Planning Commission · Regular Meeting · April 11, 2023

Thank you and may we have roll call. Sharon modulia here Vice chair Cameron here commissioner Baker let us know he'd be gone tonight as did commissioner cutwright commissioner shagaris here commissioner MacGyver commissioner Morgan here commissioner cease here commissioner Trapp here commissioner Valentine here commissioner Carmen Williams here and commissioner Zuri Williams let us know she will not be here tonight thank you okay with that we will move to our first agenda item which is the approval of the minutes and consistency statements from the March 14 2023 meeting does anyone have any comments or adjustments proposed adjustments to those minutes motion to approve Mr chair thank you I have a motion can I get a second I could move by commissioner Trapp seconded by commissioner Valentine is there any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor please say aye aye aye all the posts are the same right motion passes unanimously I don't think we have any adjustments to the agenda tonight Alexander justifinity we do not great thank you so with that.

We will move into our public hearings for the night Alexander do you all need to say anything on the first case yeah we were just going to say that the first case case z 2217 1301 doc Nichols Road it was noticed for the public hearing however the applicant with withdrew the case formally since it was noticed so that won't be heard tonight or in the future it would have to come back as a new case great thank you so just to repeat we will not be hearing case z22 triple zero 17. tonight it was withdrawn by the applicant we will move on to case number two on the agenda which is case z22 triple zero 22.

631 and 633 Clayton Road will begin with the staff presentation and staff just wants to State for the record that all public hearing items were noticed in accordance with state and local laws and affidavits of those notices are available from the planning department.

Yeah thank you Aaron Kane with the planning department the first case before you tonight is z22000 22 631 and 633 Clayton Road this property is located at 633 and 631 Clayton Road in totals 7.706 Acres the existing zoning is residential suburban 20. and the applicant is proposing a change to residential Suburban multi-family with a development plan to allow for up to 61 townhouses to be constructed the site is currently in the county and this case is associated with the annexation case bdg 2200016 the existing future land use map designation is low density residential the proposed residential Suburban multi-family with a development plan zoning is not consistent with the low density residential flum designation if approved staff recommends a change of the flood to low medium density residential which is four to eight dwelling units per acre finally the site lot does lie within the fjb Watershed protection overlay.

The zoning cortex map is shown before you the existing zoning again is residential Suburban 20 to the east this site is surrounded by residential Suburban 10 zoning and to the south and east the site is surrounded by rs20 to the north and east there is rural residential zoning. As you can see on the aerial map before you the site mostly is surrounded by single-family residential though Southern High School is across the street. Before you are the proposed conditions on the development plan there are no streams or Wetlands present on the site the majority of the site is bounded by a minimum 30 foot 0.6 opacity project boundary buffer opposite the rural residential district of 50 foot 0.8 capacity buffer is proposed along Clayton Road.

There are several notable comments commitments to the development plan a maximum of 61 townhouses are proposed a minimum of nine of those townhouses will be income restricted and only available to those households at 80 percent of Ami or less for a 30-year period a 10-foot shared use path along the full Frontage of the site on the west side of Clayton Road is proposed and as I mentioned before a 0.6 opacity buffer is provided along the portions of that it join the rs-20 zoning District a neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with Udo requirements on February 28 2022 16 community members were in attendance and a second meeting was held on October 3rd 2022.

No social pinpoint comments have been received in relation to this case transportation did request additional sidewalk to address gaps in the sidewalk system along the west side of Clayton Road but that request has not been fulfilled staff determines that this request is consistent with the draft Place type map the comprehensive plan and other ordinances and policies The Proposal is in the public interest due to the increasing market rate and income restricted housing Supply it would provide to Durham with that staff and the applicant are available for any questions you may have thank you okay we are going to open the public hearing we'll begin with a presentation from the applicant the applicant will have 10 minutes to provide any opening remarks thank you chairman Amendola Vice chair Cameron members of the Planning Commission is an honor to be here tonight it's my first time appearing in front of you all I my name is Adam Stallings I'm from Martin and Gifford Law Firm I live at 539 power plant Circle in Winston-Salem.

I watched some of the past YouTube public hearings trying to make sure that I comply with how you all do things I feel like I'm in front of some famous people because I was watching on my TV so tonight I'm here on behalf of the applicant and we've got we've got a proposed plan that started out from taking it to rs20 which is what it is now to RS10 and fortunately by working my folks working with the staff you know a new idea was was put out there and based on some of the other hearings that I've kind of watched you all have with other rezoning applications I'm happy we're here tonight where we're offering and part of this development is going to have the income restricted housing and so you know especially thinking back when I was in school in Wake County and I was being bussed from one side of Raleigh to the other side of Raleigh it would have been great if there was more housing because.

Really there wasn't any housing where they built the school that I went to so we think that's a big plus my folks who are here we got the applicants president who is Peter ditto I've worked with him for many years he's a builder in the area he's I've seen him build homes in in the very affordable but not you know right in the middle range and many town homes and I think what he does in general is give people the Aesthetics that you normally don't get you know in middle area it seemed like you have to spend a whole heck of a lot of money for the things not to look so cookie cutter we've also got our Engineers here tonight it's veteran Engineering Associates as a firm right here in Durham and we got Tom cageries and Michael Joseph his colleague who were available and we can answer any questions you all have but we think that you know despite you can see the the timeline for this is a it's a.

Complicated long process we work closely with the city but we think it's a simple one when you get down to it which is just providing more Housing close to schools in this area we don't think you know based on the the findings and the investigations we've done that the impact to transportation is going to put it anywhere near its capacity and we think it it really does fit with the plan you all have set forth for how you want the development to go in the county so that's that's all I've got for now and we'll be happy to answer questions later thank you thank you.

We'll now turn to any public comment.

I see one person signed up this might be just the applicant Quincy Ratcliffe okay we've got one person signed up in person you'll have two minutes to provide your comments and then we'll turn to any Zoom participants after that so if you are in the zoom meeting and hoping to speak on this item please go ahead and start raising your hand to queue yourself up good evening my name is Quincy Radcliffe and I reside at 3219 Woodland Park Road that was my mother's home she built it in 1990. and she has since passed away and my sister and I are now the home owners I'm going to speak in regards of myself as well as some of my neighbors many of us many of the neighbors could not attend tonight but we are not against the growth we have come to a realization that growth is an inevitable for Durham so we have met with them with the developer and we have voice our our concerns and we have voiceout concerns here.

On numerous occasions the excessive growth of our our area has the is is to the point where we cannot get out of our driveways and reference to Clayton Road which is where they're trying to put these town homes it is beyond what we're seeking we would like for it to stay residential RS 20 or 10 which is single family detach instead of town homes we are trying to work with them but Townhomes would not fit into what we have at this time or it would not fit this subdivision will be directly across from Southern High School and I don't know how many of you may already know Clayton Clayton Clayton Road at a certain time when the high school is in is impossible to get in and out of the subdivisions there have been numerous accidents along that that road and we have talked to the developer and made some requests but the town homes are not what we are seeking or what we would like to see in our area.

And yes we do thank you that you are including housing for pardon my words for lower income per people of lower income persons we appreciate that however it will be nice if somebody will take the time to drive through the Northeast Central Durham area and see how infrastructure is compacted and we just at this time the sidewalks are not in and yes thank you for the willingness of of being accommodating our requests to build sidewalks however there are so many other things that we have to look into Focus such as the wetlands your 10 minutes are up thank you thank you is there anyone else wishing to speak in person on this case seeing none we're going to turn to zoom participants so we have two folks that have their hand raised we'll start with Jacqueline Haley.

Jacqueline are you able to unmute yourself. Foreign. Let's go to Pam Williams. Good afternoon I feel a little strange talking of the phone again but my name is Pam Williams 2130 Adventure trail Durham North Carolina you I'd like to command the developer or provide the 30 feet boundary around the property for screening but I would also like to ask if any of that 30 feet boundary will that be natural boundary where they do not remove the trees I think it's important to keep the the mature trees as many of them as possible not only along the property lines for to Shield the single families from the town homes I'm going to assume the town homes are going to be two or three stories I'm not sure if you could just let us know that but I would like for as many mature trees to remain as possible and I would ask like to ask them to to do that also I want to find out if they're going to be.

Following the new text erosion and sediment and ridge control takes Amendment for to help keep follow the storm water on site as much as possible because this is in little Lick Creek which I believe it's in little lit Creek which is already impaired that's all thank you thank you okay we're going to try Jacqueline Haley again can you hear me yes I live at 11 Meadowcrest Drive which Clayton Road is right behind I know we received this and I'm trying to figure out how this affect my property.

Thanks Jacqueline if you have any additional comments on the case now is your time to make those comments other than that we will ask questions of the applicant momentarily okay go ahead because I have to say evident you guys can't hear me you know. Okay is there anyone else hoping to speak on this case tonight if you would like to speak please come if you're in person please come to the podium state your name and address and you'll have two minutes to provide comments.

Good evening my name is Lynnwood Jones I also live in Twin Lakes Community with Quincy the point I was like to get brought up was we had spoken to the city I guess it was the DMV not DMV a highway department about additional lights at the intersection of Clayton Road and cheek Road and with the density my wife and I have talked we think there may also be the need for an additional light where Woodland Park intersects with Clayton Road as Quincy was saying getting in and out during football games during the morning traffic and evening traffic when the students are being transferred in and out is probably one of the most pressing points with traffic safety that's it thank you thank you is there anyone else looking to speak on this case it's gone to the podium.

Hello good evening my name is danitra Wiggins I live at 629 Clayton Road which is neighboring those two acres I still want to talk about the traffic I've experienced an accident in front of my house where people are running the stop sign experiencing traffic at the end of Clayton Road with cheek where people are trying to turn on cheek Road and there's way too many different housings and too much traffic and a left turning lane only into that development is not enough there has to be a stoplight I know you have to go with the ncdot with that but that is mostly Our concern also the fact that this is a childhood home that has been there for over 40 years and we've been in the county and we really do not want to be in the city and that's all I want to say thank you thank you anyone else looking to speak on this case tonight.

Okay. Okay so I want to turn to the applicant you had about eight minutes left of your time and there were a few questions that I like to go ahead and get your answers to one was on the 30-foot buffer that was intended to be a natural buffer what that buffer is looking like the second was if you all intend to follow the erosion and sediment control control amendment that was recently passed which staff may also speak to that I can't remember if that's gone through all the way yet or if that's yes it's already gone through so does that mean this case will need to follow that.

Chairman amendolia yeah go for it we will meet it and exceed it in this case whether we're required to or not okay that is helpful Alexander Cahill planning department so it was passed by both governing bodies however there is one more layer of approval it has to go to this state erosion sediment control board which will happen in May some of the requirements if they are looking to meet that would be the double row silt fence and the use of flocculents are those those aren't currently reflected and the profits are they they are not okay but you're saying you are committing to those okay great and so on the 30-foot buffer can you speak a little bit to that if you look at the plans you'll see that there are some natural areas where there's tree preservation in the other areas I'm you know it's probably not going to be left and I think because we're exceeding the opacity and the buffer I think we're not going to be able to leave the natural.

Stuff which you know has a bit less density anyway but you know we're we're certainly willing to work with the city and having it look as nice and you know ensure that we're not coming in there making the area looked completely different we want to improve things okay thank you and then Arlene can I ask you a question on some of the transportation stuff so we got a question about lighting at the intersection of cheek and Clayton which is fairly far from this site and then also at Woodland Park and Clayton Road do you know of any planned lighting improvements to either of those intersections earlene Thomas transportation department I am not aware of any scheduled improvements to add street lights at either of those intersections there is a process for asking for those intersections to be evaluated for the installation of a street light and that would just come through our department or through a service ticket with Durham one call which would be routed into a transportation okay and so to clarify is.

There a process for those lighting improvements to be committed through a rezoning case only if a traffic study is required do can we require off-site improvements which those would be but this development is far below the threshold for requiring a traffic study so we would you know only of course install one if it was warranted and approved by dot okay thank you so just to reiterate for folks who expressed concern about some of the lighting at those intersections you can request that through the Durham One Call Center I do not know the phone number for that off the top of my head but if you file a request through that that will get passed through to Department of Transportation and they will evaluate whether or not that's those intersections qualify for those upgrades okay I'm going to turn it over to commissioner question and comment commissioner Morgan I have a question for staff there was another application nearby that was bounded by meadowcroft at Woodland Park and we spend a lot of time talking about.

It do we have any information on there was a profit that was made by that particular applicant to put a sidewalk in all the way to South High School Southern High School so I was wondering is that case still active or did that get approved and where was the sidewalk that they had proffered. Thomas transportation again I do recall that case they proffered off-site sidewalk it's basically on the school side okay so to the north so the proper here would be on the west side of that of that road correct but only along the site Frontage they did not proffer the off-site piece where a gap would would exist that would take you down to the Freeman Road intersection okay let's run that by me again wherever that would be I'm sorry so this application it would be constructing the 10-foot shared path only along their site Frontage on the West Side yes Clayton and then the other proper was all the way to South High School Southern High School but on the east.

Side correct okay and I guess there was some concern about traffic at that point in time and and getting around that bend and everything like that so I do remember that okay thank you any I guess that'll be my comments there I'll commissioner Carmen Williams thank you chair edmondolia thank you very much for your presentation and this site is is complicated so I applaud you for wanting to build any what is seemingly a corner of acreage and the problem with wanting to keep natural tree buffer is the fact that it becomes impossible when there's Town Homes because you have to mask great in order to establish that the 30-foot buffer is seemingly helpful in terms of helping to protect the residents the issue I have with this site is that there's one access point to turn in and to turn out and Southern Durham is increasing in population size every year and so much so that what seems like it would be convenient to the school systems now will no longer exist.

Because those redistricting lines are about to happen they're about to change and also in terms of safety the quality of life for persons living here at any point in time including the neighborhood is going to change with this development because of the size of it and what it's going to take to get in and get out throughout the day and just maneuvering with loading and unloading of of soil and back filling and pouring of slabs and building materials and delivery and having a place to leave those materials for the building process and as we're trying to address density the thing that caught me the most about this presentation was slide 14 when I pulled it up I can't even tell what streets are which because there's so many streets in this one area so I think that it's a good idea in a bad location because we time and time again have to weigh the safety of the community and the safety of the kids that are walking and leaving these schools and by no.

Means is it your problem at all as far as sidewalks I understand I see sidewalks all the time to go to woods and I don't understand why they're there however I think that because this site exists it makes the most sense to create something else in this area that better serves the community and opposed to serving potential future residents because there are no plans that I'm aware of to improve Clayton Road and just off the study of the map in general there are at least eight other subdivisions that dump into Clayton Road and they don't really go anywhere else so they don't take you from Clayton Road to 98 to Stallings or to another portion they all just kind of go they circle around cul-de-sacs and then they dump back into Clayton and then you've got school buses and it would be different possibly if this was an elementary school or a middle school but now you have high schoolers that are driving right so we know what that's like at.

Least for me I was my parents nightmare when I was driving so with that I just think that again it's a really good plan and it's in a difficult area and that needs to be commended I just think that the placement of it is not going to help the greater cause of the impacts of this neighborhood until we as a City address the issues with transportation and infrastructure that obviously need to be put in place so developments like this can make sense those are my comments thank you other questions are coming it's commissioner Valentine yes I was wondering if you could speak to the affordability Provisions in your in your project with respect to the number of units and also you had talked about this project offering specific amenities that would normally be something that you would see in these types of projects if you could address that and finally one of the the community members said that she or at least she seemed to appear that they've had a good working relationship.

With regards to engagement which is good but she talked about Townhomes not being something that the immediate Community was interested in maybe you could speak to what those conversations have been like well so so I was not at the the public meetings so I may have one of my colleagues over here speak to that as far as the Aesthetics if you look at the staff's report some of the the the way the roof is going to be done differently than than like a straight across the facade you know the the front elevations the siding's different things like that that make it look a little less cookie cutter that give each unit slight you know differences and so that it's it's it's its own house you know when we when we started this process we were really you know so we're rs20 and we were hoping to get maybe an RS10 and I and it was it was working with the city where we came up with that idea through their thoughts that maybe we.

Would have these town homes and I think having a town home you know I can I can have Mr Joseph come up here and talk about all the issues we've heard about from the traffic perspective and he can tell you what our limitations are and why you know we could probably agree with most of the folks who've spoken here tonight you know Miss Miss Wiggins you know first of all she doesn't want to be in the city we're not going to Annex her part so she's still going to stay in the county I think maybe a left lane might or might not be enough but the dot says that's all that you can do and you more is not going to be better so at this point they're they're not in support of that I don't think I answered all your questions you have one more I talked about the the affordability aspects of the project in terms of units yeah commissioner Valentine so as far as the affordability so there's no.

Requirement in this case and so we're trying to do it and I think under the plans it's that 80 percent average median income and so it's restricted and it's for 30 years so you know if you've got the the income qualifications we're going to make sure that this is available for you and through whichever program you know organization that we end up partnering with they'll have different requirements but we'll ensure that we meet those requirements which of course you know are somewhat regulated as well.

Would it be okay just introduce yep hello I'm Peter ditto I am the applicant I live at 7320 Bassett Hall Court in Raleigh North Carolina okay so we when I started this project and I bought this piece of land which I think most people would Overlook it took me a year and a half to get sewer access from the Woodland Park neighborhood and my initial attempt was single family homes that's what I was attending to do and I went to the city and they said hey we offer a bonus to you to build more units by giving us affordable units and that is the quid pro quo that I believe in in governing and that's how I believe that's how I vote is that to get more units you need to give developers something that was it unfortunately I can't build 61 single-family homes there's you if you look at that lot I'm encumbered by the north side completely by a sewer and ATT easement and the.

South side is a ditch there is only one spot for these homes to go and there's only one way in and out of the neighborhood unfortunately via access point because I can't I was Miss Wiggins property would be the only other way out and I can't go through there since she's not a part of the project so I decided hey I'd love to build some town homes for Durham they're to the north to the South there and I get more units if I give the affordability so I I worked with the city I figured out the ratio and I came up to the nine affordable units who I'm going to partner with to get to those I'm not sure I'll probably build the single the houses myself as I built on right down the road on Chalmers Drive I built three houses there that I subdivided and I built up the street as well from there on Carver Road so I'm I'm going to build them myself then I'll partner with somebody for the affordable.

Homes thank you Mr speak to the traffic situation try to answer some of your your comments too. I'm Michael Joseph I'm with the veteran Engineering Associates I live at 111 when it plays in Cary North Carolina I want to say in regard to where the driveway is shown on the plans and it was the commissioner Williams a comment that was made about location right and the safety issue well we worked with city transportation as well as ncdot speaking with their district and assistant District engineer originally we had lined up our driveways right across from Southern because that's generally what you want to see however given the afternoon traffic they were concerned that the queuing would stack up enough that it would make it impossible to to get into this new subdivision so they asked us to move the driveway back to where we have it currently shut on the development plan and put in a left turn lane at that point they would not give us a second access point back to Clayton Road for.

The reasons that I just discussed originally we were looking to line up the driveway and then have a stub out to the property to the South that's Wiggins property again D.O.T kibosh that idea right so if there's any other safety related concerns I'd be glad to address them thank you so when I look at the site plan or at least the development plan for this I understand why it's not right across from the turn in for southern I also understand why you meet more resistance with trying to build on this site because it is a very complicated site and it's encompassed with a lot of already established neighborhoods that have been there so it's going to continue to be problematic and it's going to be something that people are going to have to weigh when they decide to move into this area I appreciate the fact that the dot has stated that certain things are not required but I can bet you ten to five they don't live in Durham so they act.

They they they look they put those little strips down across the street to monitor how much traffic goes through there and at any given time I guarantee you they don't put a single one down during football season so that's not sure that's not you and that's that's on the D.O.T and I understand that they calculate by numbers but unfortunately we deal with people and again I think that what you're trying to do we need we absolutely need it and I think that the responsibility that you're taking for what you're trying to create it's not yours so I understand that our conversations or our comments may be harsh however that's not towards you there are many things that we would love to be able to change but we just can't but I thank you because exactly what you were thinking I was processing but I also understood why it couldn't happen so thank you there was one other comment and I can't remember which commissioner made it but it was about the the buffers right.

And were they going to remain pristine or were they part the idea we've done some preliminary layouts where the road would need to be you know and the clearing for the town homes the idea is to preserve as much as that as possible in his pristine case where we're going to have to put the storm water facilities by the very nature of just bringing the sewer up from the bottom and bringing the storm water down in the same Corridor there's going to be a corridor in there that's going to be open but most of it is going to remain completely undisturbed and and what we do disturb we are going to come back in and and plant to to make that buffer meet the opacity requirement that we need to meet so I hope I've addressed your questions right absolutely I I completely understand completely understand and typically run off bonds or collection services that are provided on a site typically they're more than adequate unless we come across rare.

Events like we just had where rain for three days straight so I mean that's beyond your control and you do what you can do and I understand I I'm definitely encouraged by understanding that you plan to replace what needs to be disturbed for the site is it's just it's just a difficult site the I don't know if you all have access to the Topography of the site but effectively the site is funneled down to a low point right so in reality there's going to be no need for us to get back on these buffers because there's just no need to grade it out it naturally is going to go down to that low point where we want to put the pond right so that's sort of the idea is just to just I know that early on there was a comment about clearing and staging right the given yeah and you're right I mean when you do Town Homes you need to clear out so you can grade a pad right that's that's 100 correct.

My gut is telling me this that you know 30 years doing this kind of work that the city is probably going to be looking for storm water wise something a little bit more than what their General standards are in terms of a two and ten year storm because Woodland Park is just to the South and they want to protect those residents in the larger storm events it's not a problem we'll be able to accommodate those larger storms and I mean storm water is like it's it's an art there's an infinite number of storms that are going to exceed that pond right but we do our best and we'll we'll meet and we'll exceed the city's standards thank you other questions or comments commissioner cease thank you I really appreciate you the applicant walking through your kind of history with the site your thought process in terms of identifying and initially as potentially single family and kind of the opportunities that are presented through the affordable housing bonus to look at this in a different way.

It it I think there are a couple of questions and I appreciate Miss Thomas identifying so the just quickly clarify for me the Gap in the sidewalks are both north of the site and south of the site is that correct I believe based on the bike ped committee comments and the highlighting that's in the report there's a small Gap at each location the Gap that I'd referenced was the one to the South to the South would lead to the city's sidewalk project and connect that system so that you could walk down and and great and so that City sidewalk that's the SW 66 that's referenced on the biped comments is that just one parcel removed from the project is that okay so that thank you that's good the significance of that for for everyone in the room and and from my perspective something that comes up in all of our conversations I think with any type of housing project is is the sites a 15-minute walk and a bus ride.

From where we are right now and the fact that you're taking advantage of the affordable housing bonus in your proposal is as I think a really positive contribution to the city and in terms of meeting what's recognized by the city leadership and by us as a real you know a real need and your explanation of the transportation limitations in terms of the intersection spacing et cetera that makes sense and and I appreciate your explanation of that I do think though that those sidewalk gaps are really critical and so recognizing there's existing right-of-way there tell me could you elaborate on why you're not able to commit to those I think at this point commissioner sees is that and again Adam Stallings because we're going on to someone else's property I think we don't want to take that on but we're certainly willing to discuss it and that we you know if we if we get to the next step and it's part of the the City Council's recommendation we're certainly open to to work with.

Them I think we would be even more happy if we were just able to help that process along as as opposed to being the one responsible for getting access and putting them in so a question for staff sorry or maybe you have the answer to this is a right-of-way encroachment there to something that ncaoti is is not even going to consider especially with the school Colleen Thomas Transportation I think probably what the applicant is referencing is whether or not they would need an easement to construct the sidewalk and they would have to get that from the property owner so it's not that dot will not approve the sidewall within the right of way because cyborg has to be constructed at the back of the right-of-way at the back of the right-of-way yes so Amusement could be required if to construct that correct the easement is what our concern is that I would have to go and attain an easement from somebody who may not want to give an easement and that would then be.

Stop me from moving the project forward I'm more than willing to work with people but if you don't want to be annexed in the city you have a feeling that that's going to cause that and their easement will allow me to make you might think that I would then be the representative of the city to try to go get that it's not all there right now and I and I want to be clear that through my line of questioning I'm not implying that you should have the burden sure implying that the institutional entities here and and we don't have that power in this room because it's ncdot but the you know the the commitment to work with the city and the dot in an effort to because the right-of-way is sufficient but far this typical kind of Silo engineering saying this sidewalk has to be at the back of the right-of-way well there's there's ample right-of-way there for it not to be at the back of the right-of-way in physical.

Terms so if you have a a willingness and I don't see this articulated or wouldn't see a way to articulate this as a commitment but if you have a willingness to continue to work to find a way in the city can continue to find a way especially with the recognition of the school there the bus stop the city's investment in the sidewalk I think that would be a really significant positive benefit not just for your project but for all the students at Southern and certainly surrounding areas so absolutely and again like I said we were willing to it's just where it had to be would require us to be the burden on us so well thank you for explaining that thanks commissioner trap very briefly commissioner C stole all my thunder and those were the points that I wanted to point out but thank you for tackling this and I think when we talk about diversity of housing stock this hits right to that and also hits at the.

Affordable housing which we ask for and also there's a bus stop in public transportation already in this area so it checks boxes for me certainly sympathetic to the neighbors and the growth and having to experience that and deal with the growth and so I certainly hear you there but I think for the reasons I stated I definitely and firmly in support and thank you all for taking us on thank you I have one quick question so correct me if I missed this is there I'm not seeing any kind of connection crosswalk connecting to Southern High School as part of the plans is is that correct okay yeah I think Alexander do you have something to add on that I have a couple of things but I was talking early so I didn't hear your question I'm sorry oh you're great so for I'm thinking about like similar to commissioner cesa's line of questioning we have this one parcel that's keeping us from connecting the sidewalk all the way down one way to.

Potentially solve that create a cross block that's nice and safe and allows people to get to the existing sidewalk that then connects to that bus line is that something you all have considered doing to help connect to the transit access as we were discussing with commissioner cease we're certainly willing to we don't want to commit to having to create you know you know jump through all the Hoops but we're certainly willing to work with the city and with whoever else we need to to try to make that happen I mean I agree with you okay and so question for transportation is there a barrier to that happening at this site.

In Thomas Transportation I think certainly we could accept a profit to construct the sidewalks you know subject to not needing an easement or the crosswalks are the side Sidewalk okay so I've been talking about a crosswalk connecting to across the street to Southern High School that would likely entail a lot more safety features like a signalized pedestrian Crossing it would would be more involved than just a crosswalk being at a mid-block location yeah we we discussed that with Dot and they were the ones who were they there's a that's a much bigger process as she just said than what what it was to just like put the crosswalk there and just kids cross they would want a single and they were very concerned about signaling theirs she spoke to exactly what we were just about to say it's not just like a simple crosswalk they weren't like in a neighborhood crosswalk got it that's yes ma'am you are you are out of order yes ma'am foreign.

So my the one thing I would comment on about this and this might not be at y'all this is like at DOD or somebody but people are going to cross that street we all know people are going to cross that street so the fact that there's not a way to get a crosswalk there is a little bonkers in my mind but I I think similar to what commissioner sees was alluding to earlier sometimes the mind of engineering folk doesn't align with the practicality of what actually happens when people live in spaces commissioner sees I represent that remark as an engineer and I would also really like to encourage the city whether it's you miss Thomas or anyone else to lean this is a recurrent theme in our Pro in our projects and our conversations and this is a site directly across from the high school and I've been out there for athletic events I know the traffic that the community is talking about I understand it you know not on a daily basis but I.

Certainly have seen it and you know to me the difference between what the underlying zoning is and what this applicant is offering is not significant enough to deny the request in terms of the community impacts because the traffic is there this is not the the generator of the traffic the generator the traffic is what's across the street but the opportunity to capitalize on the bus route location the opportunity to capitalize on the sidewalks and the are huge and and the the city and City leadership really needs to lean on Dot and the division to address this concern and I say that not because of the concern originating from the applicants project it's because of the school so thank you the last comment I'll just make I think something that would just be fruitful between now and when this goes to city council is doing some of that due diligence on the site to the South and whether or not that property owner would be interested in providing an easement I.

Think to me it's helpful to know like when the property owners just said no and that is kind of a non-starter versus when there's interest there and the city needs to play their role to help make the process easier to fill that Gap before we close the public hearing I did want to come back to the Durham one call thing commissioner Valentine passed me their phone number so if you want to make a request to the to Durham one call you can make a call at 919-560-1200.

Apparently we also have an app that's news to me so you can download an app and make a request that way or you can send a text message to 919-813-6315 so for the folks that were asking about the lighting at those intersections that's where you can make that service request any other questions or comments commissioner shigeris yes this is for the applicant you have tree coverage area one and tree coverage area two or maybe it's all tree coverage area two and I've noticed on this one map that we have that there's a large number of mature trees two of the largest ones a 32 White Oak and a 32 dual white oak or in the far corner it's on the other side of the utility easement is this tree coverage area I believe you said previously that it's going to be like cut and then you're going to put new trees so you're not going to preserve the mature trees that are already there no what I meant to say was that.

Like to the South I don't see it South to the to the west where it's the low spot where Woodland where it drains to Woodland where we have the outlet for the pond and of course we're bringing the sewers up to the south I mean to to the West we'll have to cut trees down to bring that up now the area that you're talking about I can't imagine we would cut any trees down over there unless we put some kind of Trail amenity or some kind of like I say some kind of amenity over there which I don't imagine would yeah there's a large number of mature trees along the property line with some of the existing residents off of meadow crossed Meadowcrest Drive and then on one of your comments here development plan notes a developer will use tree coverage areas one and two to meet required tree coverage area of 20 however area in excess of the required tree coverage area shown in area one and area two may.

Be used for other purposes so. What other purposes the ones that were just discussed in other words the areas that you show meet and exceed the minimum requirement excuse me the minimum requirement that the city requires however we have to get an outlet structure in for the for the pond the the storm water control measure and we have to bring up sanitary sewers from the the West in the from the low area out of Woodland so that's about a 40-foot swath so in those areas where we're just going to have to and then of course where we we widen we widen the road Clayton Road we're going to have to have those fill slopes cut slopes and fill slopes and so trees will have to come down for that for that widening and then they'll be replanted so that we maintain the 80 percent opacity is required.

Okay and I have an additional a question about the math it says 7.916 units per acre at 7.706 Acres that's where you come up with the 61 but if you follow the 20 percent 5 1.54 Acres blah blah blah it comes to 42 units so is it going to be because 42 just sounds better to me than 61 crammed in there and if you I mean that would be like 7.916 units per acre wouldn't account for parking or roads or anything so that confuses me the density is based on the seven point I don't have the planet from your ma'am so I can't speak directly to it but the density is 61 units this is 7.

Neighbors right so at that density that would be like everything gets a unit on it and there's there'll be quite a bit of of open space left that will remain treed and undisturbed quite a bit actually on the site we will meet in far and meet and exceed the open space requirement for this for this site and you know it's Our intention to leave as much as the buffers pristine however they can't commit to that because we don't know what we're going to get involved with when we go through the site planning and construction drawing side with the city so but it's our intent to do so and I would like to can I can I add one other thing as well to that did you have did you excuse me no American with the planning part I was just going to clarify that per the Udo density calculations are always based on the gross area and not just the buildable area so just to clarify that okay thank you.

Clarification I I don't remember who had this comment but the developer is proposing affordable housing but not as a requirement there's no density bonus that is that is benefiting from under affordable housing statutes this is something that is a is an ad in dealing with staff staff said listen if you went with this higher higher density the county the city wants these affordable housing and so that was a you know trade-off right okay thank you okay commissioner Williams and then I'd like to move this forward to a vote thank you I just wanted to address what I heard in terms of excitement about adding a bus stop though I do believe that the bus stops are helpful I also wanted to just frame it in the context of someone who's taken public transportation the public transportation structure in Durham is not convenient by far it's a 60-minute travel at best to anywhere within the city and then back so adding a bus stop may seem enticing at the moment but we're not increasing the.

Number of routes which is the issue that we should be excited about and the sidewalk with being a 15-minute walk is going to take you 15 minutes with the sidewalk just to get back to 98 before you even get to a point where you're going anywhere that's relevant to the residents that live in this area and those are the those are the simple facts of what we're facing in terms of Transportation and I think that it's commendable that he wants to add a bus stop however I can pretty much guarantee you nobody in this room took a bus here today so with that I wanted to be encouraged that we need to remain focused on the greater value and though this neighborhood may not add a tremendous amount of traffic to Southern High School it will add a tremendous amount of traffic to the area because I can't guarantee nor deny how many families will move into this complex with high school students because that's traditionally when families are looking to downsize because.

Their kids are preparing to leave so we have to look at the greater impacts of what this will do as we go forward with consideration of what we're impacting Beyond just Southern High School and I think that the affordable housing bonus and the opportunity to gain affordable housing within the city of Durham is tremendous and as far as the sidewalks and the crosswalks are concerned we have other considerations we have to make in terms of ADA compliance because it is within a certain number of feet of a school and you have to have considerations for barrier-free transportation throughout the city which the city is also working to improve sidewalks for that very reason right now so I think that it does make sense but I also understand why the undue burden shouldn't be placed on the developer for something he or they may not be able to guarantee that they will have to accommodate based off what they're trying to build so I with that I am absolutely ready to take this to a vote.

Seeing no other comments I'm going to close the public hearing and I would accept emotion at this time Mr chair I'd like to make a motion can Steph replace some of the profits that have been offered thank you you read my mind so we heard a proffer to install double row of silt fencing profit for the use of flocculants during the development process and I wasn't sure in this last one was it a proffer to and we can work on the language but to work on the off-site sidewalk Gap Improvement subject to acquisition of easement.

To the South oh God all right okay great so I make a motion that we take case z22 triple zero 22 631 and 633 Clayton Road with the appropriate profiters offered to be forwarded to the city council with a favorable or recommendation second great moved by commissioner Morgan seconded by commissioner Valentine May is there any comment on the motion seeing no may we have the Royal call vote chairman dolia yes Vice chair Cameron yes commissioner shagarus no. Commissioner Morgan yes commissioner sees yes commissioner tratt yes commissioner Valentine yes commissioner Carmen Williams no motion passes 6-2 thank you thanks to the applicant thanks to those who showed up to speak on this case tonight we're going to move to our next agenda item just case z22 triple zero 33 bright leaf North we'll begin with the staff presentation thank you chair amidolia Aaron Kane with the planning department again this case is z2200033 brightleaf north.

This is a request for a zoning map change there we go the property is located at 2021 U.S Highway U.S 70 Highway East and is a total of three Parcels totaling 20.4 Acres the existing zoning is commercial General with a development plan the applicant is proposing a commercial neighborhood with a development zoning with a development plan to allow for the construction of up to 90 townhouses the existing future land use map designation is commercial the proposed commercial neighborhood with a development plan zoning change is consistent with the commercial Plum designation lastly the site lies within the fjb Watershed protection overlay.

As I said before the existing zoning is commercial General with the development plan to the north and east of the site is plan development residential to the south and west of the site is General commercial and office. Foreign as you can see on the aerial map here the you can see the general location of the project the site is of the northern portion of the T intersection with Copper Lake Parkway copper leaf Parkway and us-70 to the north is the bright leaf at the Park subdivision the proposed conditions are shown in the development plan before you there are two points of access on Copperleaf Parkway a minimum tree minimum tree coverage and open space that is required by the Udo are is proposed impervious surface limits are capped at 70 at a maximum of 70 percent that the fjb Watershed allows the building and parking envelope is located outside of the 100 foot intermittent stream buffer that is located in the northern and western portions of the site.

There are several notable commitments to the development plan a five thousand dollar donation is made to go Durham for a bus shelter there is a dream green Whale Trail Greenway Trail connection a reservation of additional right-of-way on U.S 70 for future improvements traffic calming devices on Hemlock Hills and a restriping of Copperleaf Parkway to provide for a five-foot bike Lanes an 11 foot travel Lanes from the site access point to Live Oak Circle a neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with Udo requirements on June 7th 2022 eight community members who are in attendance five social pinpoint comments have been received in relation to this case and are included in your packet for your review.

Staff determines that this request is consistent with the draft Place type map the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies The Proposal is deemed to be in the public interest due to the increasing supply of housing options in the city of Durham with that staff and the applicant are available for any questions thank you we will open the public hearing I will begin with the applicant presentation you'll have 10 minutes to provide your opening comments. Thank you thank you good evening chair mendelia Vice chair camera members of the Planning Commission my name is Laura Holloman I'm with McAdams for the record my address is 2905 Meridian Parkway here in Durham also with me tonight virtually is Ryan Akers also with McAdams the project engineer and Ann Oakley with Dr Horton the developer for this project I also want to thank Mr Kane for his presentation of this request so as Steph mentioned where this project is located but I just want to also mention that this particular piece of property is a part.

Of a larger previous resorting way back in 2005. the idea back then was for horizontal mixed use area with commercial office and some residential that concept never panned out as we well know in fact most of the original rezoned area remained vacant until recently dhic has Acquired and is building out a dense residential Community east of this site they're building dense multi-family and dense rental town home or Cottage dwelling units which they call Casitas that project is just east of this site within the original rezoned area what we are proposing here are for sale Townhomes I want to paint that picture for you because in a vacuum this project looks like a standalone Town Home Project which it technically is but it also is part of a larger concept that features diverse housing choices as stated in the staff report under the current zoning no residential uses would be allowed here instead this area would have to be developed for office and Commercial so what we were asking for.

Here is a down zoning the proposed project will generate less traffic than development under the current zoning also want to mention that in our initial submittal we try to maintain a mixed-use approach the property is divided into a North section and a South section by a stream which you saw previously on the slide we designated the area closest to 70 for exclusively non-residential uses unfortunately through the review process we learned probably the primary reason why this previous concept never panned out and that is because of the uncertainty as to what will happen with 70. ncdot has two different options for turning 70 into a super Street commonly referred to as the North or the South options our understanding is the city of Durham may also be advocating for 72 instead become a Boulevard for years including up to today there has not been any resolution on which option should be implemented nonetheless because of these various plans we were requested by Transportation towards over 30 300 foot wide right of way along our 70 Frontage.

300 feet is pretty wide and it wiped out our non-residential area south of the stream that we were showing initially so the commercial component of our original submittal has been removed that might be a happy consequence because the place type map designates this area for apartment slash town and Community which this project is consistent with as staff mentioned in their presentation there are a few changes to the commitments I want to close out with the last two commitments are holdover commitments from the previous zoning we are happy to retain them but a recent consultation with various departments they have both been determined not to be desirable so I'd like to move remove commitment number nine which relates to a Transit shelter and commitment 10 related to Traffic coming on Hemlock Hills the good news is we will replace those two with two new commitments first based on the staff report we would like to add a commitment for a one-time contribution to Durham Public Schools in the amount of twenty one thousand dollars second we.

Would also like to add a commitment for a one-time contribution to the affordable housing Fund in the amount of sixty three thousand dollars so in conclusion this project is a part of a larger residential development which includes traditional Apartments as well as rental Casitas to the east the component of this project would provide for for sale townhomes in an already residential area thank you for your time tonight and our team is available to answer any questions you may have thank you so we will turn to public comment Alexander staff can bring me the sign up sheet for this case.

Thank you Andy well great okay so we have no one signed up to speak on this case in person if there's anyone attending a person who would like to speak on this case please come to the podium at this time otherwise we'll turn to any Zoom attendees is there anyone on Zoom wishing to speak on this case if so please raise your hand at this time. Yes I see Ryan Acres let's raise their hand Ryan you'll have two minutes to provide your comments yeah this is Ryan Akers I'm the engineer I'm just here to answer questions if you guys have any great thank you yeah I also see Pam Williams has raised her hand Pam.

Good afternoon my name's Pam Williams I live 2130 Adventure Trail probably within a mile of this development I'm gonna ask again I'm sorry but I didn't see about the natural boundary or the boundary around what the dimension is I did see a 25 foot Street set back so I was wondering if you could and like me again a lot of the people I've talked with at bright leave that Community they have been really upset there's multiple comments on next door about the trees being removed across the street from the S1 this location and I guess I did have a question about what type of commercial would y'all be providing in here but it finally stood lower correctly the commercial component has been taken away due to DST proposed project new 5720 but if you could Enlighten us on what type of you know boundaries if you're going to be able to leave some of those trees mature trees are so much better than clearing it clear-cutting it and then putting in the.

Smaller trees mature trees could always be supplemented with smaller trees so I would like for you to address that at this on this particular project and thank you for the contribution to the schools and affordable housing that's all thank you is there anyone else looking to speak on this case at this time. Okay seeing none Laura you had about five or six minutes left of your time do you want to address the a couple of questions on I think it was commercial and then the buffer and trees.

So I'll be glad to Miss Williams was correct we have remove the commercial component so there isn't there will be no proposed commercial uses and we did meet in addition to having a neighborhood meeting we did meet with the brightleaf HOA a few times and that was a concern that they had was the commercial uses so we have removed those any ability for that and and of course I stayed the reason for that was because the commercial area The Logical commercial area along 70 where you want commercial is eaten up by that 300 foot right-of-way reservation that we're required to do I believe the other question related to landscaping and you know I always think Miss Williams for her comments she does a great job this is a little bit different than the previous rezoning cases that we've heard in this area a lot of the requests that we get it's it's high high speed thoroughfares Copperleaf Parkway is not one this this is a this sets up great as.

An infill because we've got a stream buffer that goes to the west and then our our Northern boundary were showing a 30-foot buffer that is actually adjacent to an open space lot for bright leaf so there's not going to be any lots that are against lots to the north which I think is a great point to point out so really we're we're just showing then what we want to which would be a nice kind of maintained buffer along copper leaf so I certainly understand her her concern but we would prefer to have a nice maintained buffer where we're able to remove the existing and really create that nice pedestrian streetscape along Copperleaf because we will be adding that sidewalk that I think is desperately needed along our Frontage as well.

Great thank you okay at this time I'm going to turn the commissioner questions and comments. Commissioner shigeris I have a question it says that the Durham trails and Greenway master plan designates portions of the Lick Creek Greenway Trail through this site I know you have indicated that you will connect to that would there be any way for you to proffer helping build that so there's something to connect to or is this connector going to be I don't know what exactly part of the property the trail is supposed to go through help promote walkability.

Yeah you're right there's a there's a long-standing 100 foot Greenway easement that's part of the part of the city's plans there so our our proffer states that will provide The Pedestrian connection to that ultimate Greenway but we have no no plans to actually build that that Regional component. Other questions or comments commissioner cease curious about the I fully understand the explanation of changing from the prior approach with regards to Commercial and the uncertainties associated with 70. And this may as much be a staff question but I think it originates with the applicant why why is this request for CN zoning versus a PDR that's exactly why because on the on the onset of the of the submittal as we move through that's what that's how we we got to having the elimination of commercial through staff comments so the application submitted as one zoning can't change if they remove the use is that correct in other words they so the what's being proposed is residential what's being asked for is commercial.

Neighborhood which isn't intended to be in any way dependent by the intent statement on 70 anyway so there's a real kind of wordsmithing game here at play it's like building a house without a restroom it's a commercial zoning but there's no commercial yeah Aaron came with the planning department townhouses are a permitted use and a permitted housing style within the commercial neighborhood zoning District so they that is a permitted use and they are allowed to do that within commercial neighborhoods so it is the applicant's choice to make that request I think we all understand Aaron I appreciate your your answer to that we understand it's permitted use but it's a commercial district and and the intent statement that my concern is just with the intense statement this has originated with a few other cases that we've had usually in the reverse but the commercial that is intended let me put back up a second maybe I'll just do this and then I'll be done because we have a lot on the agenda and.

This is in the in the report which excerpts out the intent statement from the Udo the CN district is established to provide for modest scale commercial centers in close proximity to residential areas that offer limited commercial uses to satisfy the needs of the surrounding neighborhood so regardless of the uncertainty of 70 it seems like this is a good site to do exactly what the CN District proposes but what you're doing is excerpting out only a single use only the residential and I I just think a you know PDR requests would be more appropriate for that so with that I'll stop thank you I have a quick question for transportation.

So with this uncertainty around Highway 70 there's a 300 foot reservation easement reservation for whatever the future of 70 looks like is there I guess do you foresee a scenario where 70 then encroaches on the residential units that will be there like I think my concern here is there's uncertainty where that highway is going to go and if it butts right up to this residential neighborhood that then can become a public health risk for folks living there close to a major highway with lots of pollutants so earlene Thomas Transportation the Alternatives that dot currently has that reservation area would accommodate some shift or movement within that but I it would not directly abut or encroach the where the building residential development is being proposed okay thank you I have similar concerns as commissioner sees it seems like regardless of what is happening with 70 if we're looking at a commercial neighborhood District then seems like there should be some commercial involved I'm you know I'm sort of surprised like sometimes we get.

These cases and it's like up to 90 units and then up to 100 000 square feet of commercial owners like well we know that the commercial may never happen because of the up to aspect of that so I think that's something that would make more sense to me and actually this reminds me of my other question for staff and this is just kind of from a planning perspective like what what criteria are we using to determine that this we should basically be reducing commercial space here and not allowing not having this be commercial space and instead saying yeah this is going to be residential only.

Thank you for those questions so the future Place type that y'all may or may not remember have seen recently has this apartment and townhouse neighborhood so that's how it's designated future development in terms of the PDR District that is a definitely an option that the applicant consider however I think if I remember correctly there were some issues with the PDR being met in terms of some of the specific requirements that the PDR district has and that's why the applicant can pursue that in terms of the CN District absolutely the intent is correct how you read both read that and and this would probably be more appropriate to to not that doesn't meet the incent of that District as as proposed okay so this rezoning we're zoning from a commercial.

General with a development plan I did not say that development plan in the packet did that plan have commercial included or was that an only a residential that had commercial included Okay so what the way I'm tracking this is that we had a proposal for commercial and then in our draft Place type guide we said actually this should be apartment or town home and so my question is what criteria did we use to say know this site right next to a major highway node shouldn't be commercial it should be residential close we have Mr Whiteman here thanks I'm Scott Wyman from the plane Department the main reason was because of the the proposals that are currently in place for Highway 70 would make this a pretty difficult site to access for for commercial and so and the fact that it's been vacant for 20 years now is even though it's been zoned that way because it just speaks to that so we still it's the place I've got it encourages incorporating commercial.

Into some of our residential Place types but we didn't think that a commercial only kind of development would be feasible based on what we know right now Okay so I guess what I'm hearing that now too is that under the future U.S Highway 70 we're essentially seeing what will be the subdivision as being the end of a neighborhood rather than what it currently is where it would be the beginning commercial going into a residential neighborhood that's correct okay thank you that is helpful any other questions or comments you've seen none I'd be ready to or I'm going to close the public hearing and I'll be ready for a motion Mr chair I'd like to make a motion that we take case z22 triple zero 33 the bright leaf North case to be ported to the City Council with favorable recommendation second moved by commissioner Morgan seconded by commissioner Williams is there any discussion on the motion seeing none maybe have the roll call vote and staff confirm the changes in.

Profers before we do that yes you may thank you we want to so we heard that commitments nine and ten are going to be removed that there's going to be a one-time contribution to Durham public schools on the amount of twenty one thousand and a one-time contribution to the dedicated housing Fund in the amount of sixty three thousand with those Prophets second thanks amended by commissioner Morgan seconded by commissioner Williams and may we have the roll call vote chairman dolia yes Vice chair Cameron yes commissioner shigars yes commissioner Macgyver yes Mr Morgan yes commissioner cease no commissioner Trapp yes commissioner Valentine yes commissioner Carmen Williams yes motion carries eight one thank you okay we're going to move to our next case this is case z22 triple zero 35 Fletcher Crossing will begin with the staff presentation.

Thank you Mr chair or it came again with the planning department excuse me this case is z2200035 Fletcher Crossing there's proper good okay this property is located at 707 South Mineral Springs Road the site is one parcel totaling 9.58 Acres the existing zoning is residential Suburban 20 and residential Rural and the proposed zoning is plan development residential 8.347 this is for the cons purpose of construction of up to 80 townhouses on the site the current future land use map designation is low development low density residential four or less going units per acre staff recommends that if the zoning case is approved that the future land use map designation be changed to medium-high density residential just another note that the site is in the fjb Watershed protection overlay District the site is RS has rs20 to the West and East of the site there is rural residential to the north and a lower density PDR designation to the South looking at the aerial map the site is primarily surrounded by single-family Residential Properties the.

Vacant land that you see to the South is actually under construction now for a future PDR site there are several commitments listed on the development plan the first is to limit the site to no more than 80 townhouses a payment of forty thousand dollars will be made to the Durham affordable dedicated affordable housing fund there are several roadway improvements committed dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way in order to construct a shared use path along south Mineral Spring and holder roads as well as a left southbound left turn lane on south Mineral Springs Road and the construction of the left turn lane on holder Road eastbound holder Road access to the site is from south Mineral Springs Road and holder road with a stub out to the north for future development the minimum tree coverage is provided but open space is committed to be greater than the Udo requires and the impervious surface coverage that is committed to is below the Udo threshold of 70 percent a neighborhood meeting was held in.

Accordance with Udo requirements on May 24 2022 two community members were in attendance at that meeting 11 social pinpoint comments have been received by staff and they are included in your packet staff determines that this request is consistent with the draft Place type map the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies though not consistent with the future land use map and therefore staff if this is approved would recommend a change to medium-high density residential of 820 units per acre staff is available to answer any questions as is the applicant thank you okay we are going to open the public hearing we'll begin with the applicant presentation the applicant will have 10 minutes to provide their comments.

Hey good evening this is Zach Shipman with shipment engineering I'm the engineer for the project I'm working with Dan Morse from odg87 on the development plan for this project we had intended to be there in person tonight and have come down with some sort of nasty virus so we want to despair germs for you guys and appreciate the opportunity to present this digitally thank you Mr Kane for your presentation again we're proposing 80 townhome units it's a relatively clean site there's only a small finger of wetlands in the north east quadrant that we are not going to be impacting in any way we are trying to preserve as many mature trees in the wooded areas that we possibly can and again with some of their project boundary buffers to the north that we're required to provide I didn't want to speak to two things specifically most of the neighborhood feedback we received was concerning traffic and I want to just touch on that briefly we are showing as a text commitment dedicated left-hand turn.

Lanes on south Mineral Springs Road and on holder Road as well as the 10-foot shared bike path features along the right-of-way there there is a traffic signal that is going to be constructed at the intersection associated with the Harlow Point project to the South and so we we feel like we've done as much as we can we've used the tools that are available to us to try to mitigate any traffic ramifications from the development and and minimize the impact to the surrounding infrastructure I did notice in the staff report that those roadways do have capacity to accept any additional trips from this project so we again we've used the tools that we have at our disposal to try to mitigate that the second point I wanted to hit on is affordable housing for a variety of reasons we're not able to incorporate any actual affordable housing units in the project however we recognize that there's a great need for that in the community and so the developers proffered a 500 per unit.

Contribution to the affordable housing fund that totals eighty thousand dollars total so we'd love to contribute in that way as well we're available for any questions you might have Dan morse's on the call as well virtually and we'd love to entertain any questions you might have concern in this project thanks thank you okay at this time we're going to turn to any public comment.

We have no one signed up to speak on this case in person if there's anyone attending in person who would like to speak on this case please come to the podium at this time otherwise we would turn to our Zoom applicants or Zoom participants I see two people with their hand raised in Zoom if there are others that wish to speak please raise your hand at this time we'll begin with Pam Williams foreign good afternoon my name is Pam Williams 2130 Adventure Trail Durham North Carolina most of this land is already graded and there's only some trees left on the back side and the north side of this parcel however you know from what I can tell and then you know if from what I can tell they're only provide recommending providing minimum boundaries along this roadway and I imagine minimum offsets from the boundary to the townhomes and everything we have recently had some town homes built on Sharon Road with the minimum setback and I promise you it.

Looks like the the homes are sitting on top of Sharon Road the community is very distressed about that although unfortunately not too many people called in tonight to express it but they have expressed it to me again we have requests and it's my understanding that the tree preservation and mass grading Udo is in the process and we would like to push for at least a 30-foot boundary around this along the roadway at both roadway middle Springs and holder road with the 0.6 opacity or better we do not need to turn our roadways into having fences along the roadways to meet opacity and it just they just look horrible be honest with you and I can send you multiple pictures of how this suburban area with single family homes still a lot existing in here Farmland still some existing in here but having town homes built within eight to ten feet from the boundary or the property line is very it's it's not within the character thank you sorry thank you next we have Donna Steinbeck.

Hello this is Donna Steinbeck Durham North Carolina Fletcher Crossing I'm going to ask for commitments up front in case we run out of time the two minutes we need the new text amendments for the sediment and erosion control for this property we need greater than the 20 tree preservation that is mentioned and we need a 100 Year storm water plan there's no stormwater plan mentioned in the commitment plans on the server the reason we need these is Fletcher's Crossing is only one half a mile from Grove Park Lake and and one-fourth of a mile from Little Lick Creek a state 303 D impaired Waterway Grove Park stream restoration is at a cost of 1.48 million and it's on the Durham County website and it goes for over a mile upstream and and it was created to because the Upstream development along the past straightening of the channels and timbering have greatly degraded the tributaries of the little leak Creek flowing into the lake causing rapid sedimentation I'm reading from Durham County's website.

And what this would do is just add more to that especially without a good storm water plan flooding is also an issue that has been identified in this area I mentioned it I've got classmates who that have had to pay the price for that and and they're looking to with this project we store up to 6 000 feet of streamway and we're just going to be adding to it if we don't not careful with what we do with Fletcher's Crossing and so we need to have a good environmental metrics thank you thank you does anybody else wishing to speak on this case Pamela Andrews good evening I would like to continue with what my teammates just expressed with concerns around Grove Park and the streams that are there that flow into Grove Park which is just undergoing stream restoration that project has just begun and as she said is a cost of over one million dollars with a hundred thousand of that coming from the HOA of Grove Park these developments along.

Holder Road are now flowing into that same little Lick Creek where they're trying to restore but in your as you're restoring that Creek bed at over a million dollars we have more intense water as it is Flowing off these impervious surface into that same Little Creek I ask you to seriously consider the damage being done to our environment thank you thank you is anyone else hoping to speak on this case tonight. Okay seeing none I'm gonna turn to the applicant Zach Shipman Zach I wrote down several questions do you want to go down the list or do you have comments you want to sure I I took some notes as well appreciate those comments we can speak to a lot of those with regards to stormwater you're correct we did not show a storm water plan on the development plan that's not a typical detail that's added to a development plan however we are planning a large storm water device that will treat storm water for water quality which would remove pollutants.

And nutrients nitrogen phosphorus Etc and would provide what we would call Peak flow mitigation so we would control the post-construction runoff rates at the same rates as pre-development the translation would be that you know if we do our job right which the Udo will hold us to account as we go through the site plan process there shouldn't be any additional Peak flow coming out of that site that is not already headed there now we would control and manage that storm water run off in its entirety according to the the regulations that are implied on us from the Udo second Point for erosion control those discussion of of the new erosion Control Ordinance I know it sounded from previous cases that there's still one regulatory hurdle that has to jump through before it's codified we would be happy to comply with that ordinance for additional erosion control measures to to prevent sediment from flowing off the site during construction that's important to us too and so we again we'd be happy to.

To to provide additional erosion control measures in accordance with that ordinance to to prevent erosion lastly there was some discussion about the street yard and the proximity of buildings on holder in south Mineral Springs we are providing or will be required to provide a 10 10 foot landscape buffer from the right-of-way we're also dedicating additional right-of-way on holder and on Mineral Springs that so the property line essentially will shift back away from the existing property line by some measure and then additionally we've got a rear setback line to these lots and I I don't remember offhand what that is but I believe it's somewhere in the 20-foot range and so you know by default these buildings can't be any closer than 30 feet to the property line as it sits now so I I can't commit to a wider landscape buffer at this time but we will follow those rear setback requirements and we are providing that 10-foot landscape buffer along both of those frontages I think that was everything.

Appreciate the chance to respond to this yeah thank you just to follow up on the sediment and erosion Control Ordinance I'm confirming that you were saying you were willing to proffer using a double silted fence and a foculence on site. Yeah and I haven't seen the text of that amendment I just understand if it's double silt fence I think that's something we could accommodate flocculents are you know if you allow me to be an engineer for a minute and nerd out for a second there's there's times when flocculents are very useful and there's times when they're not appropriate in the appropriate locations and in the appropriate applications we'd be happy to use the flocculents typically that's from a sediment base and discharge Point running to a silt bag but that's probably a little more detail than we need to get into tonight okay thank you I'm not going to live down that engineer comment am I okay any commissioner questions or comments commissioner Morgan yes thank you I have a question for the.

Applicant I appreciate the the development plan where there's the access points to existing roads I do think that that makes sense I also impressed with the 10 foot wide shared use path that's surrounding the perimeter of it I had a question more on the corner of holder and Mineral Springs it looks like there's sort of a cut off or cut out in the development plan that's different from the the zoning app can you explain what you're going to be doing in that area sure there with the signalization improvements going on at that intersection there is a probable need for a slight amount of right-of-way dedication in that corner and so we wanted to preserve some space in that corner should that right-of-way dedication be needed we're working with the developer to the south at Harlow Point to kind of assess and ascertain what those right-of-way needs might be the other part is We There is some we'd like to preserve some of that space for possible passive recreational or passive open space.

I I don't want to show that on the development plan because we don't want to lock that in just yet depending on the right-of-way improvements that are needed at that intersection so that's the reason for that little jut out in the development envelope is there any other types of uses that you may want to do with that particular section or you know like commercial use or anything like that is that why it also in consideration no I think it's too small to do anything other than that you know at best would be a a landscape Monument of some sort but it's really too small to make make you use of anything else our proposed was entirely for Townhomes okay and I guess it sounds like if you've added the buffer there and you add it together that I think I'm just trying to do the math a little bit I guess that would be done 20 foot buffer around the perimeter of the the parcel itself including the path or.

Is it correct okay that's correct well so we we have a 10-foot right-of-way dedication that would accommodate the widened roadway there and then we are showing a 10-foot shared use path we'll need to figure out how to get a drainage ditch in between that edge of pavement and the path but from behind the shared use path there will be a 10-foot landscape buffer so you would have a minimum 20 feet between the edge of the buffer and the front side of the shared use path would there be any concerns about addressing the 30-foot request by one of the residents to be totally candid with you it it would have a huge impact on the yield of the site if we need to dedicate a 30-foot buffer and you know I can't say that with the rear set back in place that with full confidence buildings would not be any closer than 30 feet to that roadway okay but I I don't know that I'm comfortable committing to that at this point okay thank you.

Any other questions or comments commissioner shigeris yes I have a question I guess this is for City staff under the analysis summary on page nine it says the area this area of the city and county are currently heavily car dependent with little to no Transit infrastructure The Proposal does not provide for sustainable development practices what would have to happen for it to be considered sustainable.

Aaron Kane with the planning department I think making this more sustainable would take not only efforts on the part of the applicants but also efforts on the part of the public sector providing additional bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure outside of the site as well as transit services currently is not is not available. Other questions or comments commissioner Valentine so maybe this question is for the developer maybe you can speak to to the environmental impact that your project will have on Lick Creek it seems like lit Creek is taking a disproportionate amount of disproportionate amount of impact regarding development and so can you tell me any remedial measures that you might be taking to ensure that we don't damage this Creek more than what we have done already in the name of development sure sure I'd love to speak to that so in my mind development of this site kind of occurs in two phases one is the construction phase where a lot of your off-site sedimentation and Downstream pollution occurs and then the second.

Part would be you know after that when when the storm water system is in intact and functioning it's a couple things we with the okay with us complying with the upgraded erosion Control Ordinance that's going to provide some additional erosion control measures that will mitigate any Downstream effects of off-site sedimentation turbidity leaving the site during construction things like that and then after construction with the stormwater Pond some of the things we're going to be checking for with the stormwater device are nutrient removal which is nitrogen calculations and we go through quite a complicated exercise with engineering staff to compute and determine what the nutrient load is and then there's a reduction that we have to meet with we have to get the site under a certain nutrient loading to comply with the regulations and then there's there's also a water quality component where we detain the first flush runoff and and draw it down slowly those two measures I think you know the intent is that we reduce pollution to equivalent to pre-development.

Conditions through those two measures you know and then ongoing stormwater maintenance of the pond which would be the responsibility of the HOA and there's some some metrics in place that we can use to track that after construction is an important piece too but I think those two measures combined would help mitigate any environmental impacts to Lynn Creek and then the other piece of it is there's no repairing buffers there's no surface creaks there's no Wetlands that were impacting there's no surface waters or or other you know typical environmentally sensitive areas that this project will impact and so you know a lot of times when you have projects that cross surface waters or Creeks or streams and you have those large Culvert Crossings you do get a lot of pollution from the construction of those Crossings we don't have any of that here and and you know so we don't have to worry about impacts from wetlands and other sensitive areas that that we're just not touching okay thank you.

If possible I'd like to go ahead and move this forward to a vote so that we can complete this case before our recess so I'm going to close the public hearing at this time are there any further additional comments or questions seeing none can I get a motion Mr chair I go ahead and make a motion that we take case z22 triple zero 35 Fletcher Crossing with the I guess there are some profits I'm sorry go ahead Alex yeah we had some clarifications on that so either the use of flocculents will be used or they won't so we'll need a commitment from that from the applicant to meet the intent of the original sediment Control Ordinance also at the opening the applicants said they're making a dedicated housing fund contribution the amount of eighty thousand dollars but the development plan says forty thousand dollars so just Clarity on those two items I'm sorry this is Zach I I 40 000 is the contribution it was 500 per unit for times 80 units is 40.

And will you be using flocculents yes we can commit to using flocculents in the erosion control phase thank you thanks so make the motion with the appropriate proffers to be forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation moved by commissioner Morgan seconded by commissioner cease is there any discussion on the motion seeing now maybe we have the Royal call vote chairman Delia no Vice chair Cameron no commissioner shigars no commissioner MacGyver yes commissioner Morgan yes commissioner cease yes commissioner Trapp yes commissioner Valentine no commissioner Carmen Williams no motion fails 5-4 thank you we are going to take our a recess at this time to give our closed captioners a rest we will return at 7 40 PM Eastern Time.

Foreign. We the People hold these truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal and shall be afforded the inalienable right to fair housing the city of Durham and HUD are committed to ensuring that everyone is treated equitably when searching for a place to call home. Everyone in Durham should be able to find a home they can afford that's why forever home Durham is creating affordable livable and inclusive communities for low to Middle income residents from renting to owning find out how the city is helping more people find homes right here in Durham.

Learn plus discard it with you man I know you guys have a lot going on right now let's start with recruitment I understand that the fire department is looking to hire firefighters very soon yes yes we've just recently opened up our application process it's running through April 1st to April 30th okay so we are looking to hire whoever wants to come and motivated to be a part of the Durham fire department yes and it's this the only where people can't so right now yes through the month of April again April 1st April 30th is the time frame of when they can apply.

See a pothole has an app for that missed pick up there's an app for that need to set up water service he has an app for that too introducing the one call app report your service requests online on your schedule just download for free from the app store or Google Play Store then sign up and start using it to report problems check the status of your service request or just find out more information try the Durham one call app today here's some tips to ensure that your garbage and recycling gets picked up one your cart should be put out for collection before 6am on your collection day two your card should be at least three feet from all other objects such as mailboxes telephone poles fire hydrants trees and other carts three your card should be no more than three feet from the curb four no vehicles should be blocking your carts the mechanical arms on our trucks need direct access to your carts and cannot reach around vehicles to find more information about garbage.

And recycling pickups go to this web address.

She.

Thank you.

McDonald's.

All right.

Foreign.

Foreign.

Thank you.

There you go okay we are going to return from our recess now let the record reflect that commissioner MacGyver has showed up he showed up a couple of cases ago but I kept forgetting to recognize that he was here we're going to move to our next agenda item which is case z 22 triple zero 52 Lumley Road multi-family we'll begin with the staff presentation thank you chair Amendola Aaron Kane with the planning department again this case is z220052 Lumley Road multi-family it is located at 5751 Lumley Road and it is one parcel totaling 47.67 Acres the existing zoning is rural residential and Commercial General the proposed zoning is plan development residential 10.059 and this is in order to construct up to 480 multi-family dwelling units on the site the existing flame future land use map designation is office and staff recommends that if the zoning case zoning map change is approved that the flum designation be changed to medium high density residential.

The zoning context shows a mix of zoning districts in the area primarily commercial General and light industrial Light along the U.S 70 Corridor and residential zoning districts to the west and south for the most part as you can see on the aerial map the the aeromap shows this mix of uses with commercial and light industrial uses again to the along the U.S 70 Corridor and some to the west of the site and primarily residential to the South and Southwest. There are several commitments on the development plan for this case the applicant limits themselves to no more than 480 dwelling units on the site three percent of the units will be income restricted to households earning 80 percent of area median income or less for 20 years erosion control measures will be consistent with the proposed Udo amendment that you all have seen is going forward to the elected bodies in the near future regarding double silt fencing and use of flocculants there are also several roadway improvements including a 10-foot shared path or a.

Five foot sidewalk along lonely road construction of an eastbound left turn lane onto Lumley Road for each entrance to the site and install installation of a traffic signal at Page Road and Page Road Extension in addition exterior balconies or patios are committed on at least 60 percent of the units the development plan is shown before you in the proposed conditions which includes access off of lonely road with a stub out to the east to Future development that would be in Wake County considerations such as open space and tree coverage meet Udo standards a neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with Udo requirements on March 8 2022 two community members and one County staff person were in attendance one social pinpoint comment has been received and is in your packet Steph determines that the request is consistent with the draft Place type map the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies while not consistent with future land use map staff recommends a change in the designation to medium-high density.

Residential 8 to 20 dwelling units per acre if the zoning map change is approved staff and the applicant are here to answer any questions should you have them thank you we will open the public hearing we'll begin with applicant presentation you'll have 10 minutes foreign thank you Aaron and good evening chair and mendolia and members of the commission I'm Jamie schwedler with Parker Poe at 301 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh I'm here on behalf of the applicant tonight and I'm accompanied by Kelsey Westwood and Earl Llewellyn Engineers with Kimberly horn who can answer any technical questions as well as our team who's here to answer any questions related to the development the team is proud to present this multi-family project with committed affordable units to help meet the housing needs in Durham accompanied by appropriate environmental commitments along key existing and planned infrastructure of corridors if we could advance to the next slide please the request is to rezone one parcel to a 48 Acres on Lumley Road that extends back.

Towards Highway 70 to the north and borders Wake County to the east next slide the current property is vacant and is mostly adjacent to other vacant lands some of which has been rezoned but not yet developed also across the street is the house hounds with Village townhomes and a portion of the Indigo Apartments on Marion Park Lane the next slide shows the property on a red star adjacent to the Future location of the Aviation Parkway extension in Northern Durham Parkway so you see in the center of the slide there is the red star of the property location the extensions I just spoke of run kind of north south to the top of the bottom of the page and so what we're doing is placing residents close to nearby infrastructure that's already flagged for upgrades and changes and putting people in those locations the next slide shows the place type map designation for this property which is mixed residential neighborhood our request meets this draft designation because it will provide new homes on.

Previously undeveloped land it clusters those homes in a way that's respectful to the environment and is designed to add a diversity of housing types at different price points and densities thus will be consistent with the place type map and the new guidance on which you're basing your future decisions for Durham's growth the next slide shows the current zoning on the site is is mostly residential rural with a small section Zone commercial General we're requesting to rezone the entire property to PDR to allow for development of no more than 480 apartment and or townhome units this application is also accompanied by an annexation petition shown on the next slide and is appropriate in this location because the site is surrounded by City jurisdiction to the north south and west so annexation will allow for efficient and effective provision of Public Utilities the next slide shows the commitments which were carefully selected to address Durham's current housing needs and key issues that the city faces they include affordable housing commitments of three percent of the.

Units committed as income restricted dwelling units at Ami at 80 Ami for 20 years these will be compatible in square footage number of bedrooms and external appearance in the market rate units this is all listed as commitments in your development plan and I'm just providing summaries on the screen as to housing variety up to the the 480 apartments and or town homes will be provided that complements the existing product in the area but provides more more product to allow for both that market rate that balances out the affordable housing commitment as the transportation Aaron did a great job of highlighting the 10-foot shared path for the full Frontage of the site as well as a traffic signal to be installed if warranted as for erosion control this site differs or this project differs significantly from what others you've heard tonight where you had to ask proactively for those commitments to be added we've already taken the steps and added those those commitments to the development plan so this project includes commitments for.

All four elements that you see on the screen that you discussed earlier tonight the volume of sediment basins will be increased by 150 percent flocculents will be incorporated to reduce turbidity of runoff during construction skimmers will be sized to de-water the base and volume in a minimum of four days and double rows of silt fences will be provided along the stream buffers with respect to storm water we're increasing that commitment to the one two and I believe it says 10-year storm to 90 percent of that volume and Kelsey can answer any questions with respect to that commitment but in each of these cases we're exceeding what the Udo would require with respect to housing as well as storm water and environmental controls and doing so in a way that responds to comments that this commission has made for the past several years and it's certainly made tonight next slide please and in so doing we've shown how these commitments appear graphically so what you'll see on the screen is an illustration of a.

Significant amount of existing environmental features towards the northwest of the the site there some Wetlands spread throughout the site the second page of the development plan also shows the extreme topography that exists on this site so what we're doing is trying to Nestle those apartment and townhome buildings in in this topography challenge as well as the constraints that we have with wetlands and clustering them throughout the red arrows that you see on the screen are the site accesses that Aaron outlined earlier and we're happy to answer any further questions on those so the next slide really highlights how this rezoni is consistent with your draft comprehensive plan for all of the reasons I stated earlier it's consistent with policies 39 and 41 that because this instructs that new proposals should include a commitment to affordable housing and I know that there's a preference for the units and we're happy to to deliver those tonight it produces more affordable housing of all types that follows an accepted design standard.

As those will be comparable in in size and makeup to the market rate housing it's consistent with policy 46 by providing a variety of new new housing types and development as well as policy 79 to locate the open space so that it protects the most environmentally sensitive portions of the site and creates large and contiguous habit areas that we outlined earlier there are some of those existing on the site and the topography will encourage us to Cluster those as we go policies 109 and 163 also deal with important draft comprehensive plan policies at this by has discussed and are consistent with what you find in your staff report and so on that basis the next slide just highlights that in addition to this consistency it's consistent with Udo requirement 3.5.10 because we're compatible with the zoning and uses of the nearby property the character of the neighborhood both existing and projects that are proposed but not yet delivered the subject property is more suitable for the proposed use which is a.

Providing more affordable units either in apartment or town home product as well as market rate product as opposed to the current designation of office or the vacant use today and improves the balance of uses and meets the demand in Europe in Durham and it's responding to the infrastructure that's available and planned to support the needs of these future residents so with that we're thrilled to be presenting this opportunity for new housing with affordable units and heightened environmental controls in a location that's consistent with your future draft Place type map and we're happy to answer any questions thank you with that we're going to turn to Public Comment also real quick Jamie is Daniel Gunter part of your team as well yes chair Daniel Gunter has signed up as well as both Kelsey and and Earl just to answer questions but doesn't have any proactive comments to make great thank you so with that are we don't have anyone outside of the applicant team signed up to speak in person is there anyone in.

Attendance wishing to speak on this item okay we will turn to our Zoom participants we'll begin with Jane chorist can you hear me yes good evening members of the Planning Commission staff and community members I'm Jane corris staff with the Durham County engineering and environmental services department and I'm here tonight representing Durham County on behalf of Jake Gibson our director of engineering who could not be present I have submitted Jay's letter to the Planning Commission joint email so that it could be entered in the record we are not in opposition to this project but as you know the electronic sign up doesn't provide for an informational button to click just proponents or opponents you hear a lot about City infrastructure but this site is actually served by the County's Wastewater utility system not the cities this rezoning property would be served by the County's Highway 70 lift station which is located adjacent to this site and which has become Obsolete and requires upgrading and relocation a little over a year ago in.

March 2022 I attended the developers community meeting and expressed to their representatives who are present tonight the County's concern over the service issues with the County's Highway 70 Pump Station and the need to upgrade and relocate it we requested that they work with the County's utilities division to discuss this need and develop an amicable solution prior to the time the rezoning case was formally submitted for review and received their insurances at this meeting that this follow-up would take place I was therefore rise to see this case review was complete and moving forward to the Planning Commission and was further surprised and disheartened to learn from our utility division staff that no recent conversations have taken place with either the developer or their Engineers regarding the capacity and the relocation needs for this lift station the county remains ready to look for a win-win solution for this area's needs that will also benefit this development thank you for your time thank you next we will go to Donna Steinbach.

Donna are you able to mute. Can you hear me now yes okay Donna Steinbeck Durham North Carolina first question I have is are they going to be blast is there going to be blasting required for this development since there's so many topography changes we've had problems with blasting in the past and we'd like to receive some assurance that any damages would be covered by the developer in case their insurance provider does not that's where we've been the next thing is I saw a one two and ten year stormwater plan why not a hundred year storm water event plan this is in a a lot of area that has a lot of impervious surface to it surrounded by the highways and I can see that runoff would probably be extensive the the other thing to note is that this is in what I believe is Triassic soil so the the coverings for any exposed land needs to be taken care of very quickly just as a note to the developer because with the terrain differences.

That would be very important those are my comments thank you thank you I also want to let the record reflect that we were able to change Jane chorus registration as neutral so they have been listed as neutral on our registrants list next we'll move to Pam Williams.

Pam are you able to unmute yes things shifted on my computer good afternoon my name is Pam Williams I live at 2130 Adventure trail Durham North Carolina I'm very familiar with the project of widening us 70. you 5518 and I I was glad to see that they mentioned it and hopefully coordinated that with their designs and everything my concerns here on this parcel is changing it from office to Apartments and it's my concern on the other project down there at right Leaf also if we continue and and this has been a A continuing thing to change our commercial our industrial to residential all along us 70. to me US 70 should be you know more business Commercial that's what y'all had planned originally that's what it should be should be bringing in the business of people and residents can walk to some businesses instead of taking all the business and offices and turning it over to residential how do you provide for those or are like down there on rightly.

It's through service road so it could be provided again I want to mention that the boundary and the capacity looks like minimum on this I I want to push for what the Udo the proposed Udo of a 30-foot boundary and a 06 opacity we need to maintain the appearance of these roads and not be looking at townhouses as we drive down these roads and also for sustainability environmental reasons and everything and yes this area does have some Creeks running through it on the North side Northwest side there's some drainage issues as you know on U.S 70 on the other side of U.S 70.

Okay thank you thank you is there anyone else wanting to speak on this case.

Okay seeing none I want to turn to the applicant do you want to respond to any of the questions or comments that we just heard hello I'm Kelsey Westwood with Kimberly horn 300 Morris Street in Durham I just wanted to respond to Jane's comment and and speak with all of you I know there have been a lot of discussions over the last couple days about the pump station I just wanted to let you all know that we are aware that upgrades are needed we're prepared to to discuss that with the county we have had preliminary conversations with them since the meeting last March but this is typically an issue that we discuss further at the site plan stage and so we usually work through all of those design details once kind of the zoning is a little bit more solidified so we're certainly happy to have those discussions and we're looking forward to discussing with the county and and making sure that we come to a solution that works for everyone thank you.

Okay are there any commissioner questions or comments commissioner Morgan thank you chair one I had a couple questions for the applicant there was a comment about the Hundred Year storm events I was wondering if that would be something that the applicant would commit to I was just going to provide a little bit of clarity and then we'll discuss further but the 100 Year storm is typically the Udo requires that the 100 Year storm is maintained in our Basin if we're you know we're doing a wet pond so the 100 Year storm is not just going to be free-flowing out from the site but we will we have committed to the one two and ten to be at 90 instead of 100 of the flow rate.

Oh I can also explain what that means basically the Udo requires the one two and ten year storms we basically have to reduce the flow rate to the pre-development rates so we won't be letting any more you know there will not be a higher rate of runoff on the site in post-development conditions but we're committing to reducing it further so that our post development is a little bit less than our pre-developments we have have committed to that so there's just no no commitment to the 100 Year event but you're mitigating it through other means correct the 100 Year storm will be contained in the pond but the flow rate you know will have to run our calculations but the flow rate's not being reduced necessarily the other question I had is do you own the adjacent property in Wake County is that what is the development plan for that I know there is there additional units being built in the underweight County side of things just so I get a bigger understand of the.

Big picture at this time there's no no development that's connected with this one planned for the Wake County portion okay I just you know the same owner is there on both sides and I I do appreciate the respect for the Aviation Parkway extension and the right-of-way along the lines there so obviously access to it would be very helpful yes okay thank you commissioner Williams thank you very much chair and mendelia I will be brief first of all I want to thank you very much for your environmental commitments in mitigating runoff and environmental impacts those are a tremendous help I don't think that we fully appreciate a lot of times what goes into the planning for these things and since we've seen more often times than not 70 has turned into a river with immense flooding I think that that will continue to happen and that trickle-down effect will take place in Durham I am excited about this project because you guys are very proactive in how you're considering the site and you're.

Intentional about what you're developing I'm also excited about the fact that you're considering affordable housing within this project I do have a request which is probably a little off-brand but I think you guys can meet the Mark I would like to see Brownstones in this area to break up some of the monotony of what we see in terms of facades and you would essentially create a footprint that no one else has been able to to make and it would add greater value to what it is that you're looking to establish but what you're creating in this area is extremely considerate as presented I do also understand some of the comments or the need because this is trying to go from commercial and this area is heavily dense with residential and outside of Briar Creek there is nowhere for anyone to walk to so the availability of possibly charging stations or stores almost as like a co-op type area would serve this area and you could meet that 15-minute walk.

Creation that we're trying to put in Durham by making this a walkable community that is self-sustained in an already heavily traveled area so you get an opportunity to Target passers by or people who live in this area by making the opportunity of creating compact communities that are self-sustained if that makes sense so maybe not necessarily like a major grocery store but smaller walkable storefronts that allow people to be able to dwell almost like live laugh work play in within the same area but this is a very impressive project as presented thank you other questions or comments I have one question for the applicant so the development plan says that there will be up to 480 dwelling units on the property and it will be a mix of multi-family apartments and town homes I guess similar to conversations we've had before where we have kind of that up to designation like it could be 480 town homes in theory I'm sure from a design standpoint that doesn't really work because those Town Homes would be pretty.

Narrow but I'm curious if you have considered kind of getting like a minimum designation for the Apartments and Townhomes or what are your thoughts on kind of that mix between townhomes and apartments foreign. We had originally tried to keep it rather flexible because of the topography changes and I think you're exactly right it would be very difficult to have all town homes in this in this area I think we'd like to keep that flexibility so that we can make sure we provide you know if we can get to that 480 number the higher amount of affordable units are available and the more we cut that number down the more the the less units it ends up being so I think we'd like to preserve that flexibility but something I'm willing to I think we're all willing to talk with as we go forward to city council and see if there's some mutually agreeable minimum we can we can reach okay thank you and I want to just follow up a clarifying point on the stormwater.

Piece because I think I'm I'm personally a little bit confused so when I read the stormwater commitment I see it referencing the one two and ten year storm events and the question that I've heard talked about tonight is about the hundred Deer storm event and we've seen proffers in the past where applicants will agree to do stormwater treatment up to the 100 Year storm event are you saying that you are addressing that or offering that tonight or is the commitment in the development plan the commitment the commitment in the development plan is the current commitment but I think similar to the to the item on you know the mix of units I think we can have those discussions as we go forward and discuss kind of what we're comfortable with as far as the applicant team is concerned okay thank you commissioner cease yeah thank you I just want to Second both of the points that chair amendolia just made because as it stands now much was made in the presentation about presenting multiple.

Unit types but there's nothing in the requirements that would require you to do so it could be 480 Townhomes 480 Apartments so there's not a consistency between the presentation and the tax commitments and I would hope that by Council you can address that in the way that a lot of projects that have come before us have have done so while still maintaining a lot of flexibility in terms of what that mix is whether it's you know a Max of certain number of type by type there are a lot of ways to address that but right now there's it's not addressed so the principles that you're saying are being addressed aren't backed up by the tax commitments I think and and similarly the confusion is understandable regarding the 100 Year storm because in fact you're not addressing it is what it sounds like so I think either you're addressing it or not so maybe clean up both of those before it gets to council would be very important thank you thank you.

Are there questions or comments. Commissioner shigeris yes when I first read this proposal I thought it was you know just a a good idea some high density housing potential for connecting to city transportation until I heard the part about the county lift station can you offer anything more concrete as to I mean I don't want 480 people flushing their toilet at once and then complaining to the county and it doesn't work because City Annex them in and then what are you going to do then absolutely well I can assure you I do not want that either I am we're definitely committed to I mean we're committed to providing sewer to this development and we that is a topic that as an applicant team we've talked about at Great length and and are committed to finding a solution I think our you know we know that there's the D.O.T Road Improvement project that is has a couple of Alternatives out there so part of our hesitancy to finalize discussions on.

That is just kind of waiting to see how the county and Dot are coordinating on that item which in our initial discussions with the county they did mention that there was still coordination happening with DOT so we're certainly understanding of the issue plan to provide you know the upgrades to the pump station we just need to coordinate some of those details as we get further into the process but completely understand your concern and we we want to address that one and will at the time of site plan so that's not a commitment tonight but a commitment in the future to address the lift station correct it's we don't typically see that as part of the zoning process.

And just to clarify that won't be an added commitment in the development plan because the code will require us to work with the plan planning staff and the county through the site plan process and respond to comments as we go and I'm happy for planning staff or anyone else with the with the city to to chime in or or correct us if we need to be corrected yeah I appreciate those comments so we there are lots of situations where you run into where we we have to work with the both the city and the county with water management and with County utilities on sewer basins and with water and so often that happens independently of the rezoning process usually happens with the annexation process and so by the time it gets to city council that associate annexation has that fleshed out in how that's going to happen I will also add that thinking about how we treat applications before we can't require one you know proposal to build an entire lift station.

That's not fiscally feasible and so it'll require some Innovation or require probably some some work working with the county to make that happen and probably working with some other projects as well but we haven't seen profers where an applicant built a live station by themselves because that would be cost prohibitive commissioner cease a question for staff the could you address the project that's been approved I believe immediately to the west of the site and specifically were there any required stub outs or connections did staff look at that.

Or you may know from the applicant side I was like if you can give us one minute yeah I tried to pull it up I wasn't able to. I remember the case but I don't remember the specifics.

Just while both groups are looking the reason I'm asking is of course because the commission has spent time on connectivity ordinance issues and block length requirements and this is a sizable piece of single ownership land 47 Acres unlike some of the cases we heard earlier tonight which were much smaller and more limited in terms of what they could do and this has a you know a quarter mile of Frontage or not Frontage sorry perimeter on the western side and so the discussions that the commission at least has had with regards to connectivity or seem relevant particularly given the lack of development on you know three of the four sides of this parcel.

I can try to address that based on Recollections of discussions with staff early on we looked at the cross access on that particular portion that location I don't know if we can bring up the page two of the existing conditions for the development plan but that portion is burdened by a significant Valley and and toppo change as well as the wetlands and does not meet some of the the length requirements for our particular area which you kind of look at the two of those combined I think the discussion with staff at that point is that there would there'll likely be some problem connecting for cross-axis there and so to provided in the other locations that are shown on the development plan.

I believe staff would like to add to that earlene Thomas Transportation so the adjacent development to the west of this site does show a stub on their approved development plan however the the Western property line of this site did not does not meet the link requirements neither the adjacent one but they showed it likely for connectivity purposes at the time of site plan so they weren't not they were not this development was not required to show a stub however if the adjacent development constructs their project first they will be required to connect to it per day ordinance I want to be sure I understand this so if the other development is constructed first who's that they they will be required to connect to it yes sorry okay this development will be required to connect even though there's no access point shown along that front right along that parcel boundary because the ordinance they still have to meet our ordinance requirements which requires you to connect to all adjacent right of ways and the note.

That is referenced on whatever sheet it is sheet2 there's their wording says that no stub out is required in this location because it does not meet the dimensional requirements correct that seems in conflict did right right so the stub out requirement the ordinance requires a stub this is Suburban teeth every 1400 linear feet of Frontage which they have 1339 feet so it's just under so this ordinance doesn't require a stub in that cardinal direction however the ordinance does require you to connect to all roadways that are construct existing roadways that are constructed okay so it's a timing matter of when and would it be construction or when that site plan is approved it would be constructed or dedicated so if that right-of-way has been dedicated and they'll be required to connect yes and you're in your planning and design your view contemplated that I think we've we've tried to see when that is moving forward and we'll have to respond to the Udo and comply with it when that time comes but with this the.

Distinction I think you're seeing is what's required to be shown on the development plan at the zoning stage versus what's required for us to do at site plan and just it to Arlene's point it's a timing issue that we'll have to respond to if that comes well I understand the framing is a timing issue but it's also just from a practical perspective I think this commission has been consistent and transportation has certainly been consistent that connectivity is beneficial from a lot of perspectives and so I mean there could be a commitment to provide an access point there and that would remove the timing consideration right and so I guess what I'm would find to be comforting would be an acknowledgment that the design that you're contemplating is anticipating needing to make that connection we are trying to minimize environmental impacts and because of the stream in that area we we're trying to leave that untouched if we can but if we're if we need to make that cross access and connection.

At site plan then we'll revisit it at that time what looks like any stream if there is one that would be impeding this connection is on the adjacent parcel so they're already taking care of it you've got three or four hundred feet that are clear of the stream clear of wetlands according to the topography so that's and that's if the stream was there it'd be a different conversation and I see the stream to the north we're talking about the residual parcel and there's several hundred feet where I think that approved site plan I'm sorry approved development plan is being required to provide a connection I just think that maybe is item number three to add to the list to clean up because honestly the way that the presentation came across and the way some of these things are worded causes me discomfort it feels like there's ways that some of the intent that is being expressed could be circumvented and I want to make sure that doesn't happen understood.

Okay any other questions or comments commissioner Williams yes thank you very much Sharon mendoli I want to thank staff for the clarity on the pump station and the lift station and the requirements of a developer or a building to have to upgrade those I believe that that is a cost share item that should be addressed if it's already in the process of not performing which could be done by mitigating the issue with Federal grant funding Hazard mitigation several options that are out there now as far as this access point is I definitely understand the need to not disturb ground it doesn't need to be disturbed in the event of trying to provide for an access point that you may or may not need to provide because it's not required especially since we've had less discussion about greater needs within the Planning Commission I think that the proposal for this longer access point given the improvements or the requirements or the ncdot project or the development of the other project would create greater.

Connectivity without such a short turnaround or such a short access point which is why we need connectivity in order to deviate traffic in Greater Transportation methods which helps to decrease the amount of impact that this neighbor could could have so when you connect one neighborhood to another you create pass-throughs and eventually with Highway 70 being what it is once people figure that out now you've got to implement speed diversion tactics in order to keep neighborhoods safe and I think that right now your approach within what's been specified is acceptable and I have the utmost confidence in staff that if the other site is developed that what is required will be met prior to approval or final development plan and thank you for actually putting the time and the effort into including a development plan with such a massive project because oftentimes are not we we get projects this size with a blank check requirement or request and this is a very detailed very detailed development plan though it doesn't necessarily show all the.

Grading of topography and the slopes it is it's productive and how it's presented but I do understand the concerns from wanting to make sure that if approved that these stubs as required or as needed will be adequate especially considering the fact the the size and the need for life safety measures to be able to have access to the residents those are all things that I'm quite certain will be addressed but I thank you again thank you any other questions or comments okay I would like to close the public hearing at this time and I would accept a motion Mr chair I'd like to make a motion I'd like to hear a list of the proffers are there any in place I don't think there are any additional that I heard tonight so I make a motion that we take case z22 triple zero 52 the Lumley Road multi-family project to be forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation second moved by commissioner Morgan seconded by commissioner Trapp is there any.

Discussion on the motion seeing none maybe we have the Royal call vote chairman dolia yes Vice chair Cameron yes commissioner shagaris yes commissioner MacGyver yes commissioner Morgan yes commissioner cease no commissioner Trapp yes commissioner Valentine yes commissioner Carmen Williams yes motion carries eight one great thank you thanks to the applicants thanks to staff we're going to move to our last rezoning case of the evening this is case z2200 53 4000 sand car way before we get started I'm going to pass it over to commissioner trap yes thank you Mr chair I do have to recuse myself from this particular case so I will put myself in timeout and step outside yes and can you just explain your conflicts absolutely I'm employed by the applicant great thank you so commissioner trap has requested a recusal from this case can I please get a motion on that move to recuse commissioner Trapp from this case seconded Okay moved by Vice chair Cameron seconded by commissioner Morgan all in favor please say aye.

Aye all opposed have the same right motion passes unanimously thank you with that we will begin with the staff report thank you chairman dolia one more time Aaron Kane with the planning department for z220053 sank her way this property is located at 4000 sanker way totally 4.547 Acres the existing zoning is office and institutional the applicant is proposing a general rezoning to science research Park Center to allow for its corresponding uses no annexation is associated with this rezoning the existing future land use map designation is commercial the proposed science research Park Center is consistent with the commercial future land use map designation the existing zoning is office it is surrounded by science research Park Central to the South and West and science research Park to the north and east this is the last remaining office and institutional zoning in this area of research Triumph Park so you can see on the aerial map there is considerable construction going on in the area for the new Hub RTP and the site is located at the.

Interchange of I-40 and Davis Drive. A neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with Udo requirements on September 27 2022 no members were no community members were in attendance and there are no social pinpoint comments for this case staff has determined that this request is consistent with future land use map the draft Place type map the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies this proposal is in the public public interest due to the conformance of the SRP zoning District on the property that is surrounded by similar zoning districts and designated commercial on the future land use map with that staff and the applicant are here to answer any questions you may have thank you it's time we're going to open the public hearing begin with the applicant presentation you'll have 10 minutes to provide your comments.

Good evening Planning Commission members and thank you very much and thanks to Aaron for that presentation my name is Travis Creighton I'm a senior planner with the Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina we are the nonprofit entity charged with stewardship and oversight of Research Triangle Park we're also the owner of this parcel I'm also joined this evening by our president and CEO Scott Levitan we are requesting this rezoning tonight to bring this parcel into the srpc district which as Aaron mentioned in his presentation surrounds this parcel when the srpc district was created in 2015 this parcel was not included in that rezoning because we did not own it at that point in time we became the sole owner of this parcel in December of 2020 and so we're requesting the rezoning to be able to plan accordingly for the future of this parcel in conjunction with our Hub RTP development as that continues in future phases we're not proposing any Redevelopment tonight in the existing use will remain on the site.

We simply want the resulting in order to fully consider this a part of our Hub development in a future phase of development and we'll be happy to answer any questions thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you we're gonna move forward to public comment we don't have anyone who register to speak in person and I don't think there's anyone else in person wishing to speak if there's anyone in Zoom wishing to speak on this case please raise your hand at this time.

Okay seeing none before we get into commissioner deliberation I do want to disclose RTP is a client of my firm I am not a part of the project team that has been working with them and I am completely walled off from what is happening apart from the fact that they are a client of my firm I do not believe this constitutes a conflict of interest as I am not associated with the project or the specific work if you all disagree you may let me know and we can move forward but I'm making the Judgment call that this does not constitute a conflict of interest so any commissioner comments or questions.

This is for RTP hub so this parcel is immediately adjacent to the hub RTP development it's just not currently included in the same zoning District there's currently no development plans for this parcel I just wanted to make sure because I I used to work in Park office drive and I saw when the development began and I've kind of watched it throughout its phases and this is a massive massive campus that you all are developing so yeah I was wondering what was going there but thank you thank you very much.

Any other questions or comments okay seeing none I would I'm going to close the public hearing and I would accept a motion at this time Mr chair I make a motion that we take case z22 triple zero 53 4000 sanker way to be forwarded to the city council with a favorable record recommendation second moved by commissioner Morgan seconded by Vice chair Cameron any discussion on the motion seeing number we have the roll call vote I just want to clarify sending this case on to the board of county commissioner commissioners I make that correction that we forward it to the the County Commission Durham Board of County Commissioners great thank you chair amidolia yes Vice chair Cameron yes commissioner cigars yes commissioner Macgyver yes commissioner Morgan yes commissioner cease yes commissioner Trapp is not here commissioner Valentine yes commissioner Carmen Williams yes the motion carries eight zero great thank you commissioner trap is coming back in right on cue okay with that we are done with our rezoning cases for the evening we are.

Going to turn to our last agenda item which is the comprehensive Plan update this agenda item is meant for commission deliberation only we are not holding a public hearing as part of this and I'm actually going to close the public hearing because it was left open because this was continued from our last meeting the purpose of this time is for Commissioners to express concerns and comments on the policy areas in the draft comprehensive plan so that we can give staff information that they need on just our thoughts for when we approve this in May our second May meeting so staff I don't know if you have any more comment or framing you want to put her on this conversation but if so I'll turn it to you and then we can discuss any comments or concerns maybe just a little framing we don't have a formal presentation you've already done that twice so we'll spare you this tonight we just wanted to give the commission a chance since the last two meetings were spent.

Talking mostly about issues related to the map to not forget about the policies and the actions which are also very important so we're and I are here and Lisa Miller and Kayla cybull are joining us via Zoom so if you have questions or concerns about any of the policies or any of the actions particularly if you think there are any policies or actions you think should be changed or are missing we want to hear about those now so that we can be prepared to have amendments or choices you know like we had last time if there's you know a choice of two different policies that we can put in front of you so that we can be prepared to have a final vote in May so we'll just open it up for any comments or questions and we'll have the most appropriate person try to to address your your concerns great okay we would like to start.

Commissioner shigeris and meeting a couple meetings ago I can't remember exactly which one one of the petitioners had asked why can't people in Durham live over the top of their businesses is that a thing I guess it is because she I mean and if we wanna is that going to be addressed in this is that a good idea I think it would be a good idea you've got a housing shortage and if you're gonna do infill or promote downtown activities you can have the business on the bottom level just like a lot of these mixed-use neighborhoods we want and have the people living over the top of them the water and the sewer and the infrastructure is already there they can walk they're downstairs at just 15 minute walkability how can that happen yeah so we definitely agree that that's a good idea and should be something we encourage more it's allowed it's actually allowed currently in a lot of our zoning districts it just doesn't get used very often it's.

It's a it used to be very common to do that but just the way zoning and lending and all those sorts of things have changed how we develop our cities as a made that less common but it I think one of the things I don't I don't think there's any policies that specifically address the kind of what we call vertical mixed use but you'll see most of the the place types encourage the mixing of residential non-residential unless it's something like industrial where there could be a conflict in those kinds of land uses but certainly in you know Neighborhood Services which is the place type designed to be the small commercial area having residential above a retail establishment is certainly encouraged and in places like downtown or Transit opportunity areas having multiple stories of residential above retail is also strongly encouraged and also currently allowed in our zoning districts.

Other questions comments concerns. Foreign. Just a quick comment and you know I think this sentiment has been expressed previously but I really applaud the work that staff has done over a long period of time and in terms of engagement on the policies and all of the work in terms of coding that information in terms of being very intentional about who to include and how to engage communities and individuals that that aren't typically present or even necessarily aware of the way in which the planning department and planning policies are established and so that I think it's just a really commendable job that staff has done in that regard I I will acknowledge that I wasn't here at the last meeting where much of the discussion was about the urban growth boundary and I did watch that meeting over a period of a couple of sittings it took a while and and I will say just that I you know have less kind of comfort about the way in which the engagement and of some of the.

Affected parcel owners were was handled on on that point but on the policies I think it was really just a fabulous job that folks in Durham and and folks in the planning Community kind of professionally and in a much broader Community will will look to when this is all done with with a you know a great sense of appreciation and admiration so other questions comments commissioner Morgan yeah I just wanted to make one comment sort of about the place types and how we actually apply them I think there are some cases where multiple attributes could be very applicable I mean especially maybe in the staff reports and how we apply it maybe we have a broad thing where we're doing mixed use but maybe there may be other attributes that were satisfying by the definition of the place type so it may be something to consider as a policy or a way we would actually apply that as far as some of the things in the reports because it would be interesting.

To see how we apply Place types and how we do it we versus the flum that we have today and how that would actually be used moving forward so it's just a comment just a thought where I can see say a multi-use being place a 15-minute walking area possibly some other types of of attributes that could be there and it actually can enhance the information that's reported to us in the staff reports. Thank you any other questions or comments.

So let's say if if you think of something in the meantime we'll need you know several weeks to get the the May 23rd agenda prepared so just ask can you give us enough time to do that but certainly understand that if you can't think of all your comments right now on the spot and for those Commissioners around here we're happy to hear from them as well I think I the only comment I would make I think kind of building off of what commissioner C said is I do feel like with the policies in particular we did a really good job having a more organic process from the beginning in the development of those and having actual residents working on those and I know several of us on the commission participated in writing those and so I think that makes this part a little bit easier because we've had a lot of consensus being built around that for a long period of time I think similar to commissioner sees his comments what I.

Think we can do better next time and is figure out how to learn lessons from the ways we develop the policies into how we develop the maps because that's where like what commissioner cease was saying things kind of I think there's some communication lost and also just the way that we draw lines is feels arbitrary even to me sometimes and I'm a trained planner much less to someone who is just living their lives not thinking about how City staff is drawing different lines and designations and how Parcels get decided and what gets chosen where so I hope that moving forward even after we approve the comprehensive plan that will continue to think about how to engage communities in the actual zoning designations and the place types that we are wanting to that we're proposing to that ultimately will shape the places that they live but as far as the policy areas are concerned I feel a lot of confidence about the work that has gone into them I'm frankly I'm very thankful to my past.

Self right now because I read all the policy policies like a year ago and provided comments on them so I feel pretty good about where they are now and feel like my comments have been heard but look forward to continued conversation on this as we move towards that March or sorry May 23rd day trying to go back in time okay I do need a motion on this and I need to reopen the public hearing so that we may continue this to our May 23rd meeting it moved second okay moved by commissioner Morgan seconded by Vice chair Cameron and may we get the roll call vote.

Sharonmentalia yes Vice chair Cameron yes commissioner Morgan yes commissioner Carmen Williams yes commissioner Valentine yes sorry my order is a little off right now commissioner Macgyver yes commissioner shagaris yes commissioner cease yes commissioner Trapp yes motion carries 9-0 great so we will have our next meeting will be May 9th that'll be a typical meeting where we will do rezonings and we have a text Amendment on it and then May 23rd will be our fine well crossing our fingers barring anything unforeseen we're going to make that our final public hearing on the comprehensive plan so we will see y'all then this meeting is adjourned at 8 51 oh Grace cutting me off did you happen to mention earlier I may have missed it that we did have a resignation did you mention that I did not mention that but we did we did learn today that commissioner Brandon Davis has resigned from the Planning Commission so we have another opening on the commission Grace I believe we have two openings two total.

One city one County yes we have one city opening one County opening I know the city. Yeah the city one should be filled soon because they just went through the work session but yeah we did have commissioner Davis resign so we'll be looking to feel about County's seat great this meeting is still adjourned at 8 51 pm.