Joint City County Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

All right. She brought me flowers. Oh, she has a boot on. It's my son. Did I tell you? All right, we're two minutes behind.

Let's get it.

All right. Are we Are we good? Okay. Good morning everyone to the Joint City County Planning Committee meeting for April 1st, uh, 2026. This is not a joke. We are actually meeting. So, in case you're wondering, everyone's here and we are meeting. Um, I will call us to order. our uh the chair of this committee, Nate um Baker, is is out this week. And so me as vice chair, I'll be running the meeting today. Um I will call us to order and the first order of business is roll call.

Chair Baker excused. Vice Chair Lee present. Mayor Prom Cabierro, Planning Commissioner Chagaris here. Commissioner Jacobs, Council Member Copac here, Commissioner Valentine here, Council Member Boris here. Okay, hearing roll call, we do have quorum. So, we will get started. The uh second item on our agenda is the adjustments to the agenda. Are there any uh adjustments? Hearing none, I'll accept a motion to approve the agenda as presented. So moved. Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded that we approve the minutes as pres I mean the agenda as pres uh presented. All in favor say I. I. I. All oppose please use the same sign. All right. And I'll make a note that uh council member Caviier Caviierro I'm gonna get that. I swear it's only been two years. um is now present. Next on my item on our agenda are the announcements. Who does do we have any announcements? Okay, very good. See, we're moving on along.

We're we're getting us here. Yep. All right. Next item on our agenda is approval of the minutes for our March 4th, 2026 uh joint city county planning committee meeting. So moved. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. We approve the minutes for March 4th, 2026. Uh any further discussion? All in favor say I. All oppose, please use the same sign. Passes unanimously. Uh city and county manager priority items, please.

None from the Okay. Uh, the microphone turned off for some reason, but uh, both city and county attorneys said there are no priority items at this time. Next item on our agenda, evaluation and assessment report. Um, yeah. Do we have a time for this? I don't see a time on the agenda amount. 30 minutes. 30 minutes. All right. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair, Dr. Lee, members of the JCCPC. I'm Erin Kaine with the Planning and Development Department. Was it Oh, right here. There we go. So, I was here back in August um to give you kind of a a briefing of the E, what it is. For many of you, it may be relatively new. It's not something we've done in quite a long time. Okay. quite a long time. Um it is required by both the UDO and the comp plan to do an evaluation and assessment report or ER every two years with the adoption of the comprehensive plan in October of 23. We started work in the summer of of 25 to put together our first report for you. Um it hasn't been done since 2018, which is why this may be relatively new to some of you. Um due to the drafting of the comprehensive plan, we put it on hold. Y and on this in this iteration, we decided to do it in two phases and that's what we brought to you back in August. Uh the first was a presentation on the community goals and objectives report card which had been already completed and Kayla Cyel had presented that to you back in August and if any of you are interested in that document, we can make sure we get that to you. We also talked about doing plan updates including updates to the um place type map of the comprehensive plan as well as a look at our policies and any technical edits we may want to do with those. Uh we presented uh yeah uh we presented that to the planning commission back in the fall and early winter and we'd like to bring that back to you now to get your input and feedback. Phase two, which um Andy Lester will talk about a bit, is more about um an implementation report on actions that we're working with Scott Whiteitman and

the community planning team, as well as some technical analysis looking at what has been done and accomplished um over the last two and a half years since the adoption of the comprehensive plan. So again, just to frame out where the timelines are. Phase one, we brought to you back in August. Had a brief introductory conversation about that. Brought it to planning commission in the fall and early winter for their feedback. And then I'm bringing it back to you for a final look before we move forward to the governing bodies for approval. Phase two, we began that work in the fall after the full 2-year complete uh 2-year time period for from adoption of the comprehensive plan. Um, we're bringing it a brief update to you today and then we hope to be able to bring you back a more full report on phase 2 this summer. So, first off, I'll talk about the place type map updates. We didn't have these fleshed out back in August when we first came to you, but we do have those and we have presented those to uh planning commission for their feedback and their recommendation. There are six of them. Uh, one of them in Treyburn, one at North Roxboro factory, one in NC751, one at South Alustin, one at the Redwood Convenience Center, and one on Baptist Road. I'll go through each of these in more detail. Uh, these are all staff initiated. These none of these came from the private sector. We had had that conversation back in August that we weren't going to entertain that at this time because the conference of plan was so relatively new. We didn't feel it was appropriate at that time. We're also not recommending any zoning changes through the evaluation assessment report, just changes to the place type map. So the first one is Treyburn. Um it is four parcels. Um in the kind of the northeast section of Treyburn and this is coming from a request from the county economic

development department. uh they have identified 66 acres um in that area for that could be a possible economic development site. And so rather than have all of that area rural and agricultural reserve, they have requested that some of that be employment campus to be able to market it as an economic development site. It would also require moving the urban growth boundary to encompass those four acres, though not changing the place type of the majority of it. The area that you're seeing that remains rural and agricultural reserve is already under uh conservation easements and other holdings, but we would need to extend the urban growth boundary to encompass those in case we needed to run any water and sewer to the economic development site. So that's why you're seeing the movement of the UGB uh as we've recommended has been recommended by County Economic Development and Matt Filter is here from county economic development should you have any specific questions about that site. Um the second one is at Orange at Roxboro and Orange Factory. This was recently acquired by the county as a demonstration farm. So we are recommending that the place type change from suburb and commercial to community institution to better reflect the use that that's going to have going forward. The next one is the place type uh I'm sorry is off of NC751. Uh this is a site that we had identified originally as apartment and townhouse neighborhood. However, since then, the city has uh acquired it in order to uh for a lift station for a sewer lift station at that site, which means it's not going to have apartments and town houses on it and will be a uh utility facility. So, therefore, a utility and public works facility made more sense.

Uh the fourth one is off of South Alustin Avenue, just south of Carpenter Fletcher Road. Uh the city council, those orange areas are apartment and townhouse neighborhood. City council last year approved a zoning change off of South Alustin that converted those from general industrial to apartment and townhouse neighborhood that left one parcel kind of sitting there between the neighborhood services and the apartment uh the uh apartment and townhouse neighborhood area. Doesn't make a lot of sense. you can't really do anything industrial on that site. Also, that is currently a dentist office and we don't expect it to change anytime soon. So, moving that to neighborhood services made sense. Uh, Redwood Convenience, this is the Redwood Convenience site simply uh the county has acquired more property for that facility. Um and so taking those properties out of rural and agricultural reserve and moving the entire property of the facility to community institution made sense. And then finally off of Baptist Road when the comprehensive plan was originally developed this site uh was identified as a utility. However, that utility is one cell tower and this is a rather large site. I believe it's over 50 acres. So, it didn't make a lot of sense to us to have that one cell tower deem the entire site as a utility. Therefore, it is outside the urban growth boundary. We're not uh recommending to change that. So, we would have it go to rural and agricultural reserve. Those are the six um those are the six place type changes that we are recommending. All five of the six were recommended for approval by the planning commission. The one that did not was a five vote four vote against for the um Treyburn site. Uh planning commission recommended against that. So I want to

make sure you were aware if there are any concerns that the JCCPC has with moving forward with any of these to the governing bodies. Uh we'd love to know now or if you want to have some time to think about it. Let us know um in the relative near future, but we'll be scheduling those to go forward for governing body approval. um in the relatively near future. Yes, Commissioner Jacobs. Um is this the appropriate time to ask questions about these? Anytime is an appropriate time to ask questions. All right. Um so I think one thing that would be helpful is seeing a bigger map. Okay. That shows Treyburn

because um when you look at if you go back to that map Mhm. you can't see the fact that the additional 96 acres. Can you flip back to it now? Sure. Um that it is adjacent to I mean it's contiguous to basically our industrial park. Correct. To the south there. Yes. But it it's really hard to get the bigger picture of it with that type of map. So first of all, I think that would be helpful.

Okay. Um, also just in terms of the back history on that, uh, those 96 acres, were they originally part of the Treyburn campus or were they originally, um, any type of econ were what was the original land use there? Um, well, it's undeveloped now, I believe. Yes, it was. Matt, if you can confirm, I believe yes, it was part of the original Treyburn.

Okay. Good morning, Matt Filter with Durham County Economic Development. So, you are correct. Yeah, this was so part of what we're requesting here is mainly kind of a fix or an adjustment. I think when the comp comprehensive plan was done here, there was maybe a misunderstanding of what what easements were on this land, whether it was part of um the Trayurn Corporate Park or not. And so, these are always have always been in the Traburn Corporate Park boundaries. If you think of like the corporate park boundaries of RTP or like the downtown bid, you know, those are kind of legal established boundaries. And so I think all we're asking here is to kind of uh adjust it based on the information that we've learned um postco comprehensive plan uh in 2023. Prior to that, this was um I think the place type was research and research applications. Yeah. in the previous comprehensive plan and it was within the suburban tier which was I think previously kind of a quasi similar to the urban growth boundary. So

um I think all we're asking is just kind of adjusting it based on the way it was before based on the new information. This is not a request from like a developer or there's like some hot project we're trying to do. We're just trying to align it based on the information that we learned.

Okay. I I think it's important that that is reflected in the staff information because I'm not sure how this happened, but it's basically a mistake. Um because, you know, if it was part of the Treyburn Industrial Park, it should have stayed that way. The county has made significant investments in Treyburn. And as a matter of fact, we recently spent $30 million upgrading the city's uh lift station at Snow Hill, not the counties, but the cities to service Trey Burn so that we can have the full capacity. And that I assume, Matt, if you could explain, would this the Snow Hill pump station actually serve this property? Do you know?

Most likely. Yes. Okay. And I mean this is just something that I think nobody caught at the time, you know, so how it happened I I don't I don't know. But I think we've just learned new information since that time and planning's been very helpful to work with us just to kind of adjust it based on the information that we've learned in the last. I just want to make sure the context is, you know, because the planning planning commission voted against this. They may not have understood that this is remedying something that really shouldn't have happened in the first place. So um

and also I I know in the the comments that the planning commission was concerned about the utilities being extended beyond the urban growth boundary here and I don't know if there's any way to make it clear or have any asurances that this is to service the Treyburn. This is for servicing the utilities are to serve the industrial park also. I know we have talked about possibly helping people who have failing septic systems, but those being the only only situations in which we would do that. So, is there any way to clarify that in any way?

Absolutely. We can include that. We can include all this information and we it's been great working with Matt in putting together information. We can make sure it's even more clear uh when we take this to the governing boards for their consideration. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'll just add that city code pro explicitly prohibits the extension of water and sewer beyond the urban growth boundary except in a few instances that are related to like health and safety concerns. So, city code already precludes that. Wherever the line is, that's where the line is.

Uh, Director Young, thank you for that clarification. Uh my question was actually going to be about my concern with the extension of the UGB and what uh signal that might send to others with respect to any precedent that this might establish. So, I'll I'll take a crack at that, which is as we were beginning the work on this this summer and into the fall, I can tell you we got several we received several requests from private entities interested in using the Either as a tool for resoning or a tool for extending the urban growth boundary. And we basically said we we not basically we did say no to all of them. uh simple you know based on the direction we received last August from this body uh we're not and we were not entertaining those at that time when the ER comes again up again in the fall of 2027 we can have that discussion again with you all uh but we'll of course follow your lead if you say not interested and that's what we told everybody this time

uh thank you for that and I just want to go on record with respect to this this location being used for uh as an economic development location I mean certainly I'm in favor jobs in our community and so to the extent that uh this area be used for that purpose uh count commissioner Valentine in on that. Okay.

I'm just worried about sort of secondary uh consequences as a result of some of the decisions that might be made regarding UGB. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate my colleagues comment about the precedent and also just the question from Commissioner Jacobs about um making really clear about the rationale and the reasons for the need for what I'm understanding is kind of a fix. You know, I think um you know, I also am um you know, interested in um you know, doing what we can to to protect the the UGB and I think in a variety of cases that has come up when it's been privately initiated and you know um we've really pushed to try and and protect that as part of our overall growth plan. And so I want to be careful about the signal we're sending if in this case um when it's county driven that um we are letting it move forward. But so it's really I think important to be clear about the history and the the rationale there that we're drawing a clear distinction if this does move forward to the governing body for consideration um why this is different than the cases that we uh are considering um through um privately initiated requests for resonings annexations. So thank you.

Are there any other questions comments? All right. Thank you. Continue. Okay, I'm now going to turn it over to Payton Burgess, another member of the growth management staff, who's going to talk to you about the policy updates that we'll be recommending. Hello, good morning everybody. Um, my name is Payton Burgess. I am with the growth management team. And one thing that our team did uh in addition to the place type map changes that Aaron just showed you was review the current D policies and their commentary. So the D policies are policies within the comprehensive plan that are meant to address development. So how that shows up for us in our practice is the comprehensive plan consistency review that you all receive in packets um in relations to specific reasoning cases. So what we did is we looked at that document and how we have used that document over the last couple years and we noticed um kind of some things that were happening as far as you could make um as a developer you could make a profer for native plants and then all of a sudden you've checked off three exceeds boxes in that document um and some other policies were always getting meets UDIO standards and so we just looked at how the document was kind of working and we tried to reimagine it in a way that was a little bit more concise and a little bit more efficient. Um, and so what we did is we suggested some edits to those policies and you'll see those in your packet. Um, while most of those edits are clerical, we also recommended the removal of some of the D policies. And so I want to be really clear that what that means is that we are suggesting that it be removed from that comp plan review document and not necessarily from the comp plan. We're not suggesting the removal of the

policies in general. Um just removal of the policies as we apply them on a case-by case basis and the comprehensive plan um consistency review document that you all get. And so we also suggested edits to the commentary of those policies. And the actual edits to the policies themselves are something that needs to be approved by the governing bodies. And the edits to the commentary is something that staff provides. Um, and the commentary is important because it shows how we sort of apply and interpret the policies. So that's important one because the applicant is able to see kind of how they're able to meet the policies and two it makes sure that our team as we go through and we analyze proposals are applying these policies fairly and consistently. And so the changes that we have brought forward to you all. Again, I want to remind you that we're not suggesting we remove any comp plan policies from the actual comp plan, it's really more focused around again this case byase comprehensive plan consistency review. Um, and a lot of the edits that we are suggesting are a little bit more technical in nature. Um, and just some of the ways that we've seen, you know, how things can be maybe interpreted differently or or just uh intending to provide clarity. And so here is a summary of some of the changes that we are proposing. And again, I know that this looks a little bit scary. Um, but I want to remind you all that a lot of the changes are really technical and just meant to clarify. And then also with the edits to the commentary of the policy, a lot of them are staff suggesting commentary um where commentary wasn't before. And so again, that's just important because we want to make sure that we're applying those policies fairly and consistently and and being transparent about the way we're analyzing our proposals.

I did want to bring up a couple key policy changes. Um, one of those is policy 50. This one has a little bit more of um, you know, some depth to the change that's being made, and it is the policy that has historically regarded the safe 10-minute walk to a park. Um, and so we are changing that to kind of contextualize proposals a little bit better. Um, and make it so it's not just a blanket half mile walk, but maybe looks at, you know, the surroundings a little bit more to apply this policy. Um, and this is at the direction of parks and recreation.

Payton, if I can just interrupt you one second. And that aligns, if you back up a slide, that aligns with the new parks system plan. That is the policy in their plan. So we're trying to when we have a a plan that is newer than the comprehensive plan that has, you know, more recent adopted policy, we want to try and align the comprehensive plan back so there is not a disconnect. So I think that's a lot of the impetus here. Yeah.

And then it went off. Good morning. Sorry about that. Um, also y'all brought this to us a couple months ago when the parks and parks and recreation play I don't remember what it was called. I think it was last meeting they actually Oh, it wasn't here at the last meeting. So, um, we talked about a couple. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, this is I'm just basically saying it's not the first time we've seen this. Okay. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. And just as a reminder, uh, I know we saw it last meeting and you said this is based on the the new parks plan which was developed in partnership with the recreation advisory committee as well. Um, so it's just then plugging that into our broader visionary document, the comprehensive plan. Okay. Thank you.

So I think that this really kind of highlights what we were trying to do with the E as well um in the sense that we're we're really trying to look at this and and bring it back up to speed and align with maybe some of the existing documents that we have um and how we're actually applying the policies. The other key policy that I wanted to talk about is policy 79. Um, and the reason why I bring this up is because this is the policy that we received the most feedback on. Um, it's been through several iterations and ultimately, as you can see, we are suggesting very little changes to it. Um, we're adding habitat corridors and that's to be more consistent with how um, that shows up in our open space documents that we reference um because it does reference habitats and corridors. So, that's trying to align with that. Um, and then also steep slopes because that's what it's called in the UDO. And then we just uh correct the natural heritage areas to show that we're talking about the North Carolina National Heritage Areas, but overall minor edits to the policy. So, moving forward, um, what we are requesting from you all today is

I'm just curious on 79, you said it's the policy where you got the most feedback on. Yes. And was the feedback on prior suggested language or was it for more substantive rewrites of the policy? Kind of what was the general nature of the the feedback you got on this policy?

We had a little bit more substantial changes to this and I think that there was just a fear that the policy would lose some of its teeth. Um, and that that was not staff's intention. We were just trying to make it so that it was a policy that we could better reflect what was happening as far as natural resources go on the site. Um, but I think that there was concern that it was maybe doing too many things. And so we listened to a lot of that feedback and we pulled back on some of that language to make it a little bit more true to its prior form. Also, one more thing was in in an original in an earlier rewrite of this policy, we had to address concerns we got from some residents that they were, as Payton suggested earlier, they were doing one thing that was knocking out two, three, four policies and giving them a thumbs up on that. We tried to combine a couple of policies into 79 and make it longer and more and more holistic. Um, and that also, as Payton alluded to, created a concern among some of our residents and advisory boards that that was creating that was diluting or not emphasizing natural resources enough. So, we pulled back on that based on that feedback and and went back to the more original and added those other ones back in. And so now, um, we are just requesting direction on how to move forward with this. um if this is something that you all are ready to see go to the governing bodies or if this is something that you all would like to provide feedback on um that's something that we can incorporate. Um we would need comments for this within the next about two weeks to make it on next month's um agenda if you would like to see this come back or there is no specific timeline for these

changes. Um so if this is something that you all would like to take a little bit longer on to provide feedback for us that would be okay too. Matt and Well, actually, let's let's go with uh Commissioner Jacob first. Well, Matt Matt just we'll just come back to it. No, no, you first and then that. Okay.

Um Yeah. So, um I'll just say that um you know related to the place type map changes that we saw. I'm I don't have any issues with those. Um I have a lot of concerns about what is being proposed related to the policy changes. Um I really don't agree with the description that these are just technical changes. um when we have you know we just recently adopted this plan we have not implemented the new UDO yet which is supposed to have been done right in partnership with these policies right I mean that is the actual implementation of the policies will be when we adopt our new UDO but to then you know when I look at the list of um basically removing 21 D policies, editing 28, um only adding four and then one new policy. All of these changes to me um are really substantial. Um and I think they they really have implications to the policies. The other thing that I'm concerned about is um understanding the rationale for some of them. When I read that, well, this is going to be done at the site plan stage, um, I think it really I I I just question the intent of why we did the comprehensive plan and our process because from my perspective, it everything shouldn't just be at the staff level. like a lot of our policies are speaking for the values of the community and should be front and center

in the planning reports um in the documents. Um I I think that's really important. So um I don't want to take up time now going through kind of all my concerns. Um I just wonder is I see people in the audience here. We got several emails about things. Is Malora McCall in the audience here? Okay. I don't know her, but she sent an email that to me um really summed up a lot of the of my um perspective about this at this moment. I So, what I would like to request is that we do slow this down. Um, and I would I would like to have the opportunity to sit down with staff and anyone else on this um committee um that would like to do that. You know, we could do it as a group or one-on-one, whatever. We could have a subcommittee. I don't whatever works for people. Um, but I would really like to sit down and really dig into all of this. um and just make sure we're being really careful about implications. Um so so um that that is what I'm requesting um at this point in time. Um and also I would like to get all of the written comments that have been shared from any from the planning commission, you know, any city or county department, parks and wreck, uh all any commission like um DOS, EAB, um groups like preserve rural derm. I would like to actually see their written feedback and comments related to this um as well if that could be shared with all of us.

Absolutely. That's we could provide. Um so yeah, so that's what I'm requesting that we definitely slow this down. Um, and I would like to meet again in the, you know, the next month with with staff and whoever else from this commission would like to committee would like to do that. Thank you, Council Member Copek.

Yep. Thank you, Chair Lee. Um, yeah, thank you, Commissioner Jacobs, for those comments. Um, a few questions and comments. First of all, can you remind us what the planning commission feedback was on the E? Maybe uh Chair Shaggeras can comment on that, but I'm curious to hear that perspective. I forgot what the vote was. Yeah.

Yeah. The uh the planning commission saw the policies three times. They saw it the first time in October, then again in November, and then finally in January. The vote was for approval 7 to four. Um we had some discussion on especially policy 79 and they saw various iterations throughout that. At the final meeting uh there was very little oral there was very little discussion on it. Um the planning commission kind took their vote and and was done. I don't recall significant number of comments at that meeting from the commissioners themselves. Yes. Um well, the first time we saw it, uh I guess what had happened is at the August JCCPC meeting, uh Chair Cameron couldn't make the meeting and she notified me at the last minute and I was already preoccupied. I couldn't make the so neither her or I made the August JCCPC meeting. So we then that's where this was first discussed and so it came up at the October planning commission meeting and we were like what is this? Um it was a bit of a surprise uh I guess because it hadn't been done since 2018 because we didn't have a comprehensive plan. And so at that time we did a one cycle delay to look into it further. At the next meeting because of all of the feedback from the community and concerns over the changes would be substantial. As Commissioner Jacobs has mentioned, we did another two cycle delay and during that time there was uh I guess a number of meetings between uh some of the citizens and the planning department and some of the policies were modified. Uh but still there was concerns about

the actual impact that the technical changes would be more than just technical changes as as Commissioner Jacobs has mentioned on but our rules state that we had to move something on. We could only delay for three cycles. So, we did have to have a vote on it and the people that said no were basically no votes because of the same concerns of the technical changes being more than actually technical changes. And I guess more of the impression that there had been a lot of community input into the comprehensive plan. a lot of meetings, a lot of involved citizens taking their time and then this just comes along and there weren't meetings with the community and the input wasn't taken and they're like why why would we come out and put all this time into the comprehensive plan on which the UDO is supposed to be modeled and then we're just going to come and change it. So that was not received positively basically by the community. So that's where we're at.

Okay. Thank you for that that feedback. Um second, so when I was doing the pre-eread and looking at the the the updated language, the commentary, I had difficulty understanding what was what had been edited. Uh, I saw just a few areas that were redlined in the document. Track changes aren't Yeah, let me I apologize for the interruption. I just realized that the PDF version that's in your packet did not show all the track changes, which is problematic. Yeah, I that's

Yeah, I just pointed to SharePoint like the word document is correct, but when it got PDFed, the majority of the track changes went away. Okay. So, okay. Well, that's so you all know that was intended. Okay. So, we'll we'll make sure to get a a more easily readable I don't know how or why that happened. Um, but yeah, we'll make sure to get you a Word document that shows all the track changes. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then could you provide just some more background on the the the sequencing of the the LDC development, the UD update

and the E? I know that there probably was an original idea of timing for each and how they would sequence and things change and so I would just love your perspective on what the original idea was about how those would be sequenced and what is kind of happened.

Right. The original idea for phase one of the E is that we would, you know, we would try to time it as much as we could to the 2-year anniversary of the comp plan as called for in the UDO and the uh comp plan, uh, which would time it to the fall of 2025. So, uh, we came to GCCPC in the summer and had already started work on it and then continued that work based on the conversation we had with this body back then. The original intent was to go to planning commission in October and then prior to the release of the LDC and also to allow for some last minute changes if need be based on any adopted policy changes. Um but again these were technical so we didn't expect a whole lot. We'd have that wrapped up and then the LDC could continue. Now obviously the LDC has not been able to continue and planning commission requested additional time to deliberate which we were more than happy to give them. Um and so that's how we have ended up where we are now. Um

so I think from a starting point for me to feel like I've done my due diligence that it will be helpful to see the absolutely absolutely and so I think because of that I would not be supportive of moving it forward. That's fine. In and I don't think two weeks will be enough time. Okay. Um, and if there is a a subcommittee as part of my own, you know, homework and due diligence, I'd be happy to sit down with you, Commissioner Jacobs, and staff just to do that. Mhm. Um, you know, I also think it's just important to evaluate, and I will do this as I do my homework on it, what the role of the E is around technical changes, um, and how we define that versus, you know, the development of the comprehensive plan

to see what those parameters are because I understand the the value of the ability for staff to respond to what you've been hearing and make technical changes and not have it become another comprehensive of plan update, right? Right. Because of the time and the staff resource that that requires. And so I just want to make sure that I'm assessing,

you know, how we're defining a technical update in order to give you the flexibility and freedom to do that without it requiring that that full time and effort that we're kind of staying within those appropriate parameters. Sure. And so I'll bring that lens as I do my my review. And so I would uh second the request and I obviously hear hear you agreeing to to give us a little bit more time on this. So

AB absolutely and if I could suggest um something Mike Woodard would say, former Councilman Mike Woodard would say uh back when he was on uh sitting on this body and chairing this body was um it's it's it's better to do it right than to do it fast. So, what I would suggest is that yeah, if we can do it in two weeks and bring you back something next month, that's great. But if schedules do not allow a subcommittee to meet with staff and have these discussions and have you all feel comfortable with where we're going, then we'll allow for the time to have those discussions. There's, as Payton mentioned, there's nothing forcing the policies to move at any particular pace. Um, is it something I'd like to check off my list of things to do? Sure. Um but again, we'd rather get it right. Um and do it in a way that you all are comfortable with and can support going forward.

Great. Thank you for that. And and you may have answered this, but I just wanted to hear it one more time as we're thinking about this update to the comprehensive plan and reviewing it in regards to the UDO. Do we see any concerns about reviewing it against the existing UDO when we're also in the process of updating that document? Do you see any potential conflict arising there?

So we that was one of the purposes of what we did in this phase of the E was we have noticed several things um and some of the community members have noticed several things that come up as we review against the policies. Uh for example, there are a couple of policies that um the the one that that's that I think is is I'm remembering the most is about uh mass grading and phasing. Well, since the comp plan was adopted, we have updated the UDO to improve that. So now our our our interpretation is that everything meets that policy because we've updated the UDO to meet that policy. So now you have to meet it. And so the concern we got from community members was they're getting that check mark. So we give you the at the end of a staff report we say it meets this many out of this many applicable policies. Well, they're always getting that one because we've updated the UDO to that. Um, and so from a staff perspective, we were suggesting, well, let's not include that in the staff report anymore because we're giving them a free check. And then when we suggested that, some members from the community said, you're trying to not review that against that anymore. Well, you you know, so we're trying to balance um we're trying to balance a a a review against policies for which the applicants can actually make changes to their proposal to meet those policies.

That's a really helpful clarification. And perhaps it gets to this idea of, you know, graphic uh plans as well, which sometimes we hear requests for, which tend to just reflect what is required under the UDO versus a commitment. And in this case, so the rationale for removing some of those policies was they have to do it anyways. And so by removing it doesn't mean they don't have to do it. It's that they have to do it anyways. And so why give them kind of credit for something that's required? Exactly.

I understand. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah, and I I think that's been one of the big criticisms is when you look at our comp plan consistency analysis is there are a lot of things that say, you know, consistent by meeting UDO standards and that could be one of two things. We have updated the UDO standards to implement a particular policy. So that now that is the baseline, the new baseline that's required. It it also is that some of the policies that were put in the comprehensive plan were to be reflective of existing uh good policy and ordinance direction that we already have in place. Right? So it wasn't necessarily doing anything new but it was you know the community wanted it kind of memorialized that like this is our stance on you know whatever. For instance there's one about um ADA compliance that is required that is not optional. So giving someone a free pass every time saying yes, you you're you know you're gonna be compliant because you have no choice but to meet ADA, like we're not getting anything. So that really shouldn't be one that we review each proposal against because they have to do that anyway. So we're giving folks like free credit for stuff that they don't have a choice and they have to do anyway. Um, so I think that's that's a lot of it too is just going through and recognizing um, you know, trying to add more value to that analysis by focusing on the things where uh, the applicant is having to make a conscious choice to do something above or beyond as opposed to giving them credit for something that they have to do regardless.

That's that helps. So we can get when we have uh you know individual one-on- ones or small group meetings or however we do it. I think we can walk through policies and kind of explain staff's logic and maybe that will um kind of help you know uh see where we were coming from as we look at these. It it's uh I think also frustrating on staff's point you know from our side to like okay yeah we know they got to do this we know they got to do this. We know they got to do this. It's almost kind of devaluing our analysis in some ways but Thank you, chair. I'd like to align myself with some of the concerns that have been raised here uh today with regards to slowing this down just slightly.

Um but I want to go back to the place type map. I meant to say something about particularly the Redwood convenience and we're changing it from rural and agricultural reserve and community institutional and recreation open space to just community institutional recreation open space. What is what are the practical um implications for not immunity with respect to that that change? Not really not a whole lot. Um areas that are rural and agricultural reserve can have housing consistent with the rural residential right

place type. So as we do as we update our analyses as to how much land we have available for residential development or for agriculture or so forth base that off a lot of that off the place type map. So adjusting these this acreage to be a community institution takes it out of available land for residential rural residential development. um which it is because it's now all owned by the county and it's going to be part of the red. So, we're really just making a place type map, recommending a place type map change to reflect reality on the ground that will then give us better projections when we do our periodic projection updates. I I guess my my general concern is when I talk to residents out in the county, you know, whenever they see, you know, uh, whenever they see the the language rural and agricultural move, they they're thinking that the character

of their communities are are changing overnight and that's what the idea is. And so I thought it would be important with respect to my constituents. Sure. That that we have that conversation, we have it on on the record. And uh I mean this isn't necessarily popular forum for this, but you know when you go out to some of the more rural parts of our uh our community, which isn't far from the from the city, Mhm.

Um some of the development that happens doesn't seem to make sense with respect to, you know, the the character of what is largely farming communities. And so I have some concerns about that. I know growth is is going to happen. It's inevitable. um but that we consider um you know how we're moving um with a lens towards you know the changing character of of our community.

Sure. And and that is that's that's a very astute observation and I appreciate that and we'll make sure as we have those situations where there is a proposed conversion from rural agricultural reserve to something of a greater density that we bring that up in the in the staff reports. I just want to be clear that's that's not what's happening here. Yes. Thank you. Yes.

Thank you. Um I'm fine with um waiting a little bit so folks can see track changes and whatnot. I do want to say that I appreciate basically what I'm hearing from staff is you're trying to be more accurate. You're trying to be more accurate in place map and you're trying to be more accurate in our table for policy usage. I think at some point it would be helpful because folks also don't understand the requirements at site plan and they I think the the issue that I have is that at the end of the day I honestly don't think people realize how much regulation we actually have. They think that it is a free-for-all and it is in fact not a free-for-all.

Uh and so um and it's because they just to to uh Commissioner Valentine's point, they just don't like change. vote. I'm not here I mean I appreciate the the tension around that but I changes what is it like change death and taxes like that's just what it is. Um so um I I think at some point what would be helpful is to do in the table of sorts. If you exceeded it great but that there is some commentary that's like there are however many percentage of policies rules whatever that have to be met period. So that if you are a person, you know, some kind of visual that is like a huge percentage of the thing that has to get built has to be is vetted by staff and and aligned to rules. Um so that because you're going to get it both. What I worry about for staff is you're going to get it both ways. You're going to be like, "Oh, you pulled it out. That means it's not happening." And also um giving points for things that are just the rules. So, I think that we have to figure out a way to communicate that more effectively. Um, I hear what y'all are saying about like, why are we giving them credit for doing a thing that's just part of the UDO. I I think folks still don't also understand that the comp plan is just guidance. It's policy. It is not the rules. Um, and so it's just a reminder of what is what and again that we really need our LDC. So, yeah. So, I appreciate that very much. And one of the things I think we struggle with in our staff reports, our staff reports, as you know, are very long. Um, uh, you know, and I think some of it sometimes it falls under the category of like too long did not read, right? Um, one of the things that we're going to be coming back to you all with, um, probably in the next few months, um, we haven't quite solidified is, uh, seeking some guidance from you all on what you would like to see in staff reports versus not because for instance, we have a whole chart about it has all sorts of basic

like environmental things and what's required in the ordinance, whether they're exceeding that or not. And so like there's multiple things going on in a in the report, right? And there's lots of attachments. And so we we will be coming back to you all at some point in the near future to talk specifically about staff reports and their content. As many of you know, the content of those staff reports has evolved and grown over time. Every time, you know, an elected official says, "Well, I'd like to see such and such in it, you know, and that may be like 10 elected officials ago." And it it's in there. And so we want to have an open conversation with you all um as to what you find valuable in the reports. Also ways that we can potentially focus on the information that is most helpful to you all. Are there things in there that like

y'all don't read it's just not you know whatever right so we want to zero in on making sure that those reports are helpful to our elected officials and also clear. Um so anyway so that's TBD to come but I think relevant to the point you just made. Okay thank you. I think everyone is um expressing did you want to speak one more time? All right. Go ahead.

Um first of all so I heard Matt saying that he would be interested in discussing I don't know if anyone else um may Okay. and Chanetta. So maybe we could um Sarah, you could help organize us getting together. Um, I just want to state for the record that I submitted very detailed comments around the Cheek Road resoning where I went into detail about issues related to staff reports that I didn't feel and this is also related to the E because if we are kind of removing policies and including new policies those this is also the opportunity to try try to address some of the concerns that I expressed around um when there are resonings being considered outside of the urban growth boundary that um I believe there needs to be um policies that directly address um the impact to the loss of agricultural farmland and also other other county um things like EMS MS um which is not being um I don't think fully um the cost or impact um right now and also Durham public schools. How do we evaluate the impact to school funding because that is a direct county cost um that right now is not being fully reflected in the way it's being looked at like our per pupil spending. So those are things that I raised in my comments. So there's the opportunity also with the E um changes to try to um address those as well. So I hope that we'll look at those.

Yeah, we we definitely can look um for instance, if if there is uh policy missing that is not, you know, if we don't have something that's adequately addressing an issue, we can certainly look at drafting a new policy to make sure that that is adequately covered or amending a policy to make sure that the the issue is adequately covered. Um I was going to let Erin talk a minute uh quickly about EMS and our work with them and we're definitely getting closer. I want to I want to say that for DPS uh we heard years ago the concern and so we we include both the uh Durham County per student kind of maintenance. I think it's like $5,000 and some odd dollars. We also added a year or two ago now the capital cost per student should a new facility need to be which is over $100,000. That is in the staff report. I think maybe part of that staff report conversation is maybe that information is getting missed because it's in the wrong place, right? And it's not with the rest of the fiscal analysis. And so we can talk about that, but that information has been there for years. So I just I want I don't want folks thinking that um that information isn't included. It is. We also are limited because Durham public schools um we cannot compel other agencies to provide us certain analysis or you know so we do the best we can with the information they're willing to give us is what I like

and I and I have seen that but what's not in there right now is the operational cost because we have a per pupil local spending amount of over $5,000 per student. Um Okay. I've seen the capital. No, both are in there. So when when developers profer it is it is usually the per pupil that they or well it's a 500. Yeah, it's not. Yeah, it's way but it's determined on what the information that DPS gave us. And then the other part of that is and I just want to be real loud about it.

People choose where they send their schools. I mean send their kids. So like the impact isn't necessarily going to be felt at DPS. I mean, that's the thing that's really hard to track. Just because there's a neighborhood built in its own for whatever school does not mean that that school's actually going to get that many kids added to it because we know that there's private schools and private or there's private school vouchers and charter schools and we know that DPS is actually losing enrollment. So, that is I think a tricky thing to try and and and really map honestly because people have individual choice of ultimately where they're sending their kids that we don't track. I will

I will also say that about two years ago we started a much better collaboration with Durham public schools. They updated their uh forecasting methods. They updated their per pre uh their student generation rates and we now follow before we were using some kind of random general generator. Uh we're now following DPS's uh student generation rates and their projections. uh we follow them not only for as a whole but DPS is now uh divided into five regions and we have the student generation rates by region and by housing type and we use exactly the ones and we get annual updates from them every Octoberish. Uh so we we use those and we incorporate those into our staff reports.

Okay. I'm going to go to Council Member Copek, but we're trending over time. All right. And so let's uh start to wrap it up. Sure. And I was going to say acknowledging I think we're a little off topic that I welcome staff's um uh work and proposal on updating the staff report template to make it more usable for you all, for us, for residents. And also just I appreciate the information that is in the staff report on DPS. And I think it's a signal that um you know the the impacts potential impacts on schools can be great uh and that it's worth thinking about continuing to to to increase expectations around that per pupil amount. All right. Thank you.

Yes. Um so I just want to make sure I'm understanding the direction from you all going forward. It sounds like go ahead and move forward with the place type map changes and we can put together the staff reports for each of those and bring those to you. Um, and but on the policies, we're going to hold off. We're going to look and I believe the hands I saw were Commissioners Jacobs and Valentine and council members Burus and uh, Copac. So, I'll work with you, Sarah, to set up a time to get everybody together. Um, getting four elected officials in the same room at the same time may mean this does not come back next month, but we'll expedite that as quickly as possible. Um so with that I am going to bring up Andy Lester uh one of the principal plan the principal planner that works in the growth management team and as Andy mentioned to me yesterday he won't like me saying this um Andy's been on this team for four four and a half years now

four years and has never presented to JCCPC. So I'll introduce Andy Lester our principal planner and and be nice to him. They like to keep me in the basement. So, uh, good morning. Um, I'm Andy Lester with Growth Management and I'm here just to inform you, um, regarding some of the types of information and data for the technical data for phase two and what that will entail. Um, so the first item, I'll read through this and then I'm going to play around with this for a couple minutes for you. Um so there's three three key sort of pieces of information that'll be in the technical analysis. The first item intends to examine the rate and types of place type changes um that have occurred since the adoption of the comprehensive plan. For instance, are there types of place types that have changed more than others? And if so, is there a tendency to a specific place type? Uh the second item will look at the compliance and applicability of each comprehensive plan policy used to review zoning map changes and annexations. So there are currently 30 plus policies um as we stated that are used in staff reports to determine um a proposal's consistency with the comprehensive plan. So for each of those policies uh we'll know which policies tend to be complied with the most uh least which ones tend to not be applicable and which ones are really never met when cases come in. Uh the third item that will be included is information regarding affordable and income restricted units. Uh so currently we have all of the numbers units profered through the zoning map changes and I'll go through this little master spreadsheet with you to show you sort of sort of what information that we have. But in general uh the data contained here's the characteristics of those affordable units profered um during a reasonzoning.

So those those include distinguishing between affordable and incomerestricted uh 10-year AMI and just the and the percentages of those affordable units compared to the overall project. So that information we do have. The other key components that will be included and that are being finalized right now are the status of those affordable units um in terms of building permits and certificate of occupancies. Um, so I'm going to start with this one and then I'll end on that last part and then I'll finish. So if you guys will look at your screens. So this is an internal database um that our team uses that tracks every resoning since 2020. Oh,

hey. Okay. again. It's my first time.

Okay. All right. Thanks for bearing with me. Um, so again, before you is the master spreadsheet that we have for our group. There's a lot of information, but I'm going to scroll to the more important pieces for you. Um within this database it tracks every resoning um in terms of its characteristics of size, proposed zoning um uh existing um uh place type and any changes associated with it. One of the two key components of this database that I just want you to see just denoting that we do have the information. We just need to make it more readable and presentable to the public and not me. um is that we have all of the let's see where is it? All right. So, we have all of the existing place type um information. So, within this database we have things that have been approved um in terms of the reasonzoning that were found to be not consistent with the comprehensive plan or partially consistent. So what that means is so we have the information in terms of which place types have changed to what. Um and so we have noticed um that we are sort of losing the neighbored place type which will be in the uh report but this is some of the information found with it. So we track the existing place type and the new ones if things are found inconsistent. So that'll be wrapped up in a bow for you um in phase two. But this is the raw data that we have for our team. The other interesting pieces of information that we have which is a lot is so for all those 30 plus policies that we review um each one is within this database and

since 2023 we have tracked sort of each plan's policy or consistency um each each case's consistency with those policies. So you'll have information on each policy and how consistent cases have been or not been with each of those policies which will be um some cool information to just to know and inform us with uh phase one. Um so that is here. So there's a lot of information. So as it mimics the staff report. So what you'll see is policies can be exceeded met uh or it's not applicable or it's um again not met and these metrics are based on the final version of a proposal. So this actually accounts for any additional profers made at council that addresses some of these these policies. So, everyone has g I've gone I've gone back every resoning to see if any additional propers were made to be make the case more consistent um with the comp plant. So, that data is here and it's um an ever ongoing tracking situation. And the last little bit I want to show you is the affordable data. Um so, let's see. All right. So part of our team tracks um every type of affordable profer. So those come in different forms. They include DHF contributions. Um they include units, a combination of both or land. And so this actually tracks the different types of profers made in relation to affordable housing. And so we have the

information needed to present to y'all in the summer regarding phase 2, but this tracks the types of affordable units, whether or not they are affordable by UDO definition or income restricted. And there's a cool percentage breakdown um within this database. And as you'll see, um, sort of the most common one so far, um, is 5%. Um, that's sort of the most common percentage profered at council. Um, and then it's 8% and surprisingly 100%. There's actually seven cases that have 100% affordable units profered through the resoning process. Um, and then here we go. if that if that revives y'all's memory regarding certain cases. Um so all that information uh we have and there's a breakdown of the characteristics of AMI and tenure to see what actually is being uh profered at the legislative um uh point in the process. So that's sort of the first component of the affordable units. the second component which was let's see the number of units permitted and number of units constructed. So there's a secondary database that's been shared with neighborhood improvement services where we are keeping track of these legislative uh profers through um the recordation of the um the restrictive covenants that regulate the um AMI on the site. So we have that and so we we shared it with NIS last week and so they will be updating that component of the separate spreadsheet to sort of keep track of what's actually been built and what actually has had the deeds recorded. So that's just some updates on that. And so that is sort of

a brief little tidbit, but again um more things will be fleshed out and in a bow um when phase two is completed. I just wanted to share the raw information with you since I am doing work. So, so, but I'm happy to answer any questions for you. Do we have any questions? Well, I don't have any questions, but I want to just acknowledge and appreciate the the level of work that goes into um developing these databases and and also appreciate uh the ability to have that that data uh when needed. So, uh, thank you for the hard work. Thank you.

Since we are sending it over to housing and neighborhood, uh, housing and neighborhood services, um, are we also then because they're going to have the the year that those expire, are we also tracking that? Um, since this is a fresh like a 30-year, you know, since this is fresh, we can add it in terms of modifying the the spreadsheet, but that'll end when I probably retire, but um, but it'll be in there. Uh, we just want to make sure that somewhere it's getting tracked because one of the things that we're going to have to do at some point is I mean, that's why other communities have sure

housing trust funds so that they can go and buy those units once their covenants expire. Um, otherwise, if we're not, and I'm really appreciative that we're tracking it. That's great because that's been one of my uh worries. It's like, okay, that 30 years goes fast. I mean, I know we'll all be old, but um I said, I know we all be old in 30 years. Sorry. Um not now necessarily, I'm saying, but in 30 years. Uh so, um so I just appreciate that we're doing that and that our departments are talking to one another in that way.

Yeah, it's been a cool experience. Yes, thank you for your work on this. And just to follow up on what council member Cabiera said is I don't know if what the city what you all are requiring in those 30-year um agreements. Um, but it's really important that there is also something about the right of first refusal going to the city to when those when the 30-year um protections end. We we included that with our affordable housing projects at 300 and 500 East Main Street. We actually have 50-year um timelines with those. But then at that point the right of first refusal goes back to the county to have the opportunity to purchase those properties. We know that around 30 40 years is when buildings need to be refurbished and repaired and that's when you know developers tend to want to offload them. But it is still cheaper to for local governments to renovate an affordable housing rather than build something new. And that's what we saw with the Carver Creek property and why it was so important that we got control of that. And to council members point, we have a problem with um you know not tracking them and then preparing having the opportunity to keep those publicly controlled. So I I think that's something else for us to talk about and look at too. What kind of mechanism do we have?

Sure. If we can talk to Rebecca and Bridget's group regarding that. I love a good spreadsheet, your database. Uh Mr. Lester, thank you for this work. I'm really excited to have this as a resource. Thank you. Um I just had a really good question. How is this going to be delivered to charts and graphs people? like so like yeah it'll be in graph form charts um there'll be like summary information but I just wanted to show you all the raw information that has been collected over the past several years okay um this database started previously u I just ran with it and expanded it to what we needed

okay I um I would suggest that if possible to use traditional AI or something that could be convert uh conversational so you can ask it questions uh this is a perfect situation for not gener generative but just traditional so that just you know off a website or something like that you can ask a question of it ask questions um I do it all the time so from spreadsheets so if people want to get information that is not the way to get it from a spreadsheet all right truth go ahead

just want to associate myself the um comments my colleagues but will there also be a legend in there when you compile all this information just kind of make it user friendly and readable so maybe we won't have to have all that AI that'll be something worked out uh with community planning they're good at formatting all this information y'all could delay all you want but it's going to be all right thank you so much thank you appreciate it all right so we are um 26 minutes catch us late. We'll catch you. All right. So, all right, let's keep moving.

All right. I'm going to talk about the uh FY27 work program. This is an item that, you know, back in February, we had kind of the early detection and warning system conversation about what may or may not be in it. Uh we have uh included in your packet the final draft of the work program that we would be moving forward um to both governing bodies for uh approval per the interlocal agreement in it. Um I'm just going to highlight there are six new things we ended up uh keeping the LDC or the new UDO rewrite obviously because it did not uh move on the trajectory we originally envisioned. So that stayed. Uh the six new things uh that we are proposing uh for next year uh are uh the Walltown small area plan paper street closings. That one I will tell you is pending funding which at this point I don't think is looking good but I've included it and should miraculously something change during the course of the year and we bring in more revenue or something else it gives us the you know we can we can tackle that. Uh we also are including a uh an item about natural resource protection overlays research. So basically to do a little research on this is 153 Chris um on uh how other jurisdictions potentially tackle uh national resource protection overlays, how they function, um what that might look like here if we were going to do something similar and we would bring to you all, you know, a kind of a report on that and have further conversations. So, it's not necessarily to adopt one or put one in place, but it's to do the leg work to see if that's something that we would want to do in Durham.

The third thing, 154, is a tree canopy assessment analysis and our recommendations. As you all know, uh we had an item on uh this year and maybe last year's work program that actually city general services, their urban forestry division took over to actually complete the tree canopy assessment. So they are I believe wrapping that up and we will have their data and so we will be looking at that and seeing how that uh may have implications for our land use regulations and our goals in terms of you know tree coverage etc. And we'll be bringing you all some recommendations from that. Uh 155 is a bofilic city's metrics essentially. So uh sometime this past year the city adopted a resolution I believe uh wanting to be designated as a biophilic city. So that program requires I think that we track a number of metrics and uh different kind of categories. Uh we have volunteered in the planning department to be the lead agency. We're not the only agency that will be participating in that, but we're going to try and pull all those metrics together. Um, work with partner departments and get that um get that started. So, and then um a couple of uh other things. 1.8 is urban design urban design studios. This is a program that we had um years ago that we are reviving. Um it's essentially a very uh smallcale kind of design cheret envisioning with community where uh you know if you think of a small area plan as covering you know a region right this is like a single site right that may need a little TLC it may need some uh reimagining what could happen with the site and so we do some community workshops or cherettes um and propose some recommendations so we will be revising that program and then the last

thing we added under 8.9 9 is clarity implementation. Clarity is the software platform that will replace our current land development officer LDO which is our permitting system from the 1800s I mean um 2007 and we are very excited about that. But I do want to recognize that implementing a brand new permitting software like this is a big lift for city staff and will involve a fairly large chunk of our time. It will have many many benefits including um efficiencies and uh robust reporting capabilities, the ability to create public dashboards for development data information that will really free up a lot of staff time. So, it's well worth the investment of staff time up front. I just want to recognize, you know, that it is going to be uh a pretty big time hog um on us. So, those are the six new things. I know I blew through that really quickly and I'm happy to elaborate on any of those. Um we will need a motion from you all on this particular item though to move it forward.

So it's to adding these six Yep. uh items into the plan. Yep. Work program. It's basically it's a it's to recommend that the work program as drafted move forward to the governing bodies. All right. Chair, before uh I think you're going to entertain a motion, but can I ask a question before you do that so we can just be expedient? Okay. So, on the Walltown small area plan, uh there's a funding issue like what what's the issue there?

Uh so, the Walltown small area plan is done. One of the recommendations was to close uh a number of paper streets that are in that neighborhood and uh we need a surveyor to do the surveys for those in order to do the street closings. We don't have, you know, surveyor on staff and so right, you know, it's tight budget year. So, I'm not sure that we're going to get the money to hire a surveyor to do that. Um, but if we are able to or can carve that money out of someplace else, then we will move forward with those. Okay. Okay. Well, not hearing any discussion. I'll accept a motion to is it approve the changes to the work program? Approval.

Recommend approval to the um and then move this to the governing bodies. Uh, chair. So, moved. Has been move. We have a motion on the floor that's been moved and properly seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. All oppose, please use the same sign. It is. Thank you.

It is approved. All right. You did catch us up. We're only three minutes behind now. 26 to three. Wow. All right. The uh fiscal year 26 work program community planning projects. Wait. Yeah. Yeah, that's a Yeah.

Odinski, Plan Development Department. Um, last few months, uh, Scott Whiteitman has presented to you. Uh, this Gant chart here showing that the progress u of our ongoing projects that are in our existing work program. So, I'm sorry to disappoint. I have my beard is not as good. Um so yeah the multimodal TIA um project you'll see here uh underground process development we've been meeting with uh 3X engineering our consultant obviously working internally um seeking adoption late summer um early fall for Lakewood small area plan um working on uh the plan development currently with a final draft to be completed by the end of June. I'll note that there are uh several engagement events upcoming uh associated with Lakewood uh April 16th and May 7th. April 16th will be focused on uh parks, open space, and connectivity while May 7th will be uh specific for looking at um the potential redevelopment of the shops at Lakewood. in regards to the greater Bragtown small area plan. Uh currently staff is working on um research and some deliberate outreach with with community members. Uh formal kickoff will be later in the summer. Uh you'll receive updates on both the small area plans in uh upcoming meetings u May actually. So um for for at least one of them maybe both um open space plan uh our consultant um agency land planning is currently uh conducting research and and working on those recommendations um for the Orange Factory Heritage Community Program. Um, our historic preservation staff is finishing up uh

their research on this and they've begun uh developing the story map. And then uh I'm very excited to say that we um are currently working on the uh our attorney's office on the staff for um a consultant to conduct our historic uh properties inventory update. So um again, this is just a high level uh overview of of where these projects are at. All right. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Out of curiosity, how often does a historic inventory update occur?

Yeah, it's every 10 years is what the the plan says we're aiming for. So, we're like right on the money with the 10 years right now. Yes, ma'am.

Yeah. What is there any What is the Orange Factory Heritage Community Program? Does that have to do with that the farm from the county or is it something different? No, the heritage community program um it's it's I mean I could just to summarize it's a way of um for city or county to sort of recognize the uh historic significance um of properties or communities or an area that's uh less burdensome than um our traditional local historic districts which you know have tax implications or development zoning regulations. And so this is more uh educational in nature, more commemorative. Um and so this is looking at the uh the historic orange factory development and an old mill site and surrounding communities from many years ago.

Okay. Thank you. There any other questions? This is for information, right? Okay. Thank you, Bo. All right. That brings us to the end of our agenda. Um, our next joint city county planning commission meeting is on May 6th, 2026. Um, are there any other discussion items or topics that we need to cover? All right, hearing none. Do I need a motion to adjurnn? All right, we are at 10:57, 3 minutes early. I give you guys that money back, that day back. We are journed.