Joint City County Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning everyone. We are going to um get started and um circle back to some items that need approval until we have a quorum. So, welcome everyone to the December 3rd, 2025 meeting of the joint city county planning committee. Um, and should we do roll call now or wait? Maybe. Should we wait? Okay, we'll wait. Um, any adjustments to the agenda? Okay. Um, any announcements? Um, I have an announcement which is that, um, our board, I think it was last Monday before Thanksgiving, approved the resoning for RTP 3.0. new. So, very exciting. Um, yeah, really transformative and I'm I'm very proud of the county's role in that project, which began really about 10 years ago when we invested more than $20 million in the hub uh to as a pilot to see [clears throat] how it went and it was a success and here we are. So, just wanted to share that. Um, we were going to wait on the approval of the minutes and we'll move to city and county managers priority items.

None from the county. Ma'am, and none from the city. Madam Chair, thank you. And Commissioner Burton is here. So, we actually have a quorum now. Um, so maybe we will go ahead and do the roll call and then we'll vote on the minutes. Chair Jacobs here, Vice Chair Baker here, Council Member Caviierro, Planning Commissioner Shagaris here, Commissioner Lee, Commissioner Valentine, Commissioner Burton here. And is there um do we have any new appointee from the city? Not yet.

Not yet. Okay. Um Okay. And we are going to move on to the uh approval of the November 5th, 2025 minutes. Are there any revisions? Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion to approve. Move to approve the minutes. Second.

Okay. Moved by um Council Member Baker, seconded by Commissioner Burton. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? The minutes are unanimously approved. We are going to um go to item five, consolidated case summaries. Morning, Madam Chair, uh, vice chair and members of the committee. Before I begin, I'd like to first introduce, uh, Javar Jones, the newest member of our growth management team, and he will be the one taking over presenting these items to you the next time they come up in March. Uh, Javar is a native North Carolinian, born and raised in Winston Salem. He is a proud graduate of Wake Forest University, though why he's proud of that, I can't really ponder. Um, he has a degree in politics and international affairs. Uh, Javar began working in our department in March of 2024 and last month came over to the G management team as our newest planner. So, just want to introduce him um and let you know that you'll be seeing him at least on a quarterly basis going forward for these cases.

Welcome. Thank you. Good morning uh to the chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Thank you Aaron for the introduction and looking forward to working with everybody. Um I am most concerned about Javar joining our team because I think he may have a deeper and more radio voice than I do. So I'm gonna I'm gonna lose my my mojo on that.

Oh that great it's up. So yes, this is the consolidated case preview. You will definitely see a uh a theme throughout these cases and there's a number of them this quarter. We have eight of them and so I'll just go through them quickly or not so quickly. Well, there's okay first one is Thompson Village. This is uh currently zone RS20. It is going to PDR9.400 for 42 single family town houses and detached houses on just over 5 acres. Um the one thing to note on this application is it is a satellite application is not currently connected to the city limits unlike the others that you will see. Um, this is in an area of the county where much of the county uh much of the county residences, many of them are already on city water and sewer. And so there's kind of this large area that's been developed um for single family neighborhoods on water and sewer decades ago, but that was not annexed into the city. Um, so that's the reason for the satellite annexation here. The next one is South Point Town Houses off of NC751 um a little bit south of South Point Mall. It is RR to RSM with a textual development plan for about 20 town houses on a little over 3 acres, about 3 and a/4 acres. It is adjacent to the current city limits. Oh, and all of these are going to be within the urban growth boundary. We don't have any applications this quarter that were not. There we go. The next one is Andrews

Chapel Road Townous. This one is request to go from RR to PDR 6.101 for up to 28 town houses on about 4 1/2 acres. The next one is Oak Grove. This is for RR and RS20 to PDR 7.360 for up to 80 town houses. Um, we do we will be making a comment about asking for a different name for this one or at least an adjusted name. Our concern is that Oak Grove, which people think of Oak Grove Elementary and all that commercial area to the north, there's going to be some confusion. So, we're going to ask them to change the name on this. Age Road Town houses is for RR to PDR 8.728 for up to 35 town houses, detached row [snorts] houses, multiplexes or apartments on just over 4 acres. Alexen Ferington is RR and RS20 to PDR 11.656 656 for up to 336 multifamily units on about 15 acres. Um in that Yeah, this is in the area of Fington closer to the interchange with I40 [clears throat] courtyards at Leville. You've seen this before. Uh there's been at least one pre if not two previous applications. We've had several uh presubs from various interested parties on this parcel. It is just under 30 acres. The request this time is RR to PDR 3.739 for up to 111 single family and town houses on Leville Road just up from US70.

And finally, 4702 Fairington Road. This is farther north from the one we saw previously. It is RS20 to PDR 6.676 for up to 50 town houses on about 7 1/2 acres. That's it. If you any questions.

Well, um thank you so much, Scott. Yeah, I was I think it's really great to see this because uh this is exactly what we're trying to achieve with the uh urban growth boundary and the comprehensive plan uh to see uh denser development. This is in a way a type of infill and um creating more more housing, different types of housing um of more hopefully lowcost housing uh with town homes. Um so and this these are already areas where we've seen a lot of development. So um thank you. And I've never heard that comment. Uh the the connotation satellite annexation.

Sure. So yeah, satellite annexation is when it's an as asking for an annexation that's not currently attached to any um any existing city limits. It would kind of be out there on an island or as we call it a satellite. Okay. But it's connected to the existing infrastructure that is that would be the request here is to connect to existing city water and sewer that is currently serving county jurisdiction homes. Um but they need to annex in order nowadays on in today's current policies they need to annex in order to be able to access the city infrastructure. But it is still within the urban growth boundary. It is definitely still within the urban growth boundary.

I think the key key thing so thank you. Yes. Yeah. Um I think it was pretty clear probably to most people what the theme was that you were referring to here, which is most of these were between 3 to 10 acres in size. So much smaller than some of these giant sprawl cases that we've been seeing except for the the 30 acre one, right?

Um and town houses, right? Lots of lots of town houses. So, um I I think that as we have run out of these large parcels of of land, particularly in Southeast Durham where there's a lot of demand um for for growth, and we start looking at the pieces that are being filled in, I do think that thinking about these parcels in the context of the immediate land around them and the development that is existing or there's potential for that development is going to be important. And also as we look at our goals, thinking about how do we weave in uh how do we create a a livable and affordable city and weave in commercial uh uh neighborhood oriented commercial uses, public spaces into the fabric of our city and our community. I think that's going to be even more important than ever. Um, so you know, um, I I do think that it's hard to even look at a case that's three acres, five acres, 10 acres without like looking at all of the area around it. What are we creating over time piece by piece? Um, are we building out a a walkable, inclusive, transoriented city or are we moving the other direction? We we don't really get an answer just by looking at at any particular piece. So, um, appreciate the the overview. I I I definitely want us to to keep our eyes on the big picture um as we do uh you know sort of transition from these large parcels to these medium-sized parcels and how can we move toward those goals uh that we have um that that came from all of that work in the comprehensive plan. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for the comments.

Thank you. Um, so we will move on to item six, new UDO plan developments, administrative content and mapping. Robin Schultz morning, Robin Schultz, planning and development department. um here this morning to give you an update on the new UDO uh as we keep on trudging through this project. All right, so uh first up, we're going to talk a little bit about development plans. Um we have special legislative authority in both the city and county to do development plans. uh we are going to retain this in the new UDO. Um so anytime an applicant wishes to apply for a reasonzoning they can uh include profered a commitments through a development plan in both the city and county. That is not changing. Um we've have had that legislative authority for over four decades. Um which is to say that many development plans um you're f [laughter] have uh you know failed to materialize on the ground. um whether that's due to market conditions or uh what have you, right? Um many of which uh do not uh from the 70s and 80s maybe don't match the development patterns that we uh actually want to see or uh have been outlined in the comprehensive plan. Right? So, uh we're proposing a sunset date essentially of January 1, 2015. Um so any development plan that was submitted uh after that date would remain so for the past 10 years so that we make sure that we keep um those development plans that we've gotten a lot of recent feedback from and that you all have

recently approved as members of the governing bodies. Uh, additionally, um, we've done a preliminary analysis and found that going back to 2015 ensures that we will keep all of the affordable units, um, and the contributions to Durham public schools and the affordable housing fund. Um, so that's sort of where that date comes from. Um, essentially we're just trying to match development outcomes with the comprehensive plan. And so by designing mixeduse districts um and other zoning districts more uh which align a little bit better than the suburban style development that was you know pretty prevalent in the 70s 80s uh 90s. Um hoping to move past some of those and move more towards those goals that are outlined in the comp plan. Uh additionally we're going to have what's known as the plan development district. Um essentially this is a district uh for which you have to have at least 150 acres. Um it does give the plane director uh discretion should there be a smaller project which is appropriate for that. Uh it will be required to have a graphic development plan. Uh and it needs to be it's in in addition to being in conjunction with a base district. It needs to exceed those standards. Right. Um it's also required to provide a variety of housing types uh an equal or greater environmental protection uh as well as a unified open space plan. Um, some of the other administrative articles that were included with your packet were article one, uh, which is our our introduction just sort of going over our authority to do zoning. Um, article five, which is our overlay districts. Um, so the airport overlay, the major transportation corridor overlay, the historic district overlay, and the watershed protection overlays. Um, the bounds of which are not changing. Uh, and lastly, uh, the definitions article. um was also included.

Uh and we also included uh a draft of the university and campus or the UC district standards. Um this is both UCA and UCB. Um as uh Commissioner Jacobs noted, we did the the RTP amendment was recently approved which created UC3. um we're going to try and condense that into UCA uh and make sure that it matches um what was uh most recently approved. Um, additionally, we are working with Durham Tech um to hopefully uh include them in that uh future mapping as well. Um otherwise, the other two um entities that have a UC district are going to be Duke and uh Central. So, you also had asked for some mapping updates. Um, so just wanted to go over some brief uh maps that were created. Um, so these are the residential districts. These all start with an R. Um, you'll see the residential preserve in green. Uh, that matches most closely with the RR currently. Uh, the RB uh in yellow, which is the residential suburban, which is matches pretty closely with RS20. Uh RC is the manufactured home park uh in purple. Um you can't there aren't that there aren't too many of these. Um but these were mapped onto our existing manufactured home parks. Um the the version in your packet uh can get much larger so you can actually find those. Um and then lastly, the RD, which is the residential neighborhood, is in blue uh which is mapped across uh the established residential place type uh throughout the UGB. Um, it most closely resembles our existing RU5 and RU52 districts. Um, and it does represent the largest potential density increase within these R districts. Um, so that being said, this is a map that sort of shows a potential density increase via that change to RD, right?

And so in the light blue you're going to see um the lower or no amount of change um in which the RU5 RU52 matches pretty closely with the RD especially given that the compact option um matches pretty or is pretty comparable to the existing small lot option which we allow. Um and so the only way to really get a density increase in those areas is to provide the affordable option uh which we discussed uh last meeting with you all. Um and so I just wanted to note that right now we have those uh development tiers which are concentric right they start downtown urban suburban rural tier etc. And so implementing the RD district actually represents the biggest increase in density on the sort of outer edges um of the urban growth boundary um as we start moving towards that more suburban style development. Um so RS20 uh sort of is one of the larger in terms of uh translational zonings from RD. Um you can I'm sorry going from RS20 to either RB which is a pretty close match or RD. Um RB is roughly two units per acre. So not very dense and RD at the base is roughly eight units per acre. Um so trying to map uh where exactly that RS20 switched right. So, if it switched to RB, um it's going to be in yellow. And you'll note that almost everything that is outside of the city limits that was RS20 uh became RB and within the city limits became RD. Um so one thing that I'll note is that even though the comprehensive plan calls for established residential uh in these areas uh they would need to annex uh in order to uh have the utilities to build to the RD development intensity and therefore they are RB. Um so if they wanted to

essentially develop, they will likely have to go before um the city council to request an annexation. Um otherwise they can build at uh a rate of approximately two units an acre. Um and I'll also say that the RB zoning district uh is modeled after that existing suburban style development. Uh and therefore it doesn't doesn't contain a provision for the uh affordable or compact units. Um namely because it's also very difficult to provide the amount of units required uh without having those utilities. Um, and so the last map is going to be these mixeduse districts. Uh, they're aligned with a few different place types. So, apartment and townhouse, mixed residential, uh, and the downtown and transit opportunity areas. And those those last two are the ones which are hatched, right? Um, I will say that most of the commercial mixeduse districts are replacing um, lower inensity commercial zoning districts. uh we are trying to facilitate that increased density and disincentivize that autoentric development along our existing transit corridors. Um if we're trying to stop growing out, right, we need to grow in. Um and sort of similarly, uh like the RD district, um these do provide an incentive structure for affordable and compact units. Um uh one thing that I also wanted to talk to you all about as um we keep moving through uh is so we've been discussing this with county transportation uh talking about sidewalks. So in the current draft of the UDO you were required to provide a sidewalk um for any new development. um development in the county occurs uh at a lower rate than in the city. And so there are some concerns about creating sidewalk that one is not connected and you know uh county transportation is working on a maintenance policy but making sure that all of that is sort of

congealed and works. Um and so instead of requiring uh a partial by parcel uh sidewalk in the county um saying that it shall be provided when it's whe it's within the UGB on the partial by partial basis similar to how we do it in the city. Um but that when it's outside of the UGB and within the county um it should only be provided when it's on a transportation plan that's been adopted uh and approved by the board of county commissioners. Um and here on the right is a a sort of famous orphan sidewalk um in which folks have uh put these little uh pavers. Um and so just to end I wanted to give like a quick update on the project schedule. Um hopefully by the end of the year we're going to have a completed first draft. Um in January and February we're going to move into doing education and outreach regarding that draft and the adoption process. So both letting people know that the the thing is here and also like here's how you were going to here's how you can engage on it. Um I will say that at the last inerson engagement I mentioned like a potential module four and somebody said uh another module. Um [laughter] I think we definitely have uh UDO fatigue. So trying to wrap those things together let people know the whole thing is out please you know reach out to us come to office hours do all these things come to planning commission um etc. Um, from there, uh, we'll have a special meeting in February of the planning commission just because we know this is going to be a pretty big item. People are going to come out and that's great. Um, but we want to plan for that. Um, and then moving into the spring or summer, incorporating those edits and any revisions to match what we've heard um, at that planning commission special meeting and then hopefully beginning the adoption process um, sometime in uh, late spring, early summer with uh, public hearings at both of the governing bodies. And that is it. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh I first want to say related to the um modules I I you all have outdone yourselves on the community engagement and um so I mean I can understand how people are feeling at this point. It has been a very long very um yeah very deliberate outreach to the community. Really appreciate it. It's excited to see um the timeline here which we know we need to get this done before before July um by the end of the um you know before I guess the beginning of June. And also just related to the idea of doing a joint meeting, we did do that for adoption of the comprehensive plan. I think I thought that was a great process having our bodies together for that. Um, so I definitely think that's a great idea. Obviously, there'll be presentations separately to each board, but having a joint uh public hearing at the end and adoption would be awesome. Yes, Sarah.

Yeah, we we've been talking internally about um that approach. We think it worked well to have a joint public hearing. That way the public doesn't have to come twice to say the same thing. You all hear together and then you each body has a chance to deliberate and adopt separately. I think that's what we did before.

Yeah, absolutely. And there's always confusion anyway um you know about who what is county city and this way it makes it easier for our residents. Um, so, um, I there are a number of things in here that you're asking us all for feedback around and so I want to make sure that we do that and that we have time for everybody to kind of dig in a little bit and um, ask questions and things like that. And I just want to recognize city council member Cabierro here. Um, also I did have a request from Commissioner Valentine for excused absence. Just to clarify, do we do excused absences? I don't remember. Do we do Dave?

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, um, yes. Um, good morning everyone. Apologies for being late. Um, we have I mean there's not like a official policy, but it's something we've granted folks and they're reflected in the minutes. No, she's shaking her head, Joanne. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, because I recall that we don't reflect them in the minutes, right? Okay. So, they're not reflected in the minutes, but we can still go ahead and do it. So, um I would entertain a motion. Yes. Can I add council member Copac to that? Oh, okay. So, he has been assigned to this.

Yes. Council member Copac is the um other standing member and Council Member Burus is the alternate. Okay. Okay. So, um I would entertain a motion to excuse um commissioners Lee and Valentine and council member Kopac. So, moved. Second.

Moved by council member Baker, second by Mayor Prom Caviierro. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? And that's unanimous. Um so um just going back to some of the things that were raised, one was about development plans and whether um the recommended date for uh sunset date January 1st, 2015. Uh just wanted to hear feedback from everyone on this or anybody any comments related to this recommendation.

I think for me I just have to put trust that you guys did a lot of analysis. Um 2015 seems reasonable. Um I would just want to know from you that you feel very confident that prior to 2015 what we have on the books just isn't worth keeping. Um, I I think that's what you're doing. Otherwise, I don't think you would bring this date to us. Um, we obviously don't have a full list of everything that's been done before and after, but um, but yeah, I think I think if you believe that 2015 is the right cutoff date, then that's probably something that I would be comfortable with.

I will one just change that pronoun to we because that scares me a little bit to say you. Um that was a decision that we all made. Um but I did look through um hundreds if not thousands of D plans over the past few weeks. So I do feel confident um we do feel confident that I that we one that will get us all of the profers as they relate to affordable housing both provision of units and the contributions. Um but additionally I think that there are a lot of development plans pre205 that have not seen any movement. Um and I don't expect those to see movement. Um however I will say that once we go out and engage on this portion we might hear from uh residents around certain uh D plans etc um that they feel strongly about and I think that's something that we'll definitely have to consider. Um I will say I did not go through all of them from the 1970s to now um but I did go until like 2009. So um should there be others you know this is this is definitely something that we're willing to consider. Um, but I do feel confident that this gets um at those uh profiters that we're really getting right now as far as like affordable housing and um density and Bo has something to say. Uh, but Rinsky um just just the I think what Robin was getting at and I want to make sure that you all um here as we engage on the map we'll hear that feedback and that feedback uh presents you all the opportunity or have the opportunity u the map that you adopt right just because their develop development plan was adopted u prior or post 2015 they we have heard feedback at times that they may want to change or propose the change of that to what's being proposed in the you know one of the districts that's being proposed you all would have that opportunity right so if there was a if there was a um

[clears throat] I don't I'm just making this up but if there was a PDR from 2017 that we have heard feedback on some individual cases not many but uh that they would rather see their property as CX5 for example and so you all would have the the ability of course when you adopt the new UDO and the the corresponding app to choose 25 that or choose that CX5 for that. So I think what Robin was saying is really important to remember that um this will be how how it's applied but this is how it's applied to the map that is adopted. Does that make sense? Like like there's opportunity for you know cherry picking here and there one way one way or the other.

Thank you. Um, and I'll just say I I support this. You know, with governing, we have to come up with um, you know, standards or policies. They they may not be perfect, but, you know, that's part of what we have to do. And I appreciate that the criteria that you all have used and um, this makes sense to me. So, thank you. Um, also just wanted to hear any feedback around this new um, concept of a planned development district. Um, I thought that was really interesting. Um, related to minimum size of 150 acres and also the opportunity to include things that are in the comprehensive plan priorities such as mix of housing types and environmental protection, open space. Um, one thing I was trying to understand is, and I think this gets at some of the concerns there have been about really large developments that have come before the city council. Um, it seems like this will give um the opportunity and also with a graphic development plan too. I that goes back to my early days of like 2005 on the planning commission when we had graphic plans. Um just so one thing I was trying to understand is will this be required for large you know green field developments? Yeah, I don't

I don't know that we can require this, but I do think that having it on within the ordinance provides the leverage for you all once it comes to you to say, "Oh, this is greater than 150 acres. Why did you not choose to do the plant development district which then puts it on the applicant to have to explain okay that to to you all." Okay. So, it becomes a tool which would be for the city council.

Um because anything of this size will be a reasonzoning. I I just think that's really important because we we talked about this at our last meeting that there will continue to be resonings and especially when you look at the map and you see where the current city limit is and where the urban growth boundary is. That's where a lot of the green field development is going to be where a lot of the large areas are left and those will come before the city council. they will be reszonings. Just think it's really important our community understands that. Um so you're seeing this as a new tool. So I just want to open that up for any comments, feedback. Yeah. Um so [clears throat] there's the uh let's see basically 150 acres minimum, but then there's or we can also go lower to to a lower number of acres. So the 150 is kind of a symbolic number here. Um cuz at first I was thinking why such a large number cuz like 40 acres is a neighborhood. Um would we want to go lower to like 50 acres?

I mean I think that's definitely something that we could consider especially because it's not required um given that direction from you all. Um, but I don't think that uh we have strong feelings. Do you have strong feelings? [laughter]

I don't necessarily have strong feelings. Might have some more context though. Uh, so I'm Scott Whiteman from the planning department. So we went through, we looked at um large mostly PDRs that have been approved recently but not completely or even begun um their buildout yet. and 150 acres was about the the threshold where it was hard for the new zoning districts to actually accommodate what was approved. The mix, a lot of the PDRs have a mix of housing types that aren't really specified where they're going to go and our new zoning districts don't necessarily accommodate that. Um, so that's why we settled on 150 acres because we want to try to encourage applicants to use the conventional zoning districts in in the new UDO uh while understanding that some will still need want and need some flexibility if they're particularly large development. So we kind of settled on 150 acres as being kind of a reasonable threshold. But as Robin said, that's that's a policy decision. So, if you all [snorts] would if you all actually want to encourage more of these, a lower um acreage would would facilitate that.

Personally, I would I would like to lower it since it's a option anyway. It's just a tool in the toolbox and I know that you can do it anyway. Even if it is below 150, I would probably go with 50 80 cap.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean my guess would be whatever we do, I want it to be evidence-based, right? And evidence-based means that we have cases that we have seen. Uh, and so I want the decision tracked to what we have actually seen and experienced. And that's what I mean by evidence because that's that's what we have. Um, I think that there's probably a financing component to this, meaning that the larger parcels have more space in their own lending capacity that allows them to offer more. And if we lower the amount there, I don't want to bludgeon people like the point is to use a carrot, not a stick. I mean, that's essentially how I'm interpreting it. And so I don't want to when people come for resonings, oh well, why didn't you choose this option? And the reality could be, well, the financing doesn't work with a smaller parcel. Like that's why we know we get more affordable units when there's more units. When you get into smaller numbers, they just don't have the space. Um, so I I think that that's part of like the 150 it makes sense because there's enough units in there, right, to to give you more flexibility. But I I think that that's the part that I would love for staff to kind of seems like you all dug in a little bit around that. So

yeah, we have dug in while Robin was looking at development plans. I was looking at the the zoning map, looking at all the examples of these um and there's no magic number, but 150 acres was where would seem to be the threshold where you it's kind of a big master plan community rather than a small kind of single family townhouse uh mixed. But it's as I mentioned before, it's still it's kind of do you all want more of these or less of these? [snorts]

Um, and so where you set the threshold will definitely have an effect on that. So, I'm going to throw out maybe a compromise or something for you to look at like 100 acres um to take a look and see what again cuz what we're what we're looking here for is just like some we're looking for projects that are more like what we want to see that incorporate open space and mix of housing. again, you know, some of the things that people have said they want. Um, so, you know, with the ability to do um the higher density now, would that you know, I I'm just throwing that out as something for you all to look at and because it's going to come up as the city council. Yeah. So, one of the things I want to just mention is the the ability, which you can see kind of at that last point under C2, the ability to do this for any size comes with a catch of like there has to be some community benefit, right? So, if we if we lower this too much, my worry is that um and and I'm fine with lowering some amount. Uh but as that threshold goes down, then you're going to start to get it's going to be more challenging, I think, for folks to prove that they can offer some community benefit, right, which is the only other way that those smaller projects get to do.

Yeah. So, it's not a, you know, the district is intended for these large things to basically customize their zoning. The idea is the smaller neighborhoods, right, can only customize their zoning if they're giving a community benefit. Yeah. And that's harder for smaller projects to do. And so, if you keep dropping that threshold, you just keep making it harder,

right? I I think we have to be realistic. Um, as council member Cabier was just about the actual financials and it may be that you check in with developers, uh, local developers to see what they think and whether something like 100 would work or that would Yeah. Because we don't want to have the default being that nobody uses it, [laughter] right? if nobody uses it because it's, you know, then we're not achieving anything.

And also, as as Robin mentioned, the development plans will still be available for any zoning district, um, not just the plan district. So, there are opportunities for applicants to go above and beyond on on any other zoning district, uh, if there's a reasonzoning involved.

Any other comments? Okay. Um, all right. Then also you we uh proposed the um transitional zoning designations. Um I thought it was s interesting. I just wanted to highlight what was in the memo. Again, this is also really also for our community because of a lot of the kind of fear that's been I think there's some and we're going to have to work on this, right, about making sure that people are really informed about what the UDO revision it means. But I just wanted to clarify there was a comment in the memo that said um in the for the for the residential the RD which is going to be the established residential place type for most of the land within the urban growth boundary. So that would be like when we see all the gray, right, and the blue that um the base lot size will still be 5,000 square ft, not changing. and that the only significant density increase is related to using the affordability option um where 8% of the units will have to be at least 80% AMI or below for for a period of 30 years. I I just think that's really important to emphasize um for our community.

That that was actually the quote that I had also pulled out. Um I did have a question. Um I'm curious about how I just don't know that much about HOAs. How do how does the existent of existence of HOAs in the former suburban tier impact kind of potential upzonings in those areas?

Yeah. Um they definitely can potentially limit that. Um so essentially, you know, your HOA can say they can have stronger um like currently right now we have the ADU allowance that I think a lot of HOAs potentially limit. Um, and so I think there are some other things that HOAs can do, um, because it can be more strict than the ordinance. So they could say, well, actually your minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet, so you don't actually get the RD. So I do actually imagine that a lot of the the the sort of darker on the outside can't actually get to the density increase via RD because of those covenants, but we can't actually control those obviously. So some of this stuff is just kind of in theory according to the zoning only on the basis. Yeah.

And I know we've talked about this many times and this is a little bit off topic but um I don't think we can prohibit HOA new HOAs for formation of new HOAs but is there any way of saying of of creating provisions so that you don't you aren't required to have an HOA because currently basically you have to have an HOA.

Yeah. I think that one of the issues that we regularly run into with HOAs is that when we get into the subdivision standards, which we require that open space, right? It's like creating a system in which there is uh an entity responsible for maintaining that. And so the HOA becomes the sort of default. It's, you know, sort of set up for that. Um, so I I think it's tough to increase our open space standards as we are and require those amenities and then um not sort of [snorts] have the the sort of establishment of a an entity to manage those for each community. I don't I don't love I don't love them either. I think they're difficult, but I think it's hard for us to require those amenities and then not require a maintenance. So the other thing is that storm water um requirements. Yeah, I saw your other corner. I was already my fingers on the button, man. Um

yeah, so storm water control measures, you know, ponds, any device has to be maintained by an entity, not by individual homeowners. And so our requirements are the formation of an HOA for storm water purposes to maintain those devices so that you know, storm water is managed for the neighborhood or whatever. Yeah. Um, and I'm sorry staying off topic here, but um,

can you just help me understand kind of so we have huge amounts of our city now kind of on the outskirts painted in HOAs. We also have parts large segments of our city that are not HOAs and we are taking care of storm water and all that other stuff, open space. Can you just talk about how those are different, how that works differently?

Yeah. Um, I can talk a [clears throat] little bit about storm water for sure. Um, so in places like Trinity Park or Duke Park, you have a lot of public open space. So the city is managing it. And then you also, so that's open space. I'm sorry, not storm water. We'll go back. Um, so it's it's mostly like public amenities, right? So I live near Duke Park, um, which the city manages, things of that nature. That's sort of like infill development. Um, and then you have folks [snorts] um like Sandy Wilbur within storm water who are trying to do things like the Ellerby Creek watershed um oh man that that giant lot that's shifting right to try and control for all of that storm water um for that existing impervious. So in the infill standards in the urban core the city is sort of footing the bill for that and in the suburban standards um we for new developments since those occur at like a larger scale and we can require the entity to maintain them. That's why that sort of becomes a private issue um in which we're saying okay so you would like the subdivision so tell us how you're going to both uh control your storm water and maintain it and provide the open space and maintain that as well. So in some ways we as we grow outward we've created this this challenge because now we have we have the more urban part of our city that is more public uh then we've got I'm just going to use the word privatized um public goods and kind of like a ring around that. And so if we said actually moving forward we want to go back to the old way of doing things essentially we're saying to our city services you got to cross this entire ring of HOAs where you're not maintaining anything to get to you know the the new ring like a tree ring or something. So we've kind of at this point it's kind of difficult to

transition away from HOAs. Yeah. Additionally to do that we would be sort of requiring folks to dedicate land or donate land to like public parks etc. which is uh legally a little difficult right to say um please give us that. So yeah I think I think yeah the the situation that we are in and that I think that a lot of uh municipalities are in in the United States is that sort of situation where we find ourselves with privatized amenities and storm water um for that same reason that you just said. Mhm. I have some more questions about the the dedication of public space, but I'm not going to ask them here right now. Okay, we'll come back to it. Um, council member Kabir,

thank you. I I mean, I appreciate that conversation, but we also made that philosophical decision when we say we want the developers to pay for a thing and that we've decided to privatize it. We have done that to ourselves, right? And we hear that constantly from the community and from colleagues all the time. Well, they're doing it. they're causing the development. They should pay for the infrastructure. Why should the public be burdened with paying for it? Well, they paid for it, so now they have to maintain it. And that that was a decision that was made long before, right? And I I mean, I think it's interesting that now we're finding ourselves in this predicament in this country. Um whereas in other countries, that's that's not how it's done. And development is just a thing that people um accept, right? it it's just what happens when your population grows and you can't put things in amber and pretend it's never going to change. So I think that we are in some ways dealing with decisions that have been happening for the last 50 plus years around how we're going to do land use in this country and who's going to carry the burden and who gets to decide what around land use and what privileged folks got to be you know what did privileged people uh get to do and how much power they give were given in land use decisions and uh who who was left out and now we're having to deal with that and it's not going to be to council member Baker's point it's not going to be easy to undo. I would also add that [clears throat] there's also just the practical part that if the city had to maintain all of the storm water and all the open space that would be paid by taxpayers [clears throat] and it would be very expensive. So there's trade-offs to everything. Um, and I think that's just the practical reality of also why we're ask, you know, why there are the HOAs and the um why it's structured this way. And Kim could probably [laughter]

elaborate more on on that issue, right? Yes. I was just going to say um because I if I'm recalling right in our in the new draft of the open space standards park standards um there if correct me if I'm wrong but I think we're moving toward even if it is going to ma be maintained by an HOA it's going to be closer to what our expectations are for what open space and parks would be correct correct that's correct um

chair Jacobs I stood up to say exactly what you just said, but since I made that long walk, I want to just add one other thing. Um, obviously the the expense of all the hundreds and hundreds of storm water control measures um is a big policy decision that would need to be made. And also note that we don't have those storm water control measures in all of our existing subdivisions and therefore that's where we and I don't want to speak for another department, but that's where we have flooding concerns frequently. And so that's also like Trinity Park, Duke Park. Those are obviously great established neighborhoods that have public space and they don't have HOAs, but they, you know, either have expired covenants and well, I won't say that those neighborhoods have flooding concerns, but we have those in our existing communities. So I think that's a bit of a trade-off. The other comment I wanted to make uh that wasn't stormwater related was um in regards to the public uh dedication of the land as a part of the development. We we do have that requirement today um that they have the ability to pay the the fee in instead which is what they're they're currently doing. We're obviously doing both what council member Baker is saying uh where we're trying to better align the open space that they provide and carrying forward the uh the requirement for them to dedicate or pay the fee. So, I just wanted to sort those two things.

Thank you. Um, you did you want to say something, Sarah? What B said? Okay. All right. Yes. Go, go ahead. Can I ask a question around the minimum? It's It's remaining the same the lot size, right? 5,000.

5,000. have we done like and I'm just thinking about that very first exercise that we did with the um consultant many months ago now where he just showed what can you do with what what is have I'm assuming somebody did an analysis of what is the standard if there is one across the US does it line up with it seems to me like that's a large lot size. Um, is it the most efficient use of our space? Um, so I'm I'm I'm sure y'all y'all are the professionals. So, um, what what did y'all find out?

Yeah, I [clears throat] think that it definitely varies. Um, and I think that part of the reason that we're keeping the 5,000 um is in some ways to like allay some concerns around like mass upzoning, right? But it's also to encourage those other two options, right? we actually do want people to use RD2 and RD3. Um so we are trying in some ways to like push the market towards um those other options which hopefully provide some amount of um reduced cost for the the compact or the actual 10-year affordable units. Can you remind me with RD2 and RD3? Like what does that like? I always say this. I'm like, what does that look like for people like me who have to literally see a thing like

like Legos like on a lot?

Yep. So for RD2, um that could look like four, um smaller units, each 1,200 square ft, um maybe with like a shared drive, um potentially uh for the uh RD3 option on a 5,000 foot lot. Um at 8% with uh sorry, 8% of 80% AMI, that's going to be one unit. So, I imagine um one of the the things that the consultant showed was essentially like a a twostory sort of quadplex, so eight units, and one of which of those was affordable. I do imagine that it would probably require like a larger lot to do that. I don't know if we're going to see um a 5,000 foot lot uh with one affordable unit, but that that is a possibility. Um, and so one of the other things that we're trying to consider is is is there another way to think about maybe um increasing height for the affordable option? Should it be 100% affordable? Right? So folks who are already trying to do the the 100% affordable option and then they don't need the incentive, right? They're just going to do it anyway. Are there ways for us to encourage that via increased height, you know, something like that? But that's also another policy decision.

Thank you. Um, so I guess my question is that's smallcale affordability, right? Who are the people who are we talking to that actually do that and what is their opinion on that? Because again, if they can't get the financing for it, it doesn't really matter. And I I think we just like I'm going to consistently push us to because I think there there's an idea that this is magic and it's not. It's not magic. It's what can you get from the bank and the bank is not going to do something just like when you go and you buy your own individual home. It's not that different. If you're a risk, they're not going to lend to you. If they don't think they're going to make a profit off your project, they're not going to lend to you. And we can have all kinds of opinions if that's a fair or just system, but it's the system we're in. And so, when we have these really creative ideas, what is the practical application of that policy decision? Uh, Council Member Cavier. So, having talked to some small-cale developers, both folks that work in the affordable space and folks that don't, it's been a mixed bag in terms of what the uh, percentage would need to be in order to make it profitable. Um, depends on the property, depends on the number of units, right? There's a whole variation. So, that's why when we come to you with the 8%. Um the the reality is the any percentage at all is then going to is going to create that additional expense, right? So when we propose 8%, we're trying to thread a needle a bit where it's the math works out. Fortunately, and some of this was an accident, it worked out well with the density numbers that were already um in place with the 5,000 foot lot. And so it works I think it works really well as sort of the size to set to incentivize it. Um, but it's been a mixed bag in terms of uh how favorable that may be. Um, and and I and I will say some folks have said, "Oh, this is great." Because, you know, whether they're using voucher programs or or etc., you know, that works out that that

they they then can see a profit. Um, others have also uh been a little more skeptical about how the the math pencils out. And so, um, I think that if a 100% came out and said, "Oh, yes, we're definitely going to do that." I would would be surprised and would think the percentage should be greater or or that it maybe, um, not the case.

How do we revisit? So, like when we passed expanding housing choice a few years ago, there was like an assessment of like, okay, tear downs, we're going to do this x amount. How are we going to with this set ourselves up to do that analysis? So 6 months a year out, no one's taking up on no one's doing these things. So it means it's not working in my opinion. Uh how do we fix it then so that we're not stuck, you know, UDO's last forever. We can't put land use policies in that will impact a generation without like not really building the affordability and making the affordability a thing that people really are responsive to.

Yeah. Because this is an option that will be documented with each approval. it's clear you know different development standards based on it. We will be tracking um how often it is used both the RD2 RD3 and the X versions um we have talked quite a bit internally about you know there's no sense in putting these things in if they're not going to be used right hence lowering from 15 to 8%. Um so our expectation is to have some monitoring because because you all will ask right the community will ask how many affordable units were created um based on these provisions and so we thoroughly expect to have to report those numbers out

and then have an a mechanism basically a text amendment process. Okay. To to to pivot around that or to not pivot but to change what we need to change. Okay.

Yeah. I I would like to um support what uh Mayor Prom Cavier is saying that I think we need to be explicit um in saying that we will you know after we will monitor this every year and after you know five years or whatever two years if it's not being used come up with some time frame we will revisit um this the um [clears throat] you know density affordabil affordable housing density bonus um to you know we'll revisit it or whatever I I think it needs to be like baked in somehow.

Thank you. Yes. [clears throat]

And uh to add to what Robin had said earlier about um some of the conversation is also due to some of the feedback we've heard from affordable developers. Um we don't have it laid out but obviously um in the RD we are uh looking at proposing um even more flexibility 50oot height um and uh essentially the idea being for 100% affordable you know tax credit projects potentially just just recognizing that one those are probably only going to come with an assemblage of land right like we're not going to see that on a 5,000 foot lot but um if there was developer looking to provide that amount of affordable units in the established residential which contemplates some amount of multif family then we would rather make it easier for them to to build those rather than have to go for reszoning to RX5 and so that's something that isn't in the um 105 modules that you're seeing so far but uh that we're continuing to develop so and some of that I will say is being stolen from Austin Texas um but also just it's the reality from from talking to to Okay.

I want to bring that guy to Durham. I know. We really need to bring him. I can't remember his name, but that guy.

Yeah. Yes. Um I have his card in my wallet. I can tell you his name. Um any I think it's really would be good for us to dig in on these maps a little bit. So this one here um so you can very clearly see kind of where you know the black line is where the current city limits are the red line is the urban growth boundary. So we can see like these are the future growth areas and these are the areas where there will be um resonings coming to the city council. Um, I was and I do think it really does make sense that those are the areas that have lesser density because they're kind of contiguous to what's going to be more the rural areas. I mean, I think that's going to be that really makes sense. Um, I was curious like the the most northern little piece there that kind of sticks up u it's in gray. Why is that showing a very high density and that really that that tip there when I looked at it that that like jumped out at me like okay why is it showing up as dark blue there? Oh, okay.

So, [snorts] so for existing PDRs that are already built out, yes, they got converted to RD. So, it and but as per council member Baker's point earlier, it's probably got covenants and things that not turn into Amsterdam overnight.

Yeah. Okay, that totally makes sense. Okay. Does anyone else have any comments or questions? Yes. Go ahead. Um, how is all of the reasonzoning going to be affected or communicated concerning the new state rule about voluntary agricultural districts not being allowed to be reszoned without a special hearing? And are the VADs in the whole county and the city mapped out somewhere?

Um, they are mapped. Um, and that's something that I would talk to uh Sher Scully about as well. We are going to the farmland protection advisory board again in January. Um, and we'll make sure that uh any of uh the administrative section which deals with resonings and agriculture um is in line with any um recently passed legislation, but we are working with them.

Okay. I just I don't know how many of the people that actually have a VAD somewhere out in the county somewhere even know, you know, and just make sure that they're communicated with, hey, you have to have a special hearing court. I guess that law passed went into effect December 1st, 2025. That's for them to to get a resoning. No, it doesn't allow a res. My understanding is it doesn't allow a resoning if you are already a VA without a special hearing. Gotcha. I don't know anything about that. Okay.

It was covered. I just took an online class with the UNCC School of Government and it was covered as one of the new state laws that was passed about concerning communication or not allowing a resoning of a VAD without either a special hearing and I don't know, you know, who the decision-making body is of that, but I know they're sprinkled everywhere throughout the county and the whole and the city part of the county, right? So, okay. Well, thanks for bringing that to our attention. Details and the communication with the people that have the VADS and all that

and or there's going to be I mean, you know, if you're going to have a whole big district out there in the county and it's all going to be one color, but there's going to be little dots everywhere of the VADs. I don't know. Hopefully, that will still be covered because the most of the county, I mean, the unincorporated areas will be the R A. Mhm. Yep. Right. We'll take a look and make sure that we Yeah. Make sure I mean whatever part of the new UDO is going to be that you don't put something in that goes against that new rule.

Yeah. Thank you. Any other comments or questions about this map? I just want to make sure that people have a chance to weigh in on the I think these maps are important. One final thing I want to say um is the I was glad to see the protection of or the intent to protect mobile home parks. I thought that was really important. I appreciate that. I'm sorry. What did you just say? Protection of mobile home parks. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yes. Go ahead.

So, I just found that legislation. It is not about reszoning. It is about condemnation of farmland and that requires a special hearing. So that's not a zoning issue. Okay. Um I'm going to go into the next map. Okay. Mixed use districts. Um so [clears throat] just to clarify, downtown will become the um MX20. Is that correct? Yeah. So basically downtown in the sort of core of downtown is CX20 and then there are some there's like CX8 that's CX CX20. Okay.

Um so it's mostly CX8 and CX20 downtown. Okay. Um and there will no longer be the downtown design district. Correct. Things like that go away. Okay. I think one issue I would love to hear staff talk about this is um what happened what's happened with Northgate Mall. Um I'm curious if what what is proposed for Northgate Mall in the new UDO? Is it MX uh CX5?

I believe it's CX5. Um yeah, so at CX5 to sort of match the the CC that's at least zone for portion of it. Um [clears throat] we are trying to make sure that we are um aligning with the small area plan where we can right um but also trying not to run um a breast of that down zoning law. So trying to make sure that those two things are aligning um in such a way is is creating some um [clears throat] consternation. Um, but that's what Northgate Mall currently looks like at CX-5. Um, we're certainly open um to uh you all suggestion on how to move forward with that. Um, especially best how to align with the uh small area plan, but we just need to make sure that whatever we decide um does not get us um in trouble uh via a government initiated downzoning.

Okay. Could you though talk specifically because again I've seen comments that have um implied that the new what the new UDO propose is proposing would not be in alignment with the Walltown area plan but could you actually because my understanding that actually what is in the CX-5 is would actually help require it would require many things that are in the Walltown air plan versus what is now has unfortunately will result in not really implement not implementing what is in the plan. Could you specifically explain what is in the wall area small wall town area small plan and what is what how that does actually align with what is in the CX5?

Yeah. Um, I will say that I uh have not reviewed that plan extensively, but I will say that I know that it calls for a mix of uses, affordable housing, you know, things of that nature. Um, and the CX district does um help with those things, right? It has the built-in incentive. Um, uh, which is more than the CC district that we have now. I will say that one of the the issues that's being brought up um is that right now the CC district doesn't allow for research and development I believe is the use and the CX-5 district would. So there is the opportunity um that uh an applicant could come through and submit for the CX-5 zoning district um and build it um without the requirement for affordable housing etc. So that is a legitimate concern. Um, essentially right now given that the the folks who have been interested in that property have an interest in research and development, there is sort of like leverage in that they will likely need to reszone in order to uh to do that. Um, however, uh, that's not that's not for certain. Um, and they could still technically build by right right now. Um, however, the CX-5 does allow for research and development. Um so that does that does create um an issue there for sure. Um however we are trying to model those mixeduse districts to provide um you know um uh ground flooror retail you know um affordable housing um you know good urban design uh next to the street um but there are um it's certainly a legitimate concern. What about open space because there was there was in the small town I mean council member Baker will know better than me but my recollection recollection was there was some open space community you know public space um and that is

required isn't that within the CX-5 some type of uh open space

yeah I mean I was just going to say that a lot of the requirements in the CX-5 five um align with the policies in the small area plan sort of tangentially, right? Like when you talk about um the affordable housing requirement, well, the CX-5 is that district or like this the current district at North KC, which does allow residential, but it's at a lower density and doesn't really speak to the design for residential and and doesn't get the public space or the amenities or or any of these requirements that we have in the provoke CX5. And so there's a whole lot of um or there's better alignment with the district, the CX5 district than obviously the district today in terms of the small year plan. Um same the same is true with the public space, the green space. I mean all of those requirements are better aligned in the CX-5 than in the uh CC today. Some of that is simply because the CC is an old uh planned district from before that there wasn't a plan on this property and it was translated over and so there's very you know little requirements

and so and also just clarify what is being now proposed by the owner would not be allowed under the CX5 is that correct am I interpreting that correctly the way that they are planning the portion they're planning to develop kind of the big box residential that that would that be allowed under CX5?

So, under the So, two caveats. One, I have not reviewed their site plan under the code in like a full way. So, there's probably a lot of things that would need to change that that I would forget. Um, the design in terms of, you know, it's a fairly, you know, it's a large parking lot, right? Getting back to smaller plan, wanting to reduce uh service parking. um it is not uh as pedestrian friendly in terms of it being built along the street um which those requirements would not be met in terms of the use itself. The use would be allowed um the current uh district standards and this is something Robin and I have talked a lot about with all of our team and our consultant quite a bit. Um there's currently no specific use requirements in the CX-5. In other words, you could have a building that's 100% residential or 100% retail. Um, so I think that there could be a development that is similar in terms of the uses that are proposed, but the design would be substantially different.

And do you have to go up to five stories for CX5 or you can do less? Okay, very helpful. Okay, Council Member Cabier, thank you. Um because you've got me you've asked these questions and so um current I just would love a they have submitted an application but not for the whole parcel. Is that correct? Just for the parcel that they currently have the appropriate zoning to do a byite. So the zoning is the same for all 42 acres. Okay.

Um they've submitted a site plan for a portion. And I think that is based on anticipated sale of the property, but I'm that's you know speculation and is it is the speculation that they're dividing it so that the so so there is some retention by the current owner correct and that's the part that maybe the um uh good lord I forgot the name the research and development part but then the other part they would just be able to do and they have submitted for a by right like right correct

yeah I mean in terms of consistency with the small area plan which of course is a [clears throat] different topic but we're we're here now right um there's still land available for all these other uses that and but but there's no indication that says they would or wouldn't I just but the land would be available

okay so I just out of curiosity and I appreciate the work that's been done on the small area plans but they're not enforceable it's the same issue we've had with the comp plan right it's not an enforceable thing the UDO's enforceable. Is there a world where we need to really put a lot of effort and just getting the UDO passed as quickly as possible? Even if it means that the other small area plans, which is Lakewood and I forgot which other one were the two in your work plan, I am worried that we have other parcels like this um and that folks are going to do what they're going to do. It's their property. They have property rights. Um and we don't have a good enforceable mechanism to prevent the type of land use that we are all which we already said what we wanted. We said what we wanted in the comp plan. That is where this was litigated. Right? I think the UDO is just the rules attached to the vision. Um, and so I think that that is my concern in this moment is that we have other pretty large parcels in the city um that we are at risk of of getting things baked in in a way that we definitely don't want and and within the vision that was set in the comp plan doesn't align. And we did talk about a timeline at the beginning of the meeting and so the and I guess the qu it seems like it's probably about as fast as we can go but to get the and this is the timeline line. So um yeah I guess the question to staff is do you feel like there's anything that can accelerate this or is this about as fast as we can go at this point? So I think this is about as fast as we can go at the current moment. Um because current this timeline here isn't really representative of like a resource issue. It's more the process of the adoption

itself. But I don't think that we could obviously there's some flexibility here in terms of you know specific dates that it goes to these hearings that we talked about earlier but um much of the drafting has been done. I think that uh same with our the our consultant um had we uh well yeah I'll say just we're right now I don't think there's a lot more faster I guess one qualifier I would put there where it says spring summer this needs to be done by June 1st so that that's the beginning of summer right there so it really needs to save spring [laughter] because it really needs to get done by the end of May.

So, one thing that I know that I've had some conversations with folks, um, a lot of this depends on how quickly it moves through planning commission, which we cannot control, right? So I think that is a an appropriate space for electeds to um to to work in that space because it you know planning commission there's also nothing by ordinance that limits the amount of time the planning commission can have with an ordinance or a text amendment. So theoretically they could continue this for a pretty long time. So if the goal is to get this to the governing bodies so that they can consider adoption before the change of the fiscal year, I do think that that is an issue that you all need to carefully consider.

Um how how would that be? I I'm just going to say it. I don't really I'm done being um we have used or we have seen people this has come up in other communities where people use a UDO rewrite to relitigate things that they didn't like in the comprehensive plan. And at least I was very clear with things like urban growth. I was already on JCCPC. What does it mean when you pass an urban growth boundary? It means you're going to identify everything on the inside. That is that is the decision you've made. And that is what we've seen constant arguing about on on the previous council. Uh it played a huge role in the election. And I think that it just there are only so many options as a community when we are dealing with growth. And I think that the urban growth boundary was the right decision. It forces development in a clear boundary. It means densifying on the other side. Uh and it does limit sprawl. Um so it was it was the right decision and I think we have to just be honest with community about what a changing growing city looks like. And what I am concerned about because it's happened before is the planning commission delaying because they get pressure to delay. They did it with SCAD. They did it with other things. And I just want to say it here and it's up to electeds to be very clear in the public square. A delay at planning commission allows a Northgate to happen again and again and again because there's no rules on the ground. Our comprehensive plan is not enforceable. Our small area plans are not enforceable. They are visioning documents. They are not the rule. They are not law. And that is what an ordinance is. And so the the faster we get a UDO adopted with what we want, which what we are doing is lining up the rules to the plan, the better it is for the community. It actually creates more harm long-term to not do that. Even if

it's politically unpopular and even if it's hard, we are elected to make hard decisions. We are not elected to be popular necessarily. Even though elections are often about popularity, we have to be transparent with the public. And that's that is what we have decided and chosen to do when we step into elected office.

Thank you. And I agree, Council Member Burton. I mean, [clears throat] Commissioner Burton. [laughter] Thank you. Um, Jen Jacobs, [gasps] just so I'm clear because, you know, I'm I'm an [clears throat] alternate, so I don't come to the meetings very often to fully understand. I'm glad you said about the small area plans are not enforceable because I didn't know that, you know, because we don't deal with zoning cases as much on the commission level. So, I want to fully understand about the Northgate situation. I know there was the small area plan just about um why this is urgent that we do this UDO uh because we don't want another Northgate situation briefly because I know time is limited just to make sure many of our community members are clear and others are clear. though.

Thank you. And I'll let the staff respond to the question about what what is a small area plan versus ordinances.

Yeah. So, a small area plan is essentially um the way I think of it is like a a more zoomed in version of the comp plan. So you you do a little bit more direct um engagement and you do a hyper specific area and you you know um Carl did multiple meetings around multiple topics around flood plane etc. Um and sort of similar to the comp plan, it's not enforceable, right? It's not law. However, it did help provide um some guidance on a few different city projects. Um so I think that ultimately we want to match the UDO. So the ordinance matches the comp uh the the small area plan which is a part of the comp plan in some ways, right? Um but ultimately um it doesn't uh those those are not binding things. The ordinance is what's binding. um that is what we can enforce. So we did have um Carl make uh advisory comments on that plan saying hey there's a small area plan um here are the things that we would love to see but we can't actually enforce that because it's not um written law but it is adopted um however we can't um we can't really make them do it.

That was very helpful. Thank you so much. Now I understand that's why we need to get this ordinance passed. Yeah. And also I think it's important that we don't mislead the community. I mean the the staff engaging with the community on small area plants is very very important but we also don't want to mislead them about what they are engaging in and what the results are going to be. Member Baker.

Yeah. Um appreciate the conversation. Um, there are a lot of moving pieces on Northgate Mall right now. I'm happy to have that conversation offline. I think you did a good job of what everybody's wrestling with at the moment. Um, there's even more context, if you can believe it or not, um, to the situation on Northgate. So, um, happy to have that conversation online, offline. Um, small area planning, yeah, not not enforceable. Uh, but it is a way for the community to be able to set a collective vision for the future of of where they live and where they travel and where they work. And is this street that you live on or that you travel on too wide? Why? What can we do? When's the CIP coming up? When is this what's in the other plans? Um, you know, is there an opportunity site in your neighborhood? Are there multiple opportunity sites in your neighborhood? what is your collective vision for the future of those so that people aren't just reacting to things. They also have an opportunity to be proactive in and thinking about what the future what the future holds. And it's also a document you can go to the table, you know, developer comes in, you can say, "Hey, this is what the community's come up with. How can we work together to make to make this work and get get closer to um to a collective shared ownership of of the way that the the world that we live in is shaped?" Um so so yes it's not uh enforceable unless there are things that are in the EDO that are tied directly to small area plans um which is the case in some places um but uh but yeah the the law of the land is in the UDO and you know as we see you know some of the stuff in the UDO is even aspirational you know we say call something mixed use but you're actually allowed to you know mixed use multiple stories you can still do just a you know one story all residential or something. I think one of the key benefits of the UDO in in most or all places is is the

design design aspect, you know, and one one of the key pieces there is you're not going to put the parking in the front, you're going to put in the back. I think that's one of the really clear like universally win-win uh situations with with the UDO, but there's still going to be a lot more to adjust as we move forward. There's still going to be a lot more planning that needs to happen. Um, but the UVO is going to, you know, have some, I think, really dramatic, um, improvements to the way that things get built. Um, and then there are still some, I think, some key sites and and and other things that we need to to wrestle with and think about. Um, but, you know, kind of when we think about citywide, that's a that's a major that's a major benefit. And I think the ideal world is we get the UDO passed that does um really um put in place better um zoning for some of these key commercial sites in our community like Northgate and that in conjunction with the small area plan will help us um to have a better outcome. But having the small area plan without the UDO um revision is is going to result in what we see now. So related to how do we make sure we stay on track because we've been working on this since 2020. Is that correct? When we started the re uh what when did we when did we start the UD 20? I guess I'm thinking about the comp plan was during co When did we start?

Yeah. When did you start the comp plan? Yeah. 2019. 2019. Okay. So, we've been working on this now for six years. Um Okay. And then the UDO revision started when? 2023. Yes. Late 2023. Early 2023.

So, it'll be 2026. Three years in terms of adoption. Um yeah, we need to get this done. So, how do we make sure this stays on track? We don't want this to get delayed through planning commission um delays and you know what what are your recommendations around that? So under the current ordinance provisions um in 3.19.5 the governing bodies could um declare this an expedited hearing for this project. That means that when it goes to planning commission, planning commission cannot delay it. Now that those would have to be taken as two separate actions, one by each governing body beforehand before it even goes to planning commission.

When is it scheduled to go to planning commission? As of now, February. Okay. So, in January, we would have to do it as both county commission and city council. Yes. Okay. And then is that a decision that JCCPC can make to say that we would like that to be what happens as far as like we would like this to go as expedited in front of our governing boards? Yes.

Okay. Well, we need to make do that now because it's December. So, basically what we need to say is we are directing you to bring to the elected bodies um a decision for expedited hearing um so that the planning commission cannot delay that when they have their special meeting February. If planning commission delayed in February to March, how big of a setback is that?

It depends on the amount of changes or revisions that would need to be made. Um the I think the biggest challenge is knowing that even when it gets, you know, we're going to have a joint public hearing for city council, county commissioners. Um, I will say that planning that and getting that on the books like we need to know like in Yeah. now, right? So, we're working on trying to like calendar all this stuff out. And so, depending on how much revision there is, it might be tough. It our choices may be not make those revisions, right, and just proceed because the timeline doesn't fit. um or you know it might really just be kind of jamming things to be honest. The lead time for agenda cycles and knowing that the the way it happened with the comprehensive plan we had the joint public hearing then each body had a separate meeting even in those meetings there were still deliberations right and so we just want to make sure that we're leaving enough space for that to happen and cutting it real close makes me nervous I'll be honest.

Yeah. Is there any way for the planning commission to see it twice and stay on the timeline? I think we can investigate that. Okay. Yeah. I think Oh, sorry. I think if um if there were two like special meetings and they weren't terribly far apart, we might be able to to do that. Um I definitely think that's a commitment from the planning commission then to like really have a special meeting. Yeah. So like one in January and then you hear in February. I mean, that's essentially what we're saying.

I mean, I'm I'm I'm going to say it like I am very concerned around what happened with North Mall. We are setting up ourselves for more failure. I see that as a failure. I do not see that as a success story. And so, I think that we just need to be honest with ourselves around, you know, because we we are often it's really frustrating to me that we have a 42 acre site. Um and and this is where we are and it's prime prime real estate in our community. Yes. I just just when you say around Northgate Mall the failure. What do you mean?

Um to be perfectly candid, I think we oversold a false bill of goods about what could be delivered on that site to the community. And I think that we drew out an engagement process uh when we really needed to be brass tax um on on what we were going to get. And I and I think that it it's hard, right? Because there's there's a lot of philosophical conversations on who has power and who doesn't. Um there are developers who have So I always think about the Braggtown um uh development uh as a as a good model of a success story as far as a developer who really did good engagement, got affordability. They needed an annexation. Their base zoning was was a way where like they really had to come to the table. Northgate was never going to be in that way because they already had base zoning that was much more flexible. And so we didn't have the same lever there. And so I think that that's the part that that we have to be really honest with community about what is it that they are already allowed to do just like you are with your own house, right? It's applicable everywhere and and so then from there what can we do, right? And so I think that the Bragtown community because of it was on, you know, outside of city property. Um they they needed a lot we had a lot more leverage essentially to get something to get more concessions than we did with a site that was already a very flexible base zoning because it was already commercial. And it's similar with Heritage Square.

[clears throat] I mean because it the choice was really what was being offered versus what the developer can just do by right. Right. Go ahead.

I fundamentally disagree with this analysis. Uh I've been deeply involved in the Northgate uh uh thinking for a long time. Um the community came forward early on when when uh the property was was sold to Northwood many years ago and asked for action on on the site and action just wasn't taken for several years. Um the first action that was taken was really through uh the small area plan process. Um and um by this point, you know, state law has changed. Can't can't down zone. Even the definition of downzoning is now different as well. Um, we're now in a very difficult and tricky position. I also don't think that there's a failure on the site yet. I think that there's still a lot of moving pieces currently and is still a lot of work that can be done um and conversations to be had. Uh, they have a ton of flexibility in their zoning district uh today. Um, I do think that a different zoning district uh would be much better for that site. So, I'm still optimistic about what what can happen. Um, I think that we need to make sure that we get the UDO right. It's going to cover the entire city. Um, I would I wouldn't want to rush. Um, I would, you know, I I would like for the planning commission to see it twice if there's a if there's another way so that planning commission kind of sit with the sit with the the the UDO. um but only sees it once. Um maybe that's uh a middle ground. I just want to make sure that um I want to make sure that we don't drag this out. I do think that it's time. Um I also want to make sure that the eyeballs that need to see it see it, have enough time to sit with it, make a good comfortable decision around it. It's going to impact our entire city and county for uh generations to come.

So,

okay. So let's see if there is a way for if you could bring us back in January a very detailed schedule and figuring out a way that planning commission can see it twice. Um and you know again there may be need to have two special meetings but let's you know let's have a detailed I know we last meeting we asked for a timeline you brought it back now we're going we're now we want an even more detailed timeline and then with very specific actions that will need to be taken um related to the expedited hearing. You know we have to have 30 days notice for public hearings blah blah blah. Um, we know we have to you have to get it on everyone's calendars. You know, planning commission members will need to know when they need to be there for for two special meetings. So, let's just get that all brought back for January. Thank you. Sorry to add more to your plate.

And chair, I just want to correct myself. I misspoke with all the small area plan talk. The commission on ordinance amendments uh is limited to 90 days maximum. It's small area plans that they have no limit on. So, sorry about that. I just want to correct the record. The worst they could do, but 90 days puts us well past 90 days blows the schedule. So, okay, we'll we'll work on uh a schedule that has uh probably a couple of special meetings dedicated just to this close enough together and soon enough that still gets us to the governing bodies in time.

Okay, sounds great. Um I know we're going over our schedule, but I really think these policy discussions are very important. That's the purpose of this body is is for to be able to dig in uh on the policy level. It's really that's Yes. Okay. County sidewalks. Um I know we need to give input on this. Um so the the alternative that's being proposed um makes sense to me. You know, we it's ridiculous to have sidewalks out in, you know, some of the rural areas. We're talking about creating more sidewalks to know where the county doesn't have any way to maintain them. I guess my concern would also be around schools um as a priority. Um [clears throat] okay, looks like you have a proposal. [laughter]

Hey, good morning everyone. Brook Roer with Durham County Transportation Department. We've been working closely with Robin and the planning department to think through how we um recommend sidewalks in the county outside of the urban growth boundary. And so, as Robin has kind of described, uh we want to recommend and require sidewalks uh in the county through adopted plans. So that would be through the bike walk plan, the comprehensive network along with the Durham to Roxboro rail trail plan um which recommends multiple spurs to key county connections such as schools that's a main priority for Durham County transportation. Um for example, there is a spur from the Roxboro Rail Trail to Mangum Elementary School. Um, this would be along Ball Road. Currently in the UDO and the proposed zoning districts, it's zoned RA. So, if we were to do, you know, parcel by parcel requirements, the RA zoning, it does not require sidewalks. So, what we're recommending is that um any sidewalks, side paths would be uh a requirement through those adopted plans. Um this is also one of the uh comprehensive plans policies. Uh it is policy 56 um which states uh to strategically invest in and maintain sidewalk infrastructure outside of the urban growth boundary. Um so sidewalks or paths should be placed in areas where there's a concentration of residents uh that uh or near schools or surrounding commercial areas. So, um, we believe

this recommendation is in line with the comp plan, um, and fulfills kind of the county goals to connect to key community places. That sounds good. And what about maintenance? Who who would be requ with the city or who's going to maintain them?

So, currently, that is a great question. as a separate county initiative through the bike walk plan that is ongoing right now. Uh county staff were working through um updating our uh county maintenance of sidewalk policy. So, uh there has been um a few options that we're exploring whether to coordinate directly with the city to uh create a new policy for the county to potentially contract with outside services to maintain sidewalks. Um but that is uh a separate initiative outside of the UDO work that we're working through. Um we are taking um uh time with the bikew walk plan and we'll bring that to key stakeholders like BPAC and through public engagement uh tentatively scheduled for this January to talk through what our maintenance options will be. Um because as Robin alluded to uh briefly, there have been some sidewalk maintenance responsibility ambiguities in the past. And so you can see the example on the screen. That's a sidewalk along Irwin Road that um

Forest View Elementary School,

right near Forest View Elementary School. Um where we county staff did some kind of detective work and some digging to to try and find who would be responsible for maintaining this sidewalk. Um just as an example, we were looking through historical records and aerials. This sidewalk um in particular seems to have popped up as a potential profer from a development in the 1990s um as like an off-site profer. However, this sidewalk was not annexed into the city and there was no formal maintenance agreement with NC DOT for this stretch of sidewalk. Um, so as you can see, there was a there was an NC DOT widening uh along Irwin Road that uh spurred these issues with drainage. This is a key path to Forest View Elementary School. And so students and parents have placed uh stepping stones uh to get to school. So, uh, residents have brought this up as an issue for for years and years and we are trying to work through, um, you know, how how we can resolve historical issues of sidewalk maintenance as, you know, as as past uh developments and then also how we can address any future maintenance issues. Um there's relatively little um sidewalk in the county with ambiguous maintenance responsibilities. There's about six miles in the county um that we're working through. There's all kind of different backstories and it's very contextsensitive. Um, and you know, oftent times sidewalks

are, you know, don't [clears throat] don't lead to uh examples like this, but this example near Forest View Elementary really uh highlights the need for uh a more structured expanded maintenance policy. Um, and we're trying to work very closely with the city to to get this resolved.

One quick followup and then I'll open it up. Has there been any discussion about when there are large developments in the county? You know, we've seen some on community well and septic um like conservation type subdivisions of a payment of sidewalk payment in L kind of thing. I mean, I'm just thinking about situations where again, it's a larger scale development where we could try to capture some revenue to help the county pay for the maintenance of the sidewalks. Has there been any conversation about that?

Yes. Uh certainly there has been uh discussions about a county payment in loo. The city currently has a payment in loo program set up. As you know, the county does not have this set up. Um, counties are also not given the the same broad authority. So, we are trying to look into what the state statutes would allow um for that and it will likely involve close coordination with the city. Okay. Thank you. Any comments about these recommendations?

I had two questions. Um, one is is this because I'd rather someone as bad as this is walk on that rather than nothing at all. Um, is this a liability concern? And two, when we're talking about new developments, can you just describe a little bit about what development is in this context?

Yeah. So, um, I think there's kind of a gray area for who would be liable for this sidewalk. Um, in this case, uh, it was never accepted into a maintenance agreement. So, there's no, uh, entity responsible for maintaining the sidewalk currently, which is why we're kind of running into this this issue where the sidewalk clearly needs to be maintained, but it hasn't been. Um, for for the Forest View Elementary case, um, as I said, we believe it was a a off-site profer from a city development. Uh, however, this was never annexed and was never entered into agreement. So, the liability is a in a bit of a gray area. Um, and for your other question about new development, can you explain? like what what so um within the current draft sidewalks are required for all developments when both city and county what um what developments would would be building sidewalks?

Yeah, I will say um so currently in the existing UDO um there are like a few carves out carveouts, right? So, like for instance, if you're building uh a new house on an existing street, we don't make you put sidewalk, etc. Um, we're currently trying to figure out if that's still the policy approach that we're going to take in the new UDO. So, that's that's one thing that's being considered. Um, some of the carveouts we will be keeping. Um, for instance, I believe there's like a 1,000 square foot exemption. So, like if you're adding onto a building and you're adding less than 1,000 square feet, then you know, the rational nexus of adding a whole [snorts] new sidewalk does not add in. So, it's it's mostly right now for multif family and residential or when you provide the new infrastructure for a subdivision. So, if you're putting in a right ofway, you're going to put in sidewalk. Um, I think we're still considering um what that might look like for infill development from like a a sidewalk provision standpoint and just making sure that all of that um gels from both a process and a legal standpoint in terms of like what we can require. So, the main thing here would be like multifamily in the county, which doesn't happen. Does that happen?

Um, I think it's possible, but I haven't seen it. Or like a residential subdivision in the county, which happens, but not super often, right? Because you can do like the the community well and septic. That's what I was referring or Yeah. Yeah. Um, but correct. So, I think that if they were to put in rights of way, um, we would require sidewalk like the Mason Farm project which was on community well and septic.

Yeah, that that's correct. If you're if you're building a street to provide access to your subdivide lots, um, you currently would provide or if there's a side require sidewalk requirement, that's when you have it. Um, and so to your uh earlier question about the fee and loo in that instance, currently we don't actually allow a fee and loo when you're building streets. We you got to provide the sidewalk. So So that example wouldn't be uh Yeah, like the Mason Farm project for example. I would much rather it's silly to have a sidewalk along a rural road. Mhm.

I'd much rather have that money go into payment in L and help us to pay for the maintenance of sidewalks that we need that we actually make sense. Yeah. The So, but a fee in loo um by definition, right? It's a we have to have the sidewalk requirement because the inl part, right? Like so what you're describing is more of an impact fee. Okay. And uh you know, speaking to our how do we get money for our capital investments? That's not a regulatory um approach. I see. Okay.

Okay. Um is everyone okay with um what staff is proposing here? Sort sort of. I need more I'm just kind of confused actually. So we're saying yes to sidewalks if it's to connection to schools but not in any other circumstance. Is that so? If it's in the UGB, then it counts. You got to do it. You gotta do it.

If it's outside of the UGB, then it needs to be shown on an adopted plan that's been adopted by the board of county commissioners. And most of those are connections to schools, etc. So, we don't end up with as patchy of a a network because within the city, we're seeing much larger developments and then we can then pass the bond and connect all the sidewalks. Whereas in the county, the development pressure is less, right? So, if we do it for every, we'll more likely have more gaps and more issues with orphan sidewalks potentially. Right. So, outside of the UGB, um [clears throat] you only must provide sidewalks when it is on an adopted plan by the board of county commissioners.

Okay. But currently, we have no schools outside the UGB. Yes, we do. Mangum, Mangum, Little River, and Little River, and Lucas. And Lucas. Ah, okay. Those are the three. Okay. And then with the rail trail plan and we're doing the bike ped. Okay. So, but then it would be then then they will have to do it because it's on a plan. Yes. Got it. Yep. Thank you. Yep. Sorry for talking with my hands. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you all so much. And I think we gave feedback on all the issues. Is that correct? We're good. All right. Awesome. Um, so any anything we need to know for our January meeting?

Can I just do like one quick recap? Yes, sure. So, we will do the sidewalks as the potential alternative. We will investigate a smaller size for the plan development. Um, we will move forward with that date for um existing [clears throat] development plans, but knowing that they can be evaluated on a case- by case basis. However, that is the larger logic that we will use in terms of mapping. Um, and then in January, we will come to you with a more updated schedule which will include two um meetings at the planning commission. Does that sound Sounds great. Perfect. [laughter] Thank you all. Yes. Go ahead.

With the planning commission, y'all being very thoughtful about when those two like on the earlier side versus late. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Great conversation. Really appreciate everybody's comments and input and have an awesome holiday. See you next year.