Good evening and welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission are appointed by city council and the county board of commissioners to make recommendations to the elected officials. We emphasize that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you are attending in person and wish to speak on a particular agenda item, please register on the signup sheet sheets located on the table to my left.
You will be called upon to make your comments at the appropriate time. You [clears throat] may also call in during the meeting by dialing 1301-7158592. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the particular public hearing you are interested in starts. After all of the pre-registered speakers have shared their comments, I will ask if there is anyone else wishing to speak. At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star9 on your phone and when recognized, state your name and address before
making your comments. The applicant has a total of 10 minutes for their presentation. Each speaker after the applicant has two minutes to speak. Commissioners will be given five minutes for Q&A.
Please keep your comments succinct. Commissioners, as a reminder, after the public hearing is closed, you obtain the floor by being recognized by the chair. The time to make all public statements is before motions are made. All motions are stated in the affirmative.
So, if the motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. After the case you are here for ends, please exit the chambers quietly and pursue further discussion in the lobby as the commission continues its meeting. Finally, I ask everyone here and on the Zoom, the commission members, the staff and the public to conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner.
[snorts] If someone fails to act in that manner, the chair will ask the offending person or persons to be muted on the zoom or asked to leave the council chambers until such time they can regain personal control. If decorum fails to be restored, the chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to act respectful and courteous is observed. May we have the roll call, please? >> [clears throat] >> Chair Shagaras >> here.
>> Vice Chair Cameron >> here. >> Commissioner Bailey. Commissioner Capers. Commissioner Chakowski.
Commissioner Hunter >> here. >> Commissioner Huarez Maldonado >> here. Commissioner Montes >> here. >> Commissioner McCyver
>> here. >> Commissioner Ninekirkner. >> Commissioner Pionac >> here. >> Commissioner Richie >> here.
>> Commissioner Woke >> here. >> A quorum has been established. >> Thank you. There are no adjustments to the agenda.
We do have a new member. [clears throat] >> Yes, two two new members to introduce you to. Well, two new people to introduce you to. One is a new member of the commission.
Uh, America Warez Maldonado. I'm saying that right. Um, she replaces Commissioner Copac who has recently resigned for obvious reasons for any of you who follow local elections. So, uh, we welcome Commissioner Huarez Maldonado.
If >> [applause] >> I just want to say hello and I'm really excited to be part of this commission. I'm born and raised in Durham so I really care about the community. I come
from an organizing background so I just appreciate being here and I'm learning. Um but I really look forward to just being part of this committee. So thank you. [clears throat] >> Thank you.
And one more introduction to make is our newest staff member to our team. going to come up. I'd like to introduce you to Javar Jones. He doesn't have any cases yet that are coming before you, but he will in the near future.
Uh Javar is native to North Carolina as he was born and raised in Winston Salem. He is a proud graduate of Wake Forest University, those of us who attended other better ACC schools. Will not try not to hold that too much against him. Um he graduated with a degree in politics and international affairs and was first hired with our department uh to work in the customer service uh team.
He's been there for a couple of years and just last week moved over to our team. We're very happy to have him. [applause]
>> Thank you. All right. Item number four on the agenda is uh the approval of the minutes and consistency statements. Do we have a motion to approve?
>> Chair, I move to approve the minutes and consistency statements from October 14th, 2025. >> Second. >> It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to approve the minutes and consistency statements. All in favor, please say I.
>> I. >> I. Opposed? Nay.
No nays. The eyes have it. All right. Item number five on the agenda, public hearings, zoning map changes, Z25 triple014 Britmore.
May we have the staff report, please? Hello. Good evening, Chair Shagaras, Vice Chair Cameron, and planning commissioners. I am Peyton Burgess and I
am here tonight to present Z250014 Britmore. Before I begin, staff would like to state for the record that all planning department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law and affidavit of all notices are on file in the planning department. 313 to allow for up to 115 town houses and single family dwelling units. Again, the existing zoning is residential rural. 870.
The aerial map shows the general location of the project. The property is currently designated mixed residential neighborhood on the place type map. The proposed zoning was determined to be consistent with the designated place type. The applicant has included the following textual commitments, including up to 115 units to be single family and town houses, a 10-ft shared use path along Fairington Mill Road, off-site sidewalk to connect to existing sidewalk on Shore Crest Road, native trees, a maximum of 50% impervious surface, a $10,500 donation to Durham Public Schools, 5% of the final unit count to be income restricted at 80% AMI for 30 years. North and southbound turn lanes, construction traffic to utilize Fington Mill Road to access the site, um 10% of single family units to have firstf floor bedrooms, and at least one street to have a mixture of housing types.
The applicant held neighborhood meetings on May 22nd and October 16th, 2025. 20 community members attended the first meeting and 42 attended the second. There are currently 40 comments against this proposal on the Durham reszoning explore. The proposal is generally consistent with the existing place type map designation of mixed residential neighborhood and is consistent with two of two applicable place type policies.
Additionally, the proposal is consistent with 22 of 26 applicable comprehensive plan policies. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. The Terra is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please.
Good evening, Chair Chairwoman Shagaras, Vice Chair Cameron, members of the planning commission. My name is Patrick Biker. I live at 2614 Stewart Drive here in Durham. I'm an attorney with Morning Star Law Group and I'm proud to be here tonight to represent Trioint Homes, which already has an outstanding track record in Durham.
With us tonight are our team leader Mandy Hy with Trioint and also Tim Cyvers, the president of CUNI, our land planning and engineering firm for this mixed residential neighborhood that we are calling Brickmore. At the outset and as noted in your staff report, we are pleased that this resoning complies with 22 out of 26 applicable comprehensive plan policies. That's a very strong degree of compliance in my experience. I wish to emphasize our commitment that impervious surface will be limited to no more than 50%. Which means that only 13 and 1/3 acres out of the 26 and 2/3 acres that you see shaded in red on the slide before you only 13 and 1/3 acres will be
developed. Accordingly, half of the site acreage will be green space, tree cover, open space, and undisturbed. That's a strong commitment since the UDO allows up to 70% imperous surface in this section of Durham. In the recently adopted comprehensive plan, a key component and perhaps the dominant theme is if you summarize the 250 pages give or take in our comp plan, that dominant theme is densify inside the urban growth boundary.
87 units per acre. In addition, Montlair has one single family, one single housing type, which is single family detached. 313 units per acre. and we are providing a combination of single family homes and town houses to diversify the housing inventory in this section of Durham.
Next, I want to highlight the traffic information on page five of your staff report. In regards to traffic, this proposal increases traffic generation from these 27 acres by 55 trips in the AM AM peak and 74 trips in the PM peak. Our team recognizes that peak hour traffic in this area is a concern, but it seems evident that the overwhelming majority of traffic in this area is due to commuters from the Kerry region commuting all the way to UNCC Chapel Hill. We heard the residents of Monontlair's concern with this issue. Therefore, based on those concerns, we proposed a four-way stop condition in the middle of the Britmore development, but unfortunately that proposal did not fly with the city's transportation staff. However, to be a good neighbor, we have added a text commitment that all construction related traffic shall be required to enter Britmore off of Ferent Mill Road, well away from the Montlair neighborhood, which again is something you can see in the bottom left corner of this slide.
When Montlair was approved, it was clear at that time that this acreage to the south would be developed at some point in the future. Here on this slide is the stubout of Shorrest Road in Montclair that is stubbed out to the Britmore assemblage. I would be remiss if I did not also note that there is water and sewer infrastructure capacity here to serve the 27 acres and the 115 housing units that we are discussing tonight. Next, I wish to refer to a recent statewide study done regarding North Carolina's [snorts] housing shortage.
According to Bowen National Research in a study commissioned by our state chamber of commerce, Durham needs 15,293 forale homes to meet the demand for that type of housing over the 20 24 to 2029 time frame. I wish to direct your attention to the bottom of this bottom center of this chart on this slide. [clears throat] the 27 acre assemblage in southwest Durham which has good access to all those jobs at UNCC Chapel
Hill and UNCC hospital which is designated mixed residential neighborhood on the future place type map and which has a road stubout along with water and sewer infrastructure put in place about a decade ago that exemplifies an ideal location for addressing that 15,000 for sale housing shortfall we are looking at right In closing, our team also has worked hard to address sustainability. We had hoped to profer a text commitment to give all single family homeowners the opportunity to install solar panels on their new home, but unfortunately that was deemed uninforceable. Nevertheless, Trip Point will be making that offer to install solar panels to all single family homeowners. If we were given credit for that, that would bolster the green infrastructure policy compliance for the Britmore neighborhood. Moreover, Britmore contains both town houses and single family homes, unlike most of the resonings over the past 20 years. Britmore also contributes affordable
housing to help address Durham's housing supply problem that I referred to a moment ago. We also are providing for 10% of the single family homes to have a first floor bedroom. So there will be age and mobility inclusion in Britmore as well. In closing, this is a strong proposal that hits the mark on 22 out of 26 applicable comprehensive plan policies.
For all [snorts] these reasons, we respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval. Our team will be happy to answer any questions. We appreciate your time tonight. I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.
Thank you. >> Thank you. of the signup sheet. Community members and person Chuck Darcy. No.
>> Yes. You want to do that first? Okay. So, Julie Mcccleintoch.
[snorts] Good evening, commissioners. I'm Julie Mcccleintoch and my address is on file. We oppose the reszoning for Brit for Britmore's request because we all lack sufficient knowledge of the project to determine whether the zoning changes warranted. The textual development plan chosen by the applicant does not address the concerns of neighbors who live off Fington Road and travel these roads regularly. This vague plan fails to explain how a rural property with limited infrastructure and transit will function. Meanwhile, the applicant can envoy can avoid the thorough review by
staff in the community that a complete plan would have required. The development is a mixed residential project. We know that with unspecified types of homes and town homes. We don't know where the streams and buffers are located which will influence their placement.
What is the actual traffic impact? We find ourselves in the difficult position of buying a pig and a poke. that is purchasing something we can't see or visualize. What happens if the staff discovers it's impossible to fit 115 town homes on what amounts to 13 usable acres?
It will be too late because the city won't be able to revert the property back to rural residential without the owner's approval. This reszoning should be denied because the area around Montlair remains rural and lacks sufficient road capacity to accommodate additional cars or transit. The core of engineers will continue to restrict transit improvements because its main m mission
is to protect the Jordan Lake waterhed and our drinking water supply that we all drink. One certainty is that the final site plan will not look like the cartoonish graphic before you. The final key point is if there's a strong chance these plans won't work out, why would the planning commission approve a zoning change for this property? Thank you.
>> Thank you, [clears throat] Annette Rice. >> Sorry, I'm closing out the Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for your volunteering to serve Durham. My name is Annette Rice and my address is on file. 312 going from rural residential where there are only two buildings located on the entire plot um to a much greater density. During their neighborhood
meetings, the development team claimed their build would emulate that of Montlair. Although this sounds fabulous, based upon the density, it's impossible. 4. 67 or almost twice the density of Montlair.
Their commitment to 50% impervious surface leaves just three and a3 acres for their 115 units or basically twice their proposed density when it's all said and done. And that would be almost four times that of Montlair. It implies more tightly packed town homes than single family homes and there's no committed maximum or a minimum for those two housing types. The proposed town home areas would be directly across the road from Blue Sun Farm's new hay barn and now that is rural residential. Britmore fronts Ferington Mill and at that point in Fington Mill Jordan Lake protected watershed lands and critical watershed areas meet
yet the current place type for the site is mixed residential. You all know that place types are guidelines from the comprehensive plan, which we all know is non-binding. Much like your decision tonight will be considered advisory only. Although your decision tonight is also non-binding, it sends a message to the city council on just how you'd like to see these outer, more rural areas of the UGB develop.
This sort of density makes much more sense in the nearby transit opportunity area or closer out of this sensitive area where development is already booming. conveniently much closer to the Celeste Circle sewer lift station that could serve Britmore. Although their sewer would be pushed through three other lift stations in order to actually reach the main one. We don't mean Britmore, we need Brit less.
Thank you. Thank you, [clears throat] Kathy Rexro. Greetings, commissioners. Thank you for serving our community in this way.
My name is Katherine Rexro. My address is on file. I'm a registered nurse and I spent 10 years of my career doing home
visits. Um, and I'd like to speak briefly about affordable and accessible housing. Um, the Britmore textual development plan commits to 5% of the final unit count being affordable at for those making 80% of the AMI for 30 years. That's fairly weak compared to the comprehensive development plan which specifies or requests 15% for this number of acres at a 50 to 80% of the um area meeting median income and ideally that affordability would be in perpetuity.
It wouldn't expire by the time our grandkids are looking for housing. Um, also point 16 of the Britmore development plan says 10% of single family homes will be accessible. That with this density, it's unclear how many single family homes will actually be built. And a first floor bedroom is the only committed accessibility feature.
There's two problems with this. Well, there's multiple problems with this, but here's two. Given the density, um, are
we going to have 10 homes with one that's accessible? It checks a box for the developer but is essentially proportionatably meaningless. Um secondly, a first floor bedroom is only accessible if you have an a um a bathroom that is attached that is a full bath. If the person on the first floor bedroom has to use a half bath that's everybody else on the first floor is using, that is not really accessible.
That needs to be committed for that bedroom. And that bedroom needs to also um ideally have access to a kitchen and entrylevel street grading. So I would encourage you as the planning commission to just think about asking for a certain number of affordable units combi ask the developer to combine affordable and accessible units because that is a huge need and um ask for the private baths. Thank you. >> Thank you Barry Saunders.
Good evening, commissioners. I'm Barry Saunders from 8110 KBEC Drive. The Britmore parcel lower left in red sits in a protective zone for Jordan Lake. It adjoins the critical zone where dense development can't happen.
Drainage into Jordan is mostly via Little Creek to the east, a tiny bit via Morgan Creek to the west. Both creeks are impaired now. The lake arms they flow into are utrophic. Generally, development pressure on Durham Creeks is draining into North Jordan Lake is intensifying.
The Durham Soils map shows several intermittent streams on the parcel. The second map, Britmore parcel in red, just highlights these streams already shown on the soils map. All new developments create new impervious surfaces, leaking vehicles, and landscaping fertilizers. All contribute nutrient and toxin pollution to lake water that serves our drinking habitat and recreation uses.
Here are utrophic conditions that presently occur throughout the shallow northern arms of the lake. Although Britmore developers proposed to limit impervious surfaces to 50% and catch drainage in a pond, 13 acres of new cement and shingle here is too much. Intermittent streams will require 100 ft riparian buffers. Look how buffers restrict what land can be graded and built.
One of these streams is already within 100 ft of the Montlair stub road at that Britmore northern boundary. Hard to imagine how that road connection can fail to further violate the buffer. In view of the stream map, which the text developers have not shared in the convenient sparseness of a textual application, their schematic of the development is a misleading fantasy. Streams will limit what the developers can build. There's bound to be an import increased proportion of town homes or what we think is more reasonable, a reduction in dwelling units planned. Fewer units, less roof and pavement
would limit impacts down slope. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Kate Hine is next on the list, but we'll wait until we do all the zooms at once.
John Cohen. >> John Cowen. >> Cowen. Hi, I'm John Cowan, the owner of Blue Sun Farm, the 112 acre farm directly across Ferington Mill Road from the proposed Britmore project.
My addresses include 8301 and 8303 Ferington Mill Road, directly across from the proposed outlets for hundreds of cars per day. There are two ponds on opposite sides of Harington Mill right there. And on my side, it's a home to hooded morganers, buffalo heads, king fetishers, osprey, and we are looking for bald eagle nests next to the pond. Current plans for Western Water Project Pipeline, which I support, are to cross over Fington Mill between the two ponds and use the rightway for pipeline, exactly where the developers say they want to use the
rightway for inadequate turn lanes on a blind corner. Building hundreds of units directly north of the new water treatment plant is contradictory. I've committed myself to run my horse, sheep, hay, and honey farm and ensure our vital and growing rural community continues forward forever. This is not an unused area that we are an active and vital community that this proposal would change forever.
The area must be restricted to rural farming and single family homes. The vague textual proposal here addresses none of the very strong reasons not to develop and would be typical for a simple fill-in area of an urban area. This proposal is going from 0 to 1,000, destroying our natural resources forever. The property already has two very nice homes currently occupied.
I've committed my land to the voluntary agriculture district for 10 years, joining at least two other VAD properties nearby like the Cedarwood Stables on stage coach. I have 17 people who work for the farm and several living there. We raise honeybees, hay, we produce sheep, a source of meat to
undeserved, underserved ethnic communities in North Carolina. We have a large equestrian resource center and are employing North Carolina State a program grads and students supporting and teaching the people who will grow your food tomorrow. I'm getting public funding from Durham County soil and water state funding for conservation improve community water but right across the road the development impact of Jordan Lake would be devastating. Thank you.
Thank you, Linda. Costola cost. I'm sorry. Can I hit Can I hit make it larger?
Good evening, commissioners. My name is Linda Castagliola and my home address is on file. My presentation will cite facts from the Triangle West Vision Zero plan. The city's action plan doesn't address the rural roads Britmore will impact.
The intersections that would be affected by Britmore are all classified as high as regional high-risisk intersections for fatal or injury crashes. Ratings are low, medium, high. These rural roads are Farington Mill Road and Barbie Chapel Road, Farington Road and Stage Coach Road, Keley Road and Farington Mill Road, Farington Mill Road and Chapel Mill Chapel Road. Those are the red circles.
Britmore will add 1,147 daily trips to highly dangerous rural roads and intersections. A development at the density of Britmore on these rural roads is quite literally an accident waiting to happen. Barbie Chapel Road, Farington Road, and Stage Coach Road are shown to be in the top 5% in our transportation region for the likelihood of speed related crashes, lane departure, and motorcycle accidents. The area is in the top 15% for high likely highest risk pedestrian and bicycle crashes in Durham County.
Farington Mill Road is one of the top five speed risk locations in Durham County. The proposed development has two entry areas, one being on Farington Mill Road and Keley Road. That is the circle. Many of the suggested mitigation strategies cannot be implemented since the Army Corps of Engineers owns most of the properties at these intersections and is not prone to giving permission to expand or make changes.
A disconnected walk bite skate path will be only along the frontage of the development on Fington Mill Road. That path would end pretty much directly across the street from Kley Road, making pedestrians, skaters, and bikers suddenly without designated safe pathways right where the Downs community ends. Thank you. >> Thank you, Hol Farley.
Hello, Madame Chair and members of the commission. [cough] My name is Holt Farley. I live on Keley Road, which is directly across from the proposed Britmore development. I'd like to address the Britmore transportation analysis.
I can't cover all the de serious problems in two minutes. So, I've sent each of you a written detailed review. Let me summarize the key points. The transportation analysis relied on outdated 2023 traffic data, misrepresented road capacity, and completely ignores expected future growth on Fington Mill Road between now and Britmore's anticipated completion in 2028. Using current NC DOT data, Fington Mill Road traffic has increased at a 7% annual growth rate over the past two years. Continuing this trend shows ambient growth alone will exceed the roads maximum capacity, pushing it to a failing level of service F grade by
2028. This projection does not include the traffic for Britmore itself, 14 other nearby uh under construction housing developments or commuter traffic from Orange County and Chattam County. Ferington Mill Road is already one of the five most dangerous roads in Durham County. All its traffic directly funnels into three key intersections at Barbie Chapel, Fington Road, Stage Coach Road, and Route 751.
intersections that cannot be widened to handle more volume due to US Army Corps of Engineers flood control restrictions. Durham's practice of reviewing traffic impacts one project at a time without considering cumulative effects or realistic growth is creating severe congestion and safety risk. Reszoning will only worsen an already overburdened and unsafe transportation network. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to vote no to the Britmore resoning. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Tom Galloway. My name is Tom Galloway. My address is on file. This map shows a threem radius around Britmore.
Our major transportation conduits are on the periphery, 501, 54, I40, and 751. Our local road network is in the center. 7 miles apart and both are on Ferington Mill. Of note, the first iteration of Morgan Farm was voted down by the city council in April of this year.
They concluded that our local road infrastructure could not absorb incremental traffic from a dense housing development. Where's the take? Let's take a closer look inside the radius. This map shows an
environmental overlay and the locations of 16 developments with over 7,000 units that have been advanced since October of 22. You have that list in front of you. Our local roads detailed in black are two-lane country roads that were carved through Army Corps protected lands decades ago. They cannot be widened and no new roads can be built.
NC DO has been unable to get Army Corps approval to improve our local roads and intersections since 2015. As you can see, this is a unique area unlike any other in Durham County. All of the transportation conduits are already congested during morning and evening peak hours. Trumper traffic is bumperto-bumper and traffic is steady all day.
Commuters are increasingly using our local roads as a bypass to avoid congestion on the primary conduits. Fairington Mill is the primary road used by commuters to get to and from Durham, Chadam, and Orange counties. NC DOT data indicates that
9% from August 24 to August 25. 11,800 cars travel that road every day. Even without Britmore, Fington Mill will deteriorate to LOSF by 2028. Please vote no.
>> Thank you. Larry Tatum. >> Cool. Thank you.
Hi. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your time and your service. My name is Larry Tedum.
My address is on file. I'm talking tonight uh briefly about Little Creek Bridge which sits along uh Farington Mill uh Farington Mill Road. Um, it is it was built in 1979
and I have sorry we have pictures here expanding since 2009 and the purpose of the pictures is to show the deterioration of the bridge. Uh, in 19 in 2016 they installed guard rails. Um the bridge over the course of time has started to slowly camp to the north and the roadways have deteriorated. The blue arrows indicate where the road is f falling off into Army Corps of Engineer area. Um, and as you can see here, the bridge was uh upgraded, repaired in 2017 with rick wrap to support it as it's deteriorating. Uh the blue arrows again indicate how the in 2024 the uh roadway is deteriorating and now
the bridge is separating from the land where it meets and that's it. I this is a major traffic conduit. The large construction vehicles will continue to damage this. The bridge was originally scheduled for replacement in 2025.
This has been pushed back to 2030. Any repairs or changes in the infrastructure by Britmore will require the city to absorb the cost to move the bridge as well as the infrastructure, sewer lines, water lines. 8. It'll be more.
Please vote this down. Thank you. >> Thank you. Eddie [clears throat] Williamson
High School. 1 miles, estimated 11 minutes. I missed the first quarter the first time I went stage coach road. 1 miles.
I got there in the middle of the first quarter. I now drive all the way up Fington Road to Chapel Hill Road and come down Garrett Road because of traffic situations. My concern after moving here is we do not have the infrastructure to handle a lot more cars. There is just nowhere for him to go. There is just nowhere for him to go. I have also had problems exiting off of I40 from the west and had to go all the way down to Falcon
Bridge and come back in to get to Ferington Road simply because of traffic problems at that major intersection coming off of 40. It is impossible and you are going to have a major mess if this goes through. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chuck Darcy.
>> Chuck Darcy, 111 Lariat Lane. Eddie's right. It's a mess out there. I moved out there 46 years ago.
Lived there 46 years. It was a country road. It's never changed. The road is the same road that was there 46 years ago. And the only ingress and egress other than going through Mont Clair will be Fington Mill Road or Barbie Chapel Road. For this, the preferred route for people coming from Chapel Hill to get on I40 is to
stay away from 54 because of that horrible intersection up there. And they cut through Barbie Chapel. They come through, it turns into Ferington, then stage coach, they get on 751 to get on. That's the way they go.
Everything that comes up from Chattam County can only go 751 15501 or Fington Mill Road. If you've been on 15501 at quitting time, you it's it's a parking lot. And that's what Fington Road has become. Fington Mill Road.
I spoke here when the um last uh Sheffield Farms was up. I counted one time out of curiosity. I made the mistake of going out at rush hour. I'm retired now, so I don't have to go out,
but I made the mistake of going out and I counted the number of cars that went by Keley before I could turn out. out there with 39 cars came out and this is exactly what's happening all the time. And I would be happy and I know you all are volunteers and are not paid for your position, but I would be happy to pick any of you up and ride you out there at rush hour and see what what we've got. Thank you.
>> Thank you, [clears throat] Elizabeth Moore. Baby, well I know. Good evening, commissioners. My
name is Elizabeth Moore and my address is on record and I sent each of you an email inviting you to come down and look at this area because you can't understand this just looking at these maps for three seconds. I urge you to keep the zoning as residential rural. It's just the wrong place at the wrong time. The land along Fairington Mill Road is unique for wildlife and water supplies and farming.
And this is a significant north to south wildlife area in Durham County. And a corridor means continuous tree cover and access to water. They need the same things we do. In a two-mile area, all the housing is single family homes.
Threestory apartment buildings do not belong here. The nearest public transportation is an hour walk. This is not connectivity.
There are no closed services like food, drugstore, and gas or banks. The developer would clear cut almost half of the property which is a mixed hardwood forest. And the proposed sidewalks along Fington Mill Road is dangerous because the traffic is going 40 to 60 miles per hour. And the sidewalks, they dead end to nowhere.
Bington Mill Road is a narrow rural Oh dear. Bington Mill Road will also carry pipes necessary for the Durham County water supply called the Western Intake Partnership pipe, which is Durham is invested in. And the one thing you don't know is Durham County is adding more than 30,000 units with Chattam Park 22,000 homes and Disney's Atoria campus with 4,000 homes. That's more than the 15,000 needed.
Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Dana Young. Good evening. My name is Dana Young and I live in the Downs community directly across from the proposed Britmore site. Our neighborhood has only one way in and out, Keley onto Fington Mill, right where Britmore construction and future traffic would enter and exit. The um photo gives a view of both sides
of Fington Mill from Keley. You can see this is a narrow deteriorating um two-lane road. We chose this area to live in because it is rural and residential and it's surrounded by conservation and farmland. The character of the southernmost tip of Durham County is lowdensity single family homes and we want to keep it that way.
Traffic is already a major issue. As you've heard, I commute to South Point Mall and have to use Fairington Mill, Fington Road, and Stage Coach to get to 751. It's the only direct route. Backups on stage coach often extend threequarters of a mile or more to get through that light.
And unlike other areas, there's no way to expand road capacity here. Conservation lands, protected waterways, and Army Corps restrictions make widening or adding new routes virtually impossible. If Britmore is approved, construction will disrupt Ferington Mill and surrounding roads from 2026 to 2028. The tentative Morgan farm project that's been applied for down the road um would extend these impacts to 2031 and if approved these highdensity developments would further increase traffic
congestion and safety risks. Adding to that, Durham has two major projects scheduled in this area along the same roads. The lower Little Creek Bridge replacement is scheduled 2029 to 2032 and Western intake water line is scheduled 2030 to 2035 to supply drinking water to Durham. together.
That's nearly a decade of gridlock on a car dependent road system with no alternate routes or public transit. Durham has not conducted a comprehensive study that considers all developments and overlapping construction schedules that are approved and will significantly impact us. Our local infrastructure is un inadequate, unsafe, and at capacity already. We are asking that no new developments be approved until infrastructure issues are fully addressed and that zoning remain residential rural to pres preserve the character and safety of our community.
Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um now we're going [clears throat] to call the community members on Zoom. Please remember to state your name and your address.
Jennifer Maher. >> Yes. Am I ready to go? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. My name is Jennifer Maher. My address is on file. I'm a Dorham resident.
I'm also co-chair of New Hope Allianc's conservation committee and I signed up tonight to speak to the comprehensive plan consistency review revisions. But in listening to this, I have to jump in and point out how this very project shows how the consistency review does not work correctly. The petitioner says that it meets 24 of 28 of policies in its consistency review. Well, seven of those are for the same sidewalk.
Two of them are redundant, the use of native plants. Two more are redundant residential type. Meanwhile, the not applicable uh score on three
refers to the city not yet having adopted Durham County's ENO New Hope landscape conservation plan, which identifies this property as part of the wildlife corridor and the area that would connect the two river drainage systems in Durham, Eno, and New Hope. uh space that is part of the plan that envisions green space running through our city and county. Uh that's what I have to say about this and thank you. But note that the raw score that you see on a consistency review often does not reflect the values that the community wants from the comprehensive plan.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else on the Zoom, please use the raise your hand function if you're on a phone. Star9 Kateheim.
>> Yes, I would I had a slide to be presented while I'm talking on Zoom. I don't know if that was made possible. >> Um, if so, could that be placed while I talk? Okay, good evening.
>> Okay, perfect. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Kateheim and my address is on record. Many aspects of the Britmore application do not meet policies or or the objective of the environment goal for harmonious and respectful development.
Page 67 of the Durham comprehensive plan, which says, quote, "We need to build in harmony with the environment in a way that respects, protects, and regenerates the environment for the benefit of all living things. We need to de design new development to protect our remaining natural areas including wetlands, flood plains, lakes, rivers, streams, mature forests, and the native plants and animals that rely on them to live. We need to stop development practices that contribute to loss of biodiversity and to manage the landscape in ways that promote a healthy environment. We need to protect the plants, animals, and insects that are native to Durham and essential for all life and restore them when possible. We need green
infrastructure to protect residents of the environment from the effects of pollution and flooding. " The Durham County Open Space Program projectivity project connectivity report, which is not the one cited in the application, designates almost half of the Britmore property as high priority habitat and provides a connection to another high priority area. This is ignored in the application for policy 81, locate open space in new development so that it protects the most environmentally sensitive portions of the site and creates large and contiguous habitat areas rather than narrow and disconnected strips of space specifically to exceed the UDO standards that meet this policy. A commitment must be made regarding the location of open space to ensure areas are connected and protect the most sensitive areas on site.
The application [clears throat] um says that the um there are no identified sensitive natural areas on the site. This is not true. There are most envir
5 acre pond and no commitment exists to protect or connect these. Instead, the pond which water and animals use as home water source and food source and place for transit like water turtles is planned to be destroyed and have town homes placed there at least on the initial plan. Please consider these inconsistencies. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Anyone else on the Zoom, please raise your hand. going once. [snorts] Anybody going twice? Okay, seeing no one else on the Zoom that wishes to speak, would the applicant care to address any
of these concerns? Good evening again, Chair Shagaras, Vice Chair Kerman, members of the planning commission. Again, Patrick Biker for the applicant trioint. Um, all the facts that were recited about traffic and our comprehensive plan and and environmental features.
These were all facts that were in existence back when the back when the plan department was doing its community outreach for our comprehensive plan in 2020, 2021, 2022. It was adopted in 2023. Um, after tremendous community engagement, this 26 acres we're looking at tonight were designated mixed residential neighborhood. And that's exactly what this proposal puts forward.
313 units as high density. I don't think that's appropriate. And I also want to emphasize all the traffic concerns. Again, certainly emphas empathize with
them, but I want to recognize that we have outstanding staff. Uh I I have the utmost respect for Erling Thomas and John Sand and all of these infrastructure issues were were well flushed out uh when the comprehensive plan was was uh when those public hearings were held and then when it was adopted. I do want to uh emphasize uh another profer that our team would like to make based on the wildlife corridor issue that was raised. Uh we think that's very important and our team would like to profer a 50-foot wildlife corridor along the western boundary of Britmore.
Uh that would be inclusive of the project boundary buffer. Um obviously the stub out that has to be to the west pursuant to UDI requirements. Uh and it will be inclusive of our tree coverage as well. But we'll be happy to word smith that with Payton um tomorrow. But we do want to address that wildlife corridor issue.
Uh it certainly is a valid concern. Uh and we think 50 ft u given that the other uh property to the west is undeveloped will be adequate adequate to address that concern. Um again, uh I lastly I do want to uh also again the scoring that the plan department does with comprehensive plan policies uh I think that's very rigorous. I'm very impressed with how it's done.
I've been doing appearing before this commission for 25 or 30 years now. I think this is the most rigorous reviews uh that uh reasoning proposals have received in my career. And so I I also take issue with any assertions that the staff review is somehow deficient in regards to traffic or comprehensive plan policies. Uh with that we respectfully ask for your approval.
Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. The public hearing is now
closed. We are open for commissioner discussion. Is there any commissioner comments? discussion, questions.
Commissioner Richie, >> um I just wanted to follow up. I'm sorry I did not get your name. You are an RN that focuses into on um ADA. And um I just wanted [clears throat] to ask if I don't think that we've seen a profer in the past where we combined affordable and accessible housing, but I think it's an interesting idea for this.
Um I was curious what that would look like uh for the developer to make their profer a commitment to that 5% affordable overlapping with the 10% that is required to have a first story um first story bedroom. [snorts] >> We'll be happy to research that issue. That's something we'd have to research. We can't answer that on the fly, but we'll certainly evaluate that carefully
going forward. >> Okay. We'll put that in the comments to the council >> staff. >> If I could just real quick, Aaron Kane with the planning department.
Yeah. So, the applicant could commit that the affordable units are going to be accessible. What we could I think we might have trouble with is enforcing whether or not it was somebody who needed those accessibil those accessibilities in those units, especially if it's for sale. That we would run into some privacy issues trying to enforce that.
So, just want to make that clear. I got one more. >> Go ahead, Commissioner Richie. >> Sorry, one more as well.
Um, the one of the commitments, I know this is going to sound silly, but one of the commitments was in the element commitments. Uh, you guys have dog parks and we've talked about this in the past. Dog parks are kind of used as >> um an easy way to get out of more substantive commitments when it comes to open space. Uh, could we just remove that as one of the commitments or would you all be open to removing that as one of the commitments? are happy to remove the dog park language from that specific
uh text commitment and be happy to work on that with with Peyton later this week, but we agree with that that position. Thank you, >> Commissioner Hunter. One of the um community members mentioned um having along the same lines as Commissioner Richie um having accessibility in terms of a full bathroom on the first floor. Um is that something that the applicant could commit to where there are um first floor bedrooms, there would also be a full bathroom.
Yes, Commissioner Hunter. We can commit to the profer being expanded. So, that would be a first floor bedroom with a first floor full bathroom. >> Wonderful.
>> I hope I captured your sentiment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Any other commissioner questions, comments? >> Okay. Is I have a a question. Is there any chance of upping the percentage >> I'm sorry >> of the AMIs >> lower >> the affordability the percentage of the affordability?
>> No ma'am. Uh no madam chair. Uh the the 5% at 80% AMI for sale uh with a 30% I'm sorry 30-year duration is uh the best we can do and that meets the UDO uh definition for affordability on for sale uh for sale housing. >> Okay.
Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Anybody else? Commissioner Montes?
>> Yeah, I have one thing, but it's very straightforward. There's one parcel um I believe this the sidewalk or the concern uh public made was there was a lack of potential gap in sidewalk between the development to the east. Um, and then
there may be one parcel in between the proposed development and the existing sidewalk that is there. Has there been any effort to reach out to that property owner and see if perhaps we could just connect it? I know it's not a lot along that frontage. Maybe a couple hundred feet of connectivity that could be done, but um I would just suggest to try I mean to to make that connection with the sidewalk.
I think you know having that gap there between sidewalk would be kind of awkward, but perhaps a fee and Lou would do it. I don't I'm not sure, but at least an effort to be made. >> Appreciate that concern, Commissioner Montes. Uh actually went to UNCC Chapel Hill with Rasheed Wallace, who happens to own that property, and so I'll be happy to give him a call.
[laughter] Uh we'll be happy to reach out to the property owner and see if that would be uh feasible. Uh I'm I'm not optimistic, but we'll certainly make the effort. And I saw him playing the Dean Dome. Anyone else?
Nope, we're good. Okay. May I have
a uh Yes. May I have a motion to move case Z25 triple014 Britmore forward to city council with a favorable recommendation? Chair Shagaras, I um recommend a motion or make a motion to recommend uh case Z250014 to uh council with a favorable motion. >> Recommendation.
>> Recommendation. We're getting there. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Richie and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move this case forward with a favorable recommendation. May we have the electronic voting, please? the song.
Vote fails six to three. Thank you. The next case, Z24 triple034 Creekide mixed Use. May we have the staff report, please?
>> Awesome. Thank you. I'm going to present Creekide Mixed Use case Z24 triple034. Um, I'll wait for the slides for a second.
Cool. Thank you. 50 acres. It's currently within the city limits. 346
in order to allow up to 630 town houses, apartments, and two family dwellings with up to 9,500 square feet of non-residential uses. As stated previously, the existing zoning is residential suburban 20 and residential suburban multif family with the development plan. 346. This is surrounded by a mix of zoning districts that include RS20 um industrial light commercial center and commercial general.
The aerial map shows the general location of the project. The site is situated west of South Miami Boulevard and east of Andrew Avenue. The property is currently designated mixeduse neighborhood in the place type map. The proposal is generally consistent with the place type as allows a range of residential and non-residential uses. On [clears throat] the screen are a list of notable amendments. Um along with the
confirmed allowed residential uses, it also prohibits convenience stores and with gasoline sales and drive-through facilities. There are minimum requirements for apartments for 220 apartment units and 200 200 townhouse units. Uh 3% of the townhouse or duplexes are to be income restricted. 8% of the apartment uh units are affordable per UDO.
There's a 60,000 square foot publicly accessible open space amenity provided. Um it also proposes construction of a bus pull out uh subject to approval by go Durham and go Raleigh. All required plantings are a native species and the apartments will meet the Energy Star certification requirements. On screen is the the proposed development plan.
One access point is shown along Miami Boulevard. Another access point is indicated along Andrew Avenue. Cortez Drive will be utilized as another access point from Andrew Avenue
into the development. From Cortez Drive, there are four additional access points into the development. One stream crossing is identified which is the existing ride ofway of Cortez Drive. Uh tree preservation areas are located throughout the site, specifically on the northern uh portion and the southeast portion of the site.
Neighborhood meetings were held in accordance with the neighborhood meeting guidelines on October 2nd, 2024 and September 10th, 2025. Uh one commitment or one comment against the proposal has been received by staff in relation to this case on the Durham Reszoning Explorer. As stated earlier, their proposal is generally consistent with the place type map designation of mixeduse neighborhood due to the mixture of residential and non-residential uses. And the proposal is consistent with 22 of 24 applicable comprehensive plan policies. Thank you, staff. The applicant are available for any questions.
>> Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please? >> Good evening.
Evening, Madame Chair, madame vice chair, members of the planning commission. My name is Laura Hollowman and I'm with McAdams representing the land planning of this project. Uh our address is uh 2905 Midian Parkway here in Durham. Joining me tonight are Kate Murdoch, also with McAdams, Steve George of the CC Group, developer and property owner, and Rhynol Stevenson, traffic engineer with DRMP.
>> [clears throat] >> Thank you to staff for a wonderful presentation and comprehensive review of our project. I just want to take the time to highlight some some aspects of this project that we believe make it so strong. Again, uh just for overall background, it is just under 53 acres and is located along Andrew Avenue here and then South Miami US70 here.
346 which allows up to 630 town homes, apartments, and duplexes and up to 9500 9500 square feet of non residential use. This is right in line with the place type map which designates this property as mixeduse neighborhood which again uh staff reiterated several times that that was generally consistent. It also eliminates the use of convenience store with gasoline sales and drafter uses after neighborhood feedback and wanting to attract local type businesses. It also stipulates a minimum of 220 apartment units and a minimum of 200 townhouse units.
15% of those townhouse units shall be surface parked with no garage and a minimum of 20% of town home units shall be 1,700 square feet or le or less. these commitments. [clears throat] The intent behind these is to diversify our unit types on site. Prior to the issuance of the first
building permit, the developer shall convey to the city of Durham an open space area of at least 60,000 square feet and with a frontage on Andrew Avenue of no less than 100 linear feet. If the city does not accept the dedication, the area will still be meant for public use and will instead be publicly accessible open space. So either it'll be deed to the city or public access easement will be recorded prior to the first co. So either way um in this area here folks get an opportunity to have um a pocket park area for public uh for public use and enjoyment.
This just highlights I think a little bit better uh the proposed development plan. So you can see uh the protected environmental uh areas throughout the site. >> [clears throat] >> The again I pointed out the public park. This is the proposed commercial area because again you want to have the commercial area along US70 and it's also adjacent uh to the current uh commercial
area here along 70 although it is separated by a a pretty significant stream feature there. There's only one stream crossing as staff mentioned that is a Hardy where it has to go with that existing Cortez drive right ofway there. that's already deed in exist and in existence. I think this is pretty significant and there's not a lot of um cases I see that are this intense that doesn't really have a significant stream crossing on site, but we wanted to protect and really have a continuous uh corridor uh throughout the site there.
[snorts] Um, so there's many sustainable commitments through this case um that I'll go through. And additionally, subject to determination by Go Durham and Go Raleigh, the developer shall construct a bus pull out with a shelter along Andrew Avenue. And there's also construction of a 10-foot shared use path um along Andrew Avenue as well. All apartments will meet Energy Star multif family new construction program
requirements, which is significant. and all street trees, vehicular use area trees, trees within perimeter buffers and screenings, all must be native plantings. [clears throat] In terms of the affordable housing commitment, um this was highlighted by staff, but just again it it um it specifies that a minimum of 8% of apartments shall be affordable as defined as in the UDO. For those of you that may not uh know, that means a 60% of AMI for a period of 30 years.
That's the that's the EDO requirement. And uh we're also specifying town homes and duplexes 3% at 8% AMI for 30 years. And the pro project is unique in that way because it focuses on both rentals and owner occupied for affordable. A lot of folks u when they provide a a mixture of of t of housing types they just stick all the affordable units within the apartments but we spread it out to make to focus on um home ownership as well.
All told this proposed resoning is right in line with what the city is envisioning here. Also want to point out um that this dividing line, I know it can be hard to see with the with a print over it, that specifies where the higher um building height can go. So everything on this side of this line u the maximum height is 40 feet. So we're being conscious of our neighbors here.
Um and everything on this side closer to US70 South Miami that can go higher than 40 feet. So logic tells you that the apartments will go in this area and the and the town homes and duplexes will go in this area. Just want to be clear on that. That that's meant to provide appropriate neighborhood transitions. So all told, the proposer zoning is right in line with what the city is envisioning here. uh to have a cohesive project with access to both Andrew and 70 multiple lane uses and to provide u
the missing puddle or excuse me puzzle pieces crucial to this area. Um you know this for those of you that have been on this board a long time, you've seen um a combination of these before. There's currently an approved uh PDR uh with a development plan for this area for up to 350 apartments and u this area has been tried a couple times for both single family and a mixture of town homes but nothing um that allows for town homes and duplexes. The problem with with uh with that is when this was approved there was no interior internal uh vehicular connection between um nothing specifying that this would be connected.
So by having this developed cohesively you're ensuring appropriate vehicular uh connectivity for the entire project and I think lends itself to a much better design overall. We're happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you,
Tom Galloway. Anyone else in person? Anybody in person and care to speak? Nope.
Dana Young. Steve George. Great. >> Good evening, commissioners.
Uh my my name is Steve George. I'm with the CSC group uh who owns the property here. So I I am available to answer any questions at any time. >> Okay.
Thank you. So no Tom Galloway or Dana Young present. >> Okay. All right. On the Zoom, we have Paul Joffreion wishing to speak.
[clears throat] >> Um, good evening members of the panel. Thank you. I point of order about the second neighborhood meeting. It came with a notification letter that included an internet address of 76 characters.
That's 76. Um to the credit of the um representative for the developer, I was able to reach them on the day of the neighborhood meeting and get an email link emailed to me, but I think there were many people who may have been put off with that. Uh I invite each of you to um Google a traffic near me map at commuting hours commuting hours in the morning and commuting hours in the afternoon. And you will see three red lines. One is the east end connector, the other is highway 70 and the other is 885 or 147. Zoom in closer and you will
see backup traffic on Andrew from Glover in the direction towards Pleasant and on Andrew from [clears throat] uh South Miami uh back towards Tyion. It is a hopeful fantasy. I say this with respect. It is a hopeful fantasy to think that an egress from the project to South Miami and any number of egresses from the project to Angier will allow people to get in and out with any kind of non-miserable timeliness.
There are so many things to speak to. Time is limited. I just want to say that Durham is focused on growth. Uh but one needs to asking question to what end?
If growth does not enhance quality of life, but hinders it instead, then growth for the sake of growth really has no point. My time is running out. Thank you for
your time. Vote no on this project. Thank you so much. >> Thank you.
Anyone else on the Zoom wishing to speak on the Creek Side Mixed Use Project, please raise your hand or star nine if you're on a phone. Andrew Hefner. >> Hi. Um, I have a request.
Um, my domestic partner would also like to use this connection to voice her opinions. Is that permissible? Yes. >> Uh my name is 9 Pleasant Drive and I would like to speak to just one aspect of this proposed development and zoning change and that is traffic safety and accessibility. Um just a quick background. Um one of my
careers was 10 years spent overseeing uh truck logistics, route planning, uh safety issues, uh traffic uh accident mitigation, and I've looked at this uh ingress egress plan from the developers and it won't work. Uh, I've studied this, you know, for a decade and there's a couple of things that are problematic in the extreme. Number one, the two entrances they have on Andrew Avenue are so close together that they might as well be one because any traffic issues on an is going to affect both of those equally. So, if you can't get out of one, you won't be able to get out of the other. The other is the um history of 70 U which is almost perennially one of the
most dangerous road sections in the county. Um high traffic I mean high accident rates and if you've ever been down that lane uh during the peak hours morning or or evening um it's a rolling parking lot. So, one one uh issue with that is anybody coming out of the apartment entrance onto 70 going north, it's not possible. They're not going to be able to make it.
There's no way they can get through that traffic and go north. on on the other side on Anger during those same peak periods. Anybody who is trying to get out of the development and head south on Andrew, they won't be able to make it without putting themselves at risk pulling out in front of traffic. >> Andrew, Andrew, your time is up. You have, if your partner would like to speak, they will also have two minutes.
They can state their name and address also. Thank you. >> Thank you. My name is Noel Paul.
I live at 709 Pleasant Drive. And my response to this development is mainly um an emotional response that everywhere I've been driving in Durham, I'm seeing cleared lots. The trees are getting chopped down all over the city. And it's not something that would make me want to come live in a town if I kept seeing all the trees being chopped down.
And it's an environmental disaster as far as I'm concerned. Um, and as I used to tell my preschool students, if you keep killing all the trees, then we're all going to die because they create the oxygen that we breathe. It's an eyes sore. Everywhere I go in Durham, they're clearcutting trees.
We're not going to have any left at the rate things are going. So, please vote no for this project. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else on the Zoom
wishing to speak on the Creek Side Mixed Use Project, please raise your hand? Nope. Would the applicant like to address any of the concerns specifically the traffic ingress and egress on 70 and >> yes, we would definitely like to take a take a look at that. Uh we have Ran Stevenson here from DRMP.
He is the traffic engineer for the site. I think he can address uh all the uh issues that were brought up. >> Um good afternoon, good evening. Uh Ronald Stevenson with DRMP.
Um just just want to address the I will address the traffic uh questions or issues that were brought up. There there was a traffic study done for uh for this project. ives been reviewed by city staff and uh DOT NC DOT. Um there are a number of road improvements, transportation improvements that will be done with this
project to address some of the traffic issues. But I do want I do want to point out the key kind of the key um point that Laura made is by having a connection connectivity between 70 Miami and that gives people who live here options to go either way. So, you heard some of the questions or some of the issues or concerns about be being able to turn left onto 70 Miami. Yes, that's going to be very very difficult to do during peak rush hour times.
However, the good news is because of the connectivity that traffic can now make a right turn on Andrew and go to Pleasants where we're making improvements at Andrew and Pleasant and then Pleasant and 70. We're making improvements there to help those intersections work better. So that would be a better route for those folks to take. That is very difficult to do for those people if there's not interconnectivity. So, the fact that we connect from 70 Miami to
Andrew is a huge benefit for folks within this development to be able to uh travel to either roadway to uh get out and particularly turn right out of either access point, which is a much easier movement to make depending on whether you're going north or you're going south. And a lot of the roads um you know, Andrew obviously connects back into um 70 Miami. Pleasant is a connection. You can kind of see on the screen here that connects over. So, we're we're really developing a uh sort of a grid pattern here with these multiple connection points that connect these roadways and that gives drivers and residents here uh in this community options to uh to be able to take the the path that is better for them. And so with you, like I said, there's a number of road improvements that are required at these intersections to improve the intersections to help help move traffic better than what um the
community is is experiencing today. >> Thank you. [clears throat] Okay, the chair is now closing the public hearing and we are open for commissioner comments and discussion. Commissioner Hunter.
>> Um, yes, I have a question. Um, so you mentioned that you're going to make some road improvements to Pleasant in order for that connectivity to exist. Can you talk us through what those will look like? >> Sure.
Um, I think I have this graphic here. Is this being shown on the screen? There we go. So, um I have a kind of picture of this, but um one of the main issues here is being able to turn left onto 70 Miami. Currently, there's only one left turn lane here in this area today. So, we're essentially
going to double the capacity of that movement by adding another left turn lane. So again, that that provides much needed uh capacity to be able to come down Pleasant and make a left turn onto 70 Miami. Um provides a a big improvement for that intersection. >> Got it.
So, um my so my assumption is that people would come into um and into the neighborhood, leave out, make a left onto Angier and make another left onto Pleasant, and then come down and make a left on to 70. Is that correct? >> They can. Let me go back to the plan just really fast to um make sure.
Let me go back to this one. Okay. So, um, what I wanted to point out is that if you're traveling, if you're traveling south, and those were good points raised about there being congestion on Andrew and M and, uh, Miami or 70. Very good
points. During rush hour, it's going to be very difficult to make left turns there out of either roadway. But as I was saying, if you want to travel south and the traffic is congested, one way to do it would be to come out to 70 Miami here and make a right turn, which is a much easier move to make than a left. So make a right turn and travel south as opposed to having to being forced to go out to out Cortez to Andrew or drive Andrew and make a left turn there to travel south.
So when you make right turn, the right turns are much easier to make and a much safer movement to make than forcing people to turn left. So uh I would say traveling south during congested times, making a right turn onto 70 Miami would be the um uh the easier movement to make. coming uh coming into the site, there is a left turn lane uh on 70 Miami to be able to
turn left in. Um left turns from the main roads are usually easier to make than uh turning left out of the side road. If you can imagine, you're already on you're on the major roads. You can turn left in here into this access easier than you can turning left out on 270.
Um, and so but but the point that I was making too is that if you want to travel north, you could come out to Andrew again, make a right-hand turn that is easier to make. Go up to Pleasant where there's improvements there that we have to make for um a right turn movement uh here to help the right turn uh be made easier as well as a potential traffic signal if it's warranted. We go in there and you could come over to Pleasant and uh 70 here to the improvement we just talked about to help and make the left turn movement there at a signalized condition. >> Okay. Yeah. So I I understood that um I
use this road pretty frequently. My concern here is that the is the quality of life for the for the folks that live on Pleasant Drive. Um because that's going to increase their traffic. they they they are already a a through street and it's going to increase their traffic.
It's a very tight road. I believe it's a two-lane road. Um and there's not really any shoulder or a sidewalk or anything like that. Um and so there and there are residential homes along that entire road.
So there are some concerns there just in terms of the increase in traffic and the condition of the roads as well. I mean, I understand improving the entrance and the exit of th of that street, but just along the entire corridor, it's going to get a lot of use um as it already does. In addition, I do have con some concerns about, you know, things that the community members have already stated in that year is a heavily used road. It also has the um train station and the
train is the most inconvenient thing in the world. Like, it decides it wants to pull out and start shuffling. I don't even know what it's doing. It's shuffling the cars, you know, at 8:00, 8:30 in the morning.
Um, so there are some I do have some concerns there. But thank you. Can I just say one thing too about you mentioned Pleasant being a kind of a I can't call a cut through or kind of a through street, but one of the things that that the development has to actually sort of plan for is the fact that we now have a cut through street as well. So that can also be a relief for some of the other traffic um through here as well.
So not all the the the um through street or cut through traffic has to go on Pleasant. Now you know there's another connection between 70 or Miami 70 and Andrew. So in some ways that could be a relief for Pleasant when this is connect you know connected all the way through. So, that's just one other thing that I I think is didn't
want to really overlook that can be a relief for Pleasant as well. If we, you know, if this is uh um approved and built, there's a connection, another connection that connects those two roadways. >> Certainly, I think it also begs the question if it if it uh causes uh stress for the people who will live in your community in that community because that will increase their through traffic as well. Yeah, that's what we're going to have to take that into account, you know, as we as we move forward with it.
For sure. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Any other commissioner?
Commissioner Woke. >> Hi, Carrie Woke. Um, so one of in one of your neighborhood meetings, um, one of the neighbors mentioned that this is one of the last contiguous wooded areas in this part of Durham. And if you look at the Google maps, you can see that that is correct. Um, and so my question is
there is no tree coverage beyond what's required by the UDO. Um, and you know, in kind of in the spirit of that, this is one of these last wooded areas. Um, in this part of Durham, would you consider tree coverage beyond what is required by the UDO? Hi, I'll answer that question and great question um commissioner.
So, um I think um as I mentioned before, you know, this has been this has been a you know project that that uh the boards have seen in many forms. Um this is when this came through um the the uh tree coverage was was I think uh only 20% not the 30% that it stands today. Uh so that's currently approved on on this side. And then when this originally came through the the tree preservation was was 20% as well. So of course we're we're meeting
the today requirement of 30%. But I just want to say, you know, it uh this is the CC group has has owned this land. Um they've owned it the whole time through that failed resoning and have come back before you through this. They've gone ahead and and bought this partial as well to develop, but they were committed to making this cohesive and to provide a a better vehicular connection.
So I say all that to say, you know, sometimes uh it benefits uh the whole to wait for something great. And I think the benefit of uh while you may see it as as meeting only minimum standards and we see it as uh definitely an improvement and really the probably the best the best this project could be. Uh but as I mentioned, you know, with with no stream crossings, uh we're also, you know, committing to keeping, you know, what we what's currently in a protected environmental area. We're not um we're not going to be
having an environment additional environmental impacts to those. Uh so, so really, you know, I think we're doing the best we can with meeting the the 30% tree coverage. Any other Commissioner Richie? >> Just a quick one.
Um, I couldn't tell from the staff report. Is all construction Energy Star um or just the apartments? >> Just the apartments. >> Um, okay.
Would you all consider town houses? What's the challenge for townous being Energy Star? >> We would evaluate that is what he's trying to say. [laughter] >> Yeah.
Let me yeah, we want don't want to be fuzzy about this, but yeah, we would definitely look into that and if that's something I don't know all the details on the on like a town home what that would affect, but absolutely we would try to be consistent across the site if we can. Yeah. >> Great. Thank you. >> Any other commissioner questions, comments? Commissioner Montes.
>> Yeah. Um the park space in area B that's to be dedicated to the city of Durham. Um I think that's fabulous. more of that is needed.
Just question is what you know what conversations if city of Durham were to not accept that because I know there's a process behind that real estate division would have to get involved. Um it's not an easy process and you know Durham would take up maintenance of that. Has there been any thought to the developer, the community becoming um you know, if Durham were not to accept it that the city or the the developer could keep maintenance of that open space or what else could be planned in that area? I mean, it it could be park space, which is great.
Perhaps, you know, uh woke it could be more tree safe in that area. That could could refer to that. But if it's not tree safe, what kind of wreck open space are we, you know, planning to do there for the community?
>> Yeah, he's saying what sort of open space elements are. >> Yeah, we're we're fully if if the city does not take it as a park, Yeah. we are going to keep it. It's going to be publicly accessible and it will be in a park-like setting.
And yeah, we we would be happy to put I heard some discussion about dog park or something like that, you know, something like that or a kids PlayStation, you know, that type thing or something like that. Absolutely. Yeah. We want to make it useful for both the residents and the public and that's why it's accessible off of an also.
So, yes, it's meant to be that type of of space. And then lastly is uh the improve the traffic improvements would be for on the between anger and area B where you're dedicating that open space. That's all going to be improved to city of Durham standards. Um, you know, I'm I'm I've read the improvements like five times and I still it's a little tricky how you
say it, but you know, I'm assuming that Andrew Avenue is going to be improved as well as Cortez going into um from Andrew all the way through the frontage of the main central site, right? >> I know there's turn lanes are required on on Andrew, you know, at the access points and then Yeah, we're improving. >> I know per the UDO, you have to improve your frontage of your site. That's UDO standard, but I'm I'm considering if if area B is potentially dedicated to Durham and that's no longer part of your site.
Is the is that area on the entire frontage going to be improved at least from the center line to your frontage? Right. >> Great. Thank you.
>> Any other questions, comments? I have one question. It may it's concerning traffic and it may be for Erene Thomas. Um the entrance on 70 is
that going to be signalized? You said you've been working with NC DOT. >> Is there a >> the entrance on 70 is not likely to be signalized? It not not be signalized.
>> Could it be that would help the people on >> other thoroughare? It would help reduce their impact and it would also help the turning problem on Angier. >> Well, I I I would say as much as it probably would be helpful to us, you know, in our development, I don't I think the likelihood of a signal there is probably almost zero with DOT approving that and really because and early if she says something different, but but I think the likelihood of that being signalized is almost zero. And one of the reasons is that if you signalize that we're stopping traffic again on 70 Miami. So I don't I think there's pretty much no chance that that'll happen there. And um unless you know Erling feels something
different, but I don't I don't think that would happen. >> Erlene >> Erlene Thomas trans planning and development um transportation review section. So, you're asking about the access points on US70 for the development. No, they will not be signalized.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, and no more questions.
Everybody's done. All right. May I have a motion to move case Z24034 Creekide mixed Use forward? Chair, in the case of Z24 triple03 34 Creekide mixeduse, I move that we um move this case forward to city council with a
um favorable recommendation. How can I forget this stuff that quick? Do I have a second? It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move case Z24 triple034 Creek Side Mixed Use forward with a favorable recommendation to city council.
May we have the electronic vote, please? The motion passes five to four. >> Thank you. Oh, we can get done with the next one.
Can Yeah. Okay. Case Z24045 Andrews Chapels Apartments. May we have the staff report, please?
Good evening, Chair Shagaris, Vice Chair Cameron, and Planning Commissioners. I'm Payton Burch, and I'm here tonight to present Z240045 Andrews Chapel Apartments. 680 to allow for up to 60 apartment units. Again, the existing zoning is residential suburban 10.
The site is surrounded by more residential suburban 10 commercial general with a development plan and PDR 12 and 15. The aerial map shows the general location of the project. The property is currently designated mixed residential neighborhood on the place type map. The proposed zoning was determined to be consistent with the designated place type. The applicant has included the following commitments. a maximum of 60 apartments,
a maximum of 80% impervious surface, native plantings, a 10- foot wide concrete shared path along the site frontage, site access via Andrews Chapel Road to be right in, right out only, and multi-story buildings to contain at least one elevator. The applicant held neighborhood meetings on March 6th and September 29th, 2025. There were seven community members in attendance at both meetings. There have been no comments regarding this case on the Durham resoning explorer.
The proposal is consistent with the existing place type map designation of mixed residential neighborhood and is consistent with two of two applicable place type policies. Additionally, the proposal is consistent with 14 of 17 applicable comprehensive plan policies. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant
Good evening, Chair Shaggeras, Vice Chair Cameron, members of the planning commission. I'm Patrick Biker. I live at 2614 Stewart Drive and I'm attorney with Morning Star Law Group. I'm here tonight representing SVG Investments LLC, which is made up of a wonderful young married couple, Jasmine and Emmad Lubad.
This is their first project and I have to say it is great to see young local talent jumping into the deep end to take on this type of real estate development. Jasmine and Immod have put together a great local team with civil consultants as their engineers and Mr. Andrew Jones our site engineers here tonight and they also have selected Gateway Building Company as their contractor. Both of these are outstanding Durham based companies. This section of city of Durham is actually in Wake County and I personally worked on the initial annexation of the city of Durham into Wake County about 10 or 12 years ago. We kicked off the development in this area with the Harris Teter anchored shopping center at Glenwood Avenue and TWW Alexander Drive.
As you can see from this slide, the parcel we are considering tonight is kind of an infill site since it's located very close to other multifamily developments. In our recently adopted comprehensive plan, a key component is creating the 15minute community. 8 acres relates to the other developments in the vicinity that Harris ter I worked on about 10 years ago is less than a third of a mile to the south, as you can see on this slide. Along with a great grocery store, there are restaurants, other retail, awake med facility and a bus stop for Go Durham Route 2, all within about a 15-minute walk from this site.
As Durham needs new housing supply, it is important to look at the existing zoning for Jasmine and Emat's property. As you can see on this slide, it is RS10. 8 8 acres into about seven single family lots and use the byite zoning and not have to go through any public
hearings. I would be remiss if I did not point out that IMOD already has a already has a very successful career as the owner and operator of the International Delights restaurant on 9inth Street near Duke East campus. Hope you all have been there. Emad's father started International Delights about 30 years ago.
And so Immod is the second generation owner of this outstanding restaurant. I also want to highlight that EMA went to Riverside High School and that again reinforces how this is a Durham homegrown initiative. 8 acres. And to its credit, our team has put forward a development plan that is compliance with with 14 out of 17 applicable comprehensive plan policies.
That is a strong achievement. In closing, I reckon y'all are tired of listening to me tonight. So, now it is my privilege to turn over the microphone to Jasmine Lubad. Jasmine will share
more of our team's background and her vision for creating new housing that is targeted at serving our nation's veterans since that type of housing is in very high demand, especially in central North Carolina. After you hear from Jasmine, our team will be happy to answer any questions. We respectfully ask for your approval. Thank you.
Good evening, commission members. My name is Jasmine Lubad and my address is on bio. My husband, Emad, and I are incredibly grateful to be here. Reaching this point represents nearly two years of hard work, collaboration, and determination to bring our vision to life.
Together, we bring unique strengths, different lived experiences, but share one purpose. Building communities that thrive. We see ourselves not just as developers, but as local partners invested in Dur Durham's long-term success. Emad is a proud Durham native whose family has served the city for 33 years
through International Delights Restaurant on 9th Street, a place that has always reflected the spirit of community and belonging. My own journey began in the United States Marine Corps, where I learned the values of service, accountability, and perseverance. These same principles now shape my work in real estate, housing advocacy, and development. Our goal for Andrews Chapel Apartments is to create housing that goes beyond brick and mortar, a place that fosters stability, opportunity, and connection.
This is our home. Our work is deeply rooted in Durham. It's where we live, where we will raise our family, and continue to invest our time and energy. Our hope is that our development continues to contributes to the city's continued growth while honoring the people and the neighborhoods that make Durham a special place that it is. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and allowing local families like ours to the opportunity to contribute to Durham's continued growth and well-being. Thank
you. >> Thank you. [clears throat] There's nobody else on the signup sheet. Is there anybody on the Zoom that would like to speak on this?
Please raise your hand. Heidi McFall. Please state your name and address. Heidi McFall.
My address is 1012 Ka Court, Durham, North Carolina. Good evening everyone. As a resident of the neighboring townhouse community, I'm delighted to have this opportunity to share my thoughts with you all about this development. I've had the pleasure one evening while out on out on a dog walk um talking with Jasmine and Emad about their vision for their property. It's truly refreshing to see individuals who are not only committed to improving our community,
but also have a clear and ambitious plan for the future. As a fellow veteran, I want to emphasize how important it is to support local developers, especially those who have served our country. Veterans bring a unique perspective and strong dedication to their work, and Jasmine and Emad are great examples of that. Raising children in this community gives me hope, especially when I see young couples like Jasmine and Emad stepping up as role models.
Their ambition and vision can inspire not only their peers but also the next generation. It's this type of leadership that will shape our community for the better. So I say let's comput continue to support our local initiatives and foster the spirit of collaboration that makes our neighborhood a great place to live. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anybody else on the Zoom wishing to speak on the Andrews Chapel's apartment? Nope. I don't see any hands.
Okay. The chair is now closing the public hearing and we are open for commissioner discussion. Any questions or comments on this project? Commissioner Woo.
Carrie Woke. Um, so this I'm I'm curious that um so you are targeting like veterans for this community um but there are no affordable units. Is that something that you would consider offering? >> Commissioner Mo, this is such a small project in terms of 60 units at the most. Uh and so what our team is focused on is providing uh wraparound services on site for veterans. Uh so while there's not an affordable housing commitment, uh we are committed to providing those services and there will be other um certainly other programs that Jasmine can uh uh describe in more detail, certainly more than I can, uh that'll be serving uh the veterans that we are targeting to live in these
apartments. So we do not have an affordable housing commitment. Commissioner Richie, >> just to follow up on that, it is just because of a lack of textual commitment to that. I'm [clears throat] curious if there's anything that you all can put in text.
Sorry, losing my voice. Um, that will indicate that that's going to be the commitment moving forward. Although, we absolutely believe you. That's a great question or a great uh insight. Uh we would like to profer a commitment for uh there will be a 1,000 square foot office uh within uh the the the site. Uh that will be of course it'll be the leasing office but we want to profer that it will also provide um veterans uh targeted services and again
uh Jasmine's forgotten more about it than I'll ever know but uh we would like to make that proper that there will be a thousand square foot uh office space that will include um services um targeted for our our nation's veterans. Um, Erin Kane with the planning department. Yeah, let's talk about that. I I I'm a little concerned about that specific of a commitment to the use of the office space.
>> Um, so we let's we appreciate the profer. We will work with the applicant to come up with um something that that go that meets the intent of what they're looking to do. I just want to make sure the commission's aware that we may have to word it differently. Um, once you see it go to city council, we'll be happy to do that. >> What real real quick? Was there was there not an already one >> Commissioner Montes.
[laughter] >> State your name. >> On Montes, >> sorry. Um, was there not I mean this being an apartment complex there already is going to be a leasing office. >> Correct.
>> Right. So we're not changing the necessarily I mean I I understand the profer but there is already the intent that that leasing office is going to be informative. It's going to be educational for vet veterans to be able to you know lease an apartment or other services. But I'm not sure what other textual commitments would be even necessary. is a concern just the actual use of the office is a concern. I >> I think it's yeah the the that specific of a use um if for some reason in the future the um ownership changes or something along those lines then um if it's not for veterans services specifically then it could be a zoning violation that would need to be
addressed. So, we just I just want to kind of have a chance to confer internally. Um, so we're not opposed to the idea. We just want to make sure that it's written in a way that doesn't cause problems in the future if that might be the case.
>> It's a great point. Thank you, Mr. Kane. >> All right.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments? No, we're good. >> Commissioner Pontac, >> thank you.
Uh Corey Pontek, I just want to say thank you for your commitment to veterans. Um I think that's admirable and your creativity in also thinking about how we can focus on affordable housing for this population that served our country. So appreciate that. Thank you. May I have a motion to move case Z 25 triple0
what's the number of this >> chair regarding the case of Z 2405 Andrews Chapel Apartments I move that we forward this case to city council with a favorable recommendation for approval >> it has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and Seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move this case forward with a favorable recommendation. May we have the electronic vote, please? The motion passes 9 to zero. Um, Commissioner uh, Chair Shagaras, looking at the time of 7:25, I suggest now would be a good time to, uh, take a recess for a closed captioner and and come back when you deem appropriate. >> Yes, we'll take a 15minute break. Thank you.
I came to the city to develop leadership and supervisory skills. [music] I stayed because of the city's culture and dedication to serving residents. The city of Durham, where careers meet community. gov/careers. [music] I came to the city of Durham to improve living conditions [music] for residents
and I stayed because I'm encouraged to advance my career. The city of Durham, where careers [music] meet community. gov/careers. [music] Durham [music] Durham NCV diagonal barriers. We the people.
We the people hold these truths >> to be self-evident [music] that all men >> and women are created equal >> and shall be afforded >> the [music] inalienable right >> to fair housing. >> The city of Durham and HUD are committed to ensuring [music] that everyone is treated equitably when searching for a place to call home. Owning a home provides a sense of financial stability, family, community, and pride. But housing prices are now higher than ever, making it hard for many Durham residents to afford their first home. That's why the city of Durham is offering the down payment assistance program to support eligible individuals with up to $80,000 in 0% interest forgivable loans to purchase a house within the city limits. Visit this site or call to find out if you qualify
for the program.
Okay, we're going to call the meeting back to order. All right. Uh item number six on the agenda, public hearings, initial zoning map changes Z250016A-BG250010 Trenton Road assemblage. May we have the staff report, please.
All right. Good evening, Chair Shagaras, Vice Chair Cameron, and Planning Commissioners. I am Payton Burgess, and I am here tonight to present Z250016A
Trenton Road assemblage. 99 acres of land located Sorry I've been fighting losing my voice too and it's going out on me. Um of [clears throat] land zone residential suburban 20 and located at 453 459 4517 4607 and 4611 Trenton Road. The existing zoning would allow for up to 33 homes.
The existing zoning is residential suburban 20. The site is surrounded by the same. The aerial map shows the general location of the project. To the west of the site is Lee Farm Park.
The property is currently designated established residential on the place type map. The proposed zoning was determined to be consistent with the designated place type. The applicant held neighborhood meetings on June 12th and August 26, 2025.
There were eight community members in attendance at the first meeting and four at the second. There have been no comments received under Army's resoning explorer in relation to this case. The proposal is consistent with the existing place type map designation of established residential. The proposal is also consistent with five of five applicable comprehensive plan policies.
Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. >> Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing.
May we have the applicant? Good evening, Madame Chair, members of the commission. Pam Porter with TMTLA Associates Landscape Architecture and Land Planning Firm here in Durham. And here with me tonight is Gary Wallace, who is a home builder with B.
Wallace Design and Construction. Thank you, Payton, for the overview. Um, just to quickly recap, the property um exists consists of five existing parcels located along Trenton Road. approximately 17 acres total and it
includes three existing homes. Adopt a place type map for this location is established residential. All five lots are currently zoned RS20 and will remain RS20 if this annexation is approved. No reszoning is proposed as part of our request.
If approved, the annexation would allow for these lots to connect water and sewer and also be um available to accept other city um services. The proposed development is fully consistent with the current zoning district. The plan is to create an additional six single family lots going from five parcels to 11 and there would be ultimately eight additional homes. And the staff report notes up to 33 units could be constructed if this annexation is approved.
This is correct under the normal normal RS20 development rules. 2 2 acres per lot or per per lot for a dwelling to be constructed. This means that with the deed
restriction in place, the total number of units could be up to 14, but the current plan is for 11. So less than half of what we could do by right with the RS20 zoning. And note the city does not regulate deed restrictions, but this is important to mention as the total number of dwellings would be per that will be permitted here is much less than the normal RS20 development rules. and B.
Wallace design and construction and again Gary is here if you have questions for him is a womanowned design build firm that will be building the houses here and thank you for your consideration. I'm here for any questions and Gary is also available. >> Thank you. Uh there's no community members in person signed up and is there anybody on the Zoom?
Please raise your hand if you're wanting to speak. John Creech. >> Good evening. Can you hear me?
>> Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. >> Hi, John Creech. Uh, address is 4412 Trenton Road. Um uh I just uh got to review a recording of the uh presentation um the community meeting that was held and um just wanted to say I um I support their uh commitment to adhere to the restrictive covenants and um also they uh they also uh the developers said they would like to uh retain trees on the lot and instead of you know I fully support their effort on that as well. My only concerns that I wanted to bring here today and um I don't know if anybody could help me out with it but uh was uh increased traffic where this this
uh part of Trenton Road is speed limit is 25. It's quite curvy in some areas. Um I now have two kids here. So I was just concerned about, you know, increased traffic.
Uh don't know if it's speed bump installed in anywhere because [clears throat] we have delivery trucks coming in and out. We're a single entry, single exit road here on Trenton. And uh the only other concern I wanted to bring up was Trenton onto um Fington. If you've ever made tried to make that turn there, cars are coming really fast down Fington.
There's a lot of overgrowth of vegetation over there near the overpass of I40. So, you can't really see what's coming around that curve. So, I just wanted to raise those concerns. But other than that, um I support their uh what they're doing with the the development and I think they have the best uh intentions for the neighborhood.
>> Thank you. Anyone else on the Zoom wishing to speak on Trenton Road Assembly? Jennifer Hernandez, please state your name and address for the record. >> Hi, my name is Jennifer Hernandez.
I'm at 4316 Taylor Hall Place. Um, similar to John, I um I had questions around um traffic going into Trenton Road in terms of um you know the that ability to make turns um with kind of a curve um and people um you know not necessarily want to slow down behind you if you're trying to make a right-hand turn. Um there's no there's no lane to really do it in. There's a little bit of a shoulder, but it it can be a little daunting and sometimes people swerve around you. Um I think the other questions I had and I unfortunately wasn't able to make the the two meetings earlier in the summer um but was around um sidewalk um any any
comments around the sidewalk um to help with pedestrian flow? I think there's a lot of people that walk on the shoulder of the road at this point. Um, and so I didn't know if there would be any sidewalks related to this development. Um, and then just anything related to environmental impacts.
It sounds like some tree preservation and and you know um lower density than what could be allowed on the space. So um I I'm not saying that there's a concern. I'm just sort of curious if that had been looked at at all or was being considered. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anyone else on the Zoom wishing to speak on the Trenton Road assemblage, please raise your hand. No. Okay. Going once, going twice, done. Can we have uh any replies to the
concerns? Is the entrance going to be >> I wanted to reply to those. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. So, um there were three things I heard.
Uh traffic, sidewalk, and tree preservation. So, I'm going to work backwards and start with tree preservation. Um this is an annexation request, not a reszoning. So, we are not allowed to add conditions like we would for a zoning.
So we are not committing to anything because we don't have the mechanism to do so. However, because of the number of the lots and the size of the lots, there will be trees left. It doesn't behoove anybody to cut down all the trees on all the lots. That is not a good way to develop.
Um so the plan is to keep trees. We just don't have a tree coverage minimum to be meeting. So I wanted to address that first and foremost. Um again, same thing with sidewalk.
That's something that we would commit to during a zoning. Um, when site plan is submitted, we will have to comply to any and all of the rules of the UDO, whether the current or the new one that gets adopted, depending on the timing of when this gets submitted. Um,
and if sidewalk ends up being a requirement of this, and we will have to do that. Um, but again, we can't commit to that because we're not doing a reasonzoning. And then regarding traffic, so there is a neighborhood to the south of this. Somebody mentioned the oneway in and out, and that is correct.
Trenton Road serves, I think, 60 to 70 units to the south of our where our proposed development is going to be. And people that are going to be use living in the houses that are going to be developed as part of this request, they don't have a reason to go into that neighborhood because there's no way out. They just be going down and kind of doing a U-turn and coming back up. So, the traffic here is not really going to impact the folks in that neighborhood because there really, again, there's no reason for anybody to drive down there.
That said, this will add traffic, but there the number of lots is so low. 11 lots does not generate really much traffic at all. It's not enough to trigger any sort of TIA or traffic impact statement or anything. Um, I think Erlene, who might still be here, could she's not here. Okay. Um, but if she were here, uh, she would probably,
you know, concur with that. Um, it's just not an amount of traffic that is should be really concerning. I don't think it's it's a low d very low density I would say at this point. So although traffic is being added it's going to be such a low amount.
I don't think it's going to be super noticeable compared to some of the bigger developments that are getting approved right now. And I believe that was it for questions. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thanks. >> The public hearing is now closed. We're open for commissioner discussion, comments, questions. Anybody?
[snorts] Nope. We're good. Okay. May I have a motion to move case Z25 triple016A BDG25 000010 Trenton Road Assemblage forward. Chair regarding um the initial zoning map uh case Z25 triple016A-BG20010
Triton Road assemblage. I move that we move this case forward to city council with a favorable recommendation for approval. >> It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move this case forward with the favorable recommendation. May we have the electronic voting, please?
The motion passes 9 to zero. Thank you. Now on to item seven, public hearing comprehensive plan amendments A25, quadruple02, evaluation and assessment report. May we have the staff report, please? Thank you, Chair [clears throat]
Shagaras. Aaron Kaine with the planning department. It's coming. Just a friendly reminder that you saw this last week as well.
Uh you asked us to bring this back to you this month. I'm sorry, last month. Not last week, last month. Um and just a reminder of what the ER is.
It stands for environ I'm sorry evaluation and assessment report. It is mandated by both the comprehensive plan and the unified development ordinance to do every 2 years to assess progress on the comprehensive plan. And one of the things we are doing through this process is uh providing some technical updates to the place type map. You saw that last month and you made votes on that last month.
You asked us to bring you the policies that we are making recommendations on this month. uh you did the specific policy that was discussed was policy 79. Uh hopefully
you have seen in your attachment that there are some changes to that policy to do our best to address your concerns. Go ahead and do the next. Thank you. So one thing we're talking about is the review of the D policies and the commentary.
And um just a reminder that a removal of the D designation does not mean removal from the comprehensive plan itself. We are not recommending that any policy be removed from the comprehensive plan, but rather looking at which policy should be part of that comprehensive plan policy review document that you get as part of your package for all zoning and annexation cases. So, I want to go through specifically some policies uh that are changing. First, we have had some input from uh members of our community regarding policy 79. We made some changes, but we've made some additional changes based on what's in your packet and they're shown here on the screen now. So, we were asked to uh talk about habitats and
corridors. So, we did make that change. So, we're proposing that uh we talk about habitats and corridors here. Uh we are incorporating language from policies 81 and 83.
And that is that last sentence. Um and we have based on a request from members of the community removed the term uh term when possible that was originally in your packet. So that just says now such areas should be protected in their natural state in large and contiguous areas. So that's the first change.
The next one is policy 82. We had some comments from the community about uh adding the word and to wildlife habitat and corridor. staff has no concerns about that and so we are proposing that change as well. We also got some comments from Durham Open Space and Trails regarding some policies. Um they requested that policy 104 remain as a D policy and part of our uh review
process and we have no staff has no concerns about that. We have no objection. So we are suggesting that that also be included. We did get a request from DOSS to keep policies 81 and 83 rather than 79.
Um, staff is sticking with its original recommendation to keep 79, especially with that additional sentence added about large and contiguous areas and natural state. We feel that addresses 81 and 83. And one thing we've heard from many members in the community is a concern about duplication in our policies and that uh proposals get quote unquote high scores because they do one thing and you know repetitive policies give them oh yeah you've met four policies by doing native plants. So we're trying to address that concern um not have duplications and policies that are a part of your comp plan review. So our recommendation is to stick with 79.
So based on that, this chart that is in your staff report is a little bit different. Now um and you can see at the top row that we have add designation or add to policy review to make that a little more clear, but just making sure it's public knowledge that those numbers have changed slightly based on what I just presented to you. and we'll be asking for your any recommendation you make to include uh the three changes in policies that were presented before you tonight. And with that, we're requesting that you uh provide input, any further input that you may have and make a recommendation.
Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. I guess there's no applicant. So, we're going to have uh the people who are signed up, community members in person, Pam Andrews, Donna Stain, Pam Williams.
Good evening everyone. My rec my name is Pam Andrews. My address has been here a thousand times I think. At any rate um greetings everybody.
Preserveral durm reviewed the E report for long for four hours. One day we spent on it um on the comprehensive plan recently. These proposed revisions are major. They're really not minor.
They carry significant environmental impacts and deserve public review. The 70 plus page document was released with little time for analysis or input from the public. advisory bodies such as the environmental affairs board and open space commissions did not know about this either when I re reached out to them. Um and though their input input, it should be really essential to this.
Several revisions um weaken existing protections um like 79, we're still concerned about drinking water sources, wildlife habitat, that was a big deal to us and corridor that policy 79, 81, 82, 84, and 101. Policy 198, which is a new policy limits land conservation. It appears um the EAB designated policies 86, 87, 92, and 93.
they lose their environmental status of a D on those policies. A few planning commission members have expressed concern when I talked with you all. Some of you I've um talked with over the week after meeting with Aaron and Payton last Thursday. We appreciate that Aaron and Payton.
They have agreed to pull um items from the city council and county commissioners November vote until we could kind of iron some things out. We do appreciate that Aaron. With major implications and inadequate review time, PRD respectfully requests this item be presented to the public for comments before it returns to the leaders for a county for a vote. This should also go to public and advisory boards for their input as well as well as you all um to adequately review the documents in a in its entirety.
Um Brooke Massive with the wildlife commission said this. I'm going to be quick. First thoughts, it definitely is true that the wildlife quarters are not wildlife habitats. They are pathways in which wildlife travel to reach habitat areas. And by removing wildlife habitats, they restrict natural areas to to natural heritage natural
areas and lowland habitat areas like flood planes repairing buffers. So at any rate, she suggests please don't remove 81 is what she suggested. And I thank you. And Aaron, we didn't see these before we spoke tonight.
So I'm sorry if we contradicted anything that you did. Um we do appreciate your willingness to meet with us. sincerely. We spent an hour and a half with Aaron last Thursday.
So, thank you. And Payton and Payton. There it is. Sorry.
I got it pulled up. Got it. Just slow. I'm just slow tonight. >> This is just an update of what uh Pam was talking about as far as the analysis
with there being 198 total policies and commentaries. 69 of them uh were subject to change and there was more than just wording changes. 28 of them we have looked at PRD has had a chance to review because our first priority was environmental and rural uh related um changes. Uh we reviewed 14 of those 28 with uh the planning department on the sixth and uh there's 41 additional policies that can be reviewed but we do not look to have as much um input on you know across the board on those as we did those that were environmental and um rural. Um, and again, we'd like to ask that this not be voted on tonight and give the uh community, the citizens a chance to do more analysis because I
think it it really paid off and I was glad to see what uh Erin presented. Thank you very much. >> Uh, good afternoon. My name is Pam Williams.
My address is on file. Uh I'm here tonight also to uh thank Erin and Payton for meeting with us last week to go over some of these. Uh we are really requesting additional time to sit down with Aaron and Payton before this is voted on. Uh unfortunately uh we missed this in the JCCPC meeting in August when it came up the first time.
We was not aware of it until the uh planning commission meeting in October 14th and we just found out about it like a couple of days before. Um we wasn't familiar with the terminology ER. Uh if we think
if it had had comprehensive plan in front of it, we would have jumped on it sooner or saw it at the JCCP Z meeting. Anyway, again, we really do appreciate it and we really would like to sit down, have some time sit down with Aaron and Payton to go over the additional ones that we have concerns about because if you've written contracts, comprehensive plans, policies, you know that just changing one word can make a big difference and uh we want to also understand some of the words and meanings and commentaries that they are uh adding and changing. So, uh, we appreciate all your time and efforts here because we know y'all give up a lot of time to be here. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Erin and Payton. >> My name is Steve Conn. I live at 1406 Pennsylvania Avenue in Durham and I'm the chair of the Open Space Committee of the Durham Open Space and Trails Commission.
As the citizen group that advises Durham's governments on all matters connected to open space, including matters related to development, we have strongly recommended changes to the planning department's evaluation and assessment report in two areas. One of those two areas has already been resolved by Mr. Kane's agreement to keep the DD designation for policy 104. The second area involves the cluster of policy 79, 81, and 83.
We agree that there is duplication, but we strongly believe the planning should remove the DD designation from policy 79 rather than from policies 81 and 83. Policy 79 is a nice statement, but even with the pro proposed changes, it includes nothing concrete and specific about what a new development should do to accomplish the desired protection. And as the commentary points out, most of what it covers is already addressed in the UDO, although the changes have
helped there. Policy 81, on the other hand, is clear about how a new development should place its open space to protect environmentally sensitive portions of the property and create habitat areas. And policy 83 is clear in a different way on leaving existing habitat areas and wildlife movement corridors undisturbed. Both of these policies are concrete.
They cover matters not already addressed in the UDO and they are essential to meeting the goals of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, we strongly suggest that the D designations need to remain on policies 81 and 83, but the D can without harm be removed from policy 79. We believe whether 79 is kept or not, that 81 and 83 should remain as key components of the way planning reviews new developments when it presents them for potential approval. >> Thank you. Anybody
else in person? Julie Mcccleintoch or Barry Saunders in person? No. We're going to turn to the Zoom meeting.
Tina Mley Pearson, please state your name and address for the record. >> Hi, my name is Tina Molly Pearson and my address is on file. Good evening, planning commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I want to address several policies in the current comprehensive plan update, specifically policy 79, 81, and 101, and a few important emissions that need correction before final adoption.
First, policy 101. This policy rightly emphasizes tree coverage beyond what's required by development regulations. However, we need to make sure new developments actually strive for consistent mature tree canopy across the site, not just isolated clusters. And we should
explicitly retain the goal already approved on October 2023 to achieve 55% tree canopy by 2040. Policy 101 also needs a DD designation. Now turning to policy 79. The version originally included protection for drinking water sources.
That reference has since been removed and that's a serious concern. This is the only policy in the plan that covers drinking water protection and without it we leave a major gap in environmental safeguards. So, I'm asking that policy 79 be restored to include drinking water protection and have ddesation. It should also continue to reference both wildlife habitat and corridors as those elements are interconnected with our watershed health. Regarding policy 81, this one should remain separate from policy 79. Based on
feedback from North Carolina wildlife, the environmental advisory board, and other stakeholders, policy 81 serves a different purpose. It should also be kept as ddesation. Policy 85 needs to stay as is. I honestly don't feel like this is ready for a vote tonight and needs more indepth analysis.
Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Sarah Bickley. >> Yes.
Can you hear me? >> Yes. Please state your name and address. >> My name is Sarah Bickley.
I live at 12 Stream View Court Durham 27713. I'm the president of the Durham Wildlife Stewards and I appreciate all the work of the planning commission and thank you for letting me speak tonight. Um I am just um I'm new to all these uh discussions about wildlife and wildlife corridors, but it seems that there's a lot um in this plan that would change
about those things. And I would just ask the the the um commission to uh hold off on voting on this until we can become a little more educated on it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jennifer Maher.
Okay. Jennifer Maher. Um, uh, my address is on record. I'm a Durham resident and I'm co-chair of the New Hope Bird Allianc's Conservation Committee. I want to very much thank the staff for working on trying to fix some of the issues with these reviews uh in particularly the type that I pointed out earlier this evening where the same thing gets point
after point after point. Now, I'm going to sort of walk that back a little bit and agree with my uh colleagues who've spoken about retaining some of these uh policies that have now been crammed into 79 because they are important and if we have only one document, one policy holding them, we risk having their importance lessened and that uh that language needs to be very strong, very clear, and we need to be careful that we're not weakening the environmental review. So, I am agreeing with the other speakers to say, let's give this a little more time. There have been some significant changes, but not much chance for public review. Um, and I ask that the vote be held off uh and the the document submitted to the public in a a more trans transparent fashion. Thank
you. >> Thank you. Well, that's all the attendees in the Zoom and in the audience. So, we are going to close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner comment and discussion.
Commissioner Woke, >> Carrie Woke. Um, I have a question. Um, some folks brought up 198 and clarification on that. Can is that can can we get a little bit of clarification?
Is that lessening? >> No, it's the intent is not to lessen anything. [clears throat] So there is no place type policy right now for the rural and agricultural reserve. Um, the intention for the rural agricultural reserve is for it to be outside the urban growth boundary. And this is simply stating that um and and clarifying that that's the only real intent for including that policy. Um is
to just kind of make clear that uh rural agricultural reserve should be outside the urban growth boundary. Um unless as it says in the policy that is before you, unless it's already conserved through a conservation easement or other method, um the then it could still be in the you know if it's if it's inside the urban growth boundary but has uh it's in a volunteer agricultural district or it has an agricultural easement or something along those lines, it could still stay rural and agricultural reserve. >> Okay. So the only um rural and agricultural reserve within the UGB has conservation easements on it.
>> That's the intent of the policy and that we're just stating that here so it's clarified. >> Okay. And so but so there just to clarify there is no RA that isn't already >> I think I can't I I I don't have it in front of me. I can't say whether there is or not. My understanding is that everything that's RA, if it's in the urban growth boundary, it has some sort
of easement on it. And all we're doing is stating that and making that public knowledge. Any other commissioner comments, questions? Commissioner Richie Uh Ramsey, Richie, it does seem like we need to or at least it's worth considering taking up whether this should be delayed.
Um I don't know what we need to do procedurally to do that, but I do think >> so. I I do want to make clear um it is your it is your prerogative as to whether or not to vote. However, uh UDO section 346E states that the uh it's under comprehensive plan amendments. The planning commission shall make its recommendation within three consecutive regular commission cycles, approximately 90 days in total. You saw this at your October meeting. So if you are going to delay, you could not delay past January.
We would need to have you take a vote in January. Otherwise, it automatically moves forward with a positive recommendation to the boards. So if you do choose to uh delay to January, what I would ask is that we get comment. we can, you know, put this out again.
Um, we can put out the revised language. Um, I would ask for to get comments by the end of the month, you know, say in the next 3 weeks or so because we have to have our materials to our supervisors for review and all that by end of the first week of December, beginning of the second. So to get those comments, have time to digest them, have time to uh work with them in order to put materials together to get on your agenda, we need to have that done in four weeks or so. So if we could uh get those comments within 3 weeks, uh have some time to work with them, have ask questions, have dialogue, uh but we do need to bring this to you in January at the latest, otherwise it's going to go forward with a positive recommendation whether you
like it or not. >> Can I just add on that? I do think that just as a member of DERM open space and trails as well, we definitely didn't have a good enough notice to provide solid comment on this. Um, and I think that that's probably true for the rest of uh commissions.
And um, I'm not saying I think that that's probably just a communication area more than anything else. But given that that is the role of all of these commissions, EAB, BPAC, and and the other ones, I would suggest to the rest of the commissioners that it's worth getting in front of them and giving them time to comment on it. and we should and we would I maybe request that staff would also preemptively uh communicate that to them to the extent that that hasn't already happened. >> Right.
And and yeah, we've I've already had conver we've had emails uh with with DOSS open space committee members. Um we've gotten their input. Um and and I would just want to say from a staff point of view that to us this is clarification technical. We don't see this really as a change in policy. We've now myself and our staff, we've been
working with these policies now for just about two years uh trying to provide those reviews to you and we saw things over these last two years that we're trying to fix things that are redundant or unclear and that's all we were doing trying to do here was technical changes. Uh but I appreciate that there are those that that see them as bigger than that. Um there's no intent to make any major policy changes through this. again is just really helping us and hopefully the public understand where where staff's coming from on our on our analysis.
Uh but we're we are not opposed to a 60-day delay to allow for more comment, more thought. Um but we do need to bring this to you in January. >> Thank [clears throat] you. Um what happens in January if people are sick and out and we don't make quorum >> just worst case scenario if we delay at 60 days and we don't have quorum
>> it goes forward with a positive recommendation so be here >> so be here at least eight of us >> okay vice chair Cameron >> yeah the question I had is um because it's just really housekeeping is what you're talking about a little bit housekeeping >> that's that's why We I don't want I would say maybe a little more than housekeeping, but >> a little more. So cleaning the baseboards, not just sweeping and stuff like that, >> right? >> Um >> so when that typically happens, then you don't typically have all the public hearings open for public comment like you would normally do with when we go through that whole conference like we did back in 2020, >> right? We weren't anticipating Yeah.
going to every Yeah. doing the whole lot. Yeah. Again, because we were just >> cleaning things up, so to speak.
Yeah. Okay, it's up to you. >> So, one of the things I've come to understand serving on this commission for the new people and the public [clears throat] according to a good
definition is what we do is we are the keepers of the plan and this is comments on the plan. So I am going to entertain a motion to delay this for 60 days. >> Two, let's say two cycles because it may not be exactly 60 days. >> Put it out out there to the public more these, you know, get some feedback and our feedback also on specific things within >> Yes, please.
If you have specific feedback, please send that to me >> and then we can do it again in January. Do I have a motion? Second. >> No.
>> No. I have a motion. Gosh, I'm really struggling. Um motion.
Uh all right, one second. I got to pull off the thing. Chair Shagirus, I move um I don't know which one this is. I [snorts] move regarding comprehensive plan amendments evaluation assessment report uh A2500002.
um >> that we delay this for two cycles. >> Is there a second? >> Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Richie and seconded by Commissioner Huarez Montal Mandonaldo, sorry to delay a 25 a quadruple zero to evaluation and assessment report for two cycles.
May we have the electronic voting, please? motion passes 8 to one. >> Thank you. Next item is 8 new business small area
plan information item only. May we have the staff report? Good evening, chair, vice chair, planning commission, and public. My name is Sarah Long, and I'm a senior planner with the planning and development department, and I'm here to share a brief overview of our small area planning projects.
So this presentation is actually based on the small area planning scoping report which was presented to the joint city county planning committee JCCPC on February 5th of this year and this is the first step that was the first step for the planning um small area planning projects. So the report proposed a framework and a definition of small area plans and a list a recommended list of areas to start with. Cool. Thank you.
So what so why [clears throat] are we doing small area plans? So the Durham comprehensive plan engagement during that time we heard interest from residents and elected officials to under undertake special studies looking at specific areas in more detail. Based on these requests and our experience with previous small area plans such as the Walltown small area plan, we decided that the following unique issues can be addressed by this type of work. And that's increasing resident representation and diversity through equitable engagement through these projects.
Improving plan effectiveness and focusing on recommendations on land use issues specifically for these areas. recording infrastructure concerns for these areas and addressing small area plan cap compatibility with Durham's larger growth management strategy outlined in the small in the comprehensive plan. So after the scoping report, the next stage is addressing the issues um that were presented to the JCCPC and also in
your um the planning commission memo. And so we outlined our approach to small area plans using um uh definition uh the benefits, plan components, location selection criteria and recommendations. So this information can also be found on the small area plan web page you can see there and you can also um search durm small area plans and you can get the same details I'm going to be presenting in this uh presentation also that are found in the memo. So simply put, a small area plan is a is a planning initiative that engages residents in identifying needs, priorities um for a specific geography.
In that definition, we stress the importance of compatibility with the adopted Durham comprehensive plan. This isn't going to replace the Durham comprehensive plan, but rather it's an it's an effort to um implement it at a smaller level. So just like the comprehensive plan, a small area plan can be used in three main ways. providing guidance for development
proposals, informing the community about city and county work, and aiding staff in writing development regulations such as our our new new UDO project. So, we identified a few benefits with these small with the small area plans that goes beyond the actual um document that we create. And because this work includes an enga equitable engagement process, we have an opportunity to build connections and relationships with residents, we can work on collaborative mapping with these residents and also we can collect stories and information from a community. So this is a way of documenting um neighborhood characters, making sure we're on the same page about what how people see their neighborhood and mapping and then also making sure that stories and information about a community are also being documented.
So what is actually in this planning document? So the plan components will vary based on the unique needs of an area but in general this is a list of topics we can focus on. So most of most
of these categories are land use focused as we want to make sure that we can solve the problems through zoning or high level visioning especially if there are any city or county owned parcels. So while we will be collaborating with other departments, we still want to focus in terms of what planning does and focusing on um zoning and also high level visioning. The selection criteria which is outlined in the memo um is a list of criteria that we help to narrow down areas in Durham that might need small area plans. We use the list to select current small area planning projects as well as some of the upcoming projects that are going to be shown in the next slide. The list is framed as yes or no questions but can also be answered more thoroughly to develop the purpose and need of the project um once we begin the public engagement. So there are several questions regarding land use visioning needs and how that impacts impacts the development and also environmental
concerns. So these are all things that we take into consideration when we're determining whether or not an area can use a small area plan and then also determining the boundaries of that area. So these are the three um current and upcoming small area plans that we're working on this fiscal year 2025 2026 and we're currently working in two areas the Lakewood Weston and Lion Park area and the Bragtown region and Oxford Hamlin area. Our next proposed small area plan is the Hillside and Oakidge area.
And next we're going to show the boundaries of the projects. So, it's important to note that the only project that has started engagement is the Lakewood West End and Lion Park small area plan, but not the the other two. For this reasons, it's only um it's the only project with finalized boundaries. Now, part of that initial project engagement phase is we talk to community members, we talk we determine what neighborhoods should be should be included within the boundary
and we want to make sure that's finalized before we actually continue with engagement. So that hasn't started um for the brown bridetown region in Oxford Hamlin. Taking a quick look at Lakewood Weston and Allian Park. This has begun and the the engagement launch was actually on August 26th.
The next engagement phase will begin in December and this and that that particular engagement will focus on transportation. So you if you look at the boundaries, the northern boundary is Chapel Hill Street. Um and then we have the area around shops at Lakewood in purple there. So we're focusing on uh shops at Lakewood and then also uh Chapo Road is the main commercial areas. They're focusing on the residential areas. They're south of Maplewood Cemetery and then moving over to Lion Park area for the Brytown region and Oxford Hamlin small area plan including the Bratown, Oxford Hamlin and Colonial Village
neighborhoods as well as the Oxford Commons Shopping Center. And so again, this has not officially started. The engagement is being is poised to start at the beginning of next year. And then finally the hillside Oak Ridge which includes the neighbor neighborhoods of Hillside High School uh south of Cornwallis Road and north of Martin Luther King Jr.
Highway. So the name and the boundaries of this project are sub subject to change because we have not started um even the initial engagements on this project. So that is a very brief overview. Um, and I want to again emphasize that the Lakewood Weston and Lion Park project engagement is underway.
Uh, Bragtown is coming shortly and the Hillside and Oakidge project will be next. So, thank you and I'm available for any questions you may have. >> Thank you. [laughter] >> Any questions?
Nope, we're good. 2026 meeting schedule. So, uh, Erin Kane with the planning department. The 2026 meeting schedule is in your packet.
Uh, that's our recommended one. Uh, a couple of things to note. First off, uh, February 24th, 2026. You may note that uh the intention of that is as a special meeting just for the new UDO.
Um that would ideally be the only thing on the agenda. The second thing is and this one got me. Thank you to Joanne Gordon on our admin staff for noticing this. Um, I checked for holidays and none of these were on holidays. So, I thought we were all good until she pointed out that September 7th is a Monday, which is Labor Day, which means city council is meeting September 8th, which means we should not meet September 8th. So, um, I'd like to just like we
discussed why we're meeting tonight last year because November 11th, which is a Tuesday, was Veterans Day. Um, we're going to be in conflict with city council on September 8th. I would ask what your preference is. We can move our meeting to Wednesday, September 9th, like we did uh this month for this meeting.
We can try to push it back to Tuesday, September 15th. Um do [laughter] that is that's getting a no from that end of the day. Um I I really uh we are flexible. We just obviously can't meet on Monday because it's Labor Day.
We can which would be September 15th. Um, Commissioner Woke's not liking that idea. [laughter] >> Commissioner McGyver said he'll be here on September 15th, so [laughter] I think we're good. >> Microphone.
>> The ninth would be my preference. And the 15th is mine. >> I propose September 16th. >> Yeah, that whole Yeah, that whole week's bad for me.
I have a big event on the 19th. I could do any week. The week of [snorts] the 7th. I mean, any day.
Can we move up to the first? >> So, in theory, yes. That would just make it very close. It's that would only give you a 3-w weekek break between the first one.
Um, and that that is a little tough on staff moving to September 15th because there's five Tuesdays in September next year. That actually spaces things out well for staff. Um, so if we're going to move it,
I staff would prefer to move it forward rather than back. >> Thursday the 10th. >> Any any day that that week works for us. Any day the following week works for us.
It's really up to y'all. >> Is that a compromise? >> Thursday, September 10th. >> Yep.
>> Okay. I will make sure the room is available. Um and we'll move or or you know have further discussion if need be. So um I would just ask then that you approve the 2026 meeting schedule with a change to September from September 8th to September 10th. >> Chair, I move that we approve the 2026 meeting schedule with the uh noted change of September 10th. >> It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move the 2026 meeting schedule with moving of the September meeting to
the 10th. All in favor say I. >> I. Any nays?
The eyes have it. >> Committee updates. UDO committee. studio committee is meeting uh with staff and by staff I mean um Bo and Robin and someone else.
Um next week on the 20th um we will have reviewed at that point the extent of the revised UDO and then that'll be our interactions over it. But we're our goal is to be ready to have comments by the beginning of February so they can be included in that big meeting. That's the update. >> Thank you.
Any staff announcements? >> No staff announcements. >> Okay. The meeting is adjourned at 8:33
m. Thank you.