This is nursery home for the rest of the youths. Crosed, it wasn't, not, not, not, not. No, it wasn't, yes, it wasn't, yes, it wasn't. That's the one, is that normal? Yeah, carillon, carillon, yeah. Man, that wasn't, that's not the one. It is, the one in Hillsborough is, the one in Hillsborough is real nice. I could buy that one today. That's the one in the city I can imagine. Four of them, 50 people, yeah, 450 people should have. You can't turn it on. You probably still want to be on the ballot. It's always that way though. They'll still be on the ballot. He lives right on the beach. Like a major section. What? It's bizarre, I mean it's like, you drive nine hours to get there, you gotta drive nine hours to get there. Drive, yeah, it's a little shady on the other side.  No, this is September. How many points do we have? And we just have to go back in there. Yeah. That's what she told me. Right, come on. North Carolina Catholic Church. I'm not even sure. Yeah, no problem. We got that now. But anyway, this is the one that's next door. But then, I think we, just get the other side. And mine, he says, he's back. You guys just left. I said he was going for a sign. I'm not even sure. And he's walking in white family.  Yeah, at least. Now, we just need to get to that point. A couple of inches on there. But some, I'm actually, I don't know anything like that. Oh, here we go, there we go. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the city council and the county board of commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those of you who wish to speak, please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium. Please speak clearly and into the microphone. Each side, those speaking in favor of an item and those speaking in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes to present for each side. The time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. May I have the roll call, please? Here. Present. Present. Present. Present. Present. Present. Present. Present. Present. Present. Present. Thank you. Approval of the minutes and consistency statement for August 8th, 2017. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? Move approval. Second. Motion by Commissioner Bryant, seconded by Commissioner Busby. All in favor of this action to approve the minutes and consistency statement for August 8th, 2017. Raise your hand. Your right hand. All opposed. Thank you. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? Speaking of adjustments. Maybe an adjustment to the microphone. Good evening, Grace Smith of the, that the commissioners consider adding under new business and item for the annual election of officers. Okay, process your own file. A motion to approve the adjustment of the agenda. Madam Chair, I move the adjustments to the agenda to add the item under new business of election of officers for the next year. Sorry. Motion by Commissioner Harris, a second by Commissioner Bryant that we add to new business the elections for the upcoming year. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by the usual sign of aye. Aye. All opposed. The item is added. Madam Chair, I move adoption of the agenda as modified. Thank you. Second. It has been moved and properly seconded that the agenda be adopted as modified. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by the usual sign of aye. All opposed. Thank you, Commissioner Harris. The next item we have is public hearing comprehensive file. There aren't any. And then the following item, public hearings comprehensive for future and there aren't any. So we are ready to move into the public hearing zoning map changes. We're ready for staff report for the first item, Ellis Road Townhouse phase two. Chairwoman. Commissioner Hyman. Before we begin, I would like to recuse myself for this. I do work with this client on a different matter. Move the exclusion. Second. Inclusion of Commissioner Goosh. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Harris, a second by Commissioner, what's it? Miller. Mr. Commissioner Johnson, that Commissioner Goosh be recused from the upcoming item. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by the usual sign of aye. All opposed. And you're recused. Yeah, stand. Thank you, Jacob Wiggins of the Planning Department. This case may and hopefully looks familiar to you all. The zoning case was heard in July of this past year. Since that time, the applicant has made one modification to the development plan. Due to the language in the Unified Development Ordinance, that change is considered a significant change, which means that they have to come back through this board for recommendation before the request can go to city council. That change is that the applicant is requesting to increase the building height from what was previously a maximum of 35 feet to a maximum of 40 feet. No other changes have been proposed. There are no other modifications to the staff report or the development plan that you all have. And I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have at this time regarding this request. Thank you. I'm going to open the public hearing and if there are any individuals who have signed up to speak, they'll have an opportunity to do so at this time. I have one individual, Laura Holloman. Hi, good evening, members of the Planning Commission. Laura Holloman, Spalding and Norris, 972 Trinity Road, Raleigh 27607. Thank you for the opportunity again to come back before you regarding this minor modification that we're requesting. As Mr. Williams stated, it was brought before you in July and we did receive an anonymous recommendation for approval for you all and was very pleased with that and hopeful to have a similar outcome tonight and I'm here to answer any questions you all may have. Thank you. I do not have other people who have signed up to speak. So I'm going to close the public hearing and give the commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. I'll start to Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Harris. Let's start with Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chair Holloman. So I guess I asked the obvious question that basically what's the genesis of what's driving the request for the need to deal for the height increase in second pieces? Is it not possible for whatever the design plans is for this development board to fit within the existing 35 feet? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Johnson for your question. The precipice for this change is just, this is a developer driven case. There still isn't a specific builder in mind. So it's just a catch-all in case. Usually this would allow a builder to come in and do a three-story product because usually you have at least 11 feet for each story and with our design requirements, we require a pitched roof and some other things in terms of decorative elements and this would allow that to occur. So that's the reason behind it. This is just for in case it's needed. Quick follow-up and this for staff. Is such a request, how often do we get such a request in regards, particularly to height restrictions and easements on that? We see it sometimes with other cases as well. There are other avenues to increase heights there through the board of adjustment, things like that. So I wouldn't say it's a completely uncommon request, but it is not super common for it to happen through this method. Typically that's called on the front end, I think the applicant in this case just wasn't, well, I don't wanna speak for the applicant, but I think what she said that, they realized after the fact that they needed some additional height and that begets this process. Yes, Commissioner Harris. That was my question. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Busby. It was my question as well, but just to make sure I understand it, the original plan was for a maximum of three stories and this is still a maximum of three stories. This just allows for a pitched roof. It gives you more flexibility on the roof on top of three stories. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, and Commissioner Miller. So my concern is are the single family residential houses that back up to this project are adjacent to it. There's one on Ellis Road and they're, looks like they're five, I think on cash. And I would be a little concerned if buildings that went clear to 40 feet were built in close proximity to these houses. And I was wondering whether or not you would be willing to entertain some sort of step back zone along the backyards of those properties where you would not go higher than 35 feet, which would be the maximum residential height limit, I believe, for the single family zone on the other side, is that correct? So just to understand an adjacent to single family residential. So that there are six houses that are currently next door to your property and five of them are on cash and one of them is on Ellis Road. If I lived in one of those houses, I would be dismayed if a 40 foot building wound up close to my back property line. And I was wondering whether or not you would entertain drawing some sort of exclusion zone just along the back or side yards of those six houses, saying that within that distance, the maximum height would be 35 and not 40. I don't know how difficult it would be for you to make a proffer like that tonight. But that's my concern. I think 40 is a little tall for residential neighbors. I don't have an issue with making that proffer. How deep would you be willing to go? 75 feet. That would be great, thank you. Take a quick look at the planning department. Can you just confirm for the record what the profferate commitment is? Sure. That within 75 feet of existing single-family residences, the maximum height shall be limited to 35 feet. Would that be 75 feet of the residence or the property line for the residence? Jacob Lincoln's point, that would need to be from the property line in order for it to be easily enforceable. The property line in? Yeah, my understanding is we're referring to the, basically what is the western boundary of this property, where these single-family homes are located. So you're saying that within 75 feet of that property line, there will be no structure over 35 feet. Correct. Is that correct? Thank you very much. Are there any other commissioners who would like to speak? If not, I'm going to ask for a motion. Commissioner Bryan. I move that we...  So, commissioner Bryan. I move that we recommend approval of Z170008 with the additional pro offer. Second. Second. It has been moved by commissioner Bryan and seconded by commissioner Hornbackel. Yes ma'am. That we approve item Z170008, with the agreed upon proffer. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. All opposed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next item, and your Avenue residential item number Z170009, staff and please check to see if any visuals have signed up to speak. Yes. Good evening, Jamie Sanyak with the planning department. I will be presenting case number Z170009. The applicant is David Luzzo with end year development. The one of the properties is currently within the city's jurisdiction three or not and our pending annexation. The zoning request is from RS20PDR4.0002PDR3.958. The property is just under 20 acres and the applicant is proposing up to 79 single family residential lots. This is the aerial map and the property is shown highlighted in red. It is located within the suburban development tier and the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basin. The site is adjacent to residential development to the east, west and north. And to the south is the North Carolina Railroad line and city of Durham, Parkland. This is the existing conditions map. Again, the property includes a total of 19.960 acres and is located on the south side of Angier Avenue. The property is vacant with wetlands and streams primarily in the northern portion of the site. The future land use map designates this area as low density residential which is four dwelling units per acre or less and that is consistent with the rezoning request that they are seeking. This is the context map and it shows the existing zoning on the left side and then what the proposal is on the right. Again, the applicant is seeking to amend the RS 20, PDR 4.000 to PDR 3.958. The staff has reviewed this request and finds it to be consistent with the requirements of the unified development ordinance. This is the requested district standards. The density would be 3.958 dwelling units per acre limited to up to 79 single-family lots and there are riparian features that have buffers associated with them and the development plan also shows a number of transportation related commitments. This is the development plan and shown on the plan are various access points, the type of development, the number of units and the location of the tree protection areas. Staff has found this proposal to be consistent with the low density resident future land use map designation. It is consistent with other residential developments in the area. There is sufficient infrastructure in terms of water sewer availability. There are a number of transportation related improvements associated with the development plan. They have also allocated additional right of way to be consistent with approved bicycle plans and there is sufficient school capacity to serve the development. This slide provides a summary of the transportation related commitments that are shown on the plan and the staff determines that the request is consistent with the comp plan and other policies and ordinances and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. I'm going to open the public hearing at this time. I have two individuals who have signed up to speak. David Lazo and Jeff Westmolan, if you could both come forward. Good evening, commissioners. I'm David Lazo, I'm the developer. I'm just here to listen and gonna let my engineer do all the speaking about the project. So I'm here available for questions if you have any. Thank you, Mr. Jeff Westmolan. Hi, good evening, thank you. My name is Jeff Westmolan. I'm with CEPI Engineering. We're at 1025 Wade Avenue in Raleigh. I'm a registered landscape architect and our firm has been hired by Andrew Development to represent them on this project. I'm here to speak in support of the project. We have made multiple submittals and worked with staff through I think three cycles for plan review on the development plan in support of this application. And I think we've demonstrated that we are consistent with the policies that the city has established and feel that this is an appropriate proposed rezoning for this location. And I'm happy to answer any questions that the group may have related to this. Thank you. I do not have others who have signed up to speak so I'm going to close the public hearing and give the commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. I will start to my right are the commissioners, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Bryan, Commissioner Harris, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Freeman, the others, okay. We'll start with Commissioner Johnson. So I'll just ask the obvious question I have in hopes that my colleagues will ask questions that answers the other ones, the subsequent ones I have. So on the design plan, and one thank you for being here tonight and presenting this application and speaking on behalf of it. And so when I see that for the overall track for parcels of land that the maximum impervious surface is 70%, do you have any idea as to what the actual impervious site coverage will be based on your preliminary development plans? We do not have that information calculated to a level of detail to be specific. We feel very comfortable that it will certainly be well under the 70%. I can't give you any other specifics beyond that just based on sort of the loose plan that we have to this point. It is going to be single family residential as categorized as low density, which typically projects out of a lower impervious surface. Why we feel comfortable saying we'll be well under the 70% there. And one follow up question. As I could you, Mr. Lazo, are you helping? What's the rationale for the desire to move from the existing PDR 4.0 to basically a PDR 3.958? I see that the residential suburban feature is taken off, but is there any particular reason that this change is needed for your project or is it? So basically what we've done here is the existing PDR 4.0, there's an existing development plan associated with that that is only associated with that parcel. And so this rezoning request sort of incorporates that into an overall plan that will move across the four parcels and they can all be designed together. And so that's really the request there. The nature of the development will still be the same. It will still be single family residential, but we won't be limited by that internal line that will force us to be hindered, I guess, in our layout there just allows us that flexibility to eliminate that line between those parts. Thank you. Let's have a help. Thank you. Commissioner Bryan. Thank you. Two quick questions. You're going to be adjacent to the city park if I'm understanding the design correctly. Will there be any sort of pathway, sidewalk, or something to connect your residential area to that park? Yes, sir. So on the development plan, what we've, I'll show you here, what we've committed in the far southeast corner, we feel like that portion of the site is going to be open space. And so we've committed to providing a pedestrian connection into the park at that location there, yes. Okay, thank you. And you're also adjacent to a railroad track. Is there any plan for some additional buffering or berms or anything to minimize the noise from trains? So I can tell you based on some of the early sort of general layouts that we've done due to the nature of the configuration of the property, the shape of the property, the lots that are going to back up to that railroad are going to end up being a little bit deeper just the way this is going to lay out. You can already see that. But what we've anticipated in some of our early plans is that the required tree save areas, we're going to concentrate along that property line right there to meet the tree save requirements but to also give that additional buffering along that property line. Thank you. Commissioner Harris. The staff, what does pending annexation petition? Is this like putting a cop before the horse? No, oftentimes an applicant will go through the rezoning process ahead of time. They have also applied for annexation and it can go concurrent with that. Once it goes through in terms of this board, obviously the recommendation or not would go to city council. The city council would act on the annexation application. But there's three parcels that are not within the city's jurisdiction. The parcel that is currently PDR 4.00 is already within the city. So in order to, I don't want to speak for the applicant but in order for them to get the infrastructure for the entire development, they have to extend and include those areas within the city's jurisdiction. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. So I have a couple of questions and the first one is for staff. So it seems to me based upon the way this property, the topography of this property, it's got some fairly steep slopes on it. I'm wondering whether or not it's gonna be possible to actually get 79 units in there. And when I'm looking at the site data box and the text commitment box, I don't see anything that says up to 79 units. I just see it says proposed units, 79. Does it need to say somewhere in there that it's up to a certain number of units? Or I'm just concerned that this could be interpreted as requiring 79 and no fewer and no more. Well, they wouldn't be able to go above 79. It would be there. I'm not worried about going above. I'm worried about trapping them at a number that's not realistic for the property because it doesn't, I don't know where on the development plan does it say up to? On the cover sheet it does. It does? On the cover sheet of the packet. It says up to seven and then. Well, yeah, there, but that's not the development plan. I'm talking about the development plan itself. It seems to say proposed unit 79. I think that it's generally understood that it could be anything that it could be. And if that's true, that's good. I mean, I've had developers tell me that be worried about it. It doesn't worry me. And what Grace is pointing out is that they can go lower by 20% at the time of site plan without coming back here. Right. I would just feel better if this was expressed in terms of a range or an up to. I'm concerned that you guys are gonna get trapped and not be able to actually build all the units that you could build under 79. So that's one concern. And my other concern is the commitments didn't have any design commitments. And I'm kind of a stickler for that. I would like to see a palette of materials described in design commitments and also something in there that makes me aware that you want to address the issues of variety of facades and also avoiding overly repetitious garage placements. Sure. First, we have no problem incorporating language the up to 79 units in the plan with that. So we would have no objection to that. To address your concern about the design commitments, our client, this is a developer driven project and our client as we have been moving through the rezoning has been speaking to the builder community. And in between the time that this plan was submitted and tonight's meeting, we've been able to gather some additional information and I have brought some information to share with you related to design commitments. I can share them either on the overhead. I've got enough copies that I can actually pass out to the commission as well. Well, if it's short seems to me we can look at it on the overhead. Okay, it's about as many. I probably will not go through them here. I'll go ahead and let you pass it out. Or one second. If I saw earlier, I think maybe there might have been some pictures involved with it. If there are, I want to make sure that the developer isn't offering these those conditions or if that must be the case that. No, so the photos where we were looking at those earlier just to for kind of an internal just kind of looking at, okay, the context I can describe to you where these commitments give you an example of where those commitments have come from in another project here. But we don't have any photos to pass out. Okay, that's great. And not to take over Commissioner Miller's comments, but I just also want to check with staff, make sure I don't, I mean, we don't know what's being passed around. Want to make sure it's come. The staff is comfortable with it. Jamie Sanyak with the planning department. We have not heard of any proffers relative to design commitments. And at this point, it's a single family development. They're not obligated to provide design. I know they're not obligated to do it. And at this point, I would suggest not discussing them unless they want to provide some sort of proffer to the commitments, then we'll have time to review them. But we don't have any way to provide any recommendation at this point. He's made great sense of the planning department. I think we've talked about this in the past. This would be the type of review that we would have to, you would have to send back to staff. So you're looking at a 60 days for us to review. These are design commitments. We have not reviewed at all. And that's what I wanted to make sure, if that was the case, make sure that the applicant is comfortable with that. Thank you, Commissioner Gosh. So sorry, Commissioner Miller in advance. Commissioner Freeman. The first question I had, just wanted to hear, I didn't hear anything about the notice of meeting and whether or not you had a public meeting, if anyone attended. So I was concerned. No, we did not. There was, we did not meet the threshold for a neighborhood meeting. And so no, there was not one held. And I was just gonna ask staff what's the threshold because a threshold for neighborhood meetings would be if there's a plan amendment. If there's a TIA required. Those are the two. With this being such a large area around a planned, I guess transit space, is there anything that would accommodate something for the folks in the area would know what's going on in the neighborhood with such a large parcel, or multiple large parcels being. It is really up to the applicant at that point when it's not a requirement to have a neighborhood meeting if they choose to do one at their own time. But under the ordinance, there's no requirement. Obviously there is the requirement to notice people for these meetings. And then I was just gonna also ask staff about the NC Railroad Row and exactly what was planned in this area. So I'm not exactly sure where it fits in on the plan. In the railroad right away? Yes. I'm not aware of any changes to what their proposal was. And mainly I'm specifically talking about like if the commuter rail is coming through there or, oh I don't know that I could speak to that. I don't know what the alignments look like. Yes, Bill Judge with transportation. That is the North Carolina Railroad which runs from Charlotte to Moorhead City. It's the main line. And that would also be the proposed alignment for the commuter rail between downtown Durham and Raleigh as well. I would strongly recommend that we figure out how to make sure that the public understands what's getting ready to happen with 20 acres of property. Even if it's a county in city, I don't know how we go about that. But this doesn't seem like it should go forward without some input from some of the people that are listening. Grace Smith with the Planning Department. Adequate notice was provided through the Unified Developmentalness. So everyone that lives within 600 feet. That's the standard notification for a case like this. There was not a neighborhood meeting requirement. The applicant can certainly do that if they choose to. But we provided notice according to the UDO which is the 600 feet for property owners and neighborhood organizations within 1,000 feet. And so several neighborhood organizations would have been notified. And they can share that with everyone that's in their organization. And I'm concerned that the PAC specifically for this area has not been made aware. Take a look at the Planning Department. The PAC was not notified because the PAC is no longer the Registered Neighborhood Organization. Notice has been sent out in the last year or so. We update those lists regularly and they either did not respond or chose not to be included on the Neighborhood Organizational List. So we notify all neighborhood, registered neighborhood organizations within 1,000 feet of a property. And over time we do update those roles. And they had been asked and they did not reply or they chose not to. Because I also live in that PAC, I know that there's been some turnover and there may have been some missed emails. I'd hate for this to just be a miss. Sure. So it would just be. Yeah, and there's information on our website and in the ordinance too, if the PAC is interested in getting back on that list, we can certainly help them out with that. But for this specific case, or just in this specific zoning map change, I'm concerned that if we don't have the people that are closely or most impacted in the conversation, because I don't know if they even know at this point. I don't know if there's return mail. I have no idea of knowing there's no one in the room. And I know this is a large area and Andra Avenue has been a big part of the conversation around what happens in Northeast Central Durham. So I'm just concerned. I don't say it again. I'm concerned that there's no one here. Thank you, Commissioner Freeman. Commissioner Busby. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a question for staff. I appreciate that the developer was ready and willing to make some design commitment proffers. And I understand why we did not view those, but just moving forward as this goes to city council, that will there be the opportunity for the staff and the proponent to review those commitments as that heads to city council or that. No, the application is stands currently if they are proposing some additional changes, then that was that is something that we would need to review. If you make a recommendation or not, and it goes forward and then there's a modification, it's going to have to come back to you. So they're typically, so there is no opportunity. There won't be, as far as I understand currently, there would not be design commitments associated with the housing type as part of this application. Okay, thank you. Is that correct? I can say on behalf of the applicant, we are willing to discuss those, but we don't want to upset the apple cart and cause the process to restart. We're not opposed to discussing those. We're not opposed to Commissioner Miller's concerns and talking about those, but we don't want to throw the application and muddy the water, so to speak. So that would just be our concern there. It's not making the commitments, it's just making sure that we're following the proper protocols. Sure, that makes sense. Thank you. So I also had another question, I didn't finish. Do I have other commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Alturk following. Just curious, do you have a price range for the residential product that you envision developing on this site? Do you want to speak to that or? Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. It's a good one. And the reason that we selected this site and we're laying it out the way we're laying it out and the access to the park and all that are anticipated price point. I'm not a builder by the way, I'm just developing, but I've talked with many builders who already expressed interest in being on that location. Our anticipated price point based on the cost of development and cost of land and all that would be, we're trying to keep everything under $300,000, the best we can. Development costs could drive that up a little bit, but there's a need in my opinion, in the triangle in general, in Durham specifically, to have some more reasonably priced housing rather than everything being 400,000 above, like you see so much of. So our goal is to have what I call workforce housing and make it affordable for more people than what you typically see. Commissioner Elder. Thank you, Chairwoman. I wanna come back to this point, so this is for staff and I'm sorry to harp on this, but the design commitments, I guess I'm still not clear what kind of potential commitments that the applicant was gonna make would have needed review and what kind of proffers do not need review. Because in the last case, there was a proffer made that seemed to me like it could need review, but it didn't. So maybe I just need to read the UDO. Is there clear guidelines in the UDO on this? Or is this? Yeah. Grace Smith again. So as we've discussed previously in our trainings, there are some proffers that the staff can take the night of the meeting. They're very basic proffers, like the last one was actually very basic. It's very straightforward. It's measured along a property line. It's clear, it's footage. This applicant does not even have their proffers ready to be proffered is what I understand. They wanted to maybe discuss those. We have not seen those and anything that regards design commitments, things that are subjective in nature, there's another set of staff members in our department that have to review those when they come back in for site plan. And so we have to review those very carefully and make sure that they're enforceable and that they're legal. And they're also able to be interpreted at some future point in time to make sense to another staff person. So this type of proffer is not something that we're going to review on the slide at the meeting. We're just not, we're not in a position to do that. We would potentially be able to do that in less than 60 days and maybe allow a 30 day continuance if that makes things better for the applicant. But we just, we really need to stick with the way we've been trying to convey to the commission that we need to do business as far as proffers are concerned. Thank you for that clarification. I guess my, without having seen or even heard from the applicant what he was maybe willing to offer or proffer, right? It's not clear whether it was a major or a minor, right? Or, I guess I'm- But to us design commitments need to come back to staff. Yes, they need to, well, they need to come back to staff. Yes. Okay, thank you. Are the other commissioners who would like to speak? Yes. Commissioner Freeman and Commissioner Gibbs. So I had a few more questions for staff and another question for the developer. So just in general understanding exactly what the benefit of this type of city zoning map change would provide. Because I'm gonna highlight the fact that if we're adding residential units at $300,000 and being workforce housing, which is great, how much of that is gonna be for below $300,000 so that we're hitting a priority that we've already discussed previously around affordability? What's the benefit of this zoning map change to our priorities around affordability? So I know affordability by the ordinance that we actually set in place for the city and because I'm coming from the city aspect of this is that 60% of below, 300,000 is not for 60% of below. So just trying to figure out how that aligns with city priorities. I'm just trying to make sure that I'm understanding the clear benefit of having this zoning map change. This is not an affordable housing project. There's no affordable housing component associated with that. So if you're looking at it from just that perspective, I would let the applicant really speak to that. But in terms of the overall development and the consistency with the density and the future land use map, the fact that the future land use map allows for the density that is being proposed here, they are not seeking to go above that. What they are seeking is an expansion of a previously approved plan development that I think was from 1999 potentially. And so in my mind, expanding that development and allowing for the additional area allows for a cohesive residential development as opposed to picking individual pieces and not having them any way connected. It allows for the potential for additional open space and tree coverage and connections to the park. They also are going to be expanding the asphalt and allowing for the bikeway and any other transportation related improvements. But I would say that with respect to the density that's already set, and if they were seeking additional, then that would be a different set of policies that we would have to look at. I'm sorry, I'm trying to frame it as if this were a planned, I guess a planned tech or zoning map change as opposed to this on the fly zoning map changes we have these applicants coming in. I'm trying to make sure that I'm weighing it out and just knowing that if there's a possibility for such a large for 20 acres of land to be re-zoned so that you could do 79 units of townhomes within city limits if there's an opportunity to have that same development done affordably versus this way, I'm just trying to make sure that I'm not missing opportunity here. Sure, Sarah Young with the planning department. Commissioner Freeman, I think I kind of understand where you're coming from. I will say that this development is not in a compact neighborhood and the city's resolution of where they want 15% affordable housing is specifically for compact neighborhoods. So there's no, while affordable housing is welcomed and needed in many parts of our community, there's really, I don't know that there's any policy that we can evaluate against that this is better or worse than what the by-right development allows. Thank you. Does that kind of get to what you were talking about? Yes, thank you. Thank you, thank you. Then I just had a question about the 70% impervious. How do you know that this, based on I guess wherever you're coming from with the plan, how do you know that 70% is your max? So it's based on a couple of things. One is experience with these types of developments, but it's another, if we look at the overall site and the nature of the amount of open space that we're gonna have to have, which is gonna reduce just the theoretical maximum impervious to begin with. And then we have also done some just very preliminary sketches just to get a yield to sort of test, if you will, the zoning that we're asking for, the four units per acre maximum to see if that's reasonable. And I think Commissioner Miller has pointed out, we feel like that is the maximum based on our sketches. And so it's based on a combination of experience and some very rough sketches that we've done early on with our client here. So we feel comfortable projecting that. Thank you. Commissioner Gibbs. I gotta remember not to bend this thing. A lot of my questions have just been more or less answered, but first of all, I'd like to agree with what Commissioner Freeman has been talking about. This is a very large, relatively large tract of land for this area.  But some way to communicate to these people, and I guess in one respect, we're kind of lucky tonight. I don't know if Reverend Mill is watching, but if he is, we don't let the dogs out. Everybody will know now, but that's another joke. And I'm not gonna take up time joking, but this area, the East Durham area is in the process of being studied for rezoning. And I think this piece has the potential to be a good addition to this area. There is no way of knowing how this rezoning is going to turn out. It ain't easy. And the people on the rezoning committee and on staff can tell you that, but it's something that can be considered along with the general Easter, and this is in the East Durham area. This is not just Eastern Durham. It is close enough to be in what I call historic East Durham. And that's all I'm gonna say about that. The design commitments at this point, I don't even know how design commitments can be made other at any point until almost the final submittal to the city other than the normal materials, brick, block, wood, but how those materials are assembled and how they are arranged on site depends on the designer and how it works with the site. So that's a, I just wanted to throw my opinion in on that. I have another question, but I think it was mostly answered by some of the latest comments. But that's all my comments for right now. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Gibbs. Do I have other commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Elter, commissioners, who would like to speak, commissioner Elter, commissioner Johnson and commissioner Gauch. Thank you, chair. I wanted to follow up on commissioner Freeman's concerns about affordability. I'm glad that you're bringing this up. And I think given that we can't enforce developers to, for the most part, we really can't force them to provide affordable housing. I think if we want to look big picture about affordability in all of Durham, I think that a number of studies have shown that increased density does in the long term, I think lead to more affordability. It's, if we have more supply of housing, even though you're right that these particular homes may not be very affordable for a lot of people, I'm of the mind that over time, more greater supply of housing probably depresses the, or at least slows down the increase in price in Durham. So, and the best example of that is a city like San Francisco, which has restrictive zoning and has become really unaffordable. And I think you see that across the country. So that's why for the most part, I vote in favor of increased density. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you once again. So my quick question, follow up on that maybe, Mr. Lausel again, you mentioned that you've had us gotten interest from builders in regards to this project. Can you share where these builders are from? Are they local? Are they national builders? What's the background of the builders that are expressing interest at this point? There's a mix actually of what I would consider semi-custom builders and national builders that have expressed an interest all the way from MI homes, level homes, Beezer, Drees homes, which is a semi-custom builder. There's a lot of stuff in Durham in fact. That's what I've, those are people who have just reached out to me. I've not reached out to anyone. They're just following what's going through the public process and that's how they, get first dibs on lots basically, so. Thank you. And a follow up, do you have any particular parameters, values or principles beyond cost because you know economics drive, drive real estate deals and development, but are there any principles that you basically are your guidelines for when you are choosing who you ultimately partner with to develop this site? I think all the builders that I've talked with all have a concern to put a quality product on the ground. Obviously, home building is a business, it's profit-driven, but they have to be able to sell the homes to the market, meet a market demand. And I think there's a huge market demand for lower priced housing. And this is, despite the fact that it may not be affordable for to address your concern by the strict affordability rules, it's still very affordable for many folks in the workforce and there's a dearth of housing at this price point throughout the triangle in my opinion. So I don't have a set of rules or anything like that for anybody that I would sell these lots to. Obviously, I'm only gonna deal with somebody reputable who will buy the lots in the fashion that they tell me that they will. Beyond that, I don't have control over anything else. My personal opinion is that I'd like to see quality housing and I believe in trying to have people who work in its city be able to live in the city they work in and that's my goal. Thank you. And quick comment based on what's been shared by the applicant and what I've heard from my colleagues here on the panel here regarding this application. So one, I think it is important of who partners with the developer to do a development particularly of this size because understanding the context in which you're building such a project in Durham matters. Yes, this project here may address workforce housing and to Commissioner Freeman's concern this project is obviously not going to address the affordability issue that we face from a lore income household and individual standpoint but I do think that it will address the fact that we are seeing much higher priced homes being built here in Durham. So it may meet a need but then there still raises the questions that we have to deal beyond this project regarding the issue of workforce and affordable housing and so that's gonna remain an open question in regards to Commissioner Miller's concern about the 79 units that leads to my question in regards to the builders and are there any guidelines or principles that may be guiding who is partnered with to develop this site and that we understand that development is profit driven and so if 79 units nets you a higher profit then trade-offs may become a part of the decision-making process and then it comes back to well does this benefit what we're doing here in Durham and that's part of our responsibilities in regards to making decisions on the planning on this planning commission so as we, I thought I had my decision made before I came but thank you all for the questions and the feedback because it's an art and a science and what we're trying to do here and how this particular project fits into the many dots that's on the board in regards to what's happening in Durham and so I just encourage us as going forward and with this project here to really think about what does it mean in regards to connecting the dots and how this project could potentially be a preface or prologue, whatever you wanna call it in regards to decisions that we will be making down the line in regards to what are we comfortable with taking a chance on because without seeing design the commitments here it's really hard to understand like what this will look like what can port with what's around it and then the concerns about, you know we don't know who knows about what's coming to a huge swath of land in this area of the city it does raise its more questions than provides more certainty but understanding that what is happening in Durham we ain't gonna stop it with this voting no on this tonight I do think that it's something that we need to be even more mindful of as we make decisions in regards to projects such as this. Thank you. Commissioner Ghosh. Thank you, Chair Hyman. I am encouraged by this proposal because there has been a lack of investment in this area this is as Commissioner Gibbs is saying this is truly East Durham we've seen a lot of activity out near Briar Creek which is technically East Durham but it's not the real East Durham and so I am encouraged by that actually one thing that I think is unfortunate about this case is that the future land use map designation is for low density residential at Fort Dwelling, UC Acre I think this would be a perfect site for even higher density but I imagine the developer in this case decided to stay within the bounds of what the comprehensive plan was suggesting and I mean that's good in some ways I wish it were more. With the design elements or design commitments that have not been given in this case I think it is difficult to ask where you have some certainty as a developer I think everyone on the planning commission would like to see this where you don't I think it can be a mistake to kind of handcuff yourself in that way. We do have an expectation of quality development here in Durham and I have no reason to believe that you don't also have a similar understanding what quality development is but to the extent you're not certain of who the builder will be and what kind of product they'll be putting out I understand why there's not design commitments and I won't hold that against you. I have inclined to vote in favor of this and I hope that ultimately it will bring more interest to this area to Eastern generally speaking I think we need more housing in Durham but I would love to see investment in Eastern there's for many years there's been a lack of investment in the area lack of interest so I appreciate that there was even something filed in this area. Thank you Commissioner Miller. So I'm going to follow up a little bit. To me this is Bethesda, not Eastern but I don't think it matters much and we've seen a lot of activity and the other case we had tonight is also Bethesda and we've I think we're developing a mixture of residential and non-residential uses in this area that I want to be cohesive and work together I want the new to mix with the old I want there to be a variety of housing types and we're providing that that's why I like this project. The reason this project nobody's built on this property before if you went and stood on the verge of the road there and look down in it this is a difficult piece of property it's got some slopes on it. I don't think it matters what the comprehensive plan says the density for this property is there's a limiting factor is the topography and so that's why I don't think even at four units an acre I think that's going to be a tough thing to pull off and that's why I was worried about making sure that the development plan gave the developer considerable leeway and didn't trap them in a unit number that may be physically difficult or impossible. I do believe in quality development I believe that there should be a standard that we should look at for all projects. I guess I feel a little bit different on those rare occasions when we see two units an acre or something like that but we're gonna put neighbors in close proximity and what's going to happen here is these units are going to be clustered on small lots and there's going to be some large vacant areas where the property becomes particularly difficult to develop. That's why I like design standards for a project like this not necessarily an every four unit an acre project that comes with this one. I would like to see it and again because we're building a new Bethesda unit by unit we've held that I've been a stickler for the standard for other developers in this area and so at the appropriate time Madam Chairman I'd like to move that we continue our hearing in this case for 30 days to give the staff a chance to look at these design commitments. Let me check to see if there are additional comments and then I will entertain a motion. Just a little mention of Freeman just the one additional comment to say that I would agree that it would be great to have the density my one concern becomes when you say things like invest that means there hasn't been an investment and that can cause displacement and we have to be careful about how we do that is not that we shouldn't do it it's just a matter of the time it takes to just let people know in the community so that they're aware of what's coming and I also was gonna ask for the request for the 30 day continuance to at least have the design commitments reviewed and to let the pack and other neighborhood folks around there know because I know I haven't been able to reach them in the last few days when I realized this was on that area so. Hearing no further comments the chair will entertain a motion from commissioner Miller. Madam chair my move that we continue our hearing in this case until our meeting in October I note from the hand up the staff gave us that we have a particularly like calendar and I hope that that 30 day period will give them an opportunity to look at the design commitments that this developers willing to profit. Second. I have a motion by commissioner Miller for a 30 day continuance for item number Andrew Avenue residential item number Z70009 and a second by commissioner Freeman. All. Discussion. Discussion. I would like to hear from staff. I have no preference. It's up to you. It's really up to the applicant in terms of whether or not they want to allow the continuance. For design commitments is that your intention at this point because if you if you're not then we don't need a continuance. If you are then it would be up to the planning commission on how to handle if there's going to be proffers made. I mean I haven't seen any official proffers or heard any official proffers and that was my question. I was going to in the discussion section it's some clarification from the applicant. There's some unreadiness. I have two questions. We're going to address those. Yeah I think that would be an appropriate time. Well there's at this particular time where I've asked for questions. I have two questions. So it's an opportunity to respond to the second question. Yeah if you would. So I think you know just stepping back for a second thing about how we got to this point and how we've worked with staff again that we talk about future land use map and policies that the city has established for development in this area and that's how we've made this application. That's how we've continued through working with the review cycles with staff. The design commitments are a requirement for multifamily housing again because of the nature of the project we weren't really in a position to be able to do that during the application process. Again it was required by the rules of the submittal. In preparation for this meeting we understood that there could be some opportunity to discuss those types of approach. If we want to talk in terms of what our thoughts are and take this out of the term of design commitments if that creates a technicality that causes problems with the process. I think we can talk in just general terms about what our ideas are for materials, vision I suppose for the project. I don't know if that's a discussion we can enter into here. Again that's why we didn't offer those design commitments because they're not required as part of the application. Let me ask this question in a different way because it seems like you may have had design commitments ready to discuss today and if that's the case is a 30 day delay going to be a problem for you in this case? It would delay the project 30 days which would probably put you at City Council maybe in January. That's a guess. Anyways, instead of December is my point so the question is, is the 30 days going to be a problem because it sounds like you have design commitments ready to go. I think everyone on the Planning Commission would prefer to see them if they could. I think it says a lot too about whether or not. Can I, my question is if you will grant it you 30 days do you plan to submit? Right. If you don't plan to submit then we don't need the 30 days continues, right? That's the question. If you're granted 30 days do you plan to submit the design? I appreciate the concern and I think Jeff pointed out very well why we hadn't submitted previously. We're just trying to do what was required by the code initially. We were prepared to submit proffers on design elements tonight. It wasn't aware that it would require the staff review and whatnot. My biggest dilemma with a 30 day extension is my contracts with the buyers. I've got multiple land sellers who are all, I've already extended because of the process that just takes time to get through. We've had to extend. They're very impatient at this point. And now I'm planning on going to city council expecting hopefully an affirmative vote from the Planning Commission expecting to go to city council in December. So my contracts are all structured to close in January. Because of the unknown nature of how these things go the Planning Commission may decide something different perhaps in 30 days. Staff may say, I'm not sure what would happen there. I would think that because what we were planning on proffering was exactly what you've already seen before from other subdivisions other similar developments. And then not knowing what city council might do it could potentially push everything back certainly more than 30 days. That's my biggest fear. I really would like to have an affirmative vote from the Planning Commission but I certainly understand your concerns about design elements. Unfortunately, I can't present those at this point with any meaning because staff has not had a chance to review those. The only thing I can say is I assure you what we wanted to submit was in line and almost taken verbatim from some of the previous of the approved rezoning requests. And everything that we wanna do would be consistent with what you're seeing in that area now. So that's unfortunately all I can say. 30 days wouldn't be a big deal if I could be sure that 30 days was really what was gonna happen. Excuse me. Staff just wants to make it clear that we haven't had any discussions with the applicant regarding design commitments or the ability or not to proffer anything tonight. We're not opposed to reviewing anything. We will review it as quickly as possible and provide recommendation and feedback but this is the first that we're hearing of it. We just wanted to make that clear. Right. That's correct. And that was the reason we proffer them now is because of the conversations that I've had and being told that it probably would be a good idea to do that although it was not required of us to do that. That's why we hadn't submitted before and that's why it's never been discussed. You're correct. Staff has never, hasn't heard about this. This is a recent change. Thank you. I currently have a motion on the table and a second. Are you ready for the question? Yes. We get a clear answer from. I have a motion. I have a motion on the table and the question, are you ready for the question? And all in favor of this motion, I will have a roll call vote please. I would prefer to vote on this case today so I'm gonna go now on the. Yes. I have a motion to be read. I'm sorry. Extension of 30 days. Extension of 30 days, yes. The 30 day continue. No. No. Mr. Miller? Yes. No. Yes. Thank you. I would, so the matter's still open, right? So I would make a motion to approve and send forward case Z170000 to the city council with the recommendation for approval. I'll second. Motion by commissioner Gauch second by commissioner Hornbuckle that we send item number Z1700009 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. All in favor of this motion roll call please. Yes. Mr. Goode? Yes. Mr. Brown? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. Maynard? Yes. Mr. Goode? Yes. Mr. Freedman? No. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Let's move to the next item. Madam chairperson, I just wanna state as we move into this discussion that I don't have a financial interest in this property or this project. I'm also not in the notification area but I wanna be transparent that I do work for the Eno River Association. Eno River Association also does not have a financial interest in this project. Has no management responsibility for West Point on the Eno Durham city park but is in the notification area. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we're ready for the staff report on item number Z1700014, rescue mission. Well, thank you, Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. This case is known as DLLTRR property Z1714. The applicant in this case is the rescue mission ministries. This is within the city's jurisdiction. This is a request to resume property from residential suburban 20 and commercial neighborhood with a development plan to commercial neighborhood with a development plan. It's approximately four acres and the proposed use is 16,000 to 20,000 square feet of commercial floor area.  You see this comprises a handful of properties off of North Roxborough Street just south of the intersection with infinity and Lada roads. Existing conditions at the subject site. As I noted, there are six parcels that comprise this request. This is located adjacent to the West Point on the Eno Park which is to the west of the subject site. I mean, you will see a riparian feature with buffers along that western border. There is an existing structure at the site as well as some paving. Those are proposed for removal and the event that this request is ultimately approved. The future land use map, the subject site is noted as commercial and a recreation open space. There's no change to this. The proposed CEN district fits within the commercial future land use map designation. Zoning context map, there's a mix of commercial designations as well as some office and residential in this area. The CEN is located to the north and to the east and residential areas to the south and to the west. Those residential areas primarily composed portions of the West Point on the Eno Park. The requested district, as a note of the applicant is requesting a maximum of 20,000 square feet of floor area which is the maximum in the CEN district. A maximum of 35 feet in building height and they are proposing this is a commitment to not have any drug stores, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations or drive-through restaurants at this site. The proposed conditions, as a noted there's a range of 16,000 to 20,000 square feet of building area. The applicant has also provided access points one along North Roxburgh Street as well as one off of what is currently known as Busch Drive which the applicant is proposing to close and make that a shared access point between the property to the north. The applicant is also committed to preserving tree coverage areas as well as riparian feature buffers along the western border of the subject site. Comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request. You can see in front of you staff found that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. And staff determines in general that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. And I'll be happy to answer any questions that the commission may have at this time. Chair Hyman, do we have any speakers? I'm sorry. That's fine. I'm sure it must be important. I do have individuals, thank you. I do have individuals who have signed up to speak. Jared Edens has signed up to speak for but I do have an additional individual who has signed up, so Jared. Madam Chairman, I have a point of order. Okay. When we began this case, commission member Satterfield indicated that her employer was in the notice area. That's actually not correct. Her employer may have received a notice but they're not actually don't own any property within the radius of this property that we're calling to question under our rules her ability to sit and participate in the case in my opinion. Thank you. And it wasn't a recusal. I think it was a notification just to be to let us know that you was aware. So thank you. Yes, Jared. There you go. Good evening. Jared Edens with Edens Land. You're representing our client, the Durham Rescue Mission. I appreciate everyone's time tonight. Appreciate Jacob's time over the past several months working with us on this resigning application. I'm just gonna highlight a few points and we'll get to the Q and A. As you know from the property, a good portion of property has already zoned commercial. We're wanting to, it's about half of the buildable area. If you look outside of the stream buffer area, about half the buildable area is already zoned commercial and that area already has been developed on previously with parking and concrete building pads and whatnot. What my clients are gonna do is redevelop this parcel for one of their thrift stores. The Durham Rescue Mission has a few thrift stores in town now across Durham and they've identified this location as a good spot for another one. The area, if you look at the area, this, the Roxboro-Latta intersection is pretty well defined commercial node and has been for quite some time. You got Foodline, you got CVS, everybody you can think of almost at that intersection. So commercial here obviously makes sense which is why the Future Land Use Plan calls for commercial in this area. Stormwater, I wanna talk about stormwater a little bit. I know Ms. Satterfield mentioned the Eno and I know that anytime you say the word Eno, you think stormwater, you gotta talk, you know, there's gonna be stormwater concerns, I understand that. Currently the site is, you know, when it rains, it's hidden in that impervious area. It's running south, it's part of it's going into that. There's a pond that's on the Eno Park just south of the property line. There's no treatment from that property and really I looked on the aerial maps, I didn't see any stormwater controls for pretty much anything through there. And most of it's older, developed under old regulations. I sometimes say the good old days, but our current project is gonna have stormwater controls and we are gonna have to treat for nitrogen, phosphorus, we're gonna have to remove 85% of our suspended solids from the project. We also have to look at the floodplain, there's a 100 year floodplain on the property, we have to analyze that as part of our development. So we had to do a lot of things stormwater-wise because we're in the Eno watershed in the Falls Lake Basin that existing adjacent projects haven't had to do so far. I feel it's a logical request. The rescue mission has been our client for about 10 years now. I've become aware of, you know, these thrift stores are pretty important to their operation. They get good revenue from that for their facilities across Durham. And I'd be glad to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Thank you. I do have an additional individual who has signed up to speak against Robin Jacobs. Thank you. My name is Robin Jacobs. I am the executive director of the Eno River Association and I actually, you can see how scribbly that is. I didn't know what to say about before or against because I'm not actually here to oppose the project but I am here to offer some suggestions. You can start by stating your address. My, sorry, my address is 4404 Guest Road 27712. Thank you. So, as you know, this property borders West Point on the Eno Park on two sides and the association's concern is always to impact to minimize the impacts of rezoning or development right around the park. A big consideration is stormwater and there is a creek in the back, there's flood plain and there's a pond right next to it so that is a concern. However, probably any redevelopment that happens on this property is gonna improve the stormwater runoff at least at the front of the property rather than make it worse. So, I am assuming that Durham is gonna pay attention to that as they should. However, there are a couple other concerns. The common boundary line share between the park and the property along the south line of this property, the southern edge has a few scraggly trees along the edge and then it sort of drops off pretty steeply down to the park where there's the pond. The wetland area down there is, has a boardwalk, it's designed as a destination for people to come and experience a kind of unique part of the park. Because of the way that the property drops off and the lack of vegetation along what's designated as a tree protection area, I would like to see that area actually planted with some vegetation of varying heights, especially with a three-story building next to an overlooking this pond area. I'd like to see that's allowed, I think, under the proposal that the, I'd like to see a vegetated buffer between the park and the building and have the whole building envelope be moved a little bit in the other direction. In addition to that, at the back, there is a 100-foot greenway area and flood plain and I would ask that there be consideration that that actually be donated to West Point Park to become a part of the park. The future land use map designates that as recreation area and that would make a lot of sense. Whether or not that happens, I think that the building envelope needs to be moved closer to the road away from that sensitive wetland, the flood area. West Point Park, the city's put resources into that, hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last 50 years. It's an amazing place. Thousands of Durham residents use it every year. It seems crazy not to go as far as we can to protect the investment in West Point Park at every opportunity. I think this is a special case. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have other people who have signed up to speak, so I'm going to close the public hearing at this time and give commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. I will start to my right. Commissioner Altur. Commissioner Ghost. Did I miss you? Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Satterfield. Commissioner Harris. Commissioner Busby. Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Gibbs. Let's start with Commissioner Altur. Thank you. I have two questions for the applicant, for Jared, and one for staff. So you mentioned stormwater controls. Can you talk a little bit more about those? And then you also have in your text commitments that there's a conceptual design of NCDOT, STIP, U5516. Can you explain what that is? Yeah, thank you for the question. Regarding stormwater, I'll try to go into a little bit more detail. Fortunately, for the ENO, we're in the most restrictive, it's the most restrictive basin in Durham, the Falls Lake Basin. So we most likely will develop either a constructive wetlands, a bioretention facility, possibly a wet pond, something like that. As Ms. Jacobs correctly pointed out towards the western part of the property, adjacent to the stream. We have to remove, again, nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspended solids, and we have to do a floodplain analysis. I'm just going to make some more detail you want on this stormwater. I think that's... Okay. And what was your other question? I'm sorry. The NCDOT. Yeah, so there's a TIP project, Transportation Improvement Program project with DOT, and I'm not sure if it's funded or not, and I'm going to defer to Mr. Judge with the city. We know that Rocksboro's going to be widened at some point in the future, but I'm not sure of the timing of that. Bill may know a little bit more about the process on that. Bill, Judge Transportation. Yes, it is a joint city of Durham NCDOT project, an intersection improvement project for the intersection of Rocksboro, Lato, and Finiti. It is funded. DOT has done some preliminary design work and we're anticipating them having a public workshop sometime in the fall to finalize public comments and continue with the design and construction. I have a question for staff, for Jacob. So, I mean, I was trying to think about, because obviously this project can have environmental impact, I was trying to think about what part of the UDO could we look at to kind of guide us, right? And so, I know it's section eight focuses on that, but I didn't see anything in the staff report about environmental impact. So, I'm just curious what you're, if there's any way to assess the kind of impact that it would have on the nearby farm. Sure, Jacob Wiggins with the Plain Department. So, this case with any other rezoning case gets distributed or reviewed by a number of departments and agencies. So, one of our technical expertise departments being Stormwater Division, so they have reviewed this and commented on it. In regards to the actual technical details, those typically come at the side plan stage. At this point, the app can stop proposing any development in any environmentally sensitive areas. The building envelope does not itself contain any environmentally sensitive features, such as a rafferian buffer. The building envelope is located adjacent to that area. If there was something like that, we would call that out. Otherwise, it's typically dealt with at the administrative level. They are proposing vegetative landscape buffering along the southern border of the property that is required by the ordinance. Outside of that, unless there's a clearly noted or, say, Stormwater or Parks and Rec or someone like that raises an issue that says, hey, we have concerns, those will be incorporated in. At this point, no other departments have raised those issues. Thank you. Commissioner Gosh. Thank you, Chair Hyman. Burning question for Jared. What does DLLTRR mean? What does it stand for? I just made it up. I'm just joking. The property owner is some kind of LLC, DLLTTRLLC. Yeah, I saw that. Any idea? No? Okay, not important. I saw that. Working for the buyer, not the seller, so I don't know. There you go. Miss Jacobs, is that right? Can you give me an understanding of what your organization does or what it's tasked to do? I'm just trying to get an understanding of that. That's a question I could probably spend about an hour answering. Fair enough. But what we do is protect the Eno River. We do that through education programs, getting people out to the river so that they understand it and care about it and enjoy it. And we do land protection, buying land and conservation easements, or working with landowners, buying and accepting donations, I should say, land and conservation easements. And we have worked with the city of Durham from the beginning to create Durham City, I mean West Point on the Eno City Park. So does your organization manage West Point at the Eno? We do not manage West Point on the Eno. We have a great relationship with Durham City Parks and Rec, and we hold the festival for the Eno, and we do work days there. We are working with the staff there to implement a trail stewards program right this minute. So we have a relationship, but it's nothing to do with management of the park officially. Okay, I mean, and the only reason I ask is because I did speak with Parks and Rec and they were aware of this project and they had no comments against it. So I just didn't know if you guys were taking a closer look than they were just because you guys are managing the park or whatever it is. I think the comments you offered are valid. I appreciate you giving them. I just want to get an understanding of where, you know, what the role is, because Parks and Rec definitely didn't know. We're taking a closer look, but our entire focus is on the Eno. And I, yeah. Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Commissioner Satterfield. Yes, so I went out to the site earlier today just to take a look around and I just want to reiterate that the recognizing that there is 100 foot Greenway easement included in the plan here and a tree buffer area. It runs along sort of a precipitous drop-off to the pond that's part of West Point Park and it's a rather thin tree line. And so I would ask the applicant if they, there are a couple of questions, if they would consider bolstering that buffer with additional plantings, first of all, for visual barrier, but also for safety reasons because it is quite a drop-off. I also have concerns about the westernmost boundary that sort of terminates into a hardwood forest and the plan here shows 100 foot Greenway easement. Is that easement going to be held by the city of Durham or who's going to hold that easement and would you consider enhancing that buffer area beyond 100 feet? And I want to make sure, and I may try to move this. I don't know, I can see my screen. I don't know if you can see it. Can you see the plans on your screen? No, not yet. Never mind, I can see it on my screen. What 100 foot area, again, are you talking about? I'm sorry, man. You mentioned 100 foot. You can see it. Okay, yeah, so it's up here now. So there are two areas that I'm asking questions about. First is the 100 foot Greenway easement at the western tip of this property that sort of terminates into a hardwood forest. The first part of that question is who would be holding the easement or monitoring or managing that easement area if it would be the landowner or if that easement's going to be held by the city of Durham. And if the applicant would consider increasing that easement area to exceed 100 foot, to be more than 100 foot, to provide additional protections for West Point Park, which gets a lot of impact. It's a heavily, heavily used park. So there are impacts already taking place on the park. So my interest is making sure that there's a softer buffer between the park and the uses that are being proposed on this property. And then my second area of concern is that tree line to the south, along the southern boundary that runs along the top side of the pond. First, from a visual standpoint, wanting to make sure that there is a, that the view skate from the park side, from the park user standpoint is protected. And also just as a matter of safety because it is such a drop-off between this lot and that pond, if you fell off that ridge, that wouldn't be a fun ride. And so the question related to that is, would the applicant consider bolstering that tree line with additional plantings? Okay, and so I'll go to the second question first on the planting and the buffer. And you're right, when you're standing at the pond on the right-hand side, it's pretty thin. And when you look left or the west down the property line, it's a little bit better. But you see the note, it's a 30-foot wide buffer at 0.6 opacity. So what we have to do at the site plan stage, because the goal is always to use what's there first. I hate when people tear trees down to plant new trees. We all hate that. So the goal is, and what we're gonna have to do at site plan is look at what's there, take an inventory, and then we will have to supplement what's there to meet that 0.6 opacity.  It's somewhere around nine or 10 canopy trees per 100 feet are required for a 0.6 opacity buffer and a certain number of understory trees and shrubs. So to answer your question, yes, we will have to supplement that. I'm certain of that. On your first question, the 100-foot greenway easement, I wouldn't wanna dedicate more than that. It's my understanding that between the 100 feet on our side and the 100 feet on the Enos side, you've got a 200-foot wide swath that a 10-foot multipurpose trail could be built in. So I think the 100 feet is enough, but I do understand the desire for more protection. So the reason, in other words, I wanted to bring us a map. We were looking at the building envelope. Ms. Jacobs had mentioned it, and Tom had mentioned it recently. We can adjust that western building envelope line and shipped it further east to guarantee that there's no development that close to the buffer if that makes you guys more comfortable. If you look at the map, I don't know if you can see, but you see on the northern side, it says length of perimeter boundary buffer. You've got that little dimension on top there. That property line on the, I don't know if you can, can you see my mouse? Yeah, we can see your mouse. Okay, this line right here. If you sort of just extend that line, just imagine that line being extended. That's approximately where I'm thinking we could move this envelope line to. That would make this whole area here. We guarantee that there'd be no impervious surfaces, no building and parking in that area next to the stream. And that's a proffer you're willing to make. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yeah, Jacob Wiggins of the Plain Department for the record, Mr. Edens did reach out to staff today indicating that he may proffer that. And so staff did get an opportunity to review it and has no issues with that property. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Harris. My question had to do with the Clean Water BMP's best management practice, but he's already answered. They aren't sure yet what best management practice they're gonna put into play. So I'm happy with that. Okay. Commissioner Buzzfeed. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had a few questions to start for Mr. Edens. And first of all, thank you for that proffer. The first question actually is related to the proffer. I'm just sort of eyeballing it. So it looks like there's the 100-foot greenway easement. And then it looks like potentially what you just proffered is about that same amount-ish. I'm not asking for a scientific answer. I mean, it varies obviously, but it looks like at the widest point it's probably 150 to 200 feet and then it narrows as you go south along the stream. Great, thank you. Second question is just on the wide range on the amount of the square feet. This proposal says it could be between 16 to 20,000 square feet that struck me as a pretty wide range. I was just curious about the reasoning for that. I'm sure there's a reason for that. And does that still fit under this proffer? Yeah, I think we can still make that work by moving that envelope line because I want to get the building closer to the street if I can up on Rocksboro Road. The range is just based on conversations with our client, knowing what, because you're looking at prefab steel buildings most likely is what you're gonna have here with the pitch roof. So just based on some of the buildings that they're looking at that they could purchase and what the areas are, we came to that range. 16,000, 20,000. And then the final question is the, do you have a sense? I know that the far eastern side has existing structures on the property. Do you have a sense if you are developing in that 16 to 20,000 square foot range what the overall increase in impervious surface area would be? I don't know. Okay, thank you. And then I just had a question for Ms. Jacobs if you don't mind coming up to the microphone. I actually wanted to ask you to get, you came up originally and put forward a few ideas. And one thing that I do think is interesting, I hadn't thought about it, but you're right that any new development here could improve the existing stormwater control. So I appreciate you mentioning that. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on the proffer that's been made given the concerns that you are originally raising in your comments. I think it helps, definitely helps. I understand that there can be reasons why they need the square footage and they can't donate any of that land to the park if they could. I'd still think it would be great if that could be looked at so that the creek is more protected by parks and recreation. But I do think that helps. I do think Ms. Satterfield's question hasn't really been answered is who's going to hold the easement? Somebody has to hold it, or it's not actually an easement. Jacob was at the planning department. Even when that greenway easement is dedicated, it'll be held by the city of Durham. Okay. Great. So those are your remaining concern that's unaddressed at this point was this question about potentially conveying the land. But you're- Yes, I understand that that may not be possible, but I think this really helps a lot to pull it back, make less impervious surface overall potentially. And the fact that they, I couldn't tell this from reading the information, but the fact that there will have to be some beefing up of the plantings along the southern line helps a lot too. So I appreciate that. Great, thank you. Thanks for asking. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Jared, could you come to the, Mike, I have a couple of questions for you. So I went out to the property today. As a matter of fact, Commissioner Member Satterfield and I were out there at the same time and I walked around the pond and then I went to the subject property and stood on that drop off there and that's got to be about 12 feet, isn't it? And looked down into the pond. And I also am concerned that the existing vegetation isn't going to be a very effective buffer. However, I will note that that very strange manmade hill there, steep slope, depending upon where the building is located on the subject site may be a very effective buffer. But so one of the things that I was looking at, we've talked about beefing up the planting in that 30 foot wide buffer tree save area is would you or would your client consider if we were to go along the southern boundary of the property at its jointer with Roxborough Road to a point of about 130 feet up to 320 feet, which if I understand it, based upon the existing conditions map would be the corner of tract three, tract four and tract D and beef the buffer up there to a 0.8 opacity for that 90 or so feet. I gotta protect the pond. I think what I would offer, because I understand this concern and I appreciate Ms. Jacobs being here. What I'd like to do is we would prefer actually to put a fence up, a bit of six foot opi. Well, let's just go to, all right, if you wanted to prop for a fence for, and like I said, I was just trying to use existing points on the map because for staff simplicity, that one, but unfortunately running a fence all the way to Roxborough Road seems to be unreasonable. So I just kind of measured in like 130 feet from that corner and that seems to catch the closest part of the park if you wanted to put a fence up on the northern edge of the buffer slash tree save area. That would be fabulous as far as I'm concerned. So I'm asking if you would be willing to proffer that and then ask the staff if they did proffer that, is that something that could go today or would that cause you to have to have a delay? Jacob Wiggins of the Point Department, I think depending upon the final language of the proffer it may be something that could be handled with today if it's clear and concise. All right, lovely. And then finally, I just wanted to say that I spent a lot of time thinking about this property and I wanted to get it in perspective. This is a four acre tract. CN is the lowest intensity commercial zone that we've got. 20,000 square feet building at 35 feet. 35 feet is the standard maximum height for residential zones. Most people don't build that high, but they could. So we're talking about a fairly low intensity use. This would work out to essentially 5,000 square feet per acre. I will point out to my commission member friends here at our meeting last time, we looked at two self-storage businesses. One proposed to put 200,000 square feet on 28 acres. That even, that worked out to about, they were gonna reserve 14 acres, built on 13 acres. It came out to about 7,000 square feet per acre. The other one was 120,000 square feet on 1.9 acres. That was 63,000 square feet of built space per acre. An acre is only 43,000 square feet. So compared to what we have recently approved as a group, this is pretty low intensity. This property is on Rocksboro Road. If somebody came and argued for general commercial on this same parcel, I think they could make a good argument for it. The developers proffer to essentially shrink the building and parking envelope to that point where tract F, the Eastern property line of tract F joins the property line, the Northern property line of the subject tract, in my opinion is a big deal. No impervious surface in there, no parking, no building, maybe stormwater measures could go in there. So they're not offering, they're not guaranteeing that they're going to keep it natural. All of these things taken together cause me to want to vote for this property and with that fence along the pond. This addresses pretty much all of my concerns. I would rather see this property built the way within the confines of the restrictions that we're talking about today than face a more aggressive rezoning in the future. And it's always a trade off. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Gibbs. Jared, you can stay right there. On the existing conditions map, it shows several structures and quite a bit of paving. All of this is going to be removed, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, and that would take care of starting at zero with impervious surfaces. Correct. And I don't know what the total plan is gonna look like with the building, parking or whatever, but that's a step in the right direction as far as impervious surfaces are concerned. And I like what's being done with the, on the west end of the, where the, what you call that, that the stream bed down there, the education, yeah. Well, yeah, it's, you called it the education. Commissioner Gibbs, would you like for Miss Jacobs to come back to the mic to respond to you because our audience can't hear who you're talking to? Well, at any rate, no, that's okay. Everything seems to be, seems to have been done in order to make this a workable solution. I still don't understand though about the fence at the pond. Is this for safety? Is that your understanding? I don't see this as for safety. Now I see this for aesthetics and basically to shield the park from the commercial development is what I see the purpose of it being. I don't like fences in natural areas anyway, but that's just my take on that. I mean, most likely what I would prefer to do is, you know, we'll have a 30 foot vegetated buffer, but I would prefer to place the fence on our side of the 30 foot buffer so that you can see the trees. But if in the winter time, you're really tall and you can see over that 20 foot embankment, you'll see the fence. I think we'd be better to place the fence on our side all the way around. Well, I won't go any further with this. I just wanted to be sure that the existing impervious surfaces would be demolished so you're starting anew. But I do support this and I wish I could ask what the use is going to be, but I know I ain't gonna get that. I'm just curious, but thank you so much. And thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Gibbs. Commissioner Bryan, I did see your hand at one point. I don't have a question. Just curious about the Greenway easement and I know that Durham Open Space and Trails has a Cricut Creek Trail, I think, and we're close to Cricut Creek, so is the easement in part related to the Cricut Creek Trail? Do you know? Well, I've been a long time since I was on Dost, but generally what happens is Dost does ask for easements in areas where they want to have trails and their typical request is 400 foot easement. They don't always get it, but that's their typical request. That may be where the 100 feet comes from. Thank you. Hearing no additional questions, I'm gonna call on Commissioner Busby to make a statement and a... Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Thank you. Yeah, Jacob Wiggins of the planning department. Just before the commission moves forward, I'd like to nail down the proper regarding the fence, if there is going to be a proper on that. My understanding, if staff can at least get an idea of the fence in terms of the fence height and Commissioner Miller, where exactly your idea is to where the fence begins, I think we can work out the details prior to council. So, as I eyeballed the map and scaled it, so if you were to begin at the southeast corner of the property where it joins with Roxborough Road and go 130 feet, the fence would begin there and then would go to the intersection or the point where the line which joins tracks four, three and D. That point where the property line that runs between three and four runs down and hits the property line with D. And that, I guess, if I add up the lengths, there would be at a point of about 323 feet. Okay. Let me see what I'm talking about, Jared. You do not have a knowing look on your face. A common property corner between three, four and D. Exactly. Okay. Yeah, I'm straight. So, just for clarification purposes, those are two different items. Commissioner Miller, the linear distance that you noted would place that at the corner of four, five and D. No, that's too far. If you're talking about 330 feet. If I... Are you measuring the 330 feet from the edge of the rideway along the line? I'm doing all my measurements from the edge from the right. We're good. And in terms of a fence height, Mr. Edens. We have a six foot opaque fence. Okay. Thank you. Now, eggs, I'll recognize. Are you done, Jacob, to make sure? I have one more brief comment. Okay, thank you. I wanted to ask, too, am I recognized? Yes, the chair recognized Commissioner Gibbs. I wanted to ask, too, about the bus stop that I think is being proffered or requested, required or whatever. And there's already a bus stop pretty close by and I was wondering how that, how close together these things can be. I'm just curious, is that still something that if it's required, it can be built or is this part of the plan? So the way we've been doing these, the bus pullouts, and I think the standard note is the bus pullout is always subject to, you can see on the commitment, subject to a determination by go Durham and go Triangle on the need for a bus stop. So basically, we would defer to them at site plan and if they think one is necessary, if it's not too close to the other, if they wanna relocate the other to our location, whatever's decided by those individuals will comply with. But the final call is made by those two entities. Okay, I was just curious. Yeah, we were asked to provide it and one of our review comments was asked, we were asked to provide that on the plan which we were okay with some. Okay, thank you, sir, and thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Are there any additional questions from any commissioners? If not, I will entertain a, the chair will entertain a statement and a motion from Commissioner Busby. Thank you, Madam Chair. My statement is just looking at this in advance. I had a lot of the concerns that have been raised by the Ina River Association. I believe Mr. Eden's and the proponents have done a really nice job of working and addressing most of those concerns. So I'm comfortable planning to vote to send this forward. So I appreciate you working with us this evening. And it seems like it was specific to make sure that the staff were comfortable with these proffers as well. It seems like we're in a good spot to be able to make the motion. So if I may, Madam Chair, I would move that we send forward case number Z1700014 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation noting the various proffers that have been committed this evening. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Busby, a second by Commissioner Brine that we move item Z1700014 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation with noting various proffers as identified. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by roll call please. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I have no items listed under unfinished business. I do have elections under new business and we'll turn this over to before. Can I ask a question? Yes. Of the case coming up next month. Okay. 5275 North Roxburgh Road which is also adjacent to the West Point on the Eno. Ms. Jamie. Ms. Jamie, can you give me a little bit more information about that? Is this on the West side of Roxburgh Road adjacent to West Point on the Eno? Yeah. Same group. It's a rezoning request for commercial development. I don't recall the specifics in terms of the square footage and I do believe that there's a plan amendment associated with it. But it's the location where the church currently located now. It's the Burger King. Oh, it's the Burger King. No, 52, we're at 55, so 52 wouldn't be that far out. It's 75, 5275. 5275. They're proposing to take down the vacant Burger King. Okay. It's very hard to figure out where the actual numbers fall. Yeah. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. And that's an outpour, so it doesn't matter. Now for the shop assistant, it's 5,500 block. This is 5,200 block, that makes sense. Now for new business, someone else conducts the election. Yeah, the staff. Staff, yeah. Yeah, staff does, I can't. Officers. I would like to nominate Elaine Hyman to continue to serve as chair of the Planning Commission for a second year. She can't. She can't. I'm counting the city. It has to be a city resident, but isn't it, aren't they eligible for two years? No. But they have to alternate. They have to alternate. Yeah, so it's a city. It has to be a city appointee for this next year. Then I would like to make a motion for Brian Busby to assume the chair for the upcoming year. Second. Then I move that we close the nominations. Second. Yeah, we moved on from there. So then I made a motion to close the nomination. And Mr. Brian seconded that. And so with regard to the main motion on the floor, I move that we elect or vote on the, Mr. Busby is chairman by acclamation. Yeah, we just closed the nominations. We voted to close. Yeah, that was to close the nomination. Okay, shoot, you wanted to show of hands. That's to make Mr. Busby chairman. Yes, correct. Show of hands, please. So that passes 14 to zero as well. Congratulations, Mr. Busby. Thank you. I can truly say it's unexpected. Now we need a vice chair from the county. I'm sorry. Yes, I would like to nominate Elaine Hyman to serve as vice chair of the planning commission. Okay. That was Mr. Brian. And then I move that we close the nominations. Okay. It's 14-0. And now the main motion. Yes, main motion, please. 14-0. Thank you. That's a good day's work. There you go. You have your officers for next year. Sorry. I've been passing with a horse. Yeah, I thought there was going to be an account. Enjoy the conversation tonight. I'll see you in a minute or without my chat.