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 body to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials will have a final vote on all the issues that are before us tonight. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom virtual meeting platform. In this virtual meeting platform, the public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on the video by default. And to maintain meeting decorum and a discernible record of the meeting, the chat function has been disabled. We will have public hearings on the three cases in front of us this evening. Speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time during the meeting. If you've pre-registered, we'll call your name. We'll give you the opportunity to speak. If you did not pre-register, we'll give you the opportunity to raise your hand. And so in the Zoom meeting, you can either hit raise my hand or if you called in, you can press star nine on your phone to raise your hand. We'll call on you, we'll unmute you and we'll give you the opportunity to speak.  If you'd like to call into tonight's meeting, you can dial 1-301-715-8592. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties the recommendation is not favorable. Thanks again for joining us. May we have the roll call please? I would like to say that we do have a new commissioner here with us tonight, Mr. Bruce Herrod. We have two other new commissioners that were appointed by the county board of commissioners that were not able to join us tonight. They were not able to get their required swearing in prior to the meeting. So they will join us next month. They are not on the roll call because of that because they technically cannot participate without swearing in. So I'm gonna do the roll call now and you will know that it doesn't have all 14 members. Commissioner Emondola. Here. Baker. Here. Chair Busby. Here. Run. Here. Cut right. Here. Durkin. Here. Commissioner Herrod. Oh, sorry. Couldn't hear that. It's okay. All right, got you. Low. Here. MacGyver. Morgan. Here. Cease. Here. And Williams, Carmen Williams. Thank commissioner Williams was gonna join us via phone. I don't know that maybe she has not joined yet. So she might not be here just yet. So let's give her a few minutes to join. That sounds good. Thank you. Commissioner Herrod, welcome aboard. It's great to have you join us and I'd love to offer you a moment to introduce yourself. Okay. Don't know what you wanna do. I'm Bruce Herrod. I live at 2217 Tampa Avenue and been in Durham County since 1976 by training an engineer but I hope I have some more general knowledge in that. I love Durham and looking forward to serving on the committee, commission. Thank you. Great to have you with us. Looking forward to working with you. Thank you. We will move to the approval of the minutes and the consistency statements from our June, Miss Smith. Sorry to ask. I'm so sorry. Commissioner Williams is on the call. I just wanted to make sure you knew she was present. Great, thank you. So approval of the minutes and consistency statements from our June 8th, 2021 meeting and if there were any issues, I didn't see any but if anyone caught anything, please raise them now. If not, I'll accept a motion for approval. So moved for approval. Second. I heard commissioner Morgan make the motion and was that commissioner Cameron that was seconding? Great, okay. Thank you. I love the roll call vote, please. Amandoya? Yes. Baker? Yes. Busby? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Cut right? Yes. Jerkin? Yes. I'm not gonna call a commissioner here since he was not participating in that last meeting to vote on these minutes. Commissioner Lowe? Yes. MacGyver? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Cease? Yes. And Williams? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Adjustments to the agenda, Ms. Smith, I know we wanna at least move up the resolutions but anything else? Staff does not recommend any additional adjustments other than moving the recognition and resolutions for former vice chair or mayor Keynesian and former commissioner or Tom Miller to the beginning ahead of public. Great, if everyone is good with moving the resolutions to the beginning and then running through the rest of the meeting, I'll accept a motion and a second. So moved. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Baker moved. Commissioner Cameron seconded and we'll have the roll call vote, please. Okay, so this is for the adjustments to the agenda. Out Emondoya? Yes. Baker? Yes. Busby? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Cut right? Yes. Durkin? Yes. Herod? Yes. Low? Yes. MacGyver? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Cease? Yes. And commissioner Williams? Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Grace, do we know is on near with us? Was he able to join? Let me look and see if he's on the participants list. Just looking through real quick. I don't see him and I know it looks like Chris is looking as well. I don't think he's here yet. Okay. We can send him an invite though. Yeah, please do and I know I see Tom so I'm going to start with the resolution. Chair Busby, can I just do my legal ad statement? Please. Real quick. This will be, this is super normal for commissioner Mell. He can sit through that. I just wanted to state for the record that all the advertisements and legal requirements were carried out in accordance with state and local law and our own file, the affidavits for those are on file in the planning department. Great, thank you. All right, so Tom, thanks for joining us. It's good to have you back.  I'm going to read the resolution from the planning commission to honor and thank you for your time and efforts and then I'll give you the floor for a moment. One last time. This is a resolution and appreciation of Thomas R. Miller, whereas Mr. Thomas R. Miller was a member of the Durham Planning Commission from March 4th, 2014 through June 30, 2021. And whereas Durham Planning Commission and the citizens of the city and county of Durham have benefited from the dedicated efforts that he displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission. And whereas this commission desires to express its appreciation for the public of a job well done. Now therefore be resolved by the Durham Planning Commission that this commission does hereby express its sincere appreciation for the service rendered by Mr. Miller to the citizens of this community and that the clerk for the commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official minutes of this commission. And this resolution is hereby presented to Mr. Thomas R. Miller as a token of the high esteem held for him adopted this 13th day of July, 2021. Grace, remind me, do we need a vote now and then, okay, so I'll accept a motion and a second, so moved, so moved, sorry, okay. All right, Commissioner Morgan moved, Commissioner Lowe is seconded with an assist by Commissioner Herrod and we'll have the roll call vote, please. Okay, here we go. So this is for the resolution. Amandoya? Yes. Baker? Yes. Busby? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Cupwright? Yes. Durkin? Yes. Herrod? Yes. Lowe? Yes. McGyver? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Cease? Yes. Ann Williams? Yes. I'll have to admit I'm having to reprogram myself because I'm used to calling these names in order and every time I get to the K and the M, I'm all messed up, so. Well, congratulations, Tom. I was worried about the vote, but you pulled it through. For a lot of lobbying this last week. Lots of emails. Now, Tom, as the dates noted, you served for a very long time on this commission. I know most of you think it was even longer. Same as that one. Before is yours for any final comments? I just want to say that it was a very great privilege to serve the people of Durham as a member of the Planning Commission. And it was a very great pleasure to serve with all of you. And to you and to the staff, I wanted to let you know that all the time during my service, I learned and learned and continued to look to learn from the first meeting until the very last. And I'm grateful for that. And then finally, I just wanted to say that, to encourage all of you as Planning Commission members to make yourself available to the people of Durham when they reach out to you, respond to their messages, go see the properties that you're going to vote on, and listen to the people. It's their town, it's their Durham. And while they may not be sophisticated on planning issues, they know what they're talking about. Their investment in their lives and the places where they live is worth, in my opinion, all the money that some applicant or developer may have put into their property or project. So keep that in mind. And I wish you all the very best as you go forward. I think Durham is really lucky to have so dedicated a body as you all. Thank you, Tom. We look forward to seeing you around town. You certainly will, of course, unless you're seeing first. All right, very good. Thank you. Good job. Grace, has Amir been able to join us yet? Or Chris? I don't think we've seen him. I've asked the staff to keep an eye out. And if he joins, I will let you know and we'll work him in as soon as we can. I don't see him yet. And please do let us know if he joins and we can move things around. I also would just, if he's not able to join us tonight, I know we've done this before. I'd like to wait and do it with him in person. And I can try to reach out to him and confirm that he can make it next month. Sounds good. That'll be fine. Thank you. Okay, great. With that, we're gonna move to our first case this evening. This is case Z2 quadruple zero four two. And it's 2104 and 2011 12 Ellis Road. And we will start with the staff report. Just one moment. Can you see, everyone see the screen? Perfect. Thank you. Yes, Chair Busby. Planning Commission members, good evening. Danny Kulture here with the Planning Department. This is a request for zoning map change Z2,00042. It's 2104 and 2112 Ellis Road. It was received from Jonathan Gendis of Stackhouse Development LLC for two parcels located at 2104 and 2112 Ellis Road totaling 4.86 acres. The site is within the county's jurisdiction and in the suburb development here. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site. From residential rural RR and residential suburban 20 RS 20 to commercial general with a development plan or CGD for a self-service storage facility with a maximum of 140,000 square feet. The future land use map or the flume is designated as research and research application. If the zoning is approved, staff recommends a change to the flume to designate the property as commercial. From the context map, it shows the site is, of course, is zoned RS 20, the adjoining zonings are RS 20 to the east and then you have science research part to the south. And then also above that, I think you've seen this before is the Ellis Road commercial. It's zoned CG with a development plan opposite of Ellis Road. From the map, you can see that the site is wooded. It's got a mix of hardwood and pine. It's adjacent to the NC 147 off-ramp and also Ellis Rose. And of course, it's a single family development on the adjacent parcel to the east and adjacent to the south is industry, industrial research and development facility. And although the aerial doesn't show it to the north, the commercial development is already under construction. It's been cleared and is under construction. The existing condition sheets indicates that it previously noted it's a wooded site. There's a repair and buffer to the south of this site on the site. The proposed conditions for the site that indicates the building envelope, the parking envelopes required project boundary buffer to the east of the site. And this site is of course oriented differently with north being this way. And of course, they also show the commitments for tree coverage to the south and the project boundary buffers as I mentioned. And also with their access points. Some of the commitments for this key text and graphic commitments, they're limiting their uses to only self-service storage and permitted accessory uses. They're also limited to a maximum 140,000 square feet of building area. They also are committing to construct an exclusive eastbound right turn lane on Ellis Road at the site driveway prior to CO. They're also providing a minimum of five feet of additional asphalt for the full frontage of the site along the south side of Ellis Road prior to CO. They're also committing that metal shall not be used as a primary building facade material on the Ellis Road frontage. They're also committing to a minimum of one distinctive architectural feature from a choice of storefront windows, corner tower element or parapet walls for the main building facade. And staff analyze the proposed development for consistency with the comp plan policies and determine that staff that a future land use map change is adopted. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan including the future land use map is in the public interest and is consistent with the adopted ordinance and policies except that policy 2.2.2 E suburban tier of commercial development is not being met. However, as the commercial development across opposite Ellis Road, when it would be completed, this policy would be met as the commercial node would then be established and staff is available for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Caltrop. We will open the public hearing. We had three individuals who signed up to speak. They're all, I believe, part of the applicant team and it's Patrick Biker, Robert Schunk and Eric Rifkin. So I will hand it over to the applicant team and then we'll see if there's anyone else who would like to speak as well. Good evening, Chairman Busby. Can you all hear me okay? It's Patrick Biker. We can, please go ahead. Thank you. Mr. Caltrop, do you have the PowerPoint that our team sent over? Mr. Schunk sent you. Could you pull that up please, if possible? Give me just one moment, chance to open it up for you. Yeah, thanks, Danny. Thanks, Danny, that's great. Oh, sorry, man. It was great. Is it up? Oh, hold on just a second. You got it. Let me pull that back up. I'll share that as the, there we go. And let me pull it up as a slideshow. There we go. Perfect, thank you, Danny. Good evening, Chairman Busby, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Patrick Biker with Morningstar Law Group. I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm here this evening representing Stackhouse Development for this agenda item. With me this evening is Robert Schunk, the Director of Entitlements for Stackhouse. What Stackhouse is proposing is a climate-controlled self-storage building on the south side of Ellis Road next to the Durham Freeway. I hope you all have had the opportunity to see the transformation of Ellis Road that's taken place over the last five years. Mr. Eric Rifkin, who is the master developer of Ellis Crossing, is here to share his support for this project, based on his experience with that fine development. Next slide, please. It's important to recognize that there are many users of climate-controlled self-storage that are non-residential. To that end, I've been working on several new ventures in RTP over the past year or two. And it seems to me that RTP is enjoying a renaissance of its own. I think the current level of activity in RTP is the strongest it has been since 1990s when I started working in Durham on development projects. At this juncture, the hub in RTP will be creating new residential and commercial development, and that in turn will generate demand for self-storage facilities. My guess, based on working around RTP for many years, is that this storage facility on Ellis Road is just over a five-minute drive from the hub. But more important, I think, are the storage needs of the growing startup companies and CROs or contract research organizations in RTP. IQVIA and other CROs are located on Ellis Road, and along with other R&D tenants in the building zone by Alexandria real estate, they will be customers of this self-storage facility. These R&D companies and CROs will need the self-storage for off-site document and material storage. If you look at the large facilities along the south side of Ellis Road, to the east of this proposed storage facility is the former Reichel Chemical Building. Along the west side of the Durham Freeway is the former Glaxo Smith client campus. I had the privilege of working on the purchase of both of these large facilities by Alexandria real estate over the past several months. And so I spoke to Alexandria directly about the need that their startup companies and CROs have for off-site climate-controlled storage. Moreover, there are certainly other R&D facilities nearby who can gain operational efficiencies by storage of materials and documents at Stackhouse's proposed new facility, rather than pay premium rent in lab buildings for such storage needs. This in turn helps Durham County demonstrate that we have a cost-effective business environment as well as a top-notch labor force as we work to support new companies and RTP. Next slide, please. Lastly, I need to emphasize the existing traffic infrastructure at this location. This is a right-in, right-out location due to a very long median in Ellis Road. Accordingly, this is a very poor site for residential development or for retail development. I really cannot see how folks would want to live with a right-in, right-out driveway at this location, and it seems obvious that these access conditions would doom any retail establishment to failure. Accordingly, a low-traffic generating use such as self-storage makes right sense at this location. In conclusion, it is clear that there will be strong demand for climate-controlled storage from RTP-related entities. Besides that demand driver, we also wanted to be sure that members of the Planning Commission heard about Ellis Crossing, our neighbor to the north. As I noted earlier, Mr. Eric Rifkin is the master developer of Ellis Crossing, so now I'll turn it over to Mr. Rifkin, and after that, our team will be happy to answer any questions. We respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval, and we thank you for your time tonight. If you go to the next slide, Danny, thank you. Good evening, Chairman and Commissioner members. My name is Eric Rifkin, at 5600th Hunter Street in Apex. I represent the developer of Ellis Crossing, who completed 1,800 units or is in the process of completing 1,800 units and commercial space there. I'm also the president of the HOA Board. Mr. Biker did a great job talking about all of the needs and the use that would come from commercial, and I'll support that with speaking about the residential in the area. And the stats you can see here on the right side sort of speak to themselves. Over 1,200 units built in the last five years and proposed in only 1,200 before that, so the area's population has exploded. We hear, anecdotally, from our residents and from people in the apartments, that they want more storage space nearby. We are in favor of this proposed development by Stackhouse, and I'm happy to answer any additional questions. Thank you both very much. Like I said, no one else has signed up to speak on this item, so let me just ask if there's anyone in attendance who would like to speak on this particular case, you can use the raise hand function if you're participating via Zoom. If you're on the phone, you can press star nine to digitally raise your hand. And I don't see anyone else looking to speak on this item, so I'm going to close the hearing so that we can hear from you. So I'm going to close the hearing and Commissioner, I'll turn to you. Commissioner, I want to get you in order. Okay, Commissioner Durkin and then Commissioner Baker. Hi, it's Erin Durkin from the Emporium Commission. Sorry, I'm having technical difficulties with my video today. I just had two questions. One was how it's determined that additional self-storage is needed in this area or anywhere. And one of the attachments we had was showing the proximity of other self-storage locations. So I'm wondering why the applicant or how they determined that there was additional need for more self-storage. And then also why a development plan was provided in this situation. I'm curious about that when it could have been done by a text amendment. Commissioner Durkin, I assume you're... Oh, sorry, yes. My questions are directed to the applicant. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman? Yes, please go ahead. Yeah, sure. Yeah, our market research shows that the other self-storage facilities in the area are running at about 90% occupancy. So there's clearly demand for self-storage. There's a very low vacancy rate. And I apologize. I didn't catch Commissioner Durkin's part of her question. If she could repeat that, we'll do our best to answer it. Yeah. Why a development plan was submitted if it could have been accomplished? I'm just wondering if there's something more to this than we see in the application. No, there isn't. It is what it is. We've just... Mr. Schonk has got a strong track record with development plans in Durham. And so he turned one in and that... It is what it is. We think it's a strong proposal with the right use at the right location. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Baker. Yeah, I have one question for staff. First, I just wanted to confirm my understanding and make sure that I'm understanding this right. That this property is located directly adjacent to the municipal boundary and that there's not an expectation that this property is going to annex into the city. I just want to confirm that that's right. And if that is right, my question is why would we support that? Why would the Planning Department recommend that we support up to the city? Why would we support up-zoning and urbanizing a property that is right outside of city limits without annexing into the city? We actually can make that request and the reason that doesn't require the annexation is because they are not requesting any public utilities from the city. Okay. And because of the type of request it is as a self storage only, there's no need for any water and sewer for this site. Okay. I'm going to see if anyone else has any other questions and then I'll go ahead and share some thoughts. Thank you, Danny. Thanks, Commissioner Baker. Any other commissioners, questions, comments that you'd like to share and then you can just raise your hand. Commissioner Armandole. Thank you, Chair. I have one kind of question for staff and then one specific question for the applicant. I know the screen and report I came across a statement that planning department does not currently have a commercial suitability analysis similar to the industrial one that we've often referred to with cases. And I'm curious, is that something that is on y'all's agenda that would be abused to us in the future or is that where is the planning department on that? Is that something that is seen as necessary in the works? That one I don't have an answer for. I don't know if that is in our long range planning focus at this time. I don't think it is. I know we had done the industrial land use study but I don't think we have one actually in the works for any type of commercial study. Commissioner Armandole. This is Grace Smith with the planning department. That's a good question. However, we don't have a separate study that's in the works right now because we're in the throes of updating our entire comprehensive plan. So we will be looking closely at these commercial areas in the future. I don't know if you have any questions on future land use map type exercises, but good question. Okay. Thank you. And then for the applicant. I'm curious, are you considering any green design standards at this unit? So nothing. Mr. I'm not sure if you're trying to answer Commissioner Armandole's question yet. Nothing specifically in mind we're obviously focused on meeting Durham's stringent stormwater standards and I think that's as far as we've thought through that those design issues at this point in time. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, those are all my questions at this time. Thank you chair. Thank you. Any other commissioners who haven't spoken yet on this item? Mr. Mr. You're on mute at the moment. Someone able to help them on mute? I don't know. Okay, sorry about that. This question for staff that I probably should know to answer under the environmental impact it talks about the stream but doesn't say anything about I guess they'll be addressed in the site plan review. Look at the development plan really quick. There may not have actually been any wetlands identified on the site, but let me just take a quick look at that and make sure. Commissioner Herron, if you have any additional questions, feel free to ask them now and then we can get those answered later. No, I'm good with everything else. Yeah, there are about 9,000 square feet of wetlands shown in that stream area. Let me look at the development plan. Yeah, the applicants building and parking envelope don't actually show encroaching into that, but they would address that obviously at site plan. I know with our jurisdictional requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance, we actually don't identify anything under an acre. We don't identify as being jurisdictional. So if they were to get state permitting, they could impact that, but they won't be able to impact it if it's within the repair and buffer. And they are showing that as part of their tree preservation as well. So they won't be impacting that area. Anything outside of that 10-foot no-bill, they could. If you see that little band outside of the repair and buffer area on the development plan, it could impact that small area, but they wouldn't be impacting anything inside the repair and buffer. Okay, thank you. Again, any commissioners, you can raise your hand and I'll recognize you while I wait to see if anyone else had any comments. I mean, piggybacking on Commissioner Armandola's question for the applicants, we're seeing more, we're certainly seeing heavier storms that are coming through, heavier volume, and we're seeing more applicants coming and proffering 100-year soil water drainage systems on site. It strikes me that a development like this in a growing area will be an area that would be something that would be very beneficial. So I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about the opportunity to consider something like that on this particular site as part of this plan. Yeah, Chair, it does be Patrick Beiker again for the applicant. Yes, we can commit to treatment of the 100-year storm on this site, and we'll be happy to wordsmith that text commitment with Grace and her folks if we're fortunate enough to move forward with this. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. And staff, I assume we've seen this before. Is there something you're comfortable adding and voting on this evening? Danny Colch with Planned Department. We would be, that's an easy text commitment to add. Thank you. Great. OK. I don't see any other commissioners asking to be recognized. Commissioner Baker, I know you wanted to share some comments. Yeah, I'm glad that I'm glad that that last commitment was made. I think that's really important. I also think that this location is really a perfectly, perfectly reasonable place to have a to have warehousing and manufacturing and self storage. You know, there are a lot of issues in Durham, and I don't think we're all necessarily thrilled whenever one of these self storage cases comes before us. But actually like right adjacent to a freeway is a really, really good place to put self storage. And in fact, just kind of thinking a little bit more broadly, I hope that in the new comprehensive plan that we're looking at places adjacent to freeways, which where there's a lot of, you know, toxic emissions from vehicles as good locations for manufacturing in those types of uses, you know, there's noise, there's air pollution. Where I'm a little bit hung up is this whole issue that it is on the north side and on the east side, directly adjacent to municipal limits and that we would up zone and urbanize a property that that is not in city limits and that is not being requested to be in city limits. To me, that that's that's concerning. People are going to be getting there on city roads and they're not going to be paying city taxes. And maybe if this facility were smaller and located further away from municipal limits and we're serving the rural population of Durham County, it would be different. But this is up to one hundred and forty thousand square feet of storage space located directly adjacent to municipal limits that's going to be serving a substantial number of city customers. And so I'm just very hung up on that. And I, you know, without that annexation, I don't think that I can support this despite the fact that, you know, this last proffer, which which I think is really important, which was just made. So unless, you know, someone else has something that I'm not thinking of about why that would be good for the city to up zone outside of municipal limits. I'm probably going to be voting no on this one. And that's that's all I wanted to share. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Baker. And also, you know, I was looking to speak and so I will accept a motion in just a moment. I'll just share my thinking as well. Like Commissioner Baker, I was had some concerns about this. I think this presentation tonight was helpful in some ways. To write in, write out and like Commissioner Baker said, I think the location was pretty important to me. The proffer obviously I asked for the proffer and it was accepted. I think that's an important and I'm going to plan to vote for it. But I do hear Commissioner Baker's concerns as well. And, you know, I think that's that's a very valid reason to vote no as well. That said, not seeing anyone else looking to speak, I will accept a motion and a second for approval. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I move that we send case Z to quadruple zero for to forward to the county commission, right? With a favorable recommendation. Second. Thank you. Yes, that was an appropriate motion, Commissioner Baker and a second by Commissioner Armando Riera. And we will have the roll call vote, please. Hey, Emondola. No. Baker. No. Buzz B. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cut right. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Herod. Yes. Well, yes. MacGyver. Commissioner MacGyver. Yes. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. No. OK, it passes nine to three. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We're going to move to the next case. This is case Z one nine triple zero three nine and it's wine outlet. We'll start with the staff report. Thank you, chairs. By the way, give me one moment to pull that presentation up again to any cultural with the planning department. This is a request for zoning map changed. Z nineteen thirty nine wine outlet is received from Cliff Cradle Cradle Engineering representing Zvati Holdings, LLC for two parcels located at forty eight twenty three and forty eight twenty seven Hopson Road totaling one point two two acres. The site is within the city's jurisdiction and in the metro north compact neighborhood development here. The applicant proposes to change its own designation of the site from office and institutional and commercial neighborhood with a development plan CND to commercial neighborhood with a development plan for a maximum of twelve thousand one hundred eighty square feet of retail sales and service uses. The future landings map of the flume is designated as commercial with no change proposed to the flume. The context map shows the site is on CND and O and I to the east of the West are commercial center or excuse me zoning OI to the east and the west commercial centers of the north and commercial general and commercial neighborhood to the south opposite Hopson Road. A small area of five hundred year or two percent non regulated flood hazard area encroaches on the northwest side of the site. One parcel of the site from the aerial map you can see is developed, however, as a community services daycare. However, the building currents currently sits vacant. The other parcel actually is undeveloped. The site is surrounded by apartments to the north with an associated dog park that bores the site to the east and self service storage and retail located across the street to the south and telecommunications facility to the west. The existing conditions sheet, as you can see, pretty slow vacant building with parking and paved pedestrian areas. And there's a merged lanes merging up to Miami Boulevard. The proposed conditions indicates the required right of way dedication for Hopson Road. The right in right out lanes shows the access drives for the site, maximum building floor areas, maximum purposes. And as the site is located in a compact neighborhood tier, the building envelope is shown being pulled all the way up to the front of the site per ordinance. That's the requirement for the dimensional street yard standards. Summary commitments are key text and graphic commitments that limiting the uses to retail, sales and service and associated accessory uses dedicated 20 foot of additional right of way for Hopson Road site frontage limit Hopson Road access to rise to ride and ride out only extend existing concrete monolith island and Hopson Road to Miami Boulevard prior to prior to CEO maximum building floor area limited to 12,180 square feet and a maximum of 70 percent impervious surfaces. Whereas there are no required impervious surface limits for this site. And staff determines that the proposed development consistent with the comprehensive plan policies and determined that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all applicable policies and ordinances and staff is available for any questions. Thanks again, Mr. Coltrane, I'm sure we'll be we'll be asking you questions. If we have any public hearing first, we have one individual sign up to speak. That's the applicant that is Cliff Cradle and Mr. Cradle. You are welcome to give us your name and address and make your remarks, please. All right. Thank you, Chairman, and good to be with you all this evening. And I appreciate you all taking a look at this project. It's been ongoing for a while. My name is Cliff with Cradle Engineering to a four East Markham Avenue, Durham, North Carolina, two seven seven zero one. I am the site engineer for it for this project. As you could see with the existing conditions report, this is an old daycare building that's been not not utilized for several years now and the current owner is looking to redevelop the site into something more updated with this particular area. There is a daycare further down the street, so we're not taking away any sort of services from this area. Actually, when when this area when we first started working on this, this was out in the way out in the suburban area. Now it's kind of in the middle of everything. So so we feel very good about what we're proposing to reuse this building and add a little bit to it so that this site can be utilized again with with our plans. And I will say that as since we started this project, D.O.T. is actually in the midst of, well, D.O.T. is in the midst of the project to increase this section of Hobson Road to the four lane or five lane section as the rest of this particular area. That acquisition has already started. So so that that's a little bit different than the than the development plan was looking. However, that that was planned in is underway per a previous zoning of an adjacent parcel. So I just wanted to let you know that the traffic there won't be any traffic issues with that redevelopment of that particular area. So I feel really good that we're going to take this building that's been sitting this vacant or vacant for this long and be able to utilize it for a for a good use in this in this area. So looking for a recommendation of approval from you tonight, if I if I don't mind asking. And I am here. The owner is with me, although he didn't sign up. So I think I'm the only one that can answer any questions associated with that at this time. So I am available for any questions. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Cradle. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? We know that signed up in advance. Again, if you were with us, you can press the raise your hand feature. If you're on the phone, you can press star nine. And I don't see anyone else looking to speak on this item. So we'll close the public hearing commissioners. Questions, comments, statements you'd like to make on this item. Commissioner Mandela. Thank you, chair. I have a question, a couple of questions for the applicant. The first is I'm curious if you have a vision for what this space will look like in the future or are we like open to track restaurants to the area? Just pure retail. I'm just kind of getting an idea. There is a rental community next door. And so I want to get a sense of the type of amenities that could expect to see come to the area or hope to see come to the area. I know you can't say anything, certainly, but I'm curious your vision. That's a very good question. And thanks for asking. We actually the wine outlet actually does have a retail portion of their facilities. And then we have had a lot of interest in restaurants in the area. I will say most of that interest was pre covid. So but I think the area with its expanding and restaurants in the area were very open to to that as a as a lease to portion of the building. But the majority of the building and the purpose of the building is for the wine outlet to be able to relocate to this area. And the building will actually look like a lot of that. We're updating the building. I didn't mention that earlier to make it look like a lot of the things in that area, which is much updated, as opposed to this whole concrete building. So that's that that's part of, like I say, it was the only building out there when we first started. Now it's in the middle of a highly developed area. So looking forward to utilizing this one. Great. And then since the apartment neighborhood next door immediately about the property, have you considered any type of direct access to that community so residents could just immediately come in, come on and enjoy the space or as opposed to, like, you know, going around on the sidewalks? That's a that's a great question. And yes, there is actually a row of shrubs between us and the parking lot just behind us, which is very level. So it is a walking area. Trying to get in touch with the owner of the apartment complex has been less than less than easy to get in touch with him. But very much so very open to talking to them and wouldn't even mind a little bit like a multimedia access point through there should they need it in the future. But I definitely walking. Yes. Awesome. That's really great to hear. And then I have a question for staff. So one of my just biggest concerns looking at this and, you know, I'm thankful that in many ways this is a fairly innocuous case. But there's a rental community nearby. And we we know that currently renters are not notified of rezonings happening near their property. And even though this case is likely to be a net benefit for the residents nearby, I still value renters being notified of what's going on in their neighborhood. And I understand that staff is working on updating the standards to include renters and notification. And I'm just curious if there's a sense of timeline of when that change might be brought forward. Commissioner Amandori and Michael Stock with the planning department. We should be getting the text amendment that includes those either next month or at the very latest September. That's great to hear. Thank you. I like to hear what other folks have to say because they're all my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Amandori. While I wait to see if other commissioners are interested in speaking or asking questions, I did have one question for the applicant, Mr. Cradle. And you probably won't be surprised if you heard my question for the last case as well. I'm wondering about your ability on this site to consider potentially proper 100 year stormwater commitment. Again, just seeing the amount of rain that we're seeing in Durham, we're seeing a lot of proffers being made by developers to be able to make that offer. It's a good rainstormwater, good neighbor issue to consider. Wondering your take on that. Is that something that could be handled with this case? And is that something you'd be willing to consider to profit? And that is a good question. I'll have to take a look at how much more volume is associated with the 100 year storm because things have been, to be honest with you, now, when we first started this project, all the stormwater was actually going into the ditch with detention so that pre equals post, obviously, as the ordinance require. But now we're actually tying into DOT's stormwater system, which is going to be installed while we're working on this project. So I've got no problem with handling the maximum, you know, because obviously we've got to put in a detention facility and you don't undersize those, so over-sizing that a little bit. And with a site this small and it's already heavily impervious, the difference between storms is very small when it comes to storage. So we will definitely take a look at handling the maximum we can because obviously we want to move the water from the site into detention and into the system as quickly as possible, but we also are required to not increase the stormwater. So that's a very good question. Great. Well, and thanks for your response tonight. I know in some cases, you know, like Mr. Biker in the last case was able to make that proffer. He probably anticipated one of us would ask. It's a common question at the planning commission these days. But I do hope you'll consider it, you know, as this moves forward to the governing body, that's something I'll be putting in my notes for the governing body to be considering as well. But I hope as it moves along, you can take a look at it and if it fits on your property, I hope you'll proactively offer it, but then you may get asked at the governing body as well. But thank you for that response. I appreciate it. Yes, sir. Thank you. I don't see anyone else asking to be recognized. So I'm just give one more moment. And if not, I will look for a motion and a second for us to move this piece forward. We're regarding case Z19 triple zero 39 wine outlet. I move that we move this forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Seconded. Thank you. Moved by commissioner Mendoza, seconded by commissioner Morgan and we'll have the call vote. And Mendoza? Yes. Baker? Yes. Busby? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Cut right? Yes. Durkin? Yes. Herod? Yes. Lowe? Yes. Okay. McIver? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Cease? Yes. And commissioner Williams? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cranell. Thank you for your time and I appreciate the recommendation. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Our next case is case Z214 triple zero one. This is 1908 Cedar street and we'll start with staff report. Great, good evening. Thank you, chair Busby. Commissioners, I would send your Cahill here with a planning department. One second we'll get going. Presenting tonight on case Z21 triple four zeros one, 1908 Cedar street. This is a proposal from an individual land owner that owns the parcel in question at 1908 Cedar street. This is within the city jurisdiction in the urban tier. The existing zoning on the site is residential suburban 20 and it is about 8.55 acres in size. The existing future land use map is designated as medium density residential for the area and there is no proposed change to that from this evening. The applicant is proposing to rezone to residential urban five. And this is to allowed for the construction of one additional single family home. The existing lot is not large enough to subdivide in order to create two lots and two single family homes within the RS 20 existing zoning. As you can see in the zoning context map, it's RS 20 to the north of this site, RS 10 to the southwest and east. And then we have residential urban five is what we are with the applicant is proposing being rezoned to this evening. If you look at the future land use map, it's currently medium density residential, which is six to 12 dwelling units and acre is the future vision for this area. There is no change to this proposed from at this time tonight. As we've learned that it's important to go back to what the districts are for and what they mean, just to reminder that the RU district is really established to provide for orderly urban residential development or redevelopment, a limited number of residential uses can be allowed in them. But really the point is to maintain the character of the urban neighborhood as it is. If we look at the aerial map of this, you see it say the 0.855 acres in between these two streets here is located in the Forest Hills neighborhood. This is an area of single family homes, old growth trees and a neighborhood that's been established and around for quite some time. This is a straight zoning map change tonight. We don't see a lot of those. So I just wanna remind everyone that's listening that this does not have an associated development plan, either a graphic plan or a text-only development plan, but the applicant does intend to subdivide the property and construct a second single family dwelling unit on the parcel. However, this is not a commitment that we are able to demonstrate without a development plan or a tax commitment. The virtual neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with the unified development ordinance requirements on December 16th of 2020. 10 community members were in attendance, including the applicant. Staff does listen to these neighborhood meetings and ensures that the applicants are listening to the concerns and attempting to answer questions, which they did in this meeting. Since this case was noticed, Planning Commission and staff have received emails related to this case. There was one email asking the commission to lay this case and to consider other different zoning designations. And then we also received another email in support of the case. And then we also received a phone call from a Jason property owner, just asking if the rezoning would impact their property. Staff just does want to note that the designations that were offered in the email were both residential suburban designations and they are not allowed in the urban tier. Staff and the applicant is here tonight to answer any questions. Thanks so much for your time. Thank you, Mr. King. I appreciate the staff report. We do have a few folks that have signed up to speak so we will open the public hearing. And I'm not sure if everyone is here with us this evening. I do believe the applicant is with us. I think we did a couple other proponents, some who were undecided about what if they were going to speak or not. So I'm gonna call them out in case they would like to speak. And then I think we do have a few individuals who didn't state if they were for or against as well. So I'll just kind of call those in order as we go. But we will start with the applicant and that is Eric Lewis. And if you can give us your name and your mailing address and then you can share your comments please. Yep, sounds good. Is my audio coming through well? You're good. Thank you very much. So Eric Lewis actually go by Shay as well. So Shay Lewis also works. I resided in 1908 Cedar Street, Durham 27707. And first, I think of course, I'd like to thank the planning commission for the opportunity to speak and kind of share my thoughts around the property. I'd also like to thank the planning staff that has provided valuable information throughout this process to assist me in evaluating options that best align with some of my desires. As I mentioned, Eric Lewis, I think a great place to start. I am the resident at the home with my wife and my children. We've been there for six years and plan on residing there for many years to come. I really emphasize that I need to share my commitment and desire to enhance Durham, the community, as well as my surrounding areas. As I kind of mentioned, I'm born and raised in Durham so Durham is my current home and will continue to be for years to come. As you've just heard, the property in 1908 Cedar Street is approximately 0.855 acres. The plan actually submit it, the proposal submit it would potentially divide the lot and create an additional lot on the back facing Kent of 0.36 acres, which is actually equal to an inconvenience. This is greater than surrounding lots in the area. The amount of space allows for, I think, housing options that will align very well to those currently on Kent. Also, just for clarity, my proposal and all plans would have no structural physical impact to the front side of Cedar Street. So that entrance right now, there's a driveway with my current home residing there. So no modifications there based on any potential proposals. The proposed division also intentionally aligns with the property and fence line of my neighbors to the south, who I think there are ones that actually send the email, but have voiced no concerns with this potential rezoning. And again, for me, the uniformity is very important. And I know it's also important to my neighbors again. So I am fully aware of the historic designation of the home and of the neighborhood. And it's important to call out that, I think that historic designation is based on the home structure and not actually the lot size. So dividing the lot would have no impact on historic relevance of the home. And also say, being a Durham native, it kind of be remiss not to touch on briefly the historic alignment of the home and Forest Hills as a neighborhood because as we speak on historic relevance of a community, it's not always limited to just one snapshot. Again, being born here, I've seen many things that align very closely to Durham. And during the neighborhood informational that I hosted to brief the community on the rezoning application, I was asked a couple of times on my vision of Forest Hills and my understanding of historic nature of the home and the neighborhood. As I was mentioning, I responded then and actually, well, you know, kind of my response is actually the same, you know, being a native of Durham, my vision aligns very closely, I think with the growing involving of Durham as a city and inclusive place that continues to grow on a day by day basis. I know we've all seen, we're actually just rated number two place in city to live as well. So, you know, I welcome that growth, change and inclusivity that the city is also embracing. And it's needed I think for our current residents as well as future residents of all that we'll be expecting. But I do want to again, kind of just touch very quickly on the historic nature because again, when we talk about historic pieces, we wanna make sure they're always aligned inclusivity, you know, and as I'm sure a lot of you are aware, there were measures put in place many years back based on covenants to promote exclusivity and deny access to certain parts of Durham. So I'm thankful, of course, of the evolution by way of laws that have helped this neighborhood move into inclusivity, but I also want to make sure that decisions we are made making are not limited by some of those historical components as well. So my proposal, truthfully, is being based in inclusivity and access by way of an additional lot in close proximity to downtown Durham to support the growth of a welcoming and inclusive city. I'll wrap really by saying again, I appreciate the consideration being the resident at 1908 Cedar Street. I am highly motivated to enhance the community and that property in particular. And I truly believe the current lot measuring 0.855 acres is sufficient for 1908 Cedar as well as growth on King Street. So I hope you'll agree. I'll approve classification of RE5 for 1908 Cedar Street. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Next on the list was Allen Avery. And they're a proponent. They were undecided on speaking. I don't see that they are signed up or with us. So I'm gonna move on. And next we had Larry Pollard and then we had Brenda Pollard. So I'll give you each the opportunity to give us your name, your address, and if you agree from us for two minutes or so. So close to that, or you can get either Larry or Brenda off mute to speak. Can you hear me? Can you hear me better now? I'm trying to connect the connection. This is Brenda Pollard. Mr. Chair. That is much better. Much better. You can go ahead. Okay, thank you. And I know this is reverse order. I'm Brenda Pollard. I live in 1902 Cedar Street and have for 36 years. It is home to me. And what we were trying to do is to educate ourselves. We're not opposed. We're not for what we're doing is to understand clearly what the rezoning is about. We were not able to be on the public hearing in December. We were out of town and just unable to do that one. And anyway, not aware of it actually, but still moving forward. And I thank you very much for listening to our comments. And I will add Larry on, who has been at that residence for 73 years. But we are the neighbors. We too share in the concerns of including growing. Durham is the greatest city. And certainly we are recognized nationally. Second in the country where to live. But we also are historic in this neighborhood. And I think it's important to be sure that when we zone or rezone, that we do it with a lot of fault and a lot of education and transparency as our neighbor has expressed. But we wanted to get clarity. Is it, and I think we understand it, it's one home on Kent Street, not a subdivision and maybe staff can answer that. But let me use my time better for the zoning planning commissioners. So let Larry Pollard speak and thank you for your patience with our Wi-Fi. Hi, Brian. Linda. And thank you members of the commission. My name is Larry Pollard, better known as Thomas Lawrence Pollard. And I live at 1902 Cedar Street and have lived there for 73 years, believe it or not. And it's been a wonderful place to grow up and live and enjoy. And we've welcomed in new neighbors and we've certainly lost a lot of older neighbors. But all in all, the neighborhood has been a wonderful place to live and to either raise a family or to grow up in the family and enjoy. I wanted to come down and speak at the meeting, mainly because I did not know of the meeting on December 16th. I did receive a letter from the applicant and I appreciated that. And I have also had personal contact with him expressing his willingness to talk about this particular application. And I guess the months just flew by either with COVID or other things and being out of state for a while. But now I'm here. And I spoke with Mr. Couture the other day about it. And I did want to speak not necessarily to oppose this because I believe that Mr. Lewis is a fine, fine neighbor. And I'm very proud to have him as my neighbor and his family. And they have three wonderful boys and he has a lovely wife and we are very, very happy with our neighbors. But I wanted to call and come in and listen to what was going on with the application so that I am familiar with it as it relates to my property, which is next door. And we are not trying to oppose in any way for anything that we're here listening to the application. We want to support the Shea and his family. But at the same time, we want to be knowledgeable about what's going on in our neighborhood and how it does affect our property next door, not just now, but in the future. So that is our reason for being here tonight and to speak on it. And it's been definitely enlightening to me in this particular area. So all in all, from what I've heard, I don't have problems with it. Like I said, I'm just educating myself. And I look forward to talking with Mr. Lewis more about it. And as I said, he's offered that to me and I'd love to keep in touch with him about it and wish everyone there in his residence and also on Cedar Street the very best. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thanks to both of you. I really appreciate your engagement and your comments this evening. That's everyone who signed up who was interested in speaking. As always, I want to give the opportunity if anyone else would like to speak on this item while the public hearing is still open. You can hit the raise hand feature. If you're on Zoom, you can press star nine if you have called in. And I do see Ellen Pless has raised her hand. Ms. Pless, thanks for being with us and we'll get you off of you. And you can have two minutes for your comments. Yes, thank you very much, commission. I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. My name's Ellen Pless and I reside at 706 East Forest Hills Boulevard in obviously at Forest Hills. And I've been here for I guess 23 years at this point. I wanted to call in. I did send in a letter to the commission. Some of those letters bounced back to me, however, through a mail beam. And so I'm not sure if the email actually reached everyone who is seated on this case today. I am the individual who is asking for a delay in this case so that there could be some additional inclusive meetings between the property owners, preferably both of them, the neighborhood planning staff and some persons involved with community historic preservation. Forest Hills has worked really hard as a community for the last four years now to try and get the city of Durham to work with us with respect to community-based planning for our National Historic District. A number of those efforts have been frustrated over time and at this point, we find ourselves presented with this case which is an RS-20 property. Forest Hills generally is not defined by RU-5. We were developed as Durham's first suburban neighborhood. We have curvilinear streets. We do not have all neat little square lots of land. We were Durham's first automotive suburb and as such our layout is based on that. And I'm really interested in trying to get a dialogue going with regard to what Durham's intention is for our neighborhood. Our attempts to run that conversation have been sidelined over and over again. I hear in this case talks that there is an intention for a single family house to be built should this action be approved. I do not however see that there is any sort of commitment to that regard. And it's that difference between intention versus commitment within a National Historic District that has me concerned. I do believe that North Carolina session law, I believe it's 2015-86, allows for the development of various design standards within National Historic Districts, not just local historic districts. And if there could be more discussion if RS-10 zoning, which would be a natural fit for this project, if that cannot be respected in this case due to changes in zoning code here locally, could we please at least get a dialogue going so that these property owners could go ahead and build their desired intended single family home. But without putting a brand new hole, punching a hole of RU-5 right in the middle of our historic district, which is RS-20 and RS-10. So this is a precedent setting case. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. Thank you. And again, if anyone else would like to speak, you can digitally raise your hand and we will provide you the opportunity to speak. So there were no speakers. We're gonna close the public hearing. Commissioners, it's back to you. Any comments, questions? Commissioner Cease. Sure, well, thank you. And for the comments that everyone who spoke from the public that they've shared with us, I wanted to say that, first of all, I acknowledge that I know the applicant and the family well. I also know the site fairly well. And I think there are a number of issues to point out. First of all, just from the standpoint of Durham moving forward in facing the challenges that we have with regards to growth, with regards to equity, with regards to housing, I would like to encourage everyone, particularly the elected officials, to go back and listen to what the applicant stated, to what Mr. Lewis stated at the outset. I thought his description of their long history here in Durham as understanding of the historic district, as understanding of the significance of the historic structure and the difference between that and the zoning was an important point, is incredibly well stated. And then the concerns with regards to being open and welcoming and being a part of that growth rather than coding a particular neighborhood in ether and preserving it as a snapshot in time. And so I thought it was just incredibly well articulated. So I applaud Shea on stating it in the way that he did. I hope others will go back at the recording of this and listen to that because it's relevant in a lot of ways well beyond this particular case. Also, I think just from the standpoint of planning processes in the department, we've got an application here from an individual landowner to do something that's fairly straightforward, very simple on an individual lot. But the wherewithal or the capacity for many Durham residents to do that with land that they may have owned for a long time is quite limited. It's a barrier and a procedural barrier for someone to go through the steps that this applicant has done to do simply this one rezoning application. And so I'd like to encourage staff to think about ways in which particularly as we go through updates to the comprehensive plan, updates to the engagement plan, think about ways in which we can be more accommodating of small scale planning requests. I'm not saying that to automate the process in any way, but to alter the process perhaps in a way that supports individual applicants who are seeking to do something that both enhances their land and helps address a broader needs within the community. So I just wanted to make those two points. The proposal is very straightforward to me, it seems. But I'll see if I see that there are some other commissioners who want to speak, I'll let others speak and then maybe I'll come back and add a few comments as well, if that's okay. Absolutely, thanks commissioners. Next is commissioner Morgan. Thank you, chair. I just have one question for staff. I was reading through Ms. Pless's email to us about the one question of why the zoning is not set up to go with RS10 versus RU5. When I look at the flum and I look at some of the context map there, she makes a good point that it is gonna be a little bit different than their surrounding neighborhood. So I was curious, it seemed like that the planning department had advised the applicant to go with an RU5 designation. Can I ask staff for that question? Definitely, yeah, that is a great question. And I think as straightforward as this case is, this kind of speaks to kind of what the future land use map is versus zoning. That's a guiding vision for what development should or look like or feel or be in the future. And so it's an urban tier location with a medium density residential future land use map designation. And because of that, the existing zoning is not aligning with that flum, right? It was designated as such, but you can't do residential suburban zoning and future land use of this designation. And so residential urban five is what we recommended is because it's a zoning that fits within that future land use map designation. It helps guide us and move us towards that inclusive growth and development that Shea is offering. Okay, so it makes sense that we were in the urban tier and not in the suburban tier. So it'd be inconsistent to go with an RS 10. And as I made as a Michael stop with playing department, also the ordinance doesn't allow for new RS zoning changes in the urban tier. So the applicants options were limited to RU districts in terms of what he was looking to do. Okay, that was kind of a question that was brought up by some of the folks in the public here. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Durkin, you're next. I just wanted to voice my support for this. I think it's rare that there's a situation where there's a through lot where you could divide it in half and have e-grass on two different streets. And I just think it's, I like the opportunity that they're taking to do that. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Cameron. I don't know why it took me so long to unmute. Hey, good evening. So I just want to offer my support. I do know the family as well. And this is the future land use designation that it increases the density in the middle of Durham as it is right now. It's an urban area. It is not in the past when it was designed to be a suburban neighborhood dividing large lots and increasing the housing options. And Durham is exactly what many Durhamites are trying to figure out what to do. And so this just aligns with the goals that we have. I want our city to look. So I just again, wanted to support that. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. Yeah. I don't know the applicant. So I think I'm in the minority here. I definitely, I rode my bike down to this property yesterday to take a look. And it's a pretty wide lot. I think it's like, I don't actually know 80 to 100 feet. So I definitely think and as Commissioner Durkin pointed out it's a double-sided lot with egress and ingress and egress on both sides of it. And so it's, it definitely makes sense to divide the lot. To me, I just want to point something out. And this is something that Commissioner Seese was getting to is that to me, this is a perfect example of where if we had a system of neighborhood planning and a system of small area planning that was ongoing in the city of Durham that looked at neighborhoods more comprehensively and engaged people along the way that sites like these I think would come up as opportunity areas. I don't find a giant new house in Forest Hills particularly inclusive and forward moving. I would love to see on a lot this big on in a location with pretty good access to green space, pretty good access to commercial areas. Something more old, frankly, a quadruplex or something even higher and something that incorporates an affordable housing unit or two. I think that if we had sort of a neighborhood planning process and a system of neighborhood planning in Durham we would be able to find better ways of incorporating density into neighborhoods in a way that is compatible and supported by the community itself and the neighborhood itself and sort of find the best of both worlds where people can both be engaged in the process of shaping their neighborhoods in the world around them and we can achieve meaningful density and not just sort of like one more big house here one more big house there. So that's all I'm gonna say. As I mentioned, I support a change here where the lot can be split but I also think that this is a missed opportunity and a part of a sort of a larger systemic issue that needs to be addressed. Thank you. Any other commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Cease, are you looking to speak a second time? Yeah, if I could just real quickly to commissioner Becker's point, I agree with the sentiment that from a larger scale planning perspective, having the opportunity to be more bold in the words that commissioner Becker used would be a good thing. And I think this is a site that is suitable for it given the Kent Street frontage in particular. But on the other hand, I think it's also a very pragmatic and reasonable proposition that the African has brought forward. There are, I think in the text, there was a question perhaps from the neighborhood meeting regarding ADUs. If those were allowed, they are. It's not the applicant's intent. There are a lot of ways to parse out details. And I think that first and foremost, addressing the Kent Street frontage and being consistent with what staff has identified as the means by which to allow the subdivision, subdividing the parcel into two is a perfectly reasonable proposition. The last thing I'll add, and this is an attempt hopefully to address some of the sentiments that we heard from the public members who were speaking earlier is about the nature of the neighborhood. And as Mr. Lewis pointed out, this rezoning designation doesn't change the house one way or the other. It's about the land or the size of the parcel. But on the other hand, there was a reference to Forest Hills being a curvilinear large lot subdivision. And I think that leaves out a large chunk of Forest Hills.  And so in that sense, what's being proposed for this property is more consistent with what's directly adjacent to it on three of the four sides for sure. So I'm certainly in support of it. Thank you. No one else is asking to speak. So this would be the appropriate time for a motion. Chair, regarding case number Z21, quadruple zero one, 1908 Cedar Street. I move that we send this to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Thank you. Moved by Commissioner Mendoza, seconded by Commissioner Cameron and we'll have the roll call vote. All right, take a minute on mute. And Mendoza? Yes. Baker? Yes. Busby? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Cut right? Yes. Durkin? Yes. Herod? Yes. Low? Yes. Commissioner McIver had to leave the meeting so he's gone. Morgan? Yes. Cease? Yes. And Commissioner Williams? Yes. Okay, thank you. It's unanimous. Thank you. We have two remaining items under new business for tonight. And the first is the actual vote this evening on the planning commission block length text amendment resolution. You'll recall that Commissioner Baker has been chairing the committee that has brought forward this recommendation. We had a good presentation at last month's meeting. We wanted to have the presentation and then have a vote just to have full public transparency on the item. Commissioner Baker, if there's anything else you'd like to note, you're welcome to do so. But I think we're at the point where we can have the vote. And Grace, you might just help me out here. Do we need a motion and a second or this is coming from the committee and do we just need a second? What's the right person? You would treat it like any other action. You need a motion and a second to move it. Okay. Well, Commissioner Baker, I'm gonna give you the, feel free to make any quick remarks but then I'll let you make the motion and I'm sure you'll get a second. Yeah, thanks.  I just would encourage folks to take a look at the item. Just very briefly, so we saw this item last month. I did a little presentation then. Again, this is not a vote on the actual draft amendment itself. This is a vote on the resolution to initiate a text amendment to the unified development ordinance. Something we have never done before on the planning commission. So if the resolution passes, the draft text amendment would be reviewed, would go to the planning department and be reviewed by staff. Staff would make or propose whatever changes they deem necessary. And then the text amendment would come back to us and would return to the planning commission. We would make a recommendation and the recommendation would proceed to the elected officials. So this resolution came out of many, many months of work with the policy committee, which is myself, Commissioner Almondolia and Commissioner Carmen Williams. We also had three other members including Tom Miller and there are also a couple other folks who have expressed interest to me in the work of the committee. The committee was formed to look into the UDO and various planning issues more broadly and be a little bit more proactive about making necessary changes or recommendations to advance sustainability and equity goals. The committee started off by serving planning commissioners at large and then asked about comprehensive plan goals and policies and then it developed a list of projects, one of which included enhancing street connectivity in new developments. The other, some of the other items included transit-oriented building design standards, new mixed-use walkable zoning districts, public park dedication requirements and a few other items. And so this one is in regard to block length requirements. I just wanna read very briefly a paragraph from the Journal of the American Planning Association from just a few months ago. It's about the evolution of the American street network planning and design. The quote is, hundreds of studies in recent decades have identified the role that street network design plays in child behavior, public health and environmental sustainability. Traditional patterns such as fine grain interconnected grids are associated with higher rates of active transportation and less driving. But after a century of building cities around the spatial logic of the automobile, planners today face car-oriented crises in public safety, physical inactivity, traffic congestion and rising environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This is of enormous importance to the planning practice which sits at a critical leverage point to shape these outcomes. And that's from the Journal of the American Planning Association. So what exactly is before us today? Again, you already saw this last month. First we have the resolution. The resolution cites relevant sections of the UDO and state statutes and the comprehensive plan. It cites the peer reviewed planning literature that I just referenced. And then there are references to what other places are doing and mentions that maximum block lengths are actually quite frequently proffered by developers these days. The next item is the actual recommended language. We went through several iterations of this on the policy committee for how the UDO should be amended. We recommend adding a subsection 13.6.3. That language proposes flexibility and tailoring of block lengths based on which zoning district the block length is being created in. It proposes a maximum block length, a maximum average block length and a maximum block perimeter. Then it proposes numerous situations where the block length would actually not apply. So, you know, if there are steep slopes or streams or wetlands or railroad rights away or whatever, you simply not able to meet the block length requirement. You wouldn't be required to meet the block length requirement. And then the proposal also includes a provision to ensure that on longer blocks that there is a cut through on the block for pedestrian connectivity. And lastly, I just wanna say thank you to everyone on the committee, Tom, Carmen, Austin and frankly, everyone else who's had a hand in this. We've worked really hard with staff, members of the community, all the commissioners, you know, provided their input. This is something, again, that we've never done before. I hope that we do it again. I hope that the Planning Commission feels empowered and I hope that we're successful in moving through this process. And I hope that you'll support it and happy to answer any questions that you might have. Commissioner Mayer, I think you can make the motion and we'll get a second and I think we're good to vote. Okay, so I think that the motion would be to move to adopt the resolution. Grace, is that right? Yes, that's correct. Okay, that's the motion. Yes, you wanna move to adopt the PC resolution for us on the agenda. So you wanna move to adopt the PC block length text amendment resolution. Okay, so moved, as stated by Grace. Second. Great, moved by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Harrod and we'll have the roll call vote. Okay, Emondoya. Yes. Baker. Yes. Busby. Yes. Cameron. Yes. Cutwright. Yes. Durkin. Yes. Harrod. Yes. Lowe. Yes. Morgan. Yes. Cease. Yes. And Williams. Well, passes unanimously. Thank you and thank you in particular to the committee members who spent a lot of time working on this really excited to see this move forward and look forward to seeing this coming back to the commission when it's ready to take the next step. So our final item this evening is the election of a vice chairperson.  We need to elect a vice chair tonight. Two things that are worth noting and then I'll turn it over to Grace. The first is this is to complete the end of the current term. So this will be from now through September. And in September, we have our annual vote for chair and vice chair. And then the second is just a reminder that the rules of procedure for the planning commission require that we have always, we always have one city appointee and one county appointee serving together as chair and vice chair, I'm a city appointee. So we will need a county appointee to serve as the vice chair to finish this year's term. And with that, I will open the floor for nominations. So there's kind of a two-part process. Anyone is welcome to put forward a name for nomination to be considered. And then when we close the nominations then we'll turn it over to Grace who will run the vote process. So I'll open it up for any names for consideration. Feel free to raise your hand virtually or actually raise your hand and I'll recognize you. Commissioner Lowell. Yes, I just have a question of clarity. I'm not sure who are the county appointees that I'm not sure who would nominate I wanted to decide myself. And I'm not available to do it, but what other county appointees? Commissioner Lowell, I can answer that question. Commissioner Morgan is a county appointee. Commissioner MacIver is a county appointee. The two new commissioners that are not on the meeting are both county appointees, Zoe Williams and Katie Rose Levin. I believe Mr. Amondoya is a county appointee. And there should be another one. Commissioner Baker. Commissioner Baker. I don't have my roster in front of me. I knew there was one more, says Commissioner Baker. I keep thinking he's city, but he's county. Yep. Thank you. Well, armed with that information, I would like to nominate Commissioner Morgan. And there can be multiple nominations. I would like to nominate Commissioner Baker. Are there any other nominations on the floor before we go to vote on the two nominations that we've received? We have a nomination for David Morgan and a nomination for Nate Baker. And Grace, the one thing I do want to do is, these are always, these are technical term, these are always a little wacky, you know, when you're in the middle of a year. So I did want to give both Commissioner Morgan and Baker the opportunity to let us know, are you interested, are you willing to serve? I don't think we want to have, be voting on someone who does not have the interest or the ability to serve in a role that we're about to vote on. Excellent observation. And it would be a very temporary until September. You could always test drive it and then ditch it in September if you're not happy. But yeah, so if you would, yes, let us know before we call a vote. And before we do that, Commissioner Durkin, I want to recognize you, you've got your hand raised. Yeah, I was going to ask also, if there was a county appointee that is interested in serving as vice chair, but was not nominated because no one knows if they're interested, if you can raise your hand or let us know, then I'd be happy to nominate you as well. No disrespect whatsoever to commissioners, Morgan and Baker, but if someone else was interested, I'd be happy to put their name forward since it is a wacky kind of process. I'm going to nominate Amind Ali. This is the first time in my experience that there has been more than one nominee, so. Well, usually we get to confer before the meeting starts in person, but we don't get that opportunity in this setting. So for those of you that have only been joining by Zoom in the last 18 months or so, that is usually what happens. Yes, this environment makes it a little different. So yeah, but was there anyone else that was interested per Ms. Durkin's request? If there's someone else interested, please raise your hand. We have three nominations on the floor, and I will just take the votes in order that I receive the nominations unless I'm told differently. Well, and I would like to say you're welcome to withdraw your nomination. The reason I thought about this was right after commissioner Morgan being nominated, he nominated someone else, which is very generous, but I also want to make sure that if you're not interested in serving, I don't want you having your name put forward. You can ask that. I would rather one of the other two nominees be elected. So I would withdraw. Okay, so would you like to, you would like to withdraw your name from consideration right now? Okay. Thank you. Okay, but you should feel very honored that you were nominated. I'm gonna withdraw my name as well as a rabble-roser and support commissioner Amandolia. Okay, so we now have one name on the floor that's been nominated, Austin Amandolia. And without any further ado, if we don't have any other comments, I'll take a vote on that at this time unless someone else has a comment before we vote. Amandolia, are you okay with that? Just gonna say, I could be really problematic right now and get us back to square one. I was just trying to move forward before he could say anything, but anyway. No, I am interested and willing to serve, especially for such a nice little test drive. It is a perfect test run to be honest with, so if someone's willing to do it, we are more than happy to have you do this and we'll work with you and help you and support you as much as we can. So, all right, so can I get a, so let's see, can I get a vote on Austin Amandolia for to serve as vice-chair until September when we would have our next election? I'm not gonna call on Amandolia to vote for himself, so Commissioner Baker? Yes. Chair Busby? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Cut right? Yes. Durkin? Yes. Herod? Yes. Low? Yes. McIver left the meeting. Morgan? Absolutely. Okay, Cease? Yes. And Commissioner Williams? Yes. Passes unanimously. Congratulations, Austin Amandolia. You are the new vice-chair of planning commission. Thank you all. I really appreciate, appreciate all's confidence. Yeah, thanks for being willing to serve. I'm gonna be out in August and September. You're gonna do a great job. I might have to watch some more meetings to, you know, practice between now and then, but sure. I look forward to working with you. The staff will certainly support you the way we can. Yeah. So, that's it for tonight. I was just gonna mention between now and our next meeting on August 10th, the staff, I noted this last month, but I think we're gonna be working through July before August to get this worked out. The staff is working to put together a series of comprehensive plan policy working groups on a range of different issues and would like the planning commission to ideally have at least one representative on each of those different commissions. And so we'll be sending out some information. We'll certainly be looking for volunteers if you're interested. But if we don't have enough people to fill the different working groups, I'll be working with staff to just reach out to individuals as well. But I hope commissioners will be willing to serve on the different commissions. And again, I don't have the details right in front of me, but there are five or six different working groups. And it would be fantastic if we had at least one commissioner serving on each of those. Is that work move forward to keep the comprehensive plan work moving forward? Anything else for this evening from any other commissioners? All right, we're hearing none. The meeting's adjourned. Thanks everyone, have a great night. Thanks everyone. Thanks for participating in the vice chair election. Good night. Good night. Bye y'all.


Hello everyone. I would like to congratulate Inspiring Girls for the launch of the Video Hub. You may wonder why I am speaking today, and it is simple. I am convinced that by working together with Inspiring Girls, we can make meaningful change to eliminate gender stereotypes, which at the end curtail the ambitions of girls. We should aim to live in a society where girls like you can't be big. And this is especially true in technology where women traditionally haven't had the role or recognition that they deserve. Some of you may not know that one of the first computer programmers in the world was a woman, Ada Lovelace, that one of the founders of the basic coding language was a woman, Sister Mary Kenneth, that the person who introduced computers to NASA and calculated the trajectory of the Apollo 11 to the moon was a woman, Catherine Johnson, that an actress helped invent the system that gave way to Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and GPS, Hedy Lamar, or that every time you use Google Maps or any app with GPS is thanks to the work of a woman, Gladys Maywest. These are just some examples of extraordinary leaders whose contribution to technology was a breakthrough, and yet often went unrecognized. Society needs more examples like this, more women in leadership that serve as role models to you. The inspiring girls' hub is a great example of an innovative digital platform to address the specific issue of a lack of diverse role models for girls, and we are very happy to contribute. At Telephony Guy we have ambitious targets to ensure a greater number of women in management roles by 2020. But diversity for us is much more than statistics. It is above all inclusion. It is about fostering a culture of work in which the uniqueness of beliefs, backgrounds and capabilities help us make a better company. In other words, we believe that diversity generates value for companies and for society. We firmly believe that people give purpose to technology and not the other way around, and that's why we want to make sure girls like you play a key role in this unique moment in human history. We hope that some of the girls in the room today might become one-day leaders in Telephony Guy. Count on us. Thank you.