residential districts. I appreciate that, Danny, but that's not what we're talking about. Thank you very much. Commissioner Morgan. Thank you, Chair. Actually, I'm familiar with the area as I've watched it kind of grow over time. And I'm also familiar with plans by DOT to eventually disconnect TW Alexander and Route 70 as part of the Route 70 freeway plan. And they're planning on using Corners Parkway as kind of an interchange or a way to get off of Route 70 and to get onto TW Alexander. Question for transportation, though. It's just more of information is, is there any plans on changing any of the mass transit? I know there was a stop right on TW Alexander right now. And as this grows, would there be a plan to relocate it or change a route to put a stop on Corners Parkway? Is anybody available for that question? Hi, Erling Thomas, Transportation. I'm not aware of any plans currently to make changes to the transit route as the area continues to grow and develop. The transit provider would evaluate whether or not changes are needed to the routes or additional stops. Yeah, it just seemed like because the transportation or the current stop was built before Corners was even built, it's on TW Alexander right near the Corners Parkway where that traffic light is. It's at the end of the actual commercial area. I was just wondering if there was any plan to kind of reroute that or do anything along those lines. None currently that I'm aware of. Okay. Thank you. That was my question, Chair. Thanks, Commissioner Morgan. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you. Just to get the obvious out of the way to the applicant, can you provide an anticipated price point for these residential units? Yes. The estimated price point for these units is going to be around 320 to $340,000. And I did also want to just, on Commissioner Morgan's question, there is a bus stop in between Corners Parkway and kind of the driveway for the commercial area. I just want to make sure that they were aware of it. Sound like maybe that's what you were talking about, but there is already a bus stop there. There is one on TW Alexander right near the corner of Corners Parkway. Yep. Yep. Okay. Thank you. And so just a couple of comments. And so I'm inclined to support this project what I would note is, I'm losing my thought, is that Commissioner Miller, the one point that I did note, I think Commissioner Miller and I have in some way connected mentally without talking personally, but was the question around like the open space, like what would that be a component of this development that incorporated that open space piece that would be accessible to the people who would be living in this thing because just for me personally, I'm understanding the value and the need essentially as we live in a new moment and essentially of having these nine revenue generating components to development that enhances the quality of life for people who are living there. But I won't allow that to be like a deal killer for this project because it's much better than what we just considered. And so to the commission members, it's like this is the difference in like, we see a comparative like example of what can make sense even though it doesn't have everything that we would ideally want versus compared to the other project, very vanilla, right? And so if we're being asked to grant something that otherwise would not be allowed, I think that we should be moving towards giving our limited resource or asset, which is our vote and feedback to elected leaders as leverage on what we have. So this is essentially leveraging on things that are occurring around in this area versus essentially building and hoping that stuff will happen in an area or accepting that some things won't happen. So let's just do something without being thoughtful about what it is that we are allowing to come. So I'll just say that. And again, I'm inclined to vote in favor of the request. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Johnson. And good luck breaking the mind now with Commissioner Miller. Commissioner, how much do we have? Thank you, Chair. I have a couple of questions first. I have a question for Nell. I am still fairly new to this. And so I would ask you to kind of clarify what's going on with the tree coverage provided in this case. I noticed there's like a range given for both preservation and replacement. And so if you could just like clarify the intent there, what that means. Sure, and let me see. Ryan, are you still on the line? Maybe you could list on this one, but I did want to point out one thing about it. So we're, because we are rezoning it, we're actually ultimately going to end up on this parcel providing more tree save than otherwise would have been required, almost double. So, you know, what the current zoning would require on this parcel, for example, the 10% tree save. And through ours, we're looking at, I think around more like 20%. But Ryan, if you could address kind of tree save requirements here and what we're proposing. Sure. Based on the change of use from the CG to the residential, I hadn't thrown it into the same residential category. So we had to up the tree save requirement for this portion, which is what we're shown on the current development plan. And could you specify for me the kind of the difference between like why there's a range of preservation versus replacement? And also I guess I'll just go ahead and jump to my next question about this. To me, looking at Google Maps, there's no trees to preserve? Well, that's the answer, you just answered it. So if we can't hit our required amount that we have to do a replanting to hit that minimum. So we are preserving all the trees that are remaining because it was cleared for a commercial use. Because of the change, we have to do 20%. We had to go back up to the required amount. And because you have to replant, you have to pay a penalty in replanting. So we actually went above what the minimum required would be, well, otherwise if you had the trees. So that's to your point, exactly. Thank you. And I have a question for staff and this is kind of jumping ahead in our evening. If we are to approve the landscape manual later tonight, and will those changes apply to this case? It would depend, this is Danny Coltrane, it would depend on when the manual changes are adopted by city council and versus when they're adopted, this zoning would take effect and be adopted. Okay, thank you. And then next, I have a question for Chad Boyutt, if you're still on the line. You may not have the specific answer to this since you aren't the business owners in this area. But if you have an idea of kind of the average wage of employees in this retail center, could you speak to that any? Is Chad still with us? Chad, can you hear me? Yes. As just the owners of the retail center, we are not aware of what the average wage is. Thank you. So I intentionally waited for Commissioner Johnson to ask his typical question about housing price points before asking this question because one thing that I think would make this project even better is if we could have some idea that people could live in this area and walk to work and just based on pure assumptions of the type of businesses there, we have retail, we have restaurants. To me, it seems unlikely that we will have people purchasing homes at over 300K and who are working in these businesses. I think that would be a fast improvement on this site would be to have some kind of affordable housing component so that there would be that potential for people to live across the street from their workplace. I recognize that though this is a vast improvement over many of the cases that we get, I appreciate the walkability and the fact that there are services nearby. I just also want to consider like who has the access to walkability and based on this case, it is people who would be consumers rather than people who would be employees of these businesses. I just want to note that that may not necessarily swing my vote either way but that is something I'd like to see considered more in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Landfrey. Thank you. I had a question for the proponent. It looks to me like if someone was going to the Harris teeter on foot from the development, they would use site access number two. And I just wanted to confirm that sidewalks and the necessary amenities would be provided there for that safe crossing. So yes, the road network in this area will include sidewalks. I believe there will be striped crossings. I'm not sure if there'll be any kind of pedestrian, like vegan, I'm not quite sure. But there will be sidewalks provided. Okay, great, thank you. And I'm also gonna support this proposal. I think having voted against a number of town home developments, it's important to also vote for something when it provides enough of what we've been saying that we're looking for. And this development for me crosses that threshold. So I will be voting for it. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Miller, you have raised your hand again. So I just wanted to say out loud, I actually completely agree with commission member Johnson. However strange that may be, I'm gonna vote for this too. It doesn't have everything I wanted it. But I will note generally, because I look at all the, this is a, my break point between small and large projects is about 20 acres. And so this is on the small side of that. But it fits inside a larger project that now will have a commercial component. It will have a fairly intense residential component. And then with this rezoning, a less intense residential component. And just to make sure I understand, when I looked at the, what we're calling the legacy development plan, the PDR portion of that provides for fairly high dwelling units per acre. Does it not staff? I'll have to get back. I think I closed it after I was talking to you a minute ago, but I'll be glad to check that. Just give me a moment. I thought it was somewhere more than 10 units an acre. And so as a PDR, and without having really studied that legacy plan, probably like I should have in order to be prepared for this meeting and I apologize for that. It seems to me that it'll probably be multifamily and apartments. So my read on what is happening here is, is we are modifying an older legacy plan that's already in development to add a residential component that was not previously there. Admittedly what's being added is could be the high end residential part of it because it will be a lower density townhouse project whereas the rest of the PDR, if it's developed to its full potential and I believe as a matter of law in North Carolina, we're supposed to assume that it will be that those will probably be apartment units. And of course it's in line with what I said in the last case, they might be very expensive apartment units. I'm not sure. We certainly have those in Durham, but maybe not, but there is a mix of housing types and I like to see that. It's near transportation corridor, I like that. It does have transit, I like that. I'm impressed that there will be at least some rear loaded units in the townhouses, which means that there is some hope that the streetscape will be more human and pedestrian friendly. So it hasn't got everything I want, but it has a lot of what I want. I also tend to see this project is already as an extension of Briar Creek. The Briar Creek pattern, it's not something that I wanna see get extended much more, but it's pretty much already surrounded with projects that are in that sort of West Raleigh mode. I don't really see any harm in giving these developers what they want here in exchange, I believe we are getting some things that are useful. Although the design, as you know, I always care about design commitments. I know that the design commitments are very similar to the ones we looked at before, but they are especially with the 20% rear loaded units, just that much better that persuades me to vote in favor. Mr. Miller, just to answer your question, it's a PDR-12. That's what I thought in meeting 12 units per acre. Great, thank you, Commissioner Miller. I plan to do it for this as well. I think as Commissioner Armandolia said, I wish there was more on the affordability side. It doesn't check every box, but it checks a lot of boxes and I believe it's an improvement over the current zoning. So I don't see anyone else with their hands raised. So I will accept a motion. So if I may, Mr. Chairman, in connection with, I'm gonna make a motion for a case where I'm actually gonna vote in favor of my motion. In connection with Z19, 00057, concerning the townhouses at Corners at Briar Creek, a move that we send this forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Johnson. Will the roll call vote please? Commissioner Armandolia. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Johnson, no, it's Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Kenchin. Yes. Commissioner Landfried. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Yes. Commissioner MacGyver. He's not here. Not President Still. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Commissioner Williams. No. No. No. Right. Passes nine, one. No, I believe you had two nos, did you not? Oh, I didn't hear another no. I thought Commissioner Durkin voted against it. Did I miss here? You did, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, so it's nine, one. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And the final official item on tonight's agenda is the landscape manual revisions. Yes, and I just wanted to clarify for the record that this is an information item only so you just receive the report and you can certainly share your comments and any kind of feedback you have with the staff but it is information only. And if I may, Mr. Chair, I got in the last few days a considerable number of messages from members of the public that seemed to be under the impression that we would be making some sort of decision on this. And I'm concerned that if those folks are with us tonight that we make some provision to hear from them because I want to know about this and should I choose to make comments to send along, I want to be informed by what the citizens have to say. Absolutely. And why don't we do this actually, Ms. Smith, if you don't mind coming back on screen, it would be helpful for you to, and this may be in the staff report as well, but this is a little bit of a different item. If you don't mind walking us through the approval process and then why it's coming to us is information and then we can go to the staff report but I will offer opportunities for public input as well. Right, so this item has already been to Joint City County Planning Commission. This is one of the items that Joint City County Planning Commission actually has to take action on. One of the few items under their umbrella that they take action on. And then it will go to the governing bodies, but however, we're bringing it to this commission as a courtesy. We didn't want to skip over planning commission. We wanted to make sure that we got this item out in as many forms as possible and to share with as many groups as possible. And so it did come to the Joint City County Planning Committee at last week's meeting and it was approved unanimously, including my vote and a few members of the organizations that had worked on this were present at that meeting as well. So we were able to recognize them and thank them for their contributions. I don't think- So just to clarify, there isn't, I did say that we were bringing here as a courtesy. It's not listed as one of the responsibilities under the planning commission's purview and you wouldn't normally, you don't have a public hearing on this item, but we wanted to make sure that it was shared with you nonetheless. If I may, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. This is something that matters to me and I've commented on from time to time during my time on the planning commission. I will note that this manual is incorporated into the UDO by reference. And so it is in fact becomes part of the UDO and its provisions to the extent that they're incorporated by reference become part of the law of the County of Durham. And so quite frankly, when we have manuals like this which are subject to change and incorporated by reference so that they become part of the UDO, I believe they should come to the planning commission and I believe they should be subjects of public hearing because if we don't do that, then what we wind up with however convenient it is to skip a public hearing, we wind up with one degree less public engagement that I think something like this deserves. Anything in the UDO that compels or addresses prohibits or encourages behavior in the whole business of zoning and land use, I think ought to be aired in front of the planning commission. And that's my plug for us and what we do. Thanks, Commissioner Miller. Thank you for sharing that, Mr. Miller, but procedurally we're following the procedure that we've been advised to follow through our attorney's office and we did bring it here as a courtesy and we'll certainly share your comments. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Why don't we move to the staff report and then I do see that Katie Rose-Levin has her hand raised. So I'll offer her the opportunity to offer remarks as well as commissioners. Certainly. Thank you. I'm going to share a screen. I do have a small PowerPoint presentation I'll put up and we'll go from there. So good evening. Danny Coltr again, representing the planning department was being presented tonight for the revisions to the Durham landscape manual. Last year members of the department were tasked with updating the manual from its initial adoption in December, 2005. And the last revision in April of 2013 through efforts with members of the planning department, department of general services landscaping and urban forest revision, department of parks and recreation, public works stormwater services and through partnerships with various members of the Durham environmental coalition. We're hopeful that you will receive these and support these changes. Through the course of the process, there were four areas to the revisions we felt needed to be addressed to bring the manual up to current industry standards. Text revisions, UDO amendments and new planting installation certifications, plant chart revisions and revised planning details and examples. The text in the manual was updated to reflect the current best industry practices. We removed recommended practices and revised the manual to only reflect required practices and techniques. Eco-friendly tips were added to promote ecologically sound installation and maintenance practices in addition to the water rise and water conservation tips that currently reside in the manual. Through dialogue with the environmental coalition partners, there was a push to utilize more native species in Durham which promote better wildlife habitat and ecosystems versus using non-native vegetation. And although not a direct revision to the landscape manual, this dialogue yielded future recommendations to some UDO text amendments such as utilizing all native species in tree replacement areas and repairing and buffer revegetation and mitigation. This dialogue also yielded the recommendation to require that a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor must certify that the correct planting practices in the manual have been utilized. The invasive species list was updated. We reviewed current allowed vegetation against local and national plant data. As a result, we expanded the prohibited lists in the manual based on recommendations from urban forestry staff, the Durham Environmental Coalition and NC State University Resources. We organized the current plant tables and condensed from eight large tables consisting of 248 pages down to four tables consisting of approximately 142 pages. And also adjusted the graphics for better legibility in order to provide the user with a more efficient process for plant selection. The way we accomplished was to group all native and non-native species together adding key symbol keys for identification, removing the individual named cultivars, removing ambiguous designations and streamlining the water wise plant conditions and cultural notes information. And these are some of the current tree plant table formats, which shows what we had before with the cultivars listed, the planting conditions and the cultural notes. And we revised these to streamline the efforts. It's much more legible and much easier for people to actually navigate the plant tables. Same thing with the shrub plant tables and it's much more navigable. We also revised our planting details. The manual contained poor quality graphic details and eligible texts. And the goal was to update those with cleaner and more legible details. We also wanted to modify all details to meet the current best practices and industry standards. And these are all details. The text is very eligible and we updated the two industry standards and cleaned up all of our details. And finally, based on dialogue with our environmental partners, we committed to revising potential updates on a five year cycle, which is much more frequent than has been performed in the past. This will ensure that any future potential invasive species are placed on our Durham's prohibited lists. And as industry standards change, we can update the manual accordingly. Thank you. Appreciate that staff report and all the time you put into this effort as well. It was a concerted effort, not only with staff, but with all our environmental partners and also with some of our consulting partners within the community. That's great. So as Commissioner Miller noted, I know a lot of us have received comments from members of the New Hope Audubon Society. I know Trees Durham and the Ellerby Creek Watershed Association also have been working on this and I understand are all supportive. I will, this is not an official public hearing, but I see both Katie Rose Levin and Mimi Kessler are in attendance and have their hands raised. So if we can bring them off a mute and we can give you, love to hear your thoughts, give you two minutes each to share your thoughts and feedback. We can start with Katie Rose. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'm Katie Rose Levin, the executive director of Trees Durham. I just wanted to point out that this process was really well done and it created an excellent product. So as Danny mentioned, people from the planning staff led by Jessica, Danny was a big contributor, worked with different environmental groups, different industry groups, as well as people across the city to really update us in a way that is fantastic and also to create a process that will continue going on for years. So this is an example of, I think, how city government best works. In addition to what Danny said, I wanted to point out some particular things that were good. Right now, it's really challenging for the city to get out and look at all these landscapes. So as a result, a lot of them aren't, this is all these invest practices. So the compromise was, instead of hiring more zoning compliance staff or in addition to, to actually having the professionals on the ground doing the certification. So it creates jobs and also a better product for Durham. It reduces or eliminates the use of excess nitrogen, fertilizer, phosphorus, and other types of chemicals. They're not allowed to apply it without a soil test first. So that's really gonna improve water quality as well as our product. It increases the number of natives and eliminates invasive species. The city and all of our land trusts pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to get rid of invasive species. So this is really going to be a long-term benefit for Durham. And it also increases an update to standards for tree planting, which should result in more viable long-term healthy trees. So this is just a couple of the specific things that would improve. And I just, a lot of times I'm in here asking you to vote against things and that the process isn't working as well as it should. And I think when it works well, this product is a great example of how good process and democratic engagement is really beneficial for everyone. So thanks to you and thanks to the city staff who did spend hours and hours and hours working with us and working on this. Thank you. And Mimi Kessler. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Good. I'm thrilled to hear that they were so receptive to the experts providing guidance and that that guidance was heard and is reflected in the document. I am very concerned, however, about the process because while they have asked the experts, they haven't actually asked the public. And I want to know at what point in the normal process, where is the public engagement process other than to write all of you? Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, if you would like to speak on this item, let me know. Commissioner Miller. So, Danny, in more than a couple of places in your presentation, you referred to industry standards, that doesn't necessarily always persuade me. What industry are we talking about? We looked at different technical standards across the industry. We also... What industry are we talking about, Danny? We're talking about the American Institute of a nursery institute updating those planning standards. We're talking about the planning industry, not the development industry. Correct, correct. Thank you. That was what I wanted, didn't it? Yes, sorry about that. Horticultural practices, in other words. Okay, Commissioner Miller, you're good. Any other commissioners, any additional thoughts or feedback? Okay, I don't see anything. Again, I want to just thank the staff for working with the community partners. And this is exciting. I think it's a good step forward. And I'm glad it'll be updated every five years. That's the official agenda for tonight. I think we do need to now have a vote for an excused absence for Commissioner McGyver. He did indicate that he would be running late, but he said he was definitely gonna be late. He wasn't sure if he'd be here, period. And so if we can make a motion and have a vote for an excused absence for him, that'd be great. Yeah, I'm ready to take that now. Mr. Chair, I move that we excuse the absence of Commission Member McIver. Second. Great, I'll vote the roll call vote, please. Yes, Commissioner Amondoya. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Vice Chair Kenchin. Yes. Commissioner Landfreyd. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. Hey. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. Okay, and if we lost you. And Commissioner Williams. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And then the final stuff, just a few housekeeping items. If you haven't seen it yet, Grace did send around a Zoom to, I'm sorry, a doodle poll to try to schedule the planning commission retreat, now that we're through all the backlog meetings. And so if you can fill that out and we can get a sense of, do any of those dates work for us? So this would be more of a deeper dive into the comprehensive plan update and some other items that we've been wanting to get back on track. Grace, I don't know if you have anything to add to that. No, I came up with those four slots to start with just to see what kind of participation we would get. So far, one of the dates and times is looking pretty strong. I think November the 18th, the midday, date looks pretty good. I think so far we've got a very large following for that time. But if you haven't completed the poll, please do so that we can figure out what day and time we will actually end up with. Great, thank you. And then Grace, I was just gonna ask, next month we're now we're back to normal time. So November 10th at 5.30 is our regular meeting. What, anything you can tell us about what to expect? Right now it looks like we may end up with five cases, but one of them is tentative. And I say that because it's one of those things that it may or may not be ready, but definitely four cases. Yeah. And Mr. Chairman, I have a question and a request, if I may. You may. So the first question is, Grace, when do you want our comments this time? So we had agreed at the last meeting, and if everyone's still okay with that, we were gonna give, we were gonna give you two weeks. Two Tuesdays. Two Tuesdays to send in your comments. And you can do one of two things. You can email them directly to Terry Elliott, or you can put the comments in your decision forms. Okay.  Right, we're trying to start sending those the day of the meeting, but definitely the day after we'll send those. And what we need for you to do, if you're going to type them in your decision forms, you need to actually type comments, not just pick stuff off the decision form, like type something at the bottom so we know that you had comments. All right, thank you. And then. All right, piggyback off of your question, Tom. Sure. It wasn't a reminder for the last one, and so I forgot. So we gave everyone two weeks, and I guess we can put something on the calendar to remind everyone when the two weeks has run out. We had extended it to give you all more time, but if we need to remind you, I don't know what that noise was. I think everybody's used to the reminder also. Okay, I can ask Miss Elliott to remind everyone. Thank you. Okay. And so this is a special request, and I don't know if it's happening with all the commission members, but it's begun to happen with me. Not only a couple of us remember a very significant zoning case that took a lot of time and a lot of public engagement, and that was a zoning case. Gosh, was it in 2015 or 16 or sometime, maybe 17 at the corner of Guess and Ladder Roads when publics wanted to build a mixed use project there. Evidently something is happening up there now and that a neighborhood meeting has been held with a developer and I'm getting quite a lot of comments from the public about a project I don't know anything about. And I realized that those neighborhood meetings happened before anybody has actually filed anything with the staff, but as soon as it is convenient for you folks to send us something that surprises us of what's going on so that when we engage with the public, I don't have to ask them. I just, it's just not a good look. I would like to have a little bit of information on this one. When we see a big one coming, and I believe this may be that being forewarned helps, it makes me in any way feel like I'm a better resource for the members of the public who want to engage with me. Thank you. So a couple of things on that, that there was a neighborhood meeting, the application was just submitted like maybe yesterday. So it's literally in our hopper. None of us have even probably looked at it because it's sitting in a digital box somewhere, but we will get to it this week. We've also created a new landing page that you're going to be hearing about this week that has our new submittals on the website that anyone can access. It will be anyone, a citizen, a planning commissioner, elected body person, anyone. So I'll send you the link to that this week. And also the staff will give you some background on that guest and latter project because I know that's a hot spot and we'll make sure you find out what is going on once we look at the proposal, we'll let you know. That's huge. And I'm already getting questions and some things I can answer, but most things I would prefer to check with you first grace before I go back to the public. I don't want to make a hot situation hotter through mistake. So, and you've always been very kind to me by responding. Well, no problem. We're here to help you and I will send you the link to that page. And then if that page doesn't help you, you can always reach out to us. I will say that the new submittals will not be on that page immediately. It might take a couple of weeks to get them loaded. It's a new thing we're doing, but we have it up to date through the summer. It's got all of 2020 submittals so far up to the summer, so. We'll be adding the new ones very soon. That's great. Thank you. Commissioner, is anything else for this evening? Yes, if I may. Is the applicant, is that the same? Is that Publix again? It is a different group that's looking at the property now. As far as I know, they're not affiliated with Publix or the other applicants that were involved in the previous application. Thank you. It's obvious when the developer was to be a real estate group out of Florida that customarily assisted Publix. And I believe this group is out of Raleigh, but I'm not 100% sure. It's not the same group. I do know that. And I do know they have a different proposal. They are looking at doing a mix of commercial and residential just as before, but they do have a different idea. So we'll get to look at it this week and give you a heads up about it just so you have that information. Thank you, Grace. Thanks. Not seeing anything else. We will adjourn the meeting. I hope everyone stays safe and I'll see you next month. Thanks. Bye. Bye. Bye, everybody. Bye, goodnight.