At this time, I'll ask for the screen share to stop and for commissioners to please turn their video cameras on. Good afternoon. Welcome to the December 14th and planning commission meeting will be starting in about two minutes at the moment microphone controls are disabled. But when the case that you register for in advance is being heard, we'll go down the list of registered attendees and request those who tend to speak to speak at that time. We'll be starting about two minutes reminder all commissioners please enable your cameras at this time. Thank you very much. One minute to air the live stream has started 30 seconds to air commissioners if you could have your cameras on. Good evening. Welcome to the Durham planning commission. The members of the Durham planning commission have been appointed by the city council and the county board of commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final vote on any issue before us tonight. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the zoom virtual meeting platform. In this virtual meeting platform, public participants do not have any ability to talk or be seen on video by default to maintain meeting decorum and discernible record of the meeting, the chat function has been disabled. Speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time in the meeting. If you have pre registered, your name will be called for you to make your comments just like in an in person public hearing. If you called in before the meeting started and staff was able to get your information, your name will also be called to speak at the appropriate time as normal. You may also call in during the meeting tonight by dialing 1-301-715-8592. Again, that's 1-301-715-8592. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the particular public hearing you're interested in starts. After all of the pre registered speakers have shared their comments, I will ask if there's anyone else wishing to speak. At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. And when recognized, state your name and address and make your public comments. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if the motion fails or ties, the recommendation is not favorable. Thank you. Can we have roll call? Absolutely. Thank you. Chair Amidolia. Here. Commissioner Baker is running late. That's the word I got on the street. Okay. Chair, Commissioner Busby. Vice chair Cameron. Here. Commissioner cut right here. Commissioner Durkin. Here. Commissioner Harrod. I do not see a commissioner Harrod. Okay. Commissioner low. Here. Thank you. Commissioner MacGyver. Here. Thank you. Commissioner Morgan. Good evening, Michael. I'm here. Thank you. Commissioner Cease. Here. And we got an email from commissioner Zuri Williams. We'll need an excuse. I need to consider an excused absence for her. She will not be able to attend tonight. And we may want to hold off on commissioner Williams. We also got an email from her. That she may not be able to attend tonight. So. And we did not get any information about commissioner Harris. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. Yeah, at this time, I would have set a motion to excuse commissioners Zuri Williams from tonight's meeting. I moved to excuse commissioners Zuri Williams from tonight's meeting. Second. I moved by commissioner or vice chair Cameron. Seconded by I believe commissioner Morgan. And may we have the roll call vote. Absolutely. Amondola. Yes. Baker is not here at the moment. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yeah. Harry does not hear low. Yay. MacGyver. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. It passes unanimously. Thank you. And we will return to commissioner Carmen Williams later on. If she's unable to attend and same with commissioner Baker. Absolutely. Thank you. And next on our agenda is the approval of the minutes and consistency statement from our October 12, 2021 meeting. Does staff or planning commission have any changes to the minutes? And if not, I would accept a motion at this time. I move to accept the approval of the minutes and consistency statements from the October 12, 2021 meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Second. Moved by vice chair Cameron and seconded by commissioner low. Any further discussion. And at this time I'll accept a roll call vote. Right. Amondola. Yes. And I see commissioner Baker has joined us. Awesome. Thank you. Commissioner Baker, your vote, please. Yes. Just in time. Commissioner Busby. Yes. Yes. Cut right commissioner cut right. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yeah. And commissioner Harris not here commissioner low. Yes. Commissioner MacGyver. Yes. Commissioner Morgan. Yes. And commissioner cease. Yes. And it passes unanimously. Okay. Before we dive into our items for the night, are there any adjustments to the agenda? There are no adjustments from staff that I'm aware of. We will like to note that all notifications for required notifications for the two public hearing items before you tonight have been performed and on file for review. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Public hearings for the night. There are zoning map changes. Our first case is case Z. 20. Kodru pro 08. Those road PDR rezoning to. And then we will begin with the staff report. I'm going to a full screen share. I don't know why I did not do that. Stop sure and see if it will do that. Unflug my other monitor. Cut it off, but it's still there. Maybe that'll make a difference. We'll do a full screen. There we go. Can everyone see that now? Yes. Perfect. Good evening. Danny culture here with the planning department. This is a request for a zoning map change. Z. 20,0008 Ellis road PDR rezoning to. It was received from Laura Hallman of McAdams company. Representing Eric Rifkin of Ellis road commercial LP. For one parcel located at 20, 10,0008 Ellis road totaling 29.13 acres. The site is within the city's jurisdiction. And in the suburban development here. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from commercial general with a development plan or CGD. To plan development residential 18.2 to zero or PDR 18.2 to zero for up to 519 apartment units. The future land use map or flume is designated as commercial. If the zoning is approved, I would recommend a change to the flume to designate the property as medium density, medium to high density residential. The context map. Shows that the site is owned CGD. The adjacent zonings are PDR. For townhouse and single family to the north and northeast. CGD under the current construction to the east. They can residential suburban RS 20 across NC. 147 to the west and to the south across Ellis road. The map doesn't convey this currently. This was recently zoned to CGD for self stores. So stores service facilities. And the planning commission actually saw this recently. And it was voted on by the county board of county commissioners. They also saw this recently to for the parcels adjacent to one 47 to those. And along with RS 20 and our, our zone, our, our zone parcels for single family. And then there's an O I D zoning to the south as well. Zone for and use for medical research developments. The, just in just abroad provided additional context. at the March 25th, 2021 meeting, voting to defer this case back to planning staff for further evaluation due to some found ordinance conflicts. The original request was for revising the entire previously approved Z-15-007 development plan and that included the parcels just to the east that are zone CGD. Since that time, the applicant chose to continue the commercial development, continue developing the commercial development and only rezoned this western portion of the site under a new development plan for the proposed PDR department uses. The aerial map shows the photography, shows the site as wooded with a mix of a hardwood pine, also a Duke power transmission easement is located running east-west on the northern portion of the site. However, the site has since been graded and is under development and the streets, street network has been constructed. This was done under infrastructure site plans as approved through the previous development plan. And you can see that the streets are under construction and they actually have been developed, just not accepted, I think by the city as of yet. Summary of commitments. There are many commitments on this, one limiting the percentage of parking between the building on the street north of Eunice Road, electric vehicle charging stations, providing pedestrian islands for any parking areas containing over a hundred spaces, not broken up with drive aisles, centralized focal civic space, providing elevators in all buildings for accessibility, multiple design commitments, dictating materials, features height and separation, bus pad and bus shelter if required by Go Durum, multiple transportation commitments which were required for the TIA. And graphic commitments for site access points, building and parking envelopes, location free preservation areas, project boundary buffers, maximum impervious surfaces, minimum required open spaces. The existing conditions as previously noted, this was wooded, there's a small riparian buffer in the northeast part of the site and there's a large riparian buffer along the northern part of the site, a hundred foot wide riparian buffer. And there are also steep slopes located on this site and you can see where the site was previously graded towards the central part of the site. That's evidence on the existing conditions and also the roadway infrastructure is shown on this steep proposed conditions show, of course, the steep slopes, the environmental features, the site access points, project boundary buffers around the site, tree preservation areas. And of course, they also note where any building heights over the 35 feet and up to 75 feet will occur on the site and of course maximum number of units and so forth. Community input, there was a neighborhood meeting held originally on January 29th, 2020, 37 community members were in attendance. An additional neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on their own accord on May 25th, 2021. The applicant stated to us at that point that there were no attendees for that meeting. One email was received about this case based on the notification for the previous planning commission hearing, none for this hearing. And except for the future land use designation, staff determines this request is consistent with 23 of the 24 community goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan analyzed, three of the three retained policies from the 2005 comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies. If the request is approved, the flum designation shall be amended to maintain consistency. And staff is available for any questions. And the applicant team is of course, as well. Thank you, Danny. At this time, I will open the public hearing. We have five people signed up to speak, who's signed up to speak in advance. I'm gonna, and Michael, I see you raised your hand. So I'm gonna go ahead and recognize you for a moment. Yes, thank you. I just want to note for the record that Commissioner Herrod is in attendance. Great. Thank you. So we have five people who signed up to speak on this item in advance.  It looks like most of the folks are part of the applicant team and I want to confirm that before we get started. So those that registered are Patrick Biker, Eric Rifkin, Laura Holloman, Ryan Akers, and Kelsey Hall. Mr. Biker, I assume that you're the primary speaker. Could you confirm if all those individuals are part of your applicant team? Can you hear me, Chairman Amidolia? Yes. Oh, wonderful. Good evening, everybody. And with the exception of Kelsey Hall, the other four are part of our applicant team. Kelsey Hall is a resident of Ellis Crossing and I understand she has another obligation to attend this evening. So I would respectfully ask that she speak first and then I will speak for our team and then we'll be having to answer any questions. Okay, that sounds fine to me.  So Kelsey Hall, I'll go ahead and recognize you first and then we can hand it over to the applicant team. Perfect. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. And please state your name and address before making your remarks. Perfect. My name is Kelsey Hall and I live at 912 Talbot Place in Ellis Crossing. I'm speaking in support of the Ellis Road PDR rezoning because I feel that the rezoning will improve our community. My husband and I enjoy walking and biking around the neighborhood and we're really looking forward to the public's and other commercial development coming to the area. Obviously excited about the commercial development but we also do have some concerns about additional traffic. So we're glad to see that the proposed PDR zoning projects a decrease in the daily trips from the current zoning. The Ellis Crossing neighborhood has a variety of housing types, including single family, townhomes and existing apartments along Ellis Road. So we really feel like this is a great location for additional multifamily housing to complement the proposed commercial development. So in conclusion, I am in support of the Ellis Road PDR rezoning and I would ask that the planning commission recommends approval of the zoning map change. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Biker, I'll turn it over to you for the applicant presentation. Thank you Chairman Amandelli. I'm sure this will take less than 10 minutes. Good evening Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair Cameron, members of the planning commission. I'm Patrick Biker with Morningstar Law Group and I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm here tonight representing Ellis Road, WBHLP for this agenda item. Along with me tonight are Laura Holliman of McAdams, our site design and engineering firm and Eric Rifkin, the vice president for Ellis Road, WBH. This agenda item that's before you this evening represents the last 29 acre fage of a master plan development that consists of commercial apartments, townhouses and single family detached housing within a relatively new 350 acre neighborhood in South Central Durham called Ellis Crossing. The apartments along Ellis Road are built and fully leased up. The commercial sites are ready to go with the site plan approved for a public's and other retail and restaurant space and the other residential sections are approved and moving forward with construction. The Ellis Crossing neighborhood today is providing quality housing that is for residents who are sometimes referred to as the missing middle. And what really makes Ellis Crossing important for Durham's growth in addition to the overall neighborhood is its central location with convenient commutes to downtown, Duke or RTP. Since 20 people move to Durham every day as a ballpark estimate, it's imperative to keep our housing supply increasing especially when it is workforce housing located near our core employment centers. So we are not locating new housing farther away. This agenda item checks all those boxes and it is a positive development for Durham. Next, it is important to note that this 29 acre zoning map change from CG to PDR represents a down zoning when it comes to traffic. Our traffic engineers have submitted an analysis of the city's fine traffic staff that demonstrates EAM peak hour traffic will decrease by 327 trips. And more importantly, PM peak hour trips will decrease by 791. Besides this significant decrease in traffic, it is important to note how much Ellis Crossing has spent on improvements to Ellis Road. Go back seven or eight years and Ellis Road was a two lane ditch section road in this area. Ellis Crossing has spent over $5 million to upgrade Ellis Road to a multi-lane facility with bike lane, curb and gutter and sidewalk. Along with the road improvements, Ellis Crossing spent about $1 million to extend the sewer line from the west side of the Durham Freeway to the adjacent property on the east side of Ellis Crossing, which is another huge community benefit. Lastly, it was the traffic signal that Ellis Crossing funded that in turn made the public's location. As a result, this will be a walkable, bikeable community with a neighborhood shopping center that is anchored by a public so that residents can walk or bite to the store for their shopping needs if they choose to do so. Given that there is about 29 acres of remaining commercial in Ellis Crossing, it makes sense to recommend approval of this rezoning before the commission tonight in order to create more multifamily housing in this pedestrian oriented environment. For all these reasons, we respectfully request your recommendation of approval. Last of all, I want to thank Danny for a fine staff report on this item and our team will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barker. Those are all of the individuals who signed up to speak ahead of time. At this time, I would invite anyone else who would like to speak on this item to digitally raise their hand, to raise their hand in the meeting. And if you're on the phone, that's by pressing star nine. Okay, seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and open up the floor to comments from commissioners. Commissioner Busby. Thank you, Chair Inabella. I just had a couple of questions for Mr. Barker and the applicant team. And in particular, three things. One is obviously affordable housing is an issue we've talked a lot about and our community is grappling with and talking a lot about. So I would like to hear your thoughts on that. We often are seeing proffers if there is not a commitment to actual affordable housing that we're seeing proffers made to our community's affordable housing fund. The second is noting that, well, I'll just stop there. I'll ask one question at a time. So do you have any plans to offer a commitment for affordable housing funds to the affordable housing community, affordable housing fund, Mr. Barker? Can you hear me, Commissioner Busby? I can, thank you. Oh, great, thank you. Good to see y'all tonight. At this juncture, we're not able to proffer a dollar figure for that. That goes back to the comment I made that this, when we had envisioned a approximately 60 acre shopping center, we obviously had the traffic study that assumed that and that required the $5 million of expenditure on Ellis Road that I referred to. I bring that up because it's interesting. I do projects in Raleigh once in a while and in Raleigh, the city of Raleigh reimburses developers for their public infrastructure expenses. So Mr. Rifkin would have had $5 million paid back to him over time for that. In Durham, we don't do that. The private developer has to pay for all the infrastructure and that's it. So if there were a reimbursement program like the city of Raleigh has, we certainly would have better ability to provide more affordable housing. But in Durham, we've made a policy decision for 30, 40 years that private development has to pay for all infrastructure requirements. I do want to add though that our projection that this point in time, we believe our entry level multifamily units at this site that we're considering tonight will be available for less than $1,000. So we think that is providing housing against the missing middle. Certainly recognize the concern and this team has, I apologize, Commissioner Busby, as you know, Ellis Crossing's been in the entitlements process for several years now. We certainly have made those contributions to the city's affordable housing front of the past and we'll consider it going forward to the city council, but at this point in time, we're not in a position to state a dollar for you. Okay, thank you. And I'm glad, your last statement, I think is critical from my perspective that that's something you will continue to actively consider as this goes to city council. I'm sure- Of course. Yeah, I'm sure they will be asking as well. The second is kind of following along the same lines. This change is projected to lead to a hundred additional students in the Durham public school system and you have plans as well. It's pretty standard that we see a set amount per student that's dedicated to the DPS system to help with the increase. Is that something that you are planning to consider offering at the city council as well? Yeah, we'll certainly consider it. I'm glad you, I noticed that in the staff report too. I agree with you, Commissioner Busby. It's a significant increase. And as you know, my son attended Durham public school. So I'm very sensitive to that issue. Great. And mostly I think it's a positive thing. We are going to create housing for a hundred additional DPS students are, you know, it'd be wonderful to offer that. But I think that's a really important thing. I hope you will do that as well. And finally, in this one, I know is more often proffered here at the planning commission is, I'm glad to see that this will lead to a reduction in traffic compared to the current zoning. I think that the traffic enhancements that you're providing are positive as were noted by the neighbor who supports this who spoke during the public hearing process. I am hoping you will consider though, increased standards on stormwater. I know you've done that in some other cases where you've been willing to go beyond the minimum requirements and look at a hundred year stormwater capacity or beyond. So I wanted to just ask you about your thoughts on stormwater and other environmental protections that you might be able to offer this evening. Yes, Commissioner Busby, we have looked at that in detail and we can proffer on the record tonight that the site we're considering will meet the 100 year storm standard. And we did drill down on that recently and I'm happy to report we can proffer that on the record tonight. So we'll get together with Danny and we're Smith that condition in the morning. But yes, I'm glad you brought that up and glad we can state that on the record this evening. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Byker, I just want to say you've done that a few times. I really appreciate that. I think that should become our new floor and not something to be proffered. So I will just continue to state that but I appreciate your willingness to go on the record and make that a proffer this evening. That's all for me, Chair Mindulia. Thank you. Yeah, there are some sites where we can do it and some sites where we can't Chairman Bosby. I'm sorry, no, you're not Chairman Bosby anymore.  Yeah, it's certainly something we evaluate and I appreciate your advocacy on that subject. We certainly do the, certainly try to make that a reality when we can. Thank you, Commissioner Busby. Commissioner Durkin, you're recognized. I wanted to just make note of this is approved tonight in my notes to be counseled and I would make the comment that there should be a contribution to the portal housing fund in lieu of providing any actual for the housing units. And just to know that that $5 million is the benefits of the infrastructure work that your client is doing. Obviously are a huge benefit to them as well. And I'm sure they factor that into their budget for the project and imagine that they're not doing this project for free. So it's all a consideration where we are also pushing to have the creation of a portal housing in our city. So I will make that note in my comment. This is approved. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Sneeze, you're recognized. Thank you. A couple of questions about a theme of my comments on the months that I've been on the commission. And it's an item that's been addressed both by Mr. Beiker and I was also addressed in the comments from the member of the neighborhood just to the north. And that is the walkability associated with the future commercial just the east of the site. And I'm curious, Mr. Beiker, anyone from your team about the tax commitment for the parking and the constraint of 40% of parking of any required building not being located between the building and Watchhorn Street north of Eunice Road. And I'm paraphrasing that commitment. Tax commitment number two, can you describe what that tax commitment is attempting to convey? I might have to ask Laura, would you be available to jump in on that one? You'd have a better handle on it than me. Sure, I'd be glad to. Thanks, Laura. Good evening, Laura Holloman with Gatam, senior planner, 2905 Mourney and Parkway, Durham 27713. Thank you, Councilman Sneeze, or excuse me, funding mission member for your question. That was an attempt to really have the character of the community explained. A lot of times in apartment communities, you see a large emphasis on parking as it relates to the front facade. So our attempt was to really have not a large expanse of parking along the streetscape. So that was the attempt to try to better approve upon other design standards that we have seen in apartment communities elsewhere in the city. So to the point of large expanse, I guess this is exactly why I'm asking the question, because the 40% of parking for 518 units is approximately how many spaces that you expect to provide. I'd have to look at the parking ratio. Is it several hundred, if not more, right? So there still could be a very, my guess, my point is I agree with the attempt to limit the extent of parking next to Watchworm Street. I'm not convinced at all that that text commitment does anything in that regard. I think the text commitment would be successful in limiting the extent of parking along Watchworm Street if it was 0%. And I would ask if your team could commit to that north of Eunice Street. I don't think that's unreasonable when you've got a site with 70% impervious and a freeway bounding the western side, which would seem to be the place that you'd want to have parking anyway. And if there is really a consistency in terms of wanting to provide the maximum desirability and safety and experience of walkability, both for the residents of this development and for the residents of the development existing just to the north, and a safe connection to the commercial, to the east across Watchworm Street, then I think without question, the way to do that is to place the buildings close for Watchworm Street. And I'm just curious as to why, I'm curious as to the origins of that commitment and if there's a better way that the team would be willing to do that. Can you limit it to one aisle of parking? One drive aisle, can you limit it to none? Can you limit it to a percentage of the frontage north of Eunice Street that would not be surface parking? Because I think those are the ways that you get to what it is that you described as the objective of that item. Sure, I'll follow up to your comments. Due to, there's some existing constraints on this property, as Danny mentioned, as Mr. Kultrow mentioned during his presentation, this site has already been graded and cleared. So the tree preservation areas are set. So as you know, and we've got a large expansive power line easement there to the north. So we've really got a well-defined development area at this point, as well as the public streets already being installed, as was already mentioned by staff as well. So there's really not a lot of opportunity to locate the buildings closer to Watch Ward, unfortunately. So I certainly understand your point that you feel like that we missed the mark on this, but we are just trying to be more restrictive than what the current EDO allows, which has nothing with regards to streetscape treatment. Okay, well, I appreciate the response. I'll say that to be clear, I wasn't requesting any change whatsoever to the building footprint, or wasn't suggesting any change whatsoever to the 15-foot street yard along Watch Ward Street, or any change to the internal tree preservation areas. I recognize that there's topography. I did a site plan on this whole area 20 years ago, just at a very conceptual master planning level. It's a site that I have some familiarity with. All I was suggesting is that if the applicant comes to council or comes to the commission and the community members come to the commission expressing an interest in walkability in a place where it's perfectly appropriate. And I think the city should not just aspire to have it. We should be implementing ways to ensure that it's provided. And one of the ways to do that is to address this condition that you stated in your verbal comments, not what's stated in the text commitment. And that is the relationship between the buildings and Watch Ward Street. And so I think that is a very easy lift to massage that significantly from the way the text commitment item is listed at present. I have no problem whatsoever with the density, with the transportation improvements. And so I'll just close by saying that, I think that there's a great improvement that could be made there with very minimal impacts on the development plan, the pro forma, the site plan considerations, cost, et cetera. Perhaps no impacts. I think it could be a really vast improvement. Having said that, we don't have the benefit of your site plan and I recognize that. So I would encourage not just your applicant team, the applicant team to be thoughtful in that regard, but for staff to be thoughtful in that regard in the ways in which these types of project descriptions and commitments are framed in projects going forward. So thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Seuss. I'm Commissioner Baker, you are recognized. Yeah, hey, hopefully it's not too loud in the background. The AC just there, the heater just came on. I've got a couple of questions. One for staff and a few for the applicant. So just so I am fully understanding, the current zoning on the property is a mixed use zone with commercial and residential. And we are looking at changing the mixed use zone for 29 acres to just one use and just one type of housing. Am I understanding that correctly? Yeah, Commissioner Baker. Yes, the existing zoning is a commercial general with a development plan, but it did allow for some residential uses in that existing development plan. The change is to keep the eastern portion as a commercial general, which actually did only allow the commercial uses and they are proposing now to change the western portion to a PDR for only apartment uses. Yes. Okay, thanks for explaining that Danny. I don't see any buffer. And ordinarily I'm not a huge fan of buffers just between pieces of land, vegetative buffers, but is there, am I missing, is there a buffer between what would be future multifamily residential and the Durham freeway? And I'm asking that just because of concerns over air quality and the fact that a lot of places have sort of 50 to 100 foot buffers adjacent to major. There are buffers. There are actually buffers. They're minimal, they're not to a great extent, but there are some buffers there. Okay, do you happen to know just that, you know, no pressure off the top of your head? Let me pull it up and I'll verify exactly what those are. Okay, thanks. The buffers adjacent to 147, it is a 20 foot, 40% opacity buffer. And they are putting tree preservation in there as well in those areas. So if they do any preserved tree preservation areas, or well, actually, if they do tree replacement, it has to be a minimum of 25 feet. And some of those areas, since it's been cleared, they may have to do replacement and those would have to be 25 feet wide. Can we take a look at an aerial? Can someone pull up either on the applicant team or on the staff team? Because I just want to understand what people, we're talking a little bit about a commercial, a little bit about residential, losing commercial on the site to gain more residential units. And I'm just a little bit, I can't quite tell where people can actually walk or bike to, just something that was mentioned. Is there someone who can pull that up and show us exactly what you're talking about, like where people can go? I'm working on that now. Okay, thanks, Danny. Okay, great. So there was a mention about Publix that people can walk to. And that will be, this is the eastern portion of the site. The Publix should, I think, be in the rear portion. I think that's correct. And the owner or applicant could actually address that better, but it should be somewhere, I think, in this portion. Okay. Yeah, Publix will be behind where Eunice and Phoenix streets intersect. Am I seeing a connection to the multifamily development to the, just to the east of that eastern portion of the property as well? Advancement Avenue. Yeah, okay, I see a connection there. Down in Eunice. Okay. Yeah, that street, well, I think it does actually move all the way through the connect to, yeah, just. And then are there, they're gonna be more internal public streets within this 29 acre property, correct? Stop that share and I'll reshare the development plan for you. These are, this is the designated side access that comes off of Eunice Road. And they do have potential side access, three potential side accesses through that area. They could also add onto that. And it's all private. These are private drives because apartments do not have to have streets. They can have private accesses into this site. Okay, and they're really just, we're probably seeing some kind of suburban-y, sprawly type of apartments, right? With big parking lots. That's probably what we're seeing, right? I'll ask that to the applicant. Yeah, they'd have to answer that one. Let's do their site planning process, sure. Yeah, I appreciate it. So to the applicant, it's just, we're gonna probably see a fully auto-oriented kind of orientation of buildings and parking. Well, Commissioner Baker, they're gonna be surface parked over there as we had, as was relayed in the staff report. These are elevators served apartment buildings, not walk-ups. So it is more of an urban design. However, this is not a site that is conducive to structured parking. So I think that's the balance that we're striking with this particular location is elevators served as opposed to walk-ups, garden style. But again, it's gonna be a surface parked development since structured parking is remarkably expensive. And then lastly, I saw that there are gonna be the electric car charging stations. We've seen a few applicants recently proffer green building elements on site renewable type stuff. I don't think I saw that in this application. Did I miss anything? If I have the terminology right, I confess I passed that LEED AP exam so many years ago that I'm not as sharp as I used to be. We can commit to 75% of the lighting, being LED lighting within this development. Is that the right, is that the correct wording, Mr. Rifkin? Good evening. This is Eric Rifkin, Assistant Vice President of the Howling Company is at 5600 Street in Apex, North Carolina. Thank you, commissioners, for your time. Patrick's correct. We can commit to 75% LED lighting. And in addition, we can commit to utilizing drip irrigation with a moisture sensor. Danny, are we good with that commitment? Sorry, had to unmute myself. I'm trying to write those down as we go. All right, thanks, Danny. What was it? I wanna get the full context of that last commitment for the drip irrigation. Yes, sir. Drip irrigation with a moisture sensor. The moisture sensor is used so that drip irrigation and the irrigation system in general knows when a rain event has occurred and to not turn on the day. Got it. I used to design irrigation a lot so I'm fully aware of that one. All right, that's all my questions. I guess the last thing I'll just say is sort of, regardless of this specific application and say this all the time, but I think this and many other applications sort of speak to our desperate need to rewrite our UDO and elevate our standards because otherwise we're just gonna end up building out our county for cars and not for people. And we can't ask every single individual applicant to come forward and be the one to pioneer walkable development. And they'll make sort of small gestures that are meaningful, but don't really change things. So yeah, thanks. That's all I got. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. Commissioner Morgan, you are recognized. Thank you, Chair. I guess it was good to follow both Commissioner Baker and Commissioner Cease on walkability, but I would like to see sort of a picture of, since this is sort of a last parcel of a larger plan, just my comment would be great to see sort of who are we targeting as far as walkability into which neighborhoods? And so that's my thought is that if the applicant could provide some of that, I know it's only in the context of this application, but there's a bigger picture that could be shared that might give us a better idea of what to expect. And it might help certainly the elected officials to kind of see what's going on in this area. So that's just my comment. I'll ask the applicant, I guess, Patrick, do you think we could provide some information on that? I mean, maybe not immediately, but for better reference as to what we're wanting to do? Yeah, sure, Commissioner Morgan. I think our vision with this is, as I mentioned with Commissioner Baker and as Mr. Kulture mentioned in the staff report, we thought it was very important to come forward with elevator-served buildings so that these buildings that we're talking about in this PDR zoning will be for much better for our rapidly expanding senior population. And so that would allow people who are perhaps have mobility challenges to have elevator-served residential unit and then be able to, assuming that they can walk well, they would have an easy walk to the public, so it would be less than five minutes I would estimate. So I think it really is a new type of housing within Ellis Crossing. We do not have that available in Ellis Crossing now. So it is widening the demographic, expanding the housing choices, and it is relative to many areas of Durham and many areas of the triangle, a walkable opportunity for groceries, restaurants, those types of amenities, and of course just walking for the sake of walking. That's fine. I guess what I was looking for is, I drive through that area all the time as sort of a cut through to get downtown. And I've noticed a lot of changes that have occurred and it'd be interesting to see what the big picture might look like when we're there. And I know we're doing it kind of parcel by parcel, but it would be nice to see what the vision would be, would look like because I think you all have the vision of what you're trying to build. And that's kind of what we're looking at is following on with our, my fellow commissioners is, how's this going to evolve? And what is it gonna look like in five or so years when this starts to get built out? It will certainly keep that in mind. And hopefully we'll have this built in less than five years. That's our hope. I understand. I'm just giving you a time period. Yeah. Very good. That's my comments, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Morgan. Before we're turning to commissioner C, so I'm gonna give others that haven't spoken yet chance to say their comments and ask questions. I'm so I'm gonna move to commissioner Lowe. Thank you, Chair. The term elevator assessment building. What does that mean? What does that entail as it relates to stairs or steps? I'm not sure how to visualize that. Do you explain that expound on that a little more? Sure, commissioner Lowe, many apartment buildings have stairways that are like where my son lives. The stairways are open to the elements and you have to walk up and he was on the third floor. So it was high. The buildings that the elevator serve building that referring to tonight, all the corridors are internal to the building. So everybody's protected from the elements. You just walk in through the entry door and then you take an elevator up to whatever floor your apartment's on. You never have to climb any stairs. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner Lowe. Commissioner Herod, you're recognized. Commissioner Herod, I believe you're on mute. Okay, is that better? Yes, sir. Thank you, chair. To build on some of the other comments, it does appear that this development is better than some in terms of walkability. You know, you have the residential and the commercial and general proximity. And I'm sure that a lot of walks I'm just curious about bicycle paths. How many of these streets will have bicycle paths? Laura, are there any streets? Yeah, Laura, are there any streets that don't have bicycle facilities? Try to think if there are anything, do not. This is Eric Rifkin. I am aware that we have built bike lanes along Ellis Road and up and down Watchhorn Street as well as on Eunice and Feeny roads. In total, that exceeds well over a mile. Yeah, all the main streets have that. Okay, another question is it's your intent to develop the entire site or will some of it be left? I know you have some open space. Will some of it be left undeveloped? Yes, sir. The intent is that there will be no buildings north of the power easement leaving a large buffer between the existing subdivision and the proposed development. Okay. Be nice if that stream could be an asset cleaned up and used for education and recreation and so forth. But that's my own comments at this point. Thank you, Commissioner Herrod. Would any other commissioners like a chance to speak before returning to Commissioner Cease? I would turn it back to you, Commissioner Cease. Thank you. I thought I was done, but I have to take exception to something that Mr. Biker described because I think it's really important for the Planning Commission to understand this and for the public to understand it. Proximity is not sufficient for an easy walk, not sufficient for an easy walk, particularly for seniors who are described as perhaps being well suited for this given the elevator configuration or elevators provided in each building. The proximity to the commercial consists of a three-lane roadway section with four-foot bike lanes on each side. So something nominally on the 45-foot curb-to-curb distance. Crossing a roadway that's a quarter mile long along this frontage, the entire eastern frontage, it's about a quarter mile with only one, perhaps no interruptions by stop sign. So clearly, that's not a low-speed street environment. This is not a place that's easy walkability unless the designers, the project team, city staff, the engineers, and others take action to make it so. And I cannot emphasize that enough that I disagree strongly with what Mr. Beiker described. And the public deserves to know that. That said, what's also irksome, unlike Ladder Road, which was a case that we heard where it was also described with a number of complexities, a number of constraints, and was also described by the applicant team as providing walkability to the surrounding projects, that project had a huge number of constraints. This project doesn't. This project doesn't have constraints in this regard. And I would ask two things. First, is there any intention or commitment by the applicant team or requirement by staff to create some type of mid-block median or pedestrian refuge, given that this is a three-lane roadway section. And so there's ample space to do so to provide exactly a type of safe pedestrian crossing across to the commercial area. Is that something that the team has considered? Yes, sir. And I, this is a difficult spot. We agree with the intent to provide some kind of method for pedestrians that have easier access across the street. In conversations we've had with both the city and NCDOT, they've indicated that they have concern over the spacing of that intersection and its distance to the Ellis and Watchhorn intersection. It's something we will continue to discuss with them, but until we have our plans in and further discussions with the two of those parties, I won't be able to say whether there can be a refuge or whether there can be stop signs, but we will continue to advocate for them because we agree with your comments regarding providing safe passage. Well, thank you. That's helpful. And it could occur. It may not be that Eunice Road is the place for that provision. It may occur further north with some of the other driveway intersections to reduce the conflicts with the conventional kind of suburban DOT perspective that may be prevailing in those conversations that you're having with them. There's ample opportunity, given that you have a quarter mile to deal with. I think that's a really important measure to be able to provide. Commissioner Sees, before you make your second point, I just wanted to briefly recognize Danny, you raised his hand while you were making your comments. I was just, I didn't know if that was directed at staff or whether that was directed at the applicant. I was just gonna suggest that maybe Erling Thomas of Transportation could answer that, but I did want to clarify one thing though, that the comment that Mr. Beiker made to Mr. Herrod about the development north of the power easement, the development plan, if you've noted, that does show that the building envelope is shown to be north of that power easement. So there could be actual development north of that power easement and still south of the preparing buffer. Thank you, Danny, for identifying that. I don't know if it was the applicant's intent to change that commitment or not. That's separate from my concerns. I do think that, well, I would ask the applicant again, is there the potential to reconsider the way in which tax commitment too is written to achieve what it is that was stated as the objective of having tax commitment to there to begin with? Because right now it's a throwaway commitment as far as I'm concerned. It does nothing. Is that something the team could consider? Yes, sir, tax commitment too. I'm having a little trouble with my internet, but as the previous discussion of the 40%. Correct, it simply limits a number of spaces between a building and a roadway, which doesn't do anything in terms of defining the relationship between the buildings and the roadway. Yes, sir. We can commit to two thirds of that frontage not having parking. That would be an excellent refinement. So appreciate that. Make sure that that gets worded correctly, Danny. That's all I have. Thank you. I'm on it. Thank you, Commissioner Sees. Any other comments from commissioners? Okay. If I want to take a moment to make a couple of comments myself. Well, actually first, I have a question and Danny, I know you're probably writing down tax, tax commitment updates right now, but I would like to address this first question to you. In your assessment, do you feel that we are losing commercial space opportunity by rezoning this parcel to be a single use of residential? Actually, I'd need to look at the old development plan really quick to make sure, but from my, and I hate to go by memory, but give me a moment. Give me a moment. I can pull the old development plan to see, but what I do remember, I think that area was dedicated for residential use through that development plan, but I want to confirm that just to make sure. So if you give me a moment, I'll pull the old development plan just to see. Sure. And while Danny is looking for that, I did just want to make a couple of comments on this case. First, early on, there was a reference that starting rents for this development are estimated to be at under $1,000. With a suggestion that that meant that this might be more affordable or filling some gap in the housing market. I would like to note that based on the staff report, the range of rent starts at 800 for studio apartments and moves to up to 1,800 or three bedroom apartments. So I want to just shade some color on that to say that an $800 studio apartment that might house two people that might house a single person and depending on that household income, maybe is not is maybe not inherently affordable or filling a gap. I think they're good units to have, but I want to provide a little player nuance to that, that having starting some starting rents in an apartment complex under $1,000 does not necessarily translate to affordability if they are for different sized households. And then secondly, I, you know, my thinking on the walkability portion of the site is a central mix. I like that there seems to be a central commercial aspect to where this is developing. And I think that is the direction we should be going. But like there's the reality that people might want to get their groceries, but they're not going to walk to their job most likely because there's not a lot of, from my perspective, it doesn't seem like there's an abundance of employment opportunities here. There's still going to be plenty of auto oriented activity on and off this site, particularly with it being located right next to the Durham freeway. People are going to locate here because of the proximity to that just going to put more cars on the road. So there will still be that safety concern and the emissions that come from automobiles. So, you know, it's nice to have the internal walkability. And I personally like being able to walk to a grocery store and other restaurants and coffee shops. But I also recognize that where it's kind of like a drop in the bucket towards what it should be. Danny, were you able to get a look at the former development plan? I was. And it actually did not designate different areas. It was all one area. It did have different areas defined, but they didn't define where the uses would be. It had a maximum of 500,000 square feet of commercial and about 380 residential units designated for that. So our 381 units and those were maximum. So we're no minimum defined amounts of commercial floor area or minimum defined units. So I guess it would make the difference would be, you know, how much floor area the applicant is going to max out in the CG, remaining CG portion, you know, on how much would actually be lost by putting in the number of units that they're proposing now. Thank you. That's helpful. Do you know if there has been a site plan submitted for that Eastern portion where the commercial development is taking place? Well, there has been, I believe, for a portion of it. There hasn't been for the southern portion of the development. So there's some out parcels that are still there. And so I don't know, you know, there's always some residual still remaining that they could develop. But I don't know offhand how much square footage they've already committed to in any site plan. The applicant may be able to give you that information. Yeah, I will turn to the applicant for a moment. Patrick, can you or your team kind of provide any color to what you expect to happen with that Eastern portion of the site? And yeah. Sure. We have a site plan approval for, I'm just going to give you ballpark numbers, Mr. Chairman. We have site planning for, that's been approved for about 75,000 square feet. Publix is about 48,000 square feet. And then there's two other buildings that will have combinations of retail and restaurant space. And then besides that, there's probably another, the potential on that site would probably be another, another 100,000 square feet. Give or take a little. So it's really going to turn out to be, I think, a neighborhood shopping center that I think is pretty similar in square footage to Woodcraw shopping center, where there's the food line and the true value hardware store, that type of, that type of square footage. Okay. So just to run that back to make sure I heard it correctly. You're saying there currently have a site plan for about 75,000 square footage of commercial and you're expecting an additional 100,000 square feet. Yeah. Those are, again, those are ballpark numbers. The approved site plan, the site plan for the Publix and the two other buildings is right about exactly 75,000 square feet. It's hard to guess what, what various companies come in and what the site plan is for. Building square footage requests, but. I would say the top end of what the site that supports about another 100,000 square feet. Okay. I'm going to turn back to questions for Danny. So we have. We have. The prior development plan. We have. Included the Eastern portion of the site. And right now we are focusing on a development plan for just the Western portion. So my question is on the Eastern portion, there was an option of up to the 300 or so residential units are up to 500,000. Commercial square feet. If we approve this. What is the allowed. Use on that Eastern portion. Is it. It's still, it's still commercial development. It, it, it still allows for the commercial development in that Eastern portion that they can still move forward the East. The commercial development. Does it also allow for the residential or only the commercial. I believe. I need to look and see if there was anything that prevented them from doing that. I don't think there would be any text commitments. I think that it would just be upper story residential. Oh, the units would have to be upper store. There is text commitments that all, all the. All the units would have to be upper story residential. So if they just build commercial in there, they could only build upper story above those. Got it. They couldn't just start building. It would have to be. It would have to be. It would all have to be. Yeah. Upper story residential. Okay. That's helpful. Yeah. Okay. I think those are all my questions. Anyone else would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand at this time. I think. Yeah, there's, it's an imperfect case to me. It's an imperfect location because of our. The direction we've already set the site on. It seems to me it's ostensibly we're getting more density here, which I am for that. And I'm happy to see concentrated residential next to commercial. It's probably inevitably going to be auto oriented, which I don't love. So personally, I am leaning towards a yes. It's not like a, it's not like a thriving, very excited about it. Yes. But it's like a. Yeah. I would say yes and have a lot to say in my rec comments, but I'm happy to hear. Others final thoughts or to accept a motion at this time. And I think. Sorry, before accepting the motion, I just want to confirm with Danny. We heard like. We heard four different. Profers. Thank you for that. I was getting ready to raise my hand. Yeah, I wanted to confirm all of those different commitments as well. First one I heard was that we were going to get a proffer for all of the SCMs to. To contain 100 year storm events. And then I heard that we would get a commitment for. The lighting to be at. Or 75% of all the lighting to the LED. Lighting. And then I, for the. The site to have a drip irrigation system. I guess an automated drip irrigation system with more. Moisture sensors. And then. The. Commitment number two to be reworded so that. Two thirds of the parking. Would be eliminated along watch form street. Is that correct? Michael, I see you've raised your hand. Thank you. Thank you, Danny. Could we also get clarity? We had conflicting statements about. The building envelope to the north of the power easement. Can we get. From the applicant about what their true intent is. And if they need to. Excuse me. As this moves forward, revise their plan to either remove that building envelope or adjust it in some way. Thank you. Yes. Members of the board and, and, uh, Mr. Stock, Mr. We'll just leave the building envelope the way it is right now. It's not our intention to, to go there, but we're not exactly sure how everything will lay out. So we need to maintain the current. Graphic as it was presented. That's like the other four commitments that Danny. Relate or spot on. We appreciate that. Very much, Mr. Culture. Um, Michael, did you have any follow up on that? I'm sorry. No, that clarifies it. I think that clarifies it for everybody. Thank you. Um, okay. Commissioner sees you're recognized. Yeah. If the applicant or staff could rewrite, could restate what was described because I think what Danny described is not what. Uh, Mr. Rifkin stated and Mr. Rifkin, you're welcome to take a crack at it or. Patrick, whomever. Yes, I'm sorry. Danny, would it be possible that you could pull up the, um, condition? I'm sorry. I'm having technical difficulties on my computer so that I could, uh, look at it with a commissioner of cease and make sure we're all on the same page. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Sure. Yeah. And Mr. Rifkin, what I heard and feel free to modify this as you think. It is appropriate. But what I heard you say would, would, would be acceptable. Would be no more than two thirds of the frontage of watch foreign street. Whether it has north of Eunice road or not. Um, I'm sorry. Two thirds of the frontage, you said, said would not have parking located in between the buildings in the street. That's, that's what I heard. I don't know if that's what you intended. I'm trying to match that to the condition. Um, but the way you think about it, or saying north of Eunice street either one's fine. I prefer the way you've said it. That requires two thirds of the frontage of watch weren't to not have parking immediately. Against the road. And that is fine by us. I'm sorry to belabor the point, but it's an important one. Um, immediately against the road is different. Um, I'm sorry to belabor the point, but it's an important one. Um, I'm sorry to belabor the point, but it's an important one. Um, immediately against the road is different than between the building and the roadway. Yes, sir. We can commit to that. So two thirds of the frontage of watch one street north of Eunice road will not have service parking located in between the buildings and the roadway. Yes. Perfect. Thank you for. Your patience. And Danny, you got that. I do. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Are you having any other questions or comments now would be the appropriate time for emotion. Go ahead. Motion. Uh, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'd like to move that we move case number Z to five zeros eight. Uh, Ellis road, PDR rezoning two forward to the city council. For approval. seconded by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Busby. Is there any further discussion before we have the vote? Now have the roll call vote. Thank you. Amandolia. Yes. Baker, Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Herod. Yes. Low. Yes. MacIver. Yes. Morgan. Yes. And Cease. Yes. It passes. 10 to one. Thank you. Thank you to the applicant team. Thank you for your time. Tonight. And Danny. Yep. Thank you. Commissioner Durkin. No, no. Yeah. No. Yeah. So just for edification with state law, if, if it's approved, then the flum is automatically amended based upon the recommendation of staff. Long time ago, but all cases that you've been hearing now, sorry. We'll go ahead and move to our next item, which is case Z. 20. Triple zero 45. You tower. And we'll begin with the staff report. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I. If I may, I'd like to introduce. Leah Larkin. She's a planner within the land use section. For her first presentation. So. We're all very excited for her and she's very excited. So. Just wanted to mention that for her and introduce her. Thank you and welcome. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Leah Larkins. I'm with the planning department. And since this is my first time presenting at planning commission, can everyone see my screen? Yes. Wonderful. Okay. A request for zoning map change. Z 20, 0, 0, 0, 4, 5, U tower has been received from Tyler Morris of vintage university design. The site is within the city's jurisdiction in the south square. Martin Luther King compact neighborhood development tier. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from office and institutional with the development plan. Oh, I D. To office and institutional. Oh, I. No development plan is proposed. Therefore, all of the uses and associate loose use limitations in article five use regulations. Shall apply to the zoning district proposed. On the future land use map or flum, the parcel is designated as design district. If the zoning is approved, staff recommends a change to the flum to designate the property as office. The context map shows that the site is currently zoned office and institutional with a development plan. Adjacent zonings are commercial general or CG with a commercial use to the north. Oh, I D. With a commercial office use to the east. Oh, I on an undeveloped track to the west. And to the south, a combination of CG and oh, I with a commercial office building. The aerial map shows the boundary lines of the subject property, as well as the site's proximity to 15501 to the west and university tower to the south. The current aerial photography shows that the site is wooded with a development plan. The current aerial photography shows that the site is wooded with a mix of hardwood and pine. The existing sidewalks on petty and picket roads are also visible. As no development plan is proposed, all of the uses and associated use limitations in article five use regulations shall apply. Some of the types of uses that are permitted under office and institutional zoning are office uses, multiple multifamily residential uses, community service uses, medical facilities, residential services, commercial parking, hotels, art galleries. A neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with UDO requirements on October 1st, 2020 five community members were in attendance. The applicant was also encouraged to reach out to those attendees one once again when they determined that they would be pursuing a straight rezoning. That conversation ended up reaching two of the original five community members who were in attendance at the meeting. There were no public inquiries or social pinpoint comments received for this case. And finally, staff determines that this request is consistent with 19 of the 24 community goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan that were analyzed. The request is inconsistent with the future land use map, and it is consistent with other adopted ordinances and plans. Thank you. Staff is available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next time we will open the public hearing. And we have two people who registered to speak on this item in advance. They are both members of the applicant team. They are Neil Gauch and David. Lastly. Lastly. Thank you. And I will hand it over to the applicant team. You have 10 minutes to give your presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, chair. I am Neil Gauch. I'm representing the applicant for this project. Along with David. Let me start first by saying thank you to Miss. And to congratulate her for her. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. If I heard correctly. I think everyone will agree. It was done with grace and a palm. Kudos to you. This project does have somewhat of a story background. I'm pretty sure before Miss Larkin started. Initially my client was interested in the site because. A feedback we received at the site. That the project could be developed on the front on this site. But it was not until a later round of review comment. On the site plan. That the issue of an existing development plan came up. The site was reasoned long ago. Along with the parcel just east. In order to allow for the development of a social security office for the state. I'm not sure how long. How long that office is there. But I believe the site now is. In my understanding is that the adjacent site was reasoned. At the same time. With this site. With the thought being that the state may open the second office. In the location. We now seek. To reason. The development plan to that reasoning is quite old. And it's unlike development plans up today. The only real commitment on the development plan. Was that the site would be used for. An office. Thank you. Thank you. Through some comedy of errors. This one commitment on the development plan was overlooked. And in fact, a site plan. For this project has been unreviewed since. May of last year. Which is quite a long time. So we have known for a long time what we will be building here. And we've been working more recently to try to clear up this zoning issue. This site is part of a larger project. Which includes. The parcels on the west side of. The total projects for a multi family community consisting of. 208 units. As I said, this project has been the works for quite some time. Based on the feedback we have from staff. We've been working on this project for a long time. My client initially understood the project was allowed by right, which is why type them a few minutes along again. And it's been held up because of the zoning issue. And the setting application has actually gone through a couple iterations based on feedback to staff. Initially we actually applied to amend the current development plan to remove the restriction that the site be used only for office. But at some point. We decided to do a review of this project. And we'll be. And finally, for a variety of reasons, and based on feedback staff, we settled on a general rezoning. So and I, which. We'll, you know, make the site plan work. And also will allow for. Up to make the greatest use of it for residential. So. I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know what you're talking about. I think it's a general use rezoning application, but there is a backstory to buy that as the case that I wanted to share with you. I look forward to your feedback. And happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Those are all the individuals who signed up to speak in advance. This time, if anyone else would like to speak, please raise your hand. You start nine to raise your hand. Seeing none. I will now close the public hearing and open the floor to commissioner comments. Commissioner Baker. I'm looking at the future lane use map. And this is in the design district, which is a good future land use category. And if the rezoning is approved, there will be this little dot of not design of a different future land use. And that to me doesn't seem to make sense. Seems like if we are, if we have planned something here to be design oriented, to be more pedestrian oriented, walkable and transit oriented, and this is definitely an area of the city that can use, that has access to transit, that we kind of want to stick with that. So that's just my initial, that's my initial, that's my initial thought. I'm a little bit, I'm a little bit perplexed by this, by why we would, the justification for why we would consider this or consider approving this. So I'm looking forward to other comments. That's all for me. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. Chair Anandolia, Commissioner Baker did not ask the question, but I was wondering if I could have an opportunity to respond to the comment there. That is correct that Commissioner Baker did not ask a question. However, I will recognize you to provide a brief response. Sure. And thank you. So, Commissioner Baker, I think in general, you're correct that it does seem a little bit odd, but, and I'll say this with the caveat that a site plan can be amended administratively. I recognize that. But as I mentioned, the site plan for the site has been in review for quite some time since I believe May of last year. Some of the things that is on the issue of the fire, and I did say some are actually what the site plan implements. So for example, this kind of relates to the hearing you just had, the building on this site is pulled up towards the right of way. The parking is actually behind the building. This would be a multi-story building. I believe it's for a story. And, yeah, the whole project is doing things to more sidewalks being added to this area. This area does have an interesting mix of uses as is. So from a walkability standpoint, I will say you can walk to other uses from here. You can walk to the power site, for example, which is mainly office. You can walk to the McDonald's. That seems counter. You can actually walk to the dealership there. Of course, why would you walk in? But anyway, so this is walkable to a number of different uses, and it's kind of its own second. And I will say having grown up in this area has been a Durham native. This is, I guess, back power all the time. The site has been grossly underused, I mean vacant, for quite some time. And obviously, Durham is in need of more housing. So this project is going to implement more housing on this site in a way that's actually walkable to what's already there. So I think that the site plan kind of shows how the whole area would be developed, or the whole project would be developed consistent with design district ideals. But at the end of the day, we are not requesting a design district or a compact neighborhood type district like RC. We are going for OI. So I'm sorry, there's a reference to a site plan. Am I missing that? Was that in our packet? I would doubt it. I mean, generally speaking, site plans are not in the Planning Commission package. Right, right. So it's, it's not really what we would see, like a commitment, but there's no development plan here. So we can't see commitments. Exactly, exactly. I mean, I'm totally aware of that and just letting you know this rezoning case stemmed out of an error that was found late in the site plan review. So that's, we're trying to correct an issue that was not initially recognized. Is there any ways to staff? Is there any way that we can see the initial site plan? I assume that's public, but just because this is intended to be a design district and pedestrian transit oriented, and Neil is saying that that is, in fact, how it is being implemented, is there some assurance that we can get of that? Yeah, I mean, thank you. That's a good question. So there are, it's still within the compact neighborhood here. So there are compact neighborhood tier oriented standards that would apply to OI district, such as a maximum street yard of 15 feet, the location of the parking, the orientation of building. So everything that Mr. Ghosh has said is correct. There is mass transit available just a bit a quarter mile south of the site. They will have to provide, no matter what development goes in there, provide the sidewalks that are not currently there. So there are standards already built into the ordinance that get to some of those very basic design district type standards, but yes, the flume would change to office because it's an office zoning type district. So that would be the most logical change. The flume will probably be within a year or so. We'll have a completely new future land use map of the place types. So we're not too concerned. And plus this is on the edge. So we're not too concerned about this office designation looking a little different than all the design districts designation to the south of it. Okay, that's great. That makes me much more comfortable. One quick last question. Are there like massing standards? Are there sort of building design material standards for that? There is orientation. There's no building design orientation standards, but there is building orientation standards, not building material standards for OI. Transparency standards, anything like that? No, those are specific just to design district. So we would look right now, yes. So we would get that in a design district that would happen. We would get that in a design district. And the design districts ultimately, when this was turned into a compact neighborhood to your way back when, when the light rail was still a thing and we were all excited about it, design districts was the designation of design district was more of anticipating of a comprehensive change to the area's design district instead of a piecemeal one-off design district here and there. So that's the logic as to why the applicant may not have chosen to go to the design district route. And so Michael, what last question?   There are actual, we had asked a transportation about the worst stops right along, I believe, Petty or Pickett Road, but that service has been suspended at least temporarily by GoDurham, but there is active transit just over a quarter mile away. And the orientation of the buildings would have those basic design standards that you're concerned about. Okay, I'm done. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. I'm Commissioner Durkin, you're recognized. Thank you. I had a question, Neil, can you clarify it for me if the discrepancy is on a development plan or a site plan? Yeah, that's a great point. So the site plan was submitted to development plan. There is a development plan currently on this parcel. It's an old development plan, not like the ones that you're used to seeing now. And so at the initial review, the feedback that we got back was that this project that we currently have in site plan could be built by right. In the review process for the site plan, it was discovered that actually the zoning development plan currently on the property does prohibit this use. And so it wasn't until much later that we realized we being the applicant, staff, the city realized that this project actually would require a rezoning. So the discrepancy was with the initial feedback that we got about the site. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Leah and Michael, I'm just curious, usually do we not get old development plans in our package? I know we don't get site plans, but I kind of want to lay eyeballs on this discrepancy and know exactly what was prohibited. Because I'm confused why this chair, I just have the word why on my notes on this one, because it also includes in page three and section E, it says that the current zoning designation would be 52 multi-family residential units. And actually just paying back to Neil really quick. How many units are you wanting to build on this lot or the site? Yeah, so the site plan for the entire project with 208 units total on about four acres, 52 of which would be on this parcel, which I think is like 1.27 acres, but 52 units on a total. Is there not a way to just, do we really need to go through this? I guess that's my question. That was our question and hope too, just to be clear. Yes, I'm fulfilling and thank you, Leah, for popping it up there. Unfortunately, the development plan doesn't allow for residential. It commits to a general office use. So that's the crux of the issue. The chair of administration? Right, so you see there's two sections of this overall development plan. The one on the right there or the east has already been built out and the development plan can stand alone. If this portion is rezoned, it's the portion on the west side that has not been developed that was determined that residential is not allowed. So because they're basically amending the development plan, they have to come to us because it changes the use that was previously. Any, yeah, any either if they wanted to amend the plan which really doesn't commit to anything more than that use restriction. There wasn't, there's nothing substantial on it that were any extra commitments and such beyond any ordinance requirements. This plan was done back in 2002, I believe. And the, yeah, the biggest thing with this development plan was the use restriction to residential from resident, prohibiting residential. So yeah. If there's a larger development plan that includes the two parcels that don't require rezoning, why don't we see that? I mean, I wish that that one sentence wasn't on the prior development plan as does everybody I'm sure. So part of it means things like this is silly, they should just be able to do what is by right. But by proving this kind of in a vacuum without the larger context, it makes me, the whole thing makes me a little uncomfortable and unsure of what. I believe the development plan was provided. It might have been, as I saw recently might have been an incomplete page but there was a portion of the development plan was provided, at least as a attachment 11 or 13. I don't have it in front of me. Yeah, right. So the existing conditions but that was an error in terms of not being able to provide this sheet but what you're looking at is the extent of it. It's not a large site. It's the same situation as the case you heard before where there is a development plan that covered the entire site and they're seeking to rezone out of a portion of it. The remaining site that would still have this development plan apply would be the Western portion of the site. Funny enough, same as the other site you heard beforehand and that can stand alone. This request is just for the, well the Eastern portion but just for the Western 1.2 acres in order for them to incorporate it into their site plan that they already have supposedly in review. Can we add a proffer saying that it's only 52 units on that site or something to the excess they wouldn't be getting more than they would add the right if this old development plan restriction didn't exist? No, there's no, they're rezoning out of the development plan to adjust OI. There's no development plan. Oh, I cut. Nope, there's no development plan associated with it. Right. And there's no development plan that includes the other two sites. That's just the site plan that was the other site. No, there aren't, there's no development plans on that other portion of the site that's part of the overall site plan. That's correct. I honestly don't know what to do because I really want there to be a development plan so that I can then address the non-use of the formal housing density plan by putting a development plan in place. So I'm going to just step back and let Commissioner Seese raise this question. I'm still thinking. Thank you, Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Seese, you're recognized. Well, I, with that lead in, Commissioner Durkin, I hope my comments don't disappoint you. I don't have anything to offer in that regard. I, a couple of things I think that are really important here, particularly given the conversation with the prior application. I think that Michael, somehow you found a way that they were related. They're really so, so different. And I want to commend the applicant, Mr. Gosher, for the description of what I think are some really important pieces to this puzzle. This is really an example of how imperfect zoning is, especially zoning when we try to fine-tune things through a development plan and then years pass and conditions change. And so let me just say what I think are the really important pieces to this question. First of all, this is just clearing up one little item that was on a development plan that is now many years old that constrained the use to this site. It's not inconsequential, but that's why we're here. Secondly, that the O and I, I'm sorry, the location of this within the design district and the points that Commissioner Baker identified, of course arose as Michael pointed out from the history of the light rail project that's no longer relevant for this site. Doesn't mean transit considerations and compact neighborhood and design considerations aren't relevant, but the context is very, very different than having a station on a light rail one-quarter mile south of this site. It's very, very different. And secondly, this is on the edge, not only is it on kind of the North edge with Pickett Road, so what's across the street, it's not part of the design district. The project coupled with the parcel just to the West is right up next to 15501 bypass. So it really is on the edge, this is on the condition. So at the scale of the site, we've got some basic design parameters that apply relative to building location from the compact neighborhood here that if I'm getting the terminology correct, that Michael pointed out, and those are comforting. But to me, the most important thing is what Mr. Ghosh pointed out about this being just a really underutilized site. It's a residual of the tower construction decades ago that has always been characterized in various terms, but these residual parcels have always been, have always been challenges from a development perspective. And so I welcome the changes that are described and the changes that would be allowed with the O&I, rezoning, pulling it out of that old, and I want to attach some other adjectives to it. It's just a development plan that doesn't, I think add value to our process of how we consider land use for this particular site. And it's a relatively small site. It's not a clean slate, like we were discussing in the private case, of the prior case. This is a small site. There are plenty of challenges to deal with there. And so I'm very comfortable voting yes for this and moving on. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Sees. Commissioner Busby, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair Amandalia. Mr. Ghosh, I'm right on the fence between my fellow commissioners, Durkin and Sees. I like that this is going to take advantage of an orphan site that has just been long sitting there. I think residential is interesting, maybe challenging, but I think appropriate use. But, and the explanation makes sense now, which was not in the packet. The background is getting me more comfort. I could not figure out what was going on here either. And I was really annoyed that there was no development plan. But I understand now the context. So that's very helpful. I still would like a development plan. So Mr. Ghosh, I guess my question for you is can you walk us through what would the timing and the process be to refile a rezoning with a development plan so we could actually see what would come here? Because while it's a small site, it's a really relevant site for Durham. The amount of traffic that comes through here, the number of people who told me the first time they came to Durham and they were driving toward Durham and they thought that office tower was downtown Durham, and then they just kept driving past it and realized they weren't in downtown Durham yet. A lot of eyeballs on this site and there are some constraints that I think we'd want to get right. So can you just walk me through what that timing would be? And I think I know your answer, but I just want to hear it on the record and your thinking for why you decided to go this route instead of kind of taking a step back and coming back with a new case as a development plan. Well, okay. First of all, Commissioner Busby, thank you for the question. This project has been somewhat of a whirlwind. And I'm not trying to hammer anybody here. On the state was made, and that is the part that you have to understand initially. This project was well underway before the state was realized. I will say when we initially filed the redone for this, our plan was to amend the current development plan. Essentially, just to remove the limitation on this development plan that you're looking at on your screen, the only real commitment is that the use is off. So our original rezoning application was to amend the development plan to get rid of that commitment, period. That was it. So I think in one of our first rounds of review for the rezoning application, what Commissioner Baker brought up was exactly what planning brought up. We actually switched our application at one point to go from OID, amending development to RC, then through a lot of discussion with staff and consideration. This is different than a rezoning site that I typically work on because this acreage was so deeply enrooted in a site plan already, that there are a lot of other considerations that came into play. The RC district would not work for the overall development of this site. And the other thing I wanna point out, I'll just say this, I think you all know me well enough, at least some of you, some of you are newer faces, but I've been in front of the Planning Commission many times I'm well aware of how rezoning work, how development plans work and all of that. This is a unique situation, but I will say this is a good project. The site plan for this, if you can check it out, I think you'll be pleased with it because of the design elements of it, but also the overall acres we're talking about like four acres and 208 units. I mean, we're talking about a density that's over 50 dwelling units to the acre. This is the type of development that the Planning Commission in general has been asking for. It is something that can be implemented without the development plan. And I think that is an important point. DERV UDO has some flexible tools in it. This is a site that can actually make use of those tools without the need for a development plan. And it provide a lot of housing in a small space, which at that density, I mean, I think if we had more residents in development at that density, Durham would be probably on all more affordable city. This is a good project. And, you know, it has fish in the detail. And it, I mean, to select the design has the buildings out towards the right-of-way, parking in the back. This site plan actually has on-street parallel parking, which is kind of a traffic calming measure to help with that pedestrian feel there. And, you know, I don't think that this is necessarily the site that people think of when they say, oh, it would be a great walkable site. But in reality, you can walk through these different uses here. Maybe over time, those uses would become more attractive for walkability. I mean, I can't tell you that I'd be walking in McDonald's every day. But, you know, you got to start somewhere. And this is a good site for it. This is a good site plan for it. This zoning thing, you know, it was a mistake at the initial outset that we're trying to correct and put together a really nice project. Oh, and you asked about timing and pushing through the development plan. I'll just let you know the last two development plans that I have taken through the process took a total of 18 months to go through the whole process. This site plan has already been in site plan, at least my understanding is in general from site plan to permit is about one year. This site plan has been in for well over a year at this point because of the zoning issues that came up in the intermediate. But, you know, development plan rezoning, the last two that I've done took 18 months. I would say those are probably on the longer side. In general, development plan rezoning, I would tell my clients about 14 months in Durham in, I mean, if we did our initial rezoning applications but to amend this development plan but for various reasons and working closely with staff, want to be clear on that, that would determine not to be the best option. Great, thank you. I mean, that's really helpful, the context. I mean, you said it, you said you come to us a lot and you hope that we will trust you. And there is clearly a trust fall piece here for us without a development plan, but your background and your context, even walking through some of the pieces that will be included is good, at least it's good for me to hear. So I appreciate all that background and that answer. I'm still thinking about it. I lean yes, but it's a weird one. Thanks, commissioner Busby. Before I circle back to commissioner Durkin, are there other commissioners who would like to speak for the first time on this item? Commissioner Herrod, you were recognized. Yes, thank you, Jerry. And all this discussion is very helpful. I'm a bit confused about, we talked about 52 units and then we talked about 208 units. Is that something that will be coming to us at a later time? I'm really confused about where they would be located. Sure, I mean, I can respond to that. So commissioner Herrod, the 208 units that I'm referring to is what is shown on the site plan for the overall project. Our overall project for this site, or for our overall project includes this acreage, which will be zoning and the two parcels on the west side of Petty Road. So in total, that project is about four acres. So the entire site plan is for those four acres and includes 208 units. Of those 208 units, the site plan shows 52 of them on the acreage that you were considering for rezoning tonight. But that's on the site plan. That's not on a development plan. It's not necessarily related to the zoning. It is absolutely what we plan to build here. So at a later time, we will be considering the two lots on the west side. Minister, those are already zoned appropriately for the project, so they don't need to be rezoned. I see, okay, that makes sense. Yeah, thank you. Oh, thank you. Thank you, commissioner Herrod. And we'll go ahead and circle back around to commissioner Durkin. Thank you. For Leah and Michael, with this change, can you just clarify for me? I think you did, but I just, just triple clarified. With this change, they are then, they basically be putting back, putting them in a place they were, had this mistake not been made, so that they can't do anything more than is as of right with the zoning essentially now, with the language reverted back. Regarding to the quote unquote mistake, yes, they're not changing their application based upon, they're not changing their site plan based upon the zoning. They are seeking a zoning based upon the site plan that they have always intended to do. Does that make sense? So, I guess my concern, and I don't think that there is an intention to like somehow get more than they are presenting themselves as wanting, but I want to make sure by saying yes, that we're not really expanding what they would otherwise be entitled to under the zoning. Right, the issue is that the current, this portion of their site is prohibitive to what they want to do per their site plan that they submitted. Resoning it would allow them to finalize their site plan. Okay, I mean, I still think it's weird, but I'm comfortable, especially given the background of this prior development agreement with the security administration. But I just wanted to make a note that, I think, and I don't want to speak for anybody else in the commission, but personally I know that there's the option to have applications without development plans and reasonings without development plans. I personally don't like them because it puts us in a situation of approving something without having broader contacts and without having the ability to have agreements with the applicant. So I would actually discourage those kinds of applications here. I think it's an anomaly. And again, the background, like Commissioner Brasley said, is very helpful. It makes me more comfortable with voting yes for this. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Baker, you are recognized. My last two questions for the applicants. There's a number of units on this. I think you said 52 units on the parcel, 208 units on the site. How many of those are gonna be affordable? And then my second question is, and I also recognize that there's no commitments here because there's no development plan. My second question is, what is not a commitment, but what on the site plan is being done for sustainability and onsite renewable energy and those kind of green building and those kinds of things? Commissioner Baker, thank you for the question. To be clear, this project is not utilizing any affordable housing, Disney bonus or sub-videos in that regard. So I wouldn't characterize any of these units as being affordable in capital A. That having been said, I believe the staff report reflects that the median rental price in the city of Durham is around 1400 bucks for a 935 square foot apartment, which comes out to about $1.50 per square foot. There will be units in this overall project that are less than 1400 bucks. So rental prices in this community are expected to start at 1,000 and the range of 2,500 at this replacement staff court. Again, now we base depending on the size, location in the building and the number of bedrooms. As far as the sustainable or green element, now I'm not sure that I can really speak to that, but site plan of course is how this actually is out built. I'm not exactly sure that the types of materials are part of that. I think that comes in with the CDs. So I couldn't really speak to like what building materials are at this time and the sustainable elements. Was there something specific that you got a question about? David could answer a question about that. David Ladsley on our team. Neil, I really, I can't help you on the building materials and aspect of that, that'll be something to go through with the architectural plans. I can speak to the type of development that we're doing. It's one that is pulled up where the buildings are up against or close to Petty Road. It's exactly the type of street scape that we're trying to create with these environments and where we have the parking areas located behind buildings in this particular one. And I hate to get into too much talking of the other sites across on the west side of Petty, but the topography there facilitates its high up at the road and low toward 501, where we have split buildings where there are four story from the Petty Road side, five story from the 501 side with parking or portion of the building have parking underneath of it on the backside. So we're doing all those types of sustainable things that they're trying to create a compact development in the proximity of a work environment and an office tower that also promotes the walkability of this site and living close to work as well. So this is just a vital piece. And as we pointed out, and I think we've probably worn it out, it was a development plan that showed up late in the discovery part of this that had a condition that required it to be office. It required it to be office. And that prevented this multifamily development from being able to be put together. This particular site will have the recreational facilities on it. It'll have pool, it'll have units above that for a total of 52 units. Oh, and David, I was just thinking, doesn't the site plan show the number of EV parking spaces? I mean, as part of the layout for this? The development plan? No, the site plan for this. So I'm saying that we'll have on this one we'll have, there may be a few handicap parking spaces on the site, but that's it. All the other parking is gonna be located in other areas on the side. Oh, but I thought we had some electrical vehicles, electric vehicles parking spaces. I might be mistaken, but Commissioner Baker, I think the question is hard to answer. You know, I don't know if you're looking for a specific environmental standard or something like that, but you know, site plan stage, I think the best we could answer is like, you know, just have a compact development, can be good for the environment when it's located in areas that don't have environmentally sensitive features and that's exactly what you have here. Right, and it's going vertical. That's exactly what we're trying to accomplish. It's going vertical. So thank you, Commissioner Baker. Do you have any further comments or questions? Questions from any other commissioners? Okay, I have a couple of questions. First, I wanna ask Leah and Scott, or sorry, and Michael. I struggle with what to make of this part of Durham to be frank. As it currently is developed, seems to be one of the more disjointed neighborhoods. There's a lot of different styles of development from my perspective. Obviously, there's the tower there, which I did think was downtown Durham when I first came to visit. There's suburban style commercial with the target across the street. And then there's university place nearby, which is like seemingly getting more close to what we want, where there's residential and commercial and closer proximity. But it's hard for me to understand where the site is going. And I think that the future kind of vision for this neighborhood is relevant here. And so I'm curious, especially as we're looking, we're doing this comprehensive planning process and we're starting to look into place type map and where this might land in that space. I'm just, would love to hear staff's perspective on where this part of Durham's headed. Well, the place type map. I know it's probably an annoying question, but. I don't think we can give you a complete answer, but the place type map is, and Comprehensive Plan, as you know, is currently the policies and development of the map is currently still in its first draft review stage. I do see that this area is still going to as a whole, the kind of compact here area as a whole to be more of a more intense type development with hopefully a mix of not only the commercial that's already there and maybe the hopeful redevelopment of the commercial that's already there, but the infusion of additional residential. And you've already kind of seen that in some form with University Hill and that kind of thing. This area is kind of, you know, obviously on the north side of this whole area and not readily connected to that, but it was considered and adopted as part of the compact neighborhood here. So I don't see a holistic change, of course, in that the current flume designation and the compact neighborhood here designation can allow for residential along with commercial. And I don't see this proposing residential here in proximity to what's already in place and what could be developed in the future as necessarily contrary to any future land use goals. Thank you for that. And then the rest of my questions are directed towards the applicant. I would also echo, I believe it was Commissioner Durkin referenced it and so did Commissioner Busby that it's really nice to have development plans to understand really what's happening. And for me, like I am more comfortable with a text only development plan that doesn't require some of the graphic detail that you would have to go through on a typical development plan. But setting that point aside for now, since we don't have it about the plan, I would like to hear what your plans are around traffic. The site is frankly frustrating with traffic and I'm curious how you're planning on addressing that. I also, sorry, before you answer no, I'm gonna recognize Scott Whiteman who's raised their hand, just kidding. You know, would you like to go ahead and respond on that question about transportation and traffic? Sure, and I didn't realize Scott was on. Also, this is totally disjointed but I apologize for not responding to the chat. Whoever was working the chat earlier, but the chat was disabled. I did get your message, whether they were respond. Yeah, so about traffic, actually this site is interesting, the way it lays out because the kind of main point of active, Petty Road for this site has like no traffic. Now, one of the things, and I think Dan referred to this earlier, one of the things that the site plan does is try to create a street gate here and kind of slow down the traffic that will be there. So the site plan includes on-street parking, like parallel parking, which is can work as a traffic calming device, which again is supposed to help in a subtle way. It's supposed to help with the pedestrian experience here. The site plan includes sidewalks, the idea is that over time this will be a more walkable site. So one of the things that this site, that this project tries to be, is set up a good street gate for the pedestrian experience. As far as the traffic along Pickett Road, I'm not sure, well, I'll ask David if, if I recall correctly, Pickett Road is the DAT Road, N-T-D-N-T Road. And I'm not sure if N-T-D-N-T has required agreement along Pickett Road. David, do you recall? No, no, they have not. They have not. Yeah, and then of course, this site does not have frontage on, you know, the Tower Boulevard on the other side. So the main, and there is no access to 551, but. Thank you. And I said my questions for director that applicant. I actually want to ask a good question. I think probably for Earlene is best. So Tower Boulevard is the, is obviously close to the site. And it seems to be the primary, what would be the best pedestrian point of access to cross over to the commercial sites on the other side of, I believe it's MLK at that point. But it doesn't seem like a safe, very safe pedestrian area to me. It's a lot of fast moving vehicles and a lot of traffic in general. Are there any like traffic calming, pedestrian safety improvements in the works for this area to improve walkability? Earlene Thomas transportation. Now I am not aware of any pedestrian improvements necessarily in this particular area or intersection of Tower and 15501. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so that's a problem for me. I mean, I know Nell was referring to the walkability towards McDonald's. And yeah, it's nice to be able to walk and get a burger. I think it's unfortunate the way that the site is developed for the fact that you can't get across the street to grocery stores like regardless of the little walkability that does exist, people are going to be getting in their cars or going to drive down Tower, cross over the street to Target and the other things there. I don't imagine, when I drive there I don't see many people walking as it is. And I don't imagine that's going to change by putting a residential site nearby. It just, I wouldn't cross 15501 I'll put if I had to. In general, I see very few people doing it. It'd be nice to have some kind of pedestrian bridge. Doesn't seem like there's this space there to do that as it currently is. So, I don't love the walkability there. I agree that this is a complicated set of parcels and it's good to see something happening there, I guess, but yeah, I think these are things that the applicant probably can't address but you would like to see this site in the place that was just slightly better for walkability and safety. Do other commissioners have comments or other questions? And if not, now would be a proper time for a motion, sub-demotion at this time. Sure, chair, I'll make the motion. I make the motion that we take case number Z2 quadruple 045, the UTR application for that to the city council for the favorable recommendation. Moved by commissioner Morgan, seconded by commissioner Lowe. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Maybe have the roll call vote. Absolutely, thank you. Emondolia. No. Baker. Yes. You might see her on the meeting, so go ahead and go to the next. Busby. Yes. Cameron. We already know about. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yeah. Harrod. Yes. Lowe. Yes. MacIver. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. It passes 10 to one. Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. We are not required to take a five minute break right now because we do not have live captioners with us. However, if folks would like a five minute break, we may take one now before we jump into our final items or we can push through. Folks give it like a general up or down. Okay. I'm seeing people wanting to push through. Let's do it. So that concludes our public hearings for the night. We'll go through some old business and Michael, I don't know if you need to provide any extra updates here, but essentially just a reminder that our next conference or next comprehensive plan retreat will be January 6th at 530 and then a reminder that the engagement period on the place tight map is open until January 31st. Michael, anything you'd like to add there? Nope. We just wanted to pass on that information and you know, if you have any questions, you could always, I believe there's contact information on that website, but obviously Scott Whiteman, Lisa Miller and the rest of the policy and urban design crew can answer questions for you. If you email them, they're more than welcome to to discuss anything. If you have any questions about that. Thank you. Great. So we'll move forward to our new business. So in our next installment of transportation planning, we're going to get a transit plan update from looks like Aaron Kane. So we'll, this is to just be clear for anyone who is watching. This is not a public hearing. We are not voting on this item tonight. It's simply an informational item for the planning commission. And we are just receiving an update to kind of help provide us more context and what is happening in Durham right now. And Aaron, thank you for joining us. And then I'll turn it over to you for the presentation. Good. Thank you for having me. So thank you everybody. I recognize a couple of you, I believe from my time previously with the planning departments. I have my name is Aaron Kane. I'm with the Durham Chapel Hill, carboro metropolitan planning organization, DCHC MPO for short. We are a federal federally mandated organization that does long range transportation planning in the Durham Chapel Hill, carboro area. I've been with the MPO for a little more than five years. And prior to that, I was with the Durham city county planning department for about 10 years. It's been a while before I've been for the planning commission, but it's nice to be back. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen and go through my slides. If you have any questions as I'm going through, please feel free to shout out. I won't be able to see raised hands or anything like that. So yeah, just stop me if you have a question as we go along the way and I'll be happy to answer it as best I can. So here we go. So this, the, the Durham transit plan is a multi-departmental, multi-jurisdictional project that we're working on. We have two project managers for it myself and Ellen Beckman, who is the transportation manager for Durham County. What I'm going to do is go through just give you some background on the Durham transit plan, why we're doing it, what it's about, what we're hoping to gain. I'll talk about our phase one outreach that took place about a year ago. And then talk about our, the scenarios that we brought forth for the phase two outreach that was conducted this past summer. And then I'll talk about next steps and where we're looking to go and what our calendar is for that moving forward. So just some background as to what the Durham transit plan is and why we're doing it. It's a guide, it's a plan that guides the use of countywide taxes and fees for public transportation improvements. It is mostly made, it is mostly made up of a half sent extra sales tax that is on all goods and services bought in Durham County. There are a couple of other sources of revenue for that, for that Durham transit fund.  And some of that money goes to the Durham transit plan, the transit tax that funds it, as well as a rental car tax for all rental cars in, rented in Durham County. So that all brings in about $35 million a year. And we had a, we, the first plan was the Boston rail investment plan that was adopted in 2011. We then adopted a new plan in 2017 in order to be able to make sure that we short up the funding for the Durham Orange light rail transit project. As I'm sure you're all aware that project is no longer moving forward. So we need to create a new plan that looks at what else could we be doing with this funding and how else can we best be providing transit services for folks in Durham. So what we're planning on here is a 20 year plan. It can be amended. It's not set in stone. It will be a working document. And we plan to update it about every four to five years so that we can see what are some, maybe some new needs that have come up in transit in the County, as well as looking at the revenue landscape and making adjustments for that. By state law, the Durham transit plan must be adopted by three boards, the Durham County Board of Commissioners, the Go Triangle Board of Trustees, and the Durham Chapel, Carboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Board. And that last board is made up of elected officials from the city of Durham, Durham County, the towns of Hillsborough, Carboro and Chapel Hill, as well as Chatham County and Orange County. So it's a group of elected officials on that board, and they will review it. And so for the, for this plan, when we put together our goals and objectives, what we wanted to do is make sure that we addressed two overarching themes that we heard a lot in the listening and learning sessions that we did with the planning departments back in the fall of 2009, 2019. And those two were equity and community trust. We want to make sure that this new version of the plan is addressing equity issues throughout the county and city. We also want to make sure that we're building trust within the community there, especially with DOLRT and other initiatives that have not gone as we'd all wish they had. We want to make sure that the community has faith and we've earned the community's trust in moving forward with this plan. So as I mentioned, we did a first phase of outreach. This was about a year ago. Maybe, yeah, about a year ago, we had a number of things that we did for this. We had flyers, we had paper surveys, we had an online survey, as well as stakeholder meetings that we did with a variety of groups throughout Durham. So I'm going to talk about each of those aspects briefly. First was an online survey that we did. We got about 400, 450 responses on this online survey, not as robust as we would have liked, but we got a few things out of it. First, a preference for commuter rail, local bus, and BRT. In other words, we want to see it all. We want to see all different types of transit throughout the community. We want to see it all. We want to see it all. We want to see it all. We want to see it all. Frequency coverage and more direct service were the most important in terms of the convenience that people want to see out of their transit system. And in terms of access and capital improvements, we heard a lot about improving bus stops and improving sidewalks and crosswalks. We've heard a lot about people wanting to be able to have a good experience when we get on the bus, but in terms of stakeholder meetings, we met with a variety of organizations throughout Durham. This is just a few of them that we had meetings with, but it was over two dozen that we met with, had a lot of various comments from those organizations in terms of their needs, their desires, and the constituents that they represent. We also did a new program called the engagement ambassadors. And this is an, this was a, this was new to us. This was new to us at the MPO and for doing the transit plan and the engagement ambassadors, the idea behind it. And you've probably heard about it because it's something in the planning department's been doing as well. We've been working with them on this program. The engagement ambassadors is where we, we work with people who are actually in the community, especially communities that we're targeting such as low income folks, transit dependents, racial minorities and so forth. Work with them, compensate them, train them and then have them work in their communities so that we can get more direct input from those communities as well as make sure that those communities are properly represented in our, in our surveys and in our, in our outreach. So among the engagement ambassadors, we heard that paratransit was a major issue. But they also wanted commuter rail and improvements to local bus service. We also heard again from the engagement ambassadors a desire for more, more sidewalks, more comfortable bus stops. And this is something we heard mostly from engagement ambassadors that we didn't hear from other groups, I think because we had a lot more of our transit riders involved in the engagement ambassador process was about just, you know, ease making things easier for them to be able to actually use the bus service we currently have. Better wheelchair access, better stroller access, making it easier for people to be able to bring large bags if they're doing their shopping using transit service. So we want to try to address some of those things as much as we can. So we completed that first round of engagements and then developed what we call three scenarios for people to react to. The scenarios are intentionally different from each other. So we're not, we were not asking people to say yes, I prefer a or I prefer B or I prefer C. We asked people to do was tell us what about a, do you like the most? What about B? Do you like the most? What about C? Do you like the most? And then the goal is to take each of the, each of those scenarios and the things that we heard most positively about each of those scenarios and put them together into one preferred scenario that we will eventually take out to the public for comments. Okay. So we're going to move to the scenarios though. Just want to let everybody know that we do have several, what we call committed projects that are already being funded by the transit fund. They are already in the plan and we have no plans to remove these. You can see the list of go triangle and go Durham routes here that have been funded improvements that are funded and there's no intent, no plans at all to reduce these or remove any of these improvements. So these are staying. They were in the old plan and they're going to stay in the new plan. Those are bus service committed projects and then these are capital and administrative committed projects that again, they're staying in, we are not removing them. They're not going anywhere. So these are, these are projects that have already been funded and will continue to be so. So for, for the scenarios, just something to be aware of as before we talk about the scenarios in particular. First is that those committed projects that I just showed you on the last two slides, they will take up about 50% of the transit tax funds that we're going to be using moving forward. So of all the revenue we're going to get over the next 20 years about 50% of it is already spoken for in those projects that I just showed. Each of the scenarios are fiscally feasible. In other words, the revenue that we expect to get over the 20 years, the projects that are shown, we could pay for them in those. And the purposes of them as to illustrate tradeoffs, we want to show people that you can get this bundle or this bundle or this bundle, but we're not going to be able to afford all of it. And at some point we are going to need to make some tough choices. And we're not trying to set things up so that, obviously one scenario is better than another. They all have pros and cons and we're just going to need to weigh the pros and cons and eventually make a choice. So the first one is scenario A and I know the picture here is pretty small, but I'll go through really quickly what generally scenario A was and the focus here is on local and regional bus operations. Basically we put a lot more money into buying more buses, hiring more drivers and just running a much better standard service like we already have. We've increased frequency so a lot of our 30 minute routes would become 15 minute routes. A lot of our 60 minute routes would become 30 minute routes. And the capital expenditures that we would have would be to support that service. So again, we'd improve bus stops. We'd maybe make some changes in some of the street configurations so that buses can make easier turns. Maybe some transit signal prioritization so that buses could get through traffic signals more quickly and so forth. But we're not building dedicated lanes and we're not putting a whole lot more into actually building up a physical presence with it. It's just more about running more operations. On some of the other capital things we would do here is we build a lot more sidewalks in scenario way. We can afford to do that. And we can get most of the improvements done in the first five years. The downside to doing this is we've got a lot more of the buses. They run a lot more frequently. Maybe they are able to move a little bit faster, but we're not putting a lot of money and effort into doing something a whole lot different. We don't have dedicated lanes. We don't have any trains. And all of these projects would need to be locally funded. It's these types of services are very difficult to get federal funding for. So we wouldn't be leveraging a lot of federal or state funding. We would primarily be funding all this out of local funds. Scenario B still is a bus scenario, but it's got more money to build infrastructure improvements. So we're doing what we call bus rapid transit where we can build dedicated lanes on some of our routes. That allows them to move more quickly. That allows them to bypass traffic. We can have better regional connections to say RTP in Wake County or to Chapel Hill. We can't spend as much money on sidewalks and we cannot do as many service improvements as we would do in scenario A because we're having to spend that money on actually building up the infrastructure. So that's what we're doing. A positive on this is that we can, it's easier to get federal funding for bus rapid transit. And so therefore we can leverage our local funds to bring more dollars in. However, that's not a guarantee. You do have to go through a pretty rigorous process to try to get that federal funding. And so we, we, we can't, we, we expect to get it. We think we would have good projects to get it, but certainly not guaranteed. So RTP includes a commuter rail line. This would be a line going from West Durham near the Duke campus through downtown Durham, East Durham, kind of down in through RTP and then on to Wake County and potentially to Johnston County. The goal is to have the trains running in about 23rd, 2029 to 2030. The trains would be faster than a bus, certainly. There would be more reliable than a bus because they're not going to get stuck in traffic. The commuter rail system is very expensive. We would require federal funding in order to do these. We would need regional partnerships with Wake County, Johnston County, and maybe others as well. And it would, it would require us to not do as many bus improvements as we could in either of the other scenarios. So those are the three scenarios that we took out in phase two of our outreach that I mentioned was this summer. And I'll go through a brief overview of how that outreach went. We got a lot more responses this time as you can see there over 2300 responses. Basically what we're what we're asking people do, we're asking them to identify the projects in each scenario that they liked. What should be our investment priorities for Durham County? What should we be doing first? What can we wait until later? And then just to, you know, provide written comments, give us feedback, something more qualitative. How did we do this? We did the engagement ambassadors I mentioned before. We did stakeholder interviews. And while we did an online survey, we were also, we were getting COVID was not as bad as it was in the fall of 2020. So we did go out and do more in-person surveys. We went to the regional transportation center, Durham station, the village, Duke, the station near Duke and so forth, and got more in-person surveys to make sure we're trying to get to our transit riders and get their feedback. As I mentioned, over 2300 surveys were submitted. You can see the demographics here.  A daily and a weekly transit rider includes all those daily transit riders, plus those who told us they use the transit service about one to two times a week. We also were able to get other demographic information such as people of color. And this shows you, this chart shows you the number of surveys that we got from our engagement ambassadors, the number that came from online, and the number that came from our in-person survey at various locations. One thing we were really happy to see with here was that our engagement ambassador methods actually got us more responses than our online surveys. So we felt good about making sure we were reaching the folks and the hard-to-reach communities that we've had in the past. So some key takeaways from the phase two outreach. These focus groups that I talked about through the engagement ambassadors, racial minorities, daily transit riders, weekly transit riders, and so forth. They were identifying later in weekend bus service as being a high priority, more frequent bus service and more reliable bus service. Those groups were telling us that the local bus service was the most important to them. Everybody wanted to get, of course, you wanted to get improvements done more quickly, and bus services are certainly easier to get done more quickly than rail services. Everybody seemed to support BRT and the passenger train service, the commuter rail service that I mentioned did have some support, but it was not coming out as as high as support as for making sure we get local bus service improved faster. We asked a number of questions in our survey to try to get at how important we're, you know, what is the relative importance of one type of program to another. And here are some of those responses. You can see for persons of color, all other transit improvements are more important than the passenger train was the most important. So for persons of color, the commuter rail service was just not seen as nearly as important as improving our local bus service. Regular transit riders also prioritized extended 30-minute service on the weekdays and extended Sunday service. And what outcomes are most important to include in your ideal transit options? We heard more routes going more places, faster, more reliable service and more frequent service. Again, more focusing on the bus than on the rail, but we do have a significant portion of our community that does want to try to get some sort of regional rail or regional service put into effect. As I mentioned, we did the stakeholder interviews as well. I did over two dozens of those and you can see here, a summary of those. Again, we heard access service, paratransit and service was a very high priority for disabled residents in our health organizations. We want to make sure we're putting funding into that to make sure that service is improved. A lot of our business and institutional stakeholders put a high priority on bus rapid transit, especially if it can provide some sort of regional connection outside of Durham. Again, commuter rail has general support, but many concited concerns about the project's cost and affecting on other priorities. So, next steps. This is one that's going to be a little bit different than what you got in your packet because we've had some changes in the last couple of weeks. We've completed the analyzing the outreach results from Phase 2 outreach. What we're doing is we're putting, using that along with some technical analysis to get to a point where we can come up with a preferred scenario. We're hoping to have that preferred scenario out by the end of January. It's looking more like March before we're going to get that out. And so we're looking at a final transit adoption by those three boards that I mentioned before in August. And with that, that is the end of my presentation and I'll be happy to take any questions if you have them. I know I went through that really quick. So if you guys have some questions, I'll be happy to address them. Thank you, Aaron. I would take any questions from fellow commissioners at this time. And I would just go ahead and say one thing I am personally interested in and to bring this question to you, Aaron, is any role that we want the planning commission to play in providing direct feedback to elected officials or supporting this? And I don't know exactly what that looks like. Obviously, this is not like something that we are required to vote on. It's not within, it's not like a comprehensive plan update. I could imagine some scenarios where we have some statement that we provide to the county commission to just provide our thoughts on it, whether that's done individually through public comment. So that's one piece of framing I would like to think through as folks have questions for how we might support or provide feedback on this. But other questions at this time from anyone or general thoughts. Commissioner Busby. Thank you, Aaron. Thanks for the presentation. Good to see you to see it. So, and my main thing actually I just wanted to commend the use of the engage in engagement ambassadors, and it's really encouraging to see the equitable engagement is not only being used but it is getting the kind of results and feedback that we're hoping it would generate. And because again, you know, often the online engagement is only we're only hearing from a certain subset of our population that may not be representative of communities, especially communities that are using the buses on the daily or weekly basis. So I just thought that was really encouraging and it actually it provides some feedback that I think is going to be really important to take into account. And it's a tough one. I mean, I think the challenge is, you know, how do you deal with the, the resources that can't cover all of these needs and so I, I look forward to seeing you know how we move forward I'm, I'm still thinking about all of that because we have this regional connection on transportation it's sorely needed but at the same time, our local voices are really saying we need to invest in more frequent better service and I think we also really need to listen to that carefully as well but most I just want to say thank you for the for the equitable engagement and really glad to see that that is getting the kind of results that we hoped it would facilitate from our community. Thank you. Appreciate it. Commissioner Busby. Any other comments or questions. So then, I think, would you like me to address what you had brought up for sure. So we, as I mentioned, we're hoping to be able to take a preferred scenario out to the community. By the end of March, I'm hoping that's the latest that we take it out and it'll go out for only a couple of months. We want to make sure we broadcast as much as possible and give people proper time to absorb digest it's not something you just look at really quick and provide back you really have to think about what are the pros and cons and not only what are we doing but what are we not doing because we can't afford it. So, I would suggest that I come maybe I can come back to this commission like back to the planning commission in April or May. And then I'll come back to the commission when we actually release it to give you all enough time to review the materials. Look at it and come up with some some comments we can either take that comments, those comments here during a presentation, if y'all would rather, you know, put something in writing that you want to send to us as send the staff as a commission if you want to submit individual comments, any and all. And we're really flexible on how you want to do that. Thank you. So, I would just to the other commissioners, my thinking on this would be if we wanted to provide some comments. I think the easiest way would be to have some generic front like a the planning commission is providing comments and then we provide individual comments as we typically would for the governing bodies. It seems that is the less onerous way to go about this in the future. So we're doing a joint statement. If we wanted to go that route, it was like it could be potentially burdensome on finding commissioners because that's a we would have to draft that ourselves and be we would then have to have like discussion and meeting to like all agree o