Joint City County Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

All right. Good morning, everybody. Thank you all for for being here. Um I I think uh I don't know where Commissioner Lee is, but um he drives buses and there's a two-hour delay, so could be could be on the road. Okay. All right. Well, we'll go we'll go ahead and get started. I think the meet is is later on in the agenda, so can we go ahead and um get the roll call? Chair Baker here. Vice Chair Lee, Mayor Prom Cabiro, Planning Commissioner Shagares here, Commissioner Jacobs, Council Member Copac

here, Commissioner Valentine here. Commissioner uh Council Member Burris. Thank you. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? Any announcements? All right. Uh, approval of the minutes. Any comments on the minutes? Can I get a motion? Move for approval. Second. Move for approval in a second. Uh, roll call. All in favor, please say I. I. I.

All against. All right. Minutes are approved. Uh, city and county managers priority items. None from the county. Good morning, April with the Durham City Attorney's Office. No priority items for the city. All right. Thank you so much. Uh we are now like 15 minutes ahead. Um all right. Item five, 2025 board of adjustment annual report. Mr. Chair, committee members, I'm Chad Meadows. Thank you. You'd think I'd know how to use these things by now. Um, good morning.

Thank you so much for the chance to be before you. I'm going to very talk very briefly talk about the 2025 Thank you, sir. Uh, 2025 annual report of board adjustment. Um, maybe now. Yeah, there we go. Fantastic. All right. So, in 2025, we had 31 cases. Um, so we had about 19% more than we had in 2024. Uh, but we actually had about 56 agenda items. So we had 25 continuences. Um, which is quite a few. Uh, I we think that's a result of increased deliberation on the part of the board. Uh, we are spending more time talking about outcomes uh, and consistency with criteria. As a result of that, we are seeing many applicants uh request a continuance to revise their application uh and come back before us at a future date. Uh so we'll we'll count that as a good thing. Um so we had 18 variance requests. Uh 11 of those were approved, seven were denied. Um we had three reasonable accommodation requests. One was approved, a couple more denied. Um note for this body we are seeing uh in some cases it appears as though the reasonable accommodation avenue uh is being sought as a means to uh reaching what would normally be required as a variance. So that's sort of something to watch out for in the future. Um one one appeal of an administrative decision uh the city's decision was upheld uh in in that case. So, that's a quick overview of the 31 cases um that we reviewed in 2025. I'll take a second and talk about our if you have any questions about any cases, please feel free to to ask. Um I'll talk quickly about our attendance. I know that's something that is very important based on the interlocal agreement.

So, right now, um we are a 10 member board. Uh we have nine uh nine people on our current roster. There are six regular members and three alternates. Um applause to the three of the six who had perfect attendance in 2025. Fantastic. Um others including me um have missed one or two meetings, but most of those absences were excused. Um we did add a regular meeting in 2025. So now we are conducting 12 regular meetings and a training session each year. um more work for us and for staff, but we surely do appreciate it and we think it's more helpful to applicants. Um we are reviewing our rules of procedure for edits. Uh and I think that we're getting much much better at deliberation. Um we spend a lot more time discussing uh and going through individual criteria. Um which is definitely a positive. So in 2026, you know, we look forward to providing comments on the LDC, the ones that are related to the board of adjustment. Um, we've got some interest in exploring how many of our decisions are ultimately appealed to superior court. Um, and I just want to say thank you to the city staff and the attorney's office uh for all of their help and guidance in uh in the pursuit of our efforts. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much, Mr. Meadows. Any comments, questions? Commissioner Jacobs. Um, well, first of all, thank you to you and everyone for all of your work um on behalf of our community. Um just yeah I noticed all the continuances and obviously that's also a lot more work for you all too. Um and seeing there's been almost a 20% increase in cases. What is the 20% the actual number of cases or is it the due to the the continuous? No, it it it well it's the number of cases that we had 31 cases. Okay. In 2025 and that was the increase. Okay.

The the continuences were sort of additive to that. Okay. Okay. Um and do you with this process of you all providing being more iterative and providing feedback, do you see people actually responding and making changes? Yeah, indeed. Indeed we do. Uh and that's a positive. So, you know, I think cases are getting better and I think applicants are starting to become more prepared um as they kind of look at other previous cases that come before them. Um they have a tendency to do their homework. Uh which is fantastic. I think that's moving in the right direction. Yeah. Well, thank you. That's great. Thank you. Yes. Thank you for

Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. or maybe going in the opposite direction. Thank you.

Great great question. Um I I think that the LDC is structured to reduce potentially the range of cases that that come before the board of adjustment. Um, so that's we're hopeful to see that the likelihood is there'll probably be some sort of transition time, you know, whether that's in 26 or 27 based on when the document gets adopted that we have this sort of transition from the old days to the to the new regulations. And there's likely going to be a a similar case load, perhaps even a minor increase in cases. Uh but long term um we're hopeful and optimistic that the LDC changes will result in in a need for fewer people to come before the board of adjustment. Thank you and keep up the good work.

Thank you. Anybody else? That was my question. Good question. Um we're also lucky to have someone here who writes codes for communities across the state and across the country. So, um I think that's very helpful throughout this process, um to be able to provide that outlook and provide your your input on the the rewrite of the this code. So, um glad to glad to have you here and appreciate you coming before us. Thank you so much for all your work. Thank you very much.

All right. Item six is the 2025 planning commission annual report. Thank you, Chair Baker. Aaron Kaine with the Planning and Development Department. I'm here today with someone I think you all know, Chair Shagaras. Um, I don't have slides for you today. I can just go over some highlights uh for the report that you have in your Oh, I guess we do have some. I wasn't thinking about it, but how about we have it there in case somebody asks a question. Um, yeah. So, just some highlights. Uh the number of cases that came before the planning commission was essentially the same that we had in 2024. Uh there we had fewer zoning cases but because of the environmental and I'm sorry the evaluation and assessment report. Thank you. Um we had we had uh we had fewer zoning cases but we had more changes to the place type map um that came before the group the commission because of the evaluation and assessment report. Uh expect that to change in 2026. We're already seeing a slowdown with the anticipated consideration of the land development code uh that will be before you in the relatively near future. So we expect to see a decrease in 2026 and then we'll probably you know reset after the adoption and we'll see how things play out in 2027. Um attendance is was a big issue in 2024 that has improved dramatically in 2025. Uh we did not have any quorum issues. We've very rarely even came close to having quorum issues like we did in 2024. So, we're very glad to see that. We do still have two county vacancies, one for Lebanon Township and I believe the other one at large. And those have been vacant for a while. So,

I'll continue to work with the clerk's office to see if we uh how we can best get those filled. And please keep that in mind as you see those of you on the county commission as you see those applications come through. We would like to see those filled. But we are sitting at 12. And I want to give a shout out to Commissioner Macccyver who technically rolled off in June but when we have chances of not meeting quorum still comes because per the interlocal agreement he can still serve um until his seat is filled. So I appreciate him doing that. Um let's see. Uh we did have a successful retreat in October. Uh we focused more on technical issues. We learned a lot about sedimentation and erosion control, site plans, other things that are not necessarily directly viewed by commissioners as they make their considerations and the types of cases they see, but are important behind the scenes and other factors that they need to be aware of. Uh we have talked about doing a another retreat this spring focusing more on like administrative issues, understanding conflict of interest, understanding the ethics policy and things like that. So likely we'll hold some sometime in the spring we'll hold a smaller uh retreat and then go back to a bigger one in the uh in the fall. Uh the UDO committee um provided valuable feedback uh met a couple of times with staff regarding the uh new land development code that is being proposed. I just want to thank them for all their efforts and their input. Uh staff found it very valuable as we d uh put together the final draft. That's pretty much all I have and if you have any questions myself or chair Shagaras will be happy to answer them.

All right. Thank you so much uh for that presentation. Any comments or questions from colleagues? Thank you. I want to thank Chair Shagaras for your great work leading the planning commission. It was a great report. Um uh I just want I I want to follow up on the one few things. One, the county vacancies.

Um we will definitely follow up on that. I believe we are have an appointment. It was supposed to be um at a meeting that was cancelled, but it's still concerning that the position ended in June and now we're making the appointment in January. Um I think for one of the positions it is um specific to a certain it's one of them commissioner Macccyver is Lebanon Township which is the smallest township the least populated township I believe it can so they're it can be difficult to fill that position. That one I could see us having trouble with

um advertising getting someone who meets the requirements but the atlarge position I can't say that for. So we we'll we will definitely follow up and great

make sure that we are timely with our appointments because it's it's important. Um I was really a few things. One awesome that you guys did a retreat and to see um you know the the topics and so I commend um staff and the planning commissioners for that. Um was wondering about the UDO work working group. I know we've talked about trying to work closely with um the planning commission members and staff around you know getting in just addressing all the questions around the UDO revision process. Just wondering is has anything been planned yet or is anything scheduled about people setting up meetings and things like that like before

you know around the the public hearings and all that. So yeah, the committee itself met three times I believe in last fall, maybe another time in January and they presented a report uh the committee itself presented a report on their uh considerations of the UDO at the planning commission meeting in January. I don't know if both you want but we we talked about I think at our last meeting about really trying to be proactive right about

um Boinsky plan development good morning. Yeah at that meeting after after the report was provided from the uh subcommittee um I I let the commission know that we were available to to meet individually or in small groups and there was no um okay subsequent meetings scheduled. All right. But obviously we're still available and would love to sit down and pour through. Yeah, I would encourage like a followup just now that the draft is out and it's going to be on your agenda and what what is the date of your meeting? February 24th.

February 24th to just proactively again reach out and see if any planning commissioners want to meet or have any questions. Yes, we'll do that for that. Yeah. Okay. Um and lastly, I was really um looking at the number of reasonzonings and um it I think it is notable that there was a 20% decrease in cases. Um that was of interest to me and also that in most cases there was um agreement on most of the cases between what was recommended by the planning commission and the action that was followed up with by the city council. actually it was very few cases where there wasn't alignment. So just wanted to note that and and thank everyone for their great work. Thank you.

Yes.

Uh thank you for the presentation. Uh thank you for your work and chair shagaris to you and the planning uh commission. Uh glad to see the the the results and to have participated for most of 2025. the uh retreat I can say was personally very useful uh as well and so thank you for taking time um uh additional time to provide that that education about the the full scope of the development process to all members of the commission. Um I'm glad that we've had fewer issues with with quorum and so perhaps that makes the the the challenge filling the county seats kind of less acute. But I know other boards and commissions have over time adjusted the guidelines for membership and you know it's not necessarily a recommendation but just something to consider the you know I think that county representation is important uh and not to say that the Lebanon Township uh representation itself in specific isn't important but it's something worth considering if there's you know another atlarge um um um having another atlarge seat instead if that continues to to be a challenge. Um, so I'll just put it out there. We don't necessarily need to discuss, but I just seen other boards and commissions create that greater flexibility in part to ensure that we do have uh enough people who are are are willing and qualified to to be able to participate in in the um in the commissions. Um, one question I have is uh so per the interlocal, it's okay to have uh a commissioner stay in the seat until an appointment uh another appointment. We don't need to reappoint that person. Commissioner Macgyver uh in the interim.

Yes. In essentially the way the interlocal is written is Commissioner Macccyver can continue to to sit in his seat until the commissioners have made uh an a replacement appointment.

Okay. All righty. Thanks. I mean my my inclination is to check in and with staff and I think also it's also incumbent on us to make sure that we are how are we communicating with the community about these opportunities and to really look at how how do people know that we have vacancies and you know what kind of outreach are we doing? So I I would want to I want would like to know more and you know think about you know how can we do things differently to make sure that people know about these openings and things like that. So

thank you chair uh thank you for your uh report here today and Chair Shagaras thank you for your leadership on the planning commission. you've been serving uh for a number of years uh and uh your leadership does not go unnoticed and uh I don't have any questions but I would say to our residents this is an important board to serve and we're looking for more residents to step up in this capacity and join us in this important work. Thank you.

Thank you for those comments. uh colleagues. Yeah, the the planning commission, we we have a lot of folks sitting around the table here who have at at one point been on the planning commission. Um Durham Planning Commission is obviously very unique uh in North Carolina. Most most of the time you don't have a joint planning commission. It's a very large planning commission. It can make it a little bit unwieldy both for planning commissioners and for staff who um who are working with planning commission can be a challenge. Um but there, you know, I think there are advantages and disadvantages at the same time. Um and uh they their work is so important. Your work, Chair Shagaras, is is so so important and so so valuable. And I do uh occasionally reach out to planning commissioners and even the planning commission just to say thank you from time to time and I encourage others to do the same. It is a lot of work um to to be on planning commission. Um their comments are extremely helpful. I know that anytime that we are doing a a resoning case, uh, first thing I pull up is the planning commission comments to see what to see what they've been saying, to see what um what insight that they can provide to us. Um, so again, just incredibly important and valuable commission. It's a lot of work for staff and for commissioners and it's highly highly appreciated. So, thank you for the present. Yep. Go ahead.

Yeah, just to build on the chair's comments. Um and I I think it's important when we think about uh you know advertising for planning commission as well that you know that the the expectations are really clear as well because it it it does come with quite a lot of work right and anything we can do to mitigate and support um that that effort as well as offer gratitude I think is really valuable. Um, but yeah, just communicating the role and the expectations just so folks know when they're coming in, you know, kind of what what what the what the work is going to be. Uh, I also think, and this is something Cherish Garrison and I talked about, I think the comments are so valuable and I do look for those as well. And I I'd like to encourage, you know, all members of the commission uh to provide those comments so we know what folks are thinking uh when they do their their evaluation of the cases because that is so helpful for us when those cases then come to us on the council. So, thank you. Thank you chair. So I just wanted to uh point out I should have said this when I was had the opportunity to speak previously but the planning commission represents uh the last opportunity for our citizens to engage and I don't think that we have an appreciation for uh the level of engagement that goes on. So it's incumbent upon this board you know to support not only our residents but our planning commissioners in that effort. And so engagement is important.

Yeah, thank you for all those comments. Uh thank you for the presentation. Um let's move on to item seven, the 2025 Durham Open Space and Trails annual report.

Good morning. Good morning. My name is Jay Buts and I'm the staff liaison for the Durham Open Space and Trails Commission. And I'm here to turn it over to my chair.

Uh, hi, I'm Deborah Lukan. I'm the chair of the Durham Open Space and Trails Commission this year. And what I've noticed since I've been on DOST is that there's open space and trails everywhere you look in Durham. And different people value different types of open spaces. Um, for some people an urban playground might be really important. For others, an open farm field in Bahama is really special. So, I want you to know that your support for open space and trails really benefits or has the potential to benefit every single resident in Durham. Um, so in 2025, um, one of the most important things that DOSS does is address timely issues. So, the things that we need action on right now. Um, for example, one of the things we've been doing is reviewing the UDO and we've made some recommendations on how it can be strengthened to protect more open space and and encourage more trails. Um, another thing is the um advising support for the acquisition of the Norfolk Southern Rail Corridor. Um, that was a really big deal and thank you for thank you for supporting that. Um, we've also initiated a new development review committee for in 2025 that looks at proposed new developments and how they might impact significant um area parcels of open space. But I think it's also important that we do we be proactive and we've tried to do that in 2025 by initiating um public tours of selected open spaces just to make sure residents kind of are more aware of of some of the really beautiful open spaces we have. Sort of it's a sort of a complement to the trails tour that we do for elected officials. Um just and also we try to like let people know about the challenges we have with these open spaces. the maintenance, the development. Um, the matching grants review program that that we run um is

really important because it empowers local small nonprofits to imagine and develop projects that they see as important for their in their immediate area. So, please continue to support that. And if you can support an increase in that, that would be really valuable because we get more we get more um applications than we have money for. Um I I think our members also would like to be more publicly facing. So I think we'll do a little bit more of that in 2026. Um just be more visible advocates for open space in Durham. Um maybe attend more do more events, table at events. Um have more tours. I think that's really important. So, in 2026, some of the things that I see coming up are continuing to address timely issues. Um, we're going to monitor developments in the UDO. Um, we're going to work with Jay on kind of reviewing the open space plan as it becomes available. I think the farmland protection plan. We'll look at the where open how open space is treated in that. Um, that's important. But we're also going to continue to be proactive. There's um the 2027 International Trails Summit that I think will be a big deal for our trails committee. It's um it's a pretty high-profile event. I'm not sure exactly what our role will be that in that, but it's fantastic that they're holding it in Durham. Um so that's I think that's a really exciting thing coming up. Um I I guess lastly I would like to thank you for your support of DOSS and I would like to take this opportunity to um find out what you all think we should be doing. You know what are are there areas and issues that you see that we should be supporting or looking at? Are there areas you think we should be emphasizing more? I we have such a broad portfolio

that um we would really appreciate advice that you have on things you would like us to see or questions too. Yes, thank you so much. What I'm the liaison from the county to open space and trails I think for me is making sure I I know about the meetings. I don't have I don't know when the meetings are and then I find out late and then it's like okay I can't come. So yeah because I want to Yeah. Yes. That that would be number one for me because I do want to come to the meetings and listen whenever I can. Oh we would love that. That would be great.

Yes. And then also um just getting to um just know more about DAWs. I think this is good. I'm glad you're doing this report. Um, and know more about the International Trails event that's going to be here in Durham because I would like to attend if possible as the representative from the county. And the last time I was with you all, I really enjoyed um being with you all. So, thank you so much for doing this really important work and um yeah, it's really great.

We look forward to seeing you at more of our meetings. That'll be great. Thank you, Deborah, um, and for this great report that we you submitted. And I really appreciated, one of the things that did jump out at me was the way you started it with pictures of different types of open space and your comments about how open space means different people, different things to different residents. I think that is so important. Um really there's been a lot going on in the last year,

a lot and a lot of opportunities for Durham and I really appreciate um the engagement of DOSS um the tour that you all hosted. I hope that you'll keep do hosting an annual tour because it really there's nothing like getting out and actually seeing things around the community. So that that was a great tour um around the and also the the hosting of hikes at trails and open spaces. I think that's really important. Some people may, you know, some people need that encouragement. Um may be intimidated or not feel comfortable going to a new place in Durham that they haven't been. And so I think that's also a really um you know having a guided visit somewhere that's open and advertised to people can really help encourage people to get out and go to a place that they haven't gone before that they may not feel comfortable going themselves but being with a group it could they could feel comfortable. So I I really love that. Um, I mean that's one was one of the positive things about co I live right across from the pump station trail into the eno and because of co like the diversity of people now that use that trail it's just amazing because people discovered it and now feel safe and comfortable going there. um the um around the DOSS um grants that's actually was on our work session on Monday. Commissioner Valentine and I both asked her about kind of the same question around what you just touched on um is we're going to be approving the grants um at our next meeting, but um it would and I actually we both actually asked the staff about um getting some history of what the funding has been and

understanding you know what the gap is between the need versus what we're providing over time we have increased the funding. Um, since I've been on the board of county commissioners, I think we went from 75,000 to 100,000. But, you know, it is a very successful program. We have funded about $2 million worth of programs and gotten a value of about $6 million worth of projects. So it is a fantastic program, but it would really be great to hear from dos about what you recommend a recommendation on that funding level. And and also to let you know I think all of the um projects were funded except for one at some level except for one that did not provide public access and that is fundamental is all the projects have to provide public access. Um um I I really like the way you all are getting more involved in it seems like policy and and planning like the way you're forming a development review committee. That's something that BPAC does.

I think that's really helpful. Um and also the report cards. Um could you It sounded like you've been trying to work with staff. There have been some issues with Durham Parks and Wreck and staffing. Could you talk a little bit about that?

Well, so Durham Parks and Wreck has lost several people in the last couple years that we have worked directly with and it's been slow kind of hiring more people, but we're hopeful. I mean, so that's been a problem is that we don't really have a good liaison with Durham Parks and Wreck right now. I mean, other than our our rack, well, with DPR, so they're trying to hire someone new. Um, it feels like we're kind of starting up again with them. We're hopeful that 2026 that person will come in and we will have a a dedicated representative.

Okay. I'll just say for city council members if you can kind of stay stay on top of I mean it's important to be able to have that collaboration between the staff and the elect you know the the um boards and commissions like that. So yeah um we're working on it. Okay. Yeah. It's a challenge. Okay. Because hiring has been difficult. Okay. Austin, you may want to talk. Yeah. Can we have Austin come up? Yeah. Yeah. Thanks.

Yeah. Good morning everyone. Austin Bowman, senior planner with Durham Parks and Rec. Um the senior planner position that was in our department previously um was held by someone who was that dedicated support to DOSS. With the adoption of the comprehensive system plan, the senior planner role really transitioned to focus more on parks planning and long-range planning for the department. We are working with Jay as part of the open space plan that you're going to hear about to fully identify staffing needs and what a position that can fully support DOSS needs to look like. Okay. Thank you.

And then you asked what are things that you would like you from us I that would be great if you could work on. One of the comprehensive plan goals is that 30% of Durham County is open space. Uh, I think it would be great if you could take that on as one of your one of the things that you look at is how do we get to that? I'm sure that will be part of the what we're going to talk about later, the city county open space plan. But, um, yeah, I mean, I think that's like that's the big thing right there.

How do we achieve that? And um I know we'll we'll talk about this more when we talk about the plan, but having a having a sub a sufficient dedicated funding mechanism both in at the county and at the city level is really critical if we're going to achieve that goal of of 30% open space. And I we have a great model which is Durham County's program.

Um you know on on our agenda also on Monday was like three or four different items that were related to open space. We had a conservation easement from a from a farmer. We had money coming from from the federal government related to protecting land around Butner. We had a Triangle Land Conservancy uh donation adding to $3 million going towards South View uh city county nature preserve and park that's going to huge in East Durham. So these things are all made possible because we have dedicated staff. We have dedicated funding so we can be going after other funding and doing matches. And so we're leveraging that money all the time and and our staff is doing an amazing job. So we've got a good model for the city is what I'm trying to say.

Yeah. The county open space department has been doing amazing work up I I've seen it up in North Durham and they're just Celeste is preserving land right and left. It's really amazing. And we've been able to do the farm campus on Orange Factor Road 100 acres. So, um, and this is about not just protecting our food, sustainable local food and our farmers, but it's about environmental protection, water quality protection, recreational open space. It It's all of that for our residents. So, anyway, I'll stop. Yes.

Thank you. Those are great comments and and I agree with you. I think the farm campus will also have a trail system that will connect through the TLC land to um to the the park there by the school. Um Lucas I think Lucas Middle School the Yeah. Right. So I I think that will be a great in the future that will be a great system.

Colleagues, any other comments? So thank you chair. Uh thank you for your presentation here today. Uh I don't have much to add. My my colleague sort of summed it up. U but I'm happy to support DOS in in their efforts. In fact I consider our trails in particular to be the gems of our community uh as I go around and talk to people. um that's one of the main things that come up and that was one of the main uh things that actually attracted me to Dorm um nearly 20 years ago and so I encourage uh the work that you're enduring. Um I would like to get more involved

uh past the sort of sort of administrative level that I do. Maybe I'll join my my colleague who's a liazison and uh participate in more of your meetings. But uh thank you for the work that you're doing. We we'd love to have you come to our meetings and and and please anybody contact me, contact Jay if you have if you see any issues you you think we should be working on because we have such a broad portfolio. We would love to get your input.

And shares I'd also like to add that I think this uh particular commission is an example of the city and the county working collectively. And so um we should sort of model our work in the way that DOSS is doing it uh in the work that we do as partners. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh thank you, Commissioner Jacobs, for uh getting into some of the questions around staffing and making sure that we are prepared to be able to kind of operationalize the strategy that that you know we have in place, especially around this 30% uh protection. So, uh I'd love to have follow-up conversations with appropriate staff just to see how we are responding to to that request um and and that need. Um uh just also want to say uh thank you for your leadership of DOSS, Miss Lukan, and uh to all the members of of your committee. Appreciate the the organization, all the different ways you're involved, the uh the details in the report were super helpful to to be up to speed on on the work that you all have been doing. Um I have a couple uh questions and a couple thoughts. Um uh first I just was curious if if you have a perspective on the incorporation of the priorities of DOSS kind of into the new EDIO into the LDC uh and how you have seen that as going and if you feel like it's um been kind of incorporating the the priorities that that have been set forth and if those aren't details that you have today happy to follow up on that as well but just curious to to see with the release I see looking over here just how you feel like it's going. Um, so we've had some really good conversations with the planning department on that. Um, we've we developed we gave them a letter with our recommendations. So we'll we'll keep an eye on on what that conversation is ongoing. So we have presented our recommendations so far, but we will we will keep working with them closely to make sure that they're incorporated or they're addressed, you know, as

appropriate. Okay. Thanks. Do you want to provide a little commentary there? I think Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. We are really appreciative of the letter. We just got it I believe like last week and so we tried to incorporate what we could before the draft came out. Um and I have asked to set up a meeting with um I believe Lindsay um to go through some of that further um but we are greatly appreciative of that letter and it is in progress just to answer that question um from staffs. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I know not everything can, you know, it's our wish list. I know not everything is really can be incorporated, but yeah, I think we'll do what we can.

Well, I know it's something that staff has been paying close attention to. Uh, and so it's really helpful to have the the input from members of DOSS and other members of the community to help guide thinking and then the staff will do their best to kind of balance all the the interests we have, but having that that direct and specific input makes a big difference. Um, I was also really excited to see the new development review committee in 2020 2025 be formed and look forward to hearing the outputs of that. I know that, you know, Chair Baker and I have had great conversations with Director Walcott, Mr. Bowman about evaluation criteria that they've developed um around parks um and uh about kind of increasing expectations around parks and open space and new developments. Uh and so having that input from DOSS along the way will also be very helpful. Uh, I was glad to see the advocacy committee um being named as well and and I agree like you know the work of of Celeste Burns in open space and real estate division um has just been incredible over the years what the county has been able to accomplish and I just you you said what you know what can we ask of you? I would say the direct advocacy of the members of your committee and other folks that uh care about this in the community along with you. Um you know to to to make sure to to speak up to the commission, to the council uh and and let us know kind of what uh you would like to see um you know from policy, from budget, from from from other needs. Uh I think hearing that voice is is is really critical for for us. Um and uh I can close there and just reiterate my thanks for your work.

Well, thank you. That's encouraging. Yeah, we will we will continue to do that. Yes. Like everybody thanked the planning commission for our comments. I want to thank you for your comments and feedback before on on projects before we have to have our hearing because it helps us sort through some of the details. Um, I've been reading some things about a dinosaur trail that used to be in Durham, maybe associated with the Museum of Life and Sciences and how people remember going to that trail and the dinosaurs have fallen into disrepair, but there's like one left. Um,

is that on y'all's plate to fix the dinosaur trail? Cuz if it was, it'd be really cool and uniquely Durham. um it it has not been mentioned but it's something I can definitely look into or we could bring up but thank you.

Thank you colleagues for all your comments. Um as you can see DOSS is an is a highly prolific uh commission that does a whole lot of work. I'll associate myself with all of uh your your comments. A lot of exciting stuff happening. I mean, you all have taken on so much work. Um, I just say keep keep doing what you're doing and keep doing it well. The 30% open space goal is huge. The open space plan, um, and thank you, Jay, for for your work and and stepping up there. We did have some big losses at at parks and recreation that made this uh, you know, made this time period a little bit challenging. The the tours, I'd highly recommend colleagues going on on the tour, the annual tour. It's it's uh, really fantastic. Um the input on resonings has been invaluable. Just overall I think you all are doing a wonderful job and I want to thank you for your work and thank you for your presentation coming in. Thank you again Jay everything you've done. Thanks guys. So now we've got item 8 2025 historic preservation commission annual report.

Good morning. I'm Carla Rosenberg, the staff leazison for the Historic Preservation Commission. And I'd like to introduce Alva Horton, who um served as chair for the last two years. Um and she's going to um present to you the HPC's annual report.

Hi, I was worried Carla wasn't going to be here and I'm lost without her as is our commission. So um we are seven person commission and at the moment we we considered 28 major certificates of appropriateness during this past calendar year. Um with regards to the national register we also participated in the expansion of documentation for St. Joseph's AM church and the Harriet Tubman YMCA's addition to the registry. We also assisted in the process for the chicken hut receiving local landmark status. Um and uh we're working very closely again continuing close relationship with Preservation Durham and we sent out our annual newsletter this year uh trying to encourage residents in in historic districts to take a more active approach to the commission. Um and we're continuing to discuss other avenues of disseminating information about our local historic districts. that continues to be an issue where we have applications from folks that didn't know or say they didn't know that they were living in a historic district. Um that's it. Open to questions.

Thank you so much colleagues. Questions? Yes. Um thank you so much for your report. I was wondering how how do projects come before the historic planning commission?

Sure. Um so there are two categories of certificate of appropriateness. There's the major COA and those are the um that's the classification that goes before the commission and then there's the minor COA which is reviewed by staff. So we have um two employees, one part-time, one full-time. I'm the full-time um working with these certificates appropriateness. Um so Tessa Maguire handles all the minor COAs and I write the reports for the major COAs and we bring them before the commission on a monthly basis. Did that

I have more questions like okay so they come before the commission and you designate them as a historic property or like

so any any property that is located within a local historic district and any um property that has been designated a local landmark is subject to the certificate of appropriateness process and therefore or any change to the exterior of the structure or to the site then requires a certificate of appropriateness. there is a um you know there's a layer of um like maintenance and repair that doesn't require COA um like changing your asphalt shingle roof for instance things like that they don't require um a COA um but when it does require COA then it's um the minors are submitted on an ongoing basis and then the majors are submitted on a monthly basis.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And the reason I'm asking that those questions because the historic preservation is something that I'm very interested in. And so I'm just really um I would like to meet with you more just to learn more about the process because when I drive around Durham and I'm looking at properties, historic architecture about how do we um preserve the properties, things like that to make sure um the history of Durham stays intact. So that's why I was asking those questions. Sure. I'd be happy to meet with you. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you so much. We also uh we have our meetings on the first Tuesday of every month. Um more than welcome. We would uh Matt was at the last meeting. Um more than welcome to have you anytime. We'd be delighted. We'd also be delighted to just have more um members of the community at our meetings. We don't tend to unless it's a contentious case before us um which is unfortunate. We'd like to have more involvement in the process.

Great. I'll take you up on that offer. So, thank you so much. Uh in that vein, I just want to say that if anyone would like a tutorial uh on uh running a meeting and the process for running a meeting, you should attend the historic preservation uh commission meetings. Um very well structured, run a tight ship, you know, work through some really uh sort of dense, you know, technical topics, you know, get the input of everyone on the commission and and folks who do choose to show up to participate. and it's just like a really welloiled machine. Uh, and so I appreciated that about it. Um, also just appreciate you highlighting the documentation around St. Joseph's AM Chicken Hut and other projects. Uh, and and thank you for your work. And I did note that no member of your commission had an unexcused absence in the entire year.

Is that true? Really? Yeah. Appreciate the dedication. One open. Yeah. vacancies but in terms of active members you know folks show up and I appreciate that. We do we don't we very rarely have an issue with meeting quorum but we are small group so everyone shows any other comments questions colleagues chair thank you thank you for your report and I think you would have been just fine had she not been here I don't know can't exist without her thank you

um so I would just like to highlight probably for selfish reasons your work around St. Joseph African Methodist Episcopal Church many people don't know but 1869 founding of the city founding of St. Joseph they go together hand and glove so to the extent that we can document that history preserve that history I'm 100% in favor of that so continue the hard work not only in that area but in uh the other areas of the historic preservation commission. Thank you. that was a um it was ongoing documentation that we added to the register and I think that's that's one for me one of the most fascinating parts of this process is that this is you know just buildings are living breathing organisms and um they change and they have to change and they have to adapt as our city grows and as our um you know community changes and continuing to document that is really important for all of us. I think all of us that are engaged on the commissioner really this is um part of our life's work I feel.

Anything else colleagues? Yeah. Uh successful notification of the chicken hut was a big a big deal. Thank you. And we couldn't do anything that we do without preservation durm with regards to those large applications. Um most it's it's a very small percentage of what we do every year. Um most of our applications are houses or you know downtown businesses etc. Um but yeah those are are super interesting and we really appreciate preservation durm helping on those things. I've got one question. Has there been any discussion around the Durham School of the Arts building? It's not part of our purview.

Okay. Um, are there any kind of uh things that you wish you were doing or wish list items for the coming year, coming years? Do you want to take that or do you want me to?

We're we're we're very restricted by the state. The biggest thing that I think um I think all of our I can't speak for them because of course they're not here, but I think all of us have a real concern around demolition. Um but the most that we can do because of state restrictions is um authorize a 365day delay. In certain communities that concerns me a lot, specifically Fville Street corridor um and our hands are kind of tied and that's not that's not anything that can be done here unfortunately. I was just going to answer um your question about DSA. I was on the DPS task force and we talked about DSA, the O DSA, and we have to make a plan for it. Um so I just wanted to put that out there.

Well, uh thank you so much for your work. Thanks for everything you're doing. Thanks, guys.

Uh next item is item nine, the open space plan introduction. Sorry. Good morning everybody. Um, glad to be up here again. I'm here to give an introduction on the Durham City City County Open Space Plan. So, the purpose of the plan is to develop an open space plan that provides a road map for open space protection, preservation, and land acquisition priorities. So the aspect of using the word road map is just to kind of paint a picture of how we're looking at all the former open space plans and looking at what this new open space plan is going to do. A lot of the existing and former open space plans will be folded under this new plan. So we'll look at the priorities of the former plans and ask the questions of what has been uh achieved in those plans, what goals and priorities in those plans are still feasible today because we have plans that date back all the way to the 90s. So, some of those plans, a lot of the areas in those plans have been have changed, have been developed. So, we want to look at what the open space looks like in that area and see what's still feasible today. Um, this is our pre-planning schedule. We are currently um in kickoff. We just had our kickoff last Wednesday. The contract is currently in workflow, so hopefully that gets approved within like the next one or two weeks. Um, just want to give you an outline of what the RFP schedule look like. And we're and currently after the the schedule after the contract gets approved, we will work we will begin working with the consultant to provide a timeline and to just get everything up to speed. Um so the selected consultant was agency landscape and planning.

The idea of getting a consultant that was not based in North Carolina was we just wanted to get a different perspective of our current existing conditions um and just get a different outlook on them. Um and uh they've worked on an open space plan or they're currently working on an open space plan in Kerry, North Carolina and they haven't adopted open space plan in Burlington, Vermont. So they have recent experience in um creating and having adopted open space plan. So that was one of the main reasons why we went with that consultant. So what are the main priorities of the plan? Um the main priority of the plan is we want to identify parcels to acquire to place under conservation. So if we were talking just to a citizen on the street who had no understanding of open space, no understanding of the work that we do, we want to outline it in two ways. We want to find land to protect and to purchase and protect and we want to look at land that we already have and place it under protection. So with the um adoption of the new UDO, there will be a zoning district, a conservation zoning district. So, we want to look through look at parcels that we can put through the resoning process um and just look at those parcels and also with those parcels try to achieve that 30% protection land protection goal for the city and the county. Um as I said before, we want to fold all the former open space plan under this new plan. So, once this new plan is adopted, all the former open space plans will become obsolete. So, just want to look at those former plans and just see what's feasible in those plans, see what's not feasible in those plans. Um, and also another aspect is having a fiscal component of the plan. Um, identifying parcels that we can purchase market value and kind of looking at what's affordable, um, what we have in our inventory. And the Durham County Openspace and Real Estate Division with Celeste Burns and David Bradley, they're a part of this work also. So, anything in the city and the county um will be mainly managed and dealt with from DPR and the planning department and anything in the county will be dealt with with Durham County Open Space and Real Estate. So, kind of have a two-pronged

approach so that way we can tackle everything in the city and the county and we're not leaving anything out. Another aspect is creating a blueprint for land acquisition, land protection, and land management of open spaces. So, we want to look at the land that we already have. um do that analysis but then look at land that we want to pursue to acquire in the future. These are the project phases. Um we're currently in phase one. As I said, we had our kickoff last Wednesday. It was a great kickoff. Um we did an activity called a heart and heartburn. So, we pulled up the map um the Durham the city of Durham map and we placed hearts on areas that we felt open space was very um impactful areas that people had a lot of access to and then the heartburns were areas were gaps. We don't we want to be realistic in identifying those gaps and not running away from the fact that there are gaps in Durham County and the city of Durham for open space. Um and phase two is envision the future. So that's where we will work with DPR, work with Durham County to and work with our state, work with um the Durham Open Space and Trails Commission to identify a vision goals and just kind of have a framework of what this plan will look like and how it will benefit people in the future. Another aspect of phase two is identifying land that has high conservation value. So land that we already have in our inventory that h has high conservation value, that's the kind of land and the kind of parcels we will look at to reszone and under the conservation um zoning designation through the adoption of the new UDO. Um phase three is community engagement and of course the document creation. So we wanted to put community engagement a little bit further late in the process because we want to have something to take to the community since this is such a focused plan. It's not a general plan. that's more focused on open space, focused on trails. So, we want to have um existing conditions, GIS files, just things that people can see. We want to have maps. We want to be able to take things to the community that they can look at and bring questions back to us that we can now implement in the plan. And of course, last is plan adoption and

ongoing support. This will probably be our longest phase just for the simple fact of during this phase when we have our during phase three when we have our initial draft. um the draft will be reviewed by staff, the draft will be reviewed by boards and commissions and the draft be by the community. So you want to give that three-prong approach of getting input from everybody that we can then implement into the final draft of the plan and then as the plan goes through the implementation process through the different boards and commissions. It'll come back to us. It'll go back to the boards and it'll just go through that process and just ensuring that we get the proper feedback and we put that feedback in the plan. And does anybody have any questions for me? What's the definition of a high conservation value? How do you determine that?

So, through the analysis that we're we will do in phase one/phase 2, um we will look at areas that are in flood planes. Um we will look at areas that essentially have um what's the word that we use? We look at areas that could possibly have conservation value that are near bodies of water. And then just through all that analysis, we'll take that back to the community. And I also will seek input from the community. Um because then prior to phase one, I put out a survey just ask community what their definition of open space and what their definition of conservation is because we want to get an idea from the community, do you see areas that are do you see areas that have high conservation value that we might not see? And also just having the consultant come in and take a look at areas because we have our areas that are in flood planes that we can see on our map. But having someone that can come in and take a perspective from the outside might be able to identify areas and gaps that have high conservation value that we don't see.

So I heard flood planes and watersheds. Um when you're determining this high conservation value, do you look at the wildlife or any kind of you know unique and endangered plant or animal species? And if so, where do you get that information? So through the Durham County and open space and real estate, they have a wildlife connectivity plan. So with them being involved in this work um during the first phase the consultant will review all of our plans and that plan will be reviewed specifically just to identify there any wildlife corridors and then our sub consultant um Revington and Reeves they focus a lot on wildlife ecology also. So they'll be looking at areas that could add to that high conservation value.

Yeah. I'm just curious how much of Durham County now is open space with the you got that number. Okay. So, Commissioner Burton, I'm so glad you asked that. Um, I we I'm glad you're answering that.

Scott's like, I've never seen her this excited. Um, back in April of 2024, there was uh a presentation made to this group that talked about kind of where we were, you know, to towards meeting that 30% and we're at 25.8% of land in Durham County is in some type of conservation. And that agenda item, we can send that back out to y'all if it's helpful. um it talked about kind of three levels of conservation, high, medium, and low, and what percentages were kind of in each. And I think also part of this plan, we'll be looking at are there some areas this this first kind of assignment was, hey, let's just set a baseline like where are we? We need to know where we are. Um but one of the things this plan will also look at is do we want to move some of these areas from low to a higher level of protection and how do we do that? What does that entail? So, um yeah. Okay. happy to participate.

No, I I was just curious, you know, I drive up to northern Durham County a lot, so I know a lot of that part of the county is open, so it was just And then I know when you go to southern southern part of Durham County, there's very few open spaces. So that's why I wanted to know exactly how much we had. So, thank you so much. And to add on to what Sarah said about moving it from low, medium or high that the main part of that is the new conservation zoning district because the I think it's 30% of is minimum require open space in that zoning district, right? So having those areas zones conservation will eliminate any type of development or anything majorly from occurring on those type of districts. I mean on those type of parcels.

Yeah. Just to speak a little bit on the conservation zoning district, it does allow some building coverage. Um I think it's 10%. It actually doesn't have an open space requirement, but it does have a tree coverage requirement of 50%. However, if there's a conservation easement or a management plan, right, because there are certain properties that are in the county that are being farmed or some other uh mechanism, um we still have that under conservation um in the zoning district, but we do recognize that there are certain uses that you can do uh which exceed um which may um make your tree coverage less than 50%, but it's still valuable conservation land. Um and in terms of incorporating new properties into the conservation zoning district, we do have to be careful um with uh regulatory takings. So that's something that we'll have to figure out through this process as well. Thank you.

Um thank you so much for the presentation and for this this work. Um, and I wanted to build on the discussion around uh incorporation of like wildlife connectivity plans, you know, biodiversity, things like that. Um, I think in cases that we've seen before planning commission over time, we often hear about the New Hope uh, you know, conservation plan uh, being adopted by the county, not by the city. um is that one of the um previous plans that will get kind of folded into this new plan and therefore will be kind of taken into consideration with kind of future decision-m

certainly to the extent that we can that that'll be some of the information that can be incorporated into this plan and a lot of it involves Orange County and um other jurisdictions but yeah we'll we'll definitely use that as a source of information. Okay, thank you.

Uh, yeah, this is very exciting. Um, long overdue, I think. And, um, but I'm I'm just in general really excited about the kind of collaboration that is happening between the city and the county. we see the bike pedestrian first ever city county plan and now you know this joint plan and it's just great because this is what's really going to benefit people in our community. So and the collaboration between again the city and the county. Um related to the question that Commissioner Burton asked, it was my understanding though that some of that 25.8% 8% is not land that is actually um 100% protected. Like some of it wasn't some of that like Duke Forest property and things like that. Okay.

Yeah. And that that's why we were talking about potentially moving some of these lands to different levels of protection.

Right. Well, I don't I don't think it's even a matter of saying different levels of protection. I think it's actually being honest with people that it's not protected. It it's it you know 7,000 acres of Duke forest. It is up to Duke University to decide what they want to do with that land. And I mean I know that personally because I led the effort to create Hol Rock Park when Duke decided they were going to develop part of Duke Forest. And that's how that park got formed because, you know, Duke said to the community, well, it's our property. You know, Duke is not in the park business is what I was told directly at that time. So, I think there there I think we have to be really also help educate. We have to be very clear about what land is actually permanently protected under a conservation easement and what isn't because if it is not under a conservation easement then it is not protected open space. It's not

um and you know federal property also we've got a lot of federal land that would be part of that um 25.8%. Now we would hope that that would be but if you have a administration like we have now good bless you then we don't you know who knows so I I think I think that's needs to be a really important part of this plan is being very clear about what really if it needs to be under a conservation easement to really be protected. So, um, I just want to say that and I I guess I was also wondering how broad we're going to be in terms of what we're going to consider open space and possible uses. I think that should be a big discussion because like for us, you know, farmland, um somebody mentioned wildlife, passive recreation, research, um green burial sites, um we have um blue stem natural burial um in Orange County, which is one of their primary goals is land conservation through green burial sites. So, um I think we're going to have to be realistic and creative also thinking about what what are also uses that we could still have that can coexist with open space and we may be more successful um if in achieving the goal if we think about that. But um and then I was wondering and then even thinking about our like each the city and the county sustainability plans because you mentioned about flood plane. Should we be looking at, you know, look what happened at Old Farm. like are there neighborhoods in Durham where some of those areas that are going to keep

flooding, maybe those need to be open space and we have a mechanism for helping families who are just going to as we have more and more flooding and and climate change. like how do we how could we be really creative in thinking about a lot of needs that we have and the the the different purposes that open space can serve um in in our community to solve a lot of the challenges that we have. So um and then I think you mentioned the financial aspect. I think that's going to be really critical. You coming up with a financial some best practices or models that we can implement to achieve our goals.

Definitely. Yeah. And then as a part of the plan, there will be um just again building upon the former open space plans, there will be definitions of different types of open space, but and included in that in the first survey, I asked people, how do you define open space? So, I want to include that survey in the plan just so we can have that clear distinction of everybody views it differently. Just same as Deborah said, you might view it as a ballpark. I might view it as open field. We want to make sure that even though there are different distinctions, there have to be specific uses for different types of open space. And then

with working with DPR, we've had a conversation of how we identify open space is passive versus um active. So having open space that's completely off limits that people, you know, people shouldn't be on, but also having space that it maybe 10% of it is active and you can use it for nature or bird watching or something along those lines. But just having that clear distinction and that'll be a ongoing conversation with the community to get their feedback of do you think this parcel should be passive or active or how do you view this or what are the and then looking at of course our own UDO and just looking at all the different documents to see what specific uses can be on different types of parcels.

Great. And I know we're going to this came up in the next item I think around people wanting us to look at like a a natural resource um overlay or some right okay but even with the open space like what role will protecting the natural you know we've we I don't think we've updated our natural resource inventory in Durham in a really long time but you know looking at natural resources that could be protected or have what role that will play in the open space evaluation.

Certainly we will use the you're right it's a fairly outdated local natural heritage inventory. Uh the state we kind of the state has does a pretty good job of updating that. So that's the the information we use now. We'll definitely use that to inform um just kind of to chair Shagaras's point like where are the um lands with high conservation value the the natural heritage information from the state is a really good resource for that and so we'll have to look at what we can realistically acquire what we already own. But then the natural resource overlay and other zoning um options we may need for areas that are not feasible for the government to acquire. And what what role will you will gaps play like connectivity and gaps like kind of we saw that with the bike pedestrian plan there one of the priority priorities are micro gaps you know looking at where are there gaps and sidewalks and things like that are you all going to look at like gaps you know where there is open space but that could be connected

yeah we'll definitely look at that yeah I think that was one of the main purposes of the you New Hope Conservation, I can't remember the name, sorry. Um, was to find ways to connect the gaps between our kind of two major wildlife corridor areas in the county. Um, so we'll continue to we will do that as part of this plan. Thank you. Director Young, do you want to add some stuff?

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. I went back uh Commissioner Jacobs and I looked through the previous report Duke Forest um which uh the only there's only out of the 7,000 acres looks like only 1200 or so are in some sort of protection. So the rest of that number is not being used. If we did count all of Duke Forest, we'd be closer to 28 29%. But that so I just want to let you know that that was act accurately captured in the original report and we'll make sure to um you know that will be I think one of the things that we can also potentially look at is whether a further partnership with Duke and getting them to um commit to conserving more of Duke forest is a possibility.

And then we've got NC State too up in the northern part of the the Hill Forest. Any other comments, colleagues? Um, thank you, Jay. This is, um, really, really important. Um, we have numerous open space plans that are on the the website if folks are interested from over the years and even decades. And, uh, this is going to be a great opportunity to to bring it all under one umbrella um, so that we have a a cohesive uh, vision and strategy. I'm very excited um for what this uh consultant team can can bring um to the table and um you know I think we we need all the tools in the tool box um obviously we we need to uh think about uh takings um but how can we take you know acquisition and zoning and um purchase of development rights and uh easements and all all these different uh tools in the toolbox and put them together to try and develop a cohesive framework for protecting uh open space and making sure that it's connected um and protecting uh wildlife and farmland and all the different elements of and and ways that we define and and folks in our community define open space. Um and then also being aspirational, you know, where are we saying we'd love this to be open space? That's what we aspire to have in this area. knowing that, you know, we're going to have to put some work into into doing that. Um, I talk about a lot about the Davidson rural area plan. Um, when I was working in Davidson, some of the commissioners there would uh complain that it would seemed more like a development plan because development was part of the vision for open space. Um, and so, you know, I think that's that's an interesting plan to look at and

something that we need to to think about is, you know, parcels are irregular and people own people in companies own these irregularly shaped parcels and they don't perfectly align with what we want to protect or don't want to protect. So, we've got to be creative about how we look at those parcel lines, think about development rights, and prioritize the land that we want um to to protect. And so, um yeah, using all these tools, putting them together and making sense out of them is is a it's going to be a lot of work, Jay. Definitely.

So, um thank you for for this. Very, very excited. One question I have, are you all going to be do you see yourselves working mostly with the DOSS um in terms of like a de facto steering committee? Yeah, pretty much uh DOSS will be pretty much the first ones to see all the first drafts, give their comments, kind of try to do it in an order so they get they provide their comments and staff and then community so I can all wrap them up in one and then address the comments appropriately. Great. That's that's fantastic. All right. Um, thank you. That's it. Yeah. Thank you so much.

Item 10 is the new UDO update. Uh, good morning y'all. Uh, Robin Schultz, planning and development. um already talked to you all a couple of times just because the the new LDC is a hot topic and it touches a lot of different stuff apparently. Um but this morning I'm going to give you uh an update on the UDO as it stands. Um as a few of you have already mentioned the full draft is available online. Uh we posted it last week uh January 29th. Pretty exciting. Um all 630 pages. I know that you all have already fully read it. Um, but that's just for everyone else who's listening. Um, we've put a lot of work into this and I did just want to say, you know, there you go. Hey, I love to see it. Um, thank you all for all of the direction that you all have provided so far. Y

um, but yeah, thank you uh for all the direction that you all have provided through this process. We've been meeting with you every month for what seems like years. Um, and we've gotten some really valuable feedback. Um, so in this presentation, I'm going to give you some uh uh first uh present some edits that we've made since we've presented that content to you the first time. Um, next month, we will bring to you more edits that we uh made sort of specifically around uh engagement from boards and commissions. Um, and then sort of lastly, we're going to talk a little bit about planned districts uh and the transfer of development plans. Um so some of the edits that we've made to the draft. I do want to just note that this is not an exhaustive list. U we just wanted to highlight some of the bigger changes. Um we did coordinate with both the city and county attorney's office uh to make sure that the language on down zoning um functions with the Senate Bill 382. Uh it follows the same strategy that we proposed you all last year. um essentially saying that uh if the application of the ordinance constitutes a downzoning by that definition uh within uh 160D 601D um then they can actually still develop under the preceding UDO. Um so we essentially have the old UDO frozen in time at which point um that the LDC is adopted. Um so however once a property establishes a new use um they will be subject to the standards of the LDC.

C can I just um that's very you know broad the way it's defined in 160D now is very broad. Um, is there is this the provision that we are going to be including in the draft LDC? Mhm. And Yes. So, if some if a if a developer comes in and says, "You've downzone my property, how do we determine that that is the case or not?"

Yeah. So, we would have to evaluate it and make sure that it doesn't meet that definition um within 601D. We wouldn't just, you know, take it as fact. we would have to make sure and we would have to look at the old um ordinance. So I do think it's going to be a lot of work from staff. Um so that is unfortunate

and I'm assuming there's not going to be hordes of developers that come in and say you've done so my pro I'm just assuming that I don't know. Um, but I I also wonder if there is um I don't know some other method that would take some of the determination off your plate. Like I don't know if it and I don't know if it'd be less work to for this to go before um board of adjustment or something like that. Yeah, I'm I'm not sure. This is something that we were working with the attorney's office a lot on because it's sort of sticky just because that change in SB 382 was not incredibly clear on the definition of down zoning right um because it you know talks about residential districts but what about residential mixeduse like how are those things defined what is you know it it is hard for us to sort of navigate um so we're sort of having a blanket statement here to try and make sure that we're covered when it's adopted um but definitely understand that there are Um, uh, we're definitely watching this, you know, to try and determine the best route.

Let me chime in and say that, you know, and I've got I've got it pulled up. It's basically downzoning in the statute is defined by meeting one of one of three things. Decreasing the development intensity. So, that's very simple for staff to look at and compare, you know, uh, what the density that was allowed previously versus what's allowed under the new. The second thing is reducing the permitted uses of the land. That's another really easy thing. Are you allowed to do, you know, were you allowed to do something previously that now is no longer in your list of permitted uses? That's pretty easy. And then the thing that's a little trickier um is uh by creating any type of nonconformity um on non-residential property, right? That could be dicey, but I will say that, you know, nonconformity is kind of a known thing. Usually, it's a dimensional thing. Is your setback, you know, uh less than it was before? So, I don't I don't think this will be super ownorous. I think that I'm not expecting a huge amount of people wanting to go under the old code because I think the new code is going to offer a lot more flexibility in more desirable ways. Uh, but I do think that these are relatively concrete. Like, I don't think there's a lot of discretion there. I think it's stuff that staff can check.

All right. Thank you. Mhm. Um some other edits. Um in the original draft there was both an innovation urban and in an innovation campus. Uh so the RTP was recently reszoned uh to the UC district um which made up a large portion of um the IC district. Um and so instead of keeping two districts, we sort of consolidated those into a singular IC district. um trying to avoid the underutilization of districts. So um given that decision by the board of county commissioners, we wanted to reflect that in the draft. Um additionally uh we carried over an existing ordinance provision um so that applicants can still use the compact option. This is similar to uh an option that we have right now which says that you can still use the small lot option even if the uh the primary structure does not meet those those limitations. Essentially, what we're trying to get at is that you, even if your primary structure is larger than the 1,200 square feet, that you do not need to tear down your primary structure uh in order to utilize the compact option. Um, as long as the structure was constructed prior to 1975 and the current ordinance, it's 1950. Um, we moved it um a little bit more recently to try and u reduce that incentive more. Um and additionally after hearing from you all uh in terms of providing some extra flexibility for affordable units um providing uh you know for excuse me for projects which provide uh further affordability um so projects which have at least 50% of their units as income restricted at 60% um or at 30% of their units at 30% uh can go up to an additional two stories of height um not to exceed 70 ft. in the RD district. Um some additional uh we have taken some requirements for the additional

protection of adjacent properties and the public rideway during grading process. You know this is something that's a hot topic. Um definitely trying to think about this a little bit more as well. Um additionally outed a ground floor non-residential requirement in the higher intensity mixeduse district. So in CX8 and CX20 um that's going to be non-residential on the ground floor. uh and for CX5 for the larger structure. So if they exceed 200,000 square feet um of floor area, then they will also have to provide uh ground flooror non-residential. Additionally, um any zoning map change for a project that is 15 50 acres or greater has to have a development plan. If you are 100 acres or greater, you have to have a graphic development plan. So you cannot do a textonly development plan uh for any project that is 100 acres or more. Um, additionally, uh, created a new subcategory within the sustainable development matrix that we presented to you all previously, um, to capture some best management practices, um, for sediment and erosion control. Um, instituted more stringent species diversity requirements for tree plantings. Um, this was after working with the New Hope Bird Alliance. Um, and we presented to you all last year. Um, so getting in some of their topics that we incorporated into the draft. um allowing for native grasses to be substituted for shrubs um when those species meet the screening objectives in the ordinance. Um if we're really trying to incorporate native species, um shrubs are more of a horicultural uh term and less of a botanical term. There are not a ton of native shrubs, right? There are a lot of understory trees. Um so trying to make sure that we can have native species throughout um and making sure that those are are still trying to get at those biodiversity goals within the comprehensive plan. Um additionally right now the definition of a major specimen tree uh is focused on the size um and then provides that additional protection. Um we have changed the

definition so that if it's rare, threatened or endangered state listed essentially that regardless of size that it receives those additional protections. um so long leaf etc. Um and additionally uh incorporated lake creek into the high quality waters designation which already exists within the ordinance in the sedimentation erosion control section. Um right now it's just lands that are I think within the wershed protection overlays and third fork creek. Um so we've added lick creek and this addition adds a 20 uh acre grading limit. So, getting a little bit into plan districts and development plans. Um, this is where it gets a little sticky. Uh, so in November of last year, we came to you all about carrying forward development plans. Um, and you all gave us the direction to just keep approved development plans submitted on or after January 1st, 2015. So, essentially for the last 10 years, right? Uh, we've had the ability to have development plans for four decades. um thereabouts, different dates for both the city and county. Um a lot of those older development plans are uh have restrictions that maybe don't align with the comprehensive plan. You know, auto centered development, um requiring that private be planted, things of that nature. Um so we took that direction and started looking at all the development plans from 2015 on. um ran into a general statute which essentially says that we cannot place property into conditional districts without um essentially the property owner's permission, right? And so our initial thought of saying that if there was a um let's say RSM with a development plan uh that was adopted after 2015 that we

would sort of translate it into RX3D or something along those lines. Um that that is a bit legally fraught um given that the spec those specific conditions were not uh approved by the property owner. Right. So they they essentially consented to those conditions under the RSM zoning district standards. They did not consent to the build 2 requirement and all the other sort of standards that are within RX3. So I see these as two different things. Like I see 160D73 applying to conditions that are applied on a on a case-byase basis in that specific on that specific site in that specific conditional district. And it sounds like that is being expanded to to be interpreted as standards that are within the base zoning district. just the the general standards. So, am I understanding that right? Is that how we're interpreting it? Because again, like this seems very clear. It's saying property may be placed in a conditional district

only in response to a petition. Specific conditions may be proposed by specific conditions may be proposed. And these are not specific conditions. They are conditions that are that apply to they're standards that apply to all properties in that zoning district. So just help me with that.

Yeah. So essentially it's that first sentence that's a little bit trickier, right? Is that it's it's being placed into a conditional district. So that the RSMD is the conditional district and it has those additional standards, right? But it also has standards that are associated with it at the base that they've they've consented to. when we if we translate it into like an RX3D, the conditional district is an RX3D and it's those conditional standards, but it is also all of the standards that are from um the RX3 district, right? So, the district standards includes both because it's a conditional district of your base and your conditions. Um, so maybe I'm not understanding that right. So, but but we're going to translate things that are not in conditional districts today. They're in base districts to another base district and the standard the the conditions that apply will be different. But we're not that doesn't fall into this concern,

right? Because those are not conditional districts. Those are base districts. Yeah. Okay. Got it. Yep. Yep. Yep. It's definitely it's definitely sticky. Just to follow up because I was thinking the same thing as you. So this is just basically around RD. So this is actually just around any reasonzoning with a development plan that did not reszone to something that we can translate.

So I think maybe let me go through the next slide and then we'll keep going. Um it might I think it might make it a little bit clearer. So essentially what we did, well we came to you last time, we talked a little bit about a plan development district um and have essentially swapped that for the plan development residential district which uh essentially allows us to carry forward all of the PDRs um from the old zoning map from that time period that you all approved from January 1, 2015 onward, right? Because what we can do is the existing PDR has really flexible development standards. they set their density, they set their setbacks, etc. If we provide that same flexibility, it allows us to do a translation very easily. Um, and we can keep all of those profit commitments for nonPDR cases, right? So, the RSM, RUMD, etc. Those have existing development standards um for each district, right? But they also have them for each development tier. So for instance, your tree coverage changes by your development tier, your height, your setback, etc. Um, so we would have to keep essentially for all of those districts, we would have to incorporate them into the new LDC and then also all of those new standards, which would require a pretty substantial reorganization of the LDC to capture all of them, right? So making sure that the setbacks for CG, etc. are in every single um every single possibility for these old plans, right? is carried forward which is it's it's a massive undertaking right and so additionally some of those development standards align less with the comp plan goals than the development standards from those new districts right so you know having uh buildings closer to the street having pedestrian access standards right things that we actually want um so there is like a there's a bit of a conflict here right um we did an analysis uh and so

essentially that top blue bar is going to be essentially representing all approved development plans submitted on or after that date of January 1st 15. You'll see that a majority of those are PDRs um with a smaller percentage being nonPDR cases. from those nonPDRs. Um, we did an analysis and found that the majority of them have already completed their profers or expected to be completed soon as in they are far enough along in the process that it would take more money to completely redesign the project than it would to pay their profers or provide those units. Um, so the potential profers loss would be roughly 102,500 to the dedicated housing fund or 79 units. I will say that additionally when you look at that Excel sheet there are some from like there's one of those that is like pretty early on I want to say 2018 or 2019 that has just had no no active um it's very unlikely that it would get built regardless. However, they would still have to come before you all to change that. So I did still want to include them in the analysis but they are they are unlikely to be constructed anyway. Um and so for a little bit more context as well, there are roughly somewhere between 2100 and 20 2200 um affordable units approved through these resonings. So 79 is a a smaller percentage of that. I'm not not saying that they're not important, but just denoting that. Uh, and additionally through the PDRs and the nonPDRs that have already been paid, there are roughly $4 million um in housing profiters that we will not be losing. Um, but 102,500 which could be lost. Um, and I know this is kind of sticky and there's a lot going on, so I might just like look to Sarah and Bo and see if y'all have anything to add to that that I might have missed.

Yeah, I'll just say we're we're trying to kind of frame this in context, right? we we can't do everything right and so we tried to structure this in a way that would keep the most right and retaining the PDRs by simply changing the name allows us to do that you know like Robin said yes we may be giving up $100,000 but we are keeping four almost 4 million so as a you know putting it in context you're keeping the vast majority of those monetary profers same with the amount of units you know if we're at 20 22 200 units or so. Um losing less than 80 is is relatively um you know we're keeping the majority of them is what I'm saying. All units are important but um at some point we need to you know have some decision. Um this is a point where we really would like explicit direction from you all. Um, but again, from the staff perspective, I think we're advocating for it would be very difficult to keep these and it would essentially undo a lot of what we're trying to do with the land development code if we were asked to try and keep all of these. So, we just want to be transparent, provide the data and the information so that everyone is making an informed decision.

Does everyone understand what's going on here? Does anyone have questions? I

I do need some more clarification like we Yeah, it would help. Yeah, I'm I want to add one point as well is that like so we could technically so this says which could be lost because they could one thing that we will be doing is reaching out to those folks and seeing if they will essentially sign the owner acknowledgement similar to what we did with page Miami that was like this may cause a non-conformity or you know you are consenting to this conditional district right so this is these are profers which could be lost because they also have the ability to not sign that um So that is that is one point. These are not immediately lost things, but they they definitely could be lost. Um before I provide more clarification, I might take that question.

Yeah, I'm just looking at the chart that was in our report and the majority of them of the 79 is 52 units profered by one development, the 3729 Andrew Avenue. Um, I think that's important to have that perspective that that's one project. So, I definitely want to your what you just said about like reaching out. I think that's really critical. I I would say we need to be as creative and proactive as we can. So, um, you know, trying to I mean, you do give a project status here, but I think checking in with each of these, uh, projects to see what's going on. Some of them, it says, have not no action has happened since the approval, um, to see see what's happening, but especially that one project, which is accounts for the majority of those. I mean, if we could even get that owner to agree would be huge. Um, so I appreciate the staff being transparent. We know this is hard. We know there's going to be some give and take. I appreciate you all catching these things beforehand. Um, so but yeah, that would be my suggestion is to let like Yeah, let's see what we can do to mitigate this. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I certainly understand and accept there will be uh trade-offs in this process. I guess for me to help me fully understand it, um could you perhaps describe that, you know, on the contrary, if we tried to somehow accommodate all of these projects, um what would be the consequence? what would we lose uh in terms of what we're trying to accomplish in the LDC if we

didn't do this?

Yeah. So, essentially what we're trying to do with the LDC is make it very clear and accessible like how to use this document, right? So, if you go on the UDO right now, it is very hard to tell what you can do and where like there are multiple sections that you have to go to, etc. We heard repeatedly both from residents and from elected officials during the beginning of this process that this document needs to be accessible and usable and readable and it needs to, you know, meet the comprehensive plan in terms of development standards. And so trying to we've like condensed and flattened and tried to make sure all of the the requisite information for each district is easily found and easily pointed to because I think that often when we think about the UDO, we think about developers, but uh we have residents that use the de uh the UDO every day. We have, you know, um the DSC downstairs where people come and they just have questions. Um and so trying to make sure that it's very clear what you can do and where is like a huge goal of this project. And so by incorporating old legacy districts and incorporating all of their standards, right, that's going to take a pretty substantial reorganization to try and hopefully keep that accessibility if like like if that is possible while still keeping all of those old zoning district standards and references to development tiers and things that we are trying to get away from via the comprehensive plan. Yeah, Robin, if if I could, you know, right now when you look at the LDC, right, we have for each uh district, there's this neat and tidy like two-page spread that tells you like at a glance pretty much almost all the development standards that apply, right? The things that are not in there are the generic standards that apply to all districts across the board. In the current ordinance, it is not that neat and tidy, right? can't just so it can't just be well we could keep the old districts as kind of reference legacy districts because in the current ordinance district standards are actually broken across multiple articles right we've got the housing types we've

got the district standards like it's in multiple different places so we would be keeping a pretty significant portion of the old code which kind of defeats the purpose of moving to a more streamlined new code just to keep this amount of development potential that may or may not be realized anyway Okay. Does that help? It does. Yeah.

Uh Binsky, I just want to add one other layer even though I think Sarah made a really good point. I just got to hammer this home. Uh in addition with all of these old PDRs, we're talking old standards that in some cases we're literally our DSC staff is, you know, there's a spreadsheet, right? and we're like digging up and it's it's just not, you know, so everything that Robin and Sarah said is true and then additionally this additional layer of um regulations that are even uh more opaque.

Thank you for that guys. Um does everyone understand this? If you don't, please ask. Um

yeah, go ahead. So I'm going to ask. Right. So, and I want to make sure I'm clear because you're asking us for um the Okay, it's because we're moving to a new land development ordinance. These developments that were approved on or after 115 are under the old one. So, anything that is adopted, any development plan that was adopted prior to 2015,

so that is just a development plan that went through council or the board of county commissioners and had specific conditions, those will be removed and that was direction that we've already gotten from the JCCPC. Mhm.

So, but moving forward with January 1, 2015 and onward for development plans, which are plans that, you know, went before the city council or the board of county commissioners, we will keep all of them that are PDR, which are the majority. Um, what we will not be keeping are the nonPDR cases. Um, so anytime someone got a development plan that was not PDR, etc. So, PDRs do make up the majority, but they do not make up all. And so in that smaller minority, we have gotten the majority of the profers. Um but there are some that we have not gotten. Um so what we're essentially asking is confirmation on moving forward with just keeping all of the plan development residential or the large residential cases from 2015 onward. So, anything that starts with PDR um that went before council um on that was submitted on or after January 1st, 2015. So, it has a Z-15 in the beginning, we will we will keep and all of its profer commitments. Um anything that was reszoned to something that was nonPDR we would not be keeping.

And I'm glad you reexplained that. Thank you so much. And I'm glad that you said ask again because we want to make sure that our when residents come back and ask questions or watch this, they are we're clear and they heard it again. So, thank you for that. Absolutely. And I know you're asking for guidance, so I'll just say I support this moving forward with the caveat that staff reaches out to all of the um the the the noted uh applicants and asks for them to, you know, keep them join with us. Absolutely.

Forward. Thank you.

Yep. Um, is there I want both. Is there not like a could we have like an extra chapter that's like legacy cases or something like that where we have where the whole LDC is beautiful and coherent and easy to navigate and then we've got one section that's just like carrying these cases forward. I mean that's 79 units. That's we say units, but that's 79 families. And maybe some of these cases aren't moving forward, but it's the law of the land. If if another developer comes in and wants to develop something, they've got to follow the law and the law says affordable housing and and that's a rare thing for us here in the state of North Carolina. Have we do you feel like we've explored all the avenues to try and get both? Yeah, I think that like I said before, I do think it would take a substantial reorganization to make that happen just because we had have to pull all of those things from the UDO into those legacy chapters. Sarah, do you want to add to that?

Yeah, I think and I know the staff probably hates when I like come up with ideas on the fly. Um, but I think one thing we could potentially put in here is similar to the provision about downzoning is we could allow them to opt in for any development plans, uh, you know, newer than 115, they have the option to develop under the preceding UDO. We could write that in the attorney's mail, so be looking at me weird, so please chime in and cut me off at any point. Um, but that would still be elective on their part, right? they could choose that or they could choose to go under the LDC. Um, I don't know that we can without doing all this gymnastics with the ordinance. I I don't know of a way that we could accomplish the same thing and I'll I'll defer to the attorneys if they want to chime in on that potential.

I have lots of questions as I do. Um, so when you're thinking about having that having that language or Oh, sorry. A mountain city attorney's office. you're thinking about having that that caveat. Are they going to be moving forward in the LDC as conditional districts or are they going to kind of be just sitting as legacy districts that will then opt into the previous UDO instead of the new LDC? I just got to think about how that would be worded. We'd have to figure that out. I think this is why it's dangerous for me to think on the fly.

I think and colleagues, please chime in. I I think where I'm at at is I can't I can't sit here and say, "Yeah, we're good. No, 79 affordable units are out the door." So that we can keep the document looking good. Um I also don't I also don't want us to screw up the document um you know if if there is no other avenue. But I think my direction would be if we can dig a little more and see if there is a way, a creative way, a creative solution here, you know, and maybe it's to Commissioner um Jacob's, you know, reaching out um to the property owner. I don't know what it would look like, but I can't really sit here and say, "Yeah, we're good. 79 affordable units that are currently the law in the land will no longer be." Um and at the same time we have to make sure that this uh LDC is accessible and all the things that we've been talking about. So I guess my direction would be look can we look into it a little bit more or do you feel like we've exhausted 100% of the potential avenues and there is absolutely no other solution?

Can I can I just like present one? So we have sent out notification letters to um residents. So I think at least for direction for today I think keeping the PDR district and moving that forward and keeping all of those. Are you all are you all good with that portion because we're keeping all those districts?

Perfect. Want to make sure the map is updated so that when people get their letters they see and they know. Um as far as looking into the further options I do think that that is something that we can provide. um potentially in March. Um but I do just want to say that if if those questions come up at planning commission, we will just have to say that we're still working through it with you all. Um and if you're if you're okay with that, then I think we can work with that direction should that be the will of the JCCPC.

I'm fine with that. And I just want to point out uh the comments made earlier by Commissioner Jacobs. And so it was one phone call. I mean that that 79 units could potentially look very different. And so I always look at the glass being half full versus empty. And so uh I'm hopeful in that regard. And so this conversation takes on a different sort of context in light of knowing that one applicant is is 5 52 units essentially. So,

I'll just add I'm fine with, you know, asking staff to look a little bit further, but I'm not okay with creating a huge burden for our staff at this point. and adding, you know, this idea of adding some extra chapter that really undercuts and undermines the entire work of the past several years. And you know, and even delays anything related to getting this done because the longer we wait on adopting the UDO, the longer we miss out on actually creating the opportunities for more affordable housing. So we have to also keep I feel what you're saying. I hear you. I feel exactly the same way in terms of not wanting to lose anything. But the reality is that none of these projects have moved forward. Don't show any activity. And we have to keep the big picture in mind at the same time. So I'm fine with the exploring, but I also want to really be respectful and mindful of the staff as well.

Agreed. Yeah. I um I think I think what I'm interested in is can we just make sure that we have exhausted all of the potential avenues and if you come back and say we we've tried everything there this is it this is all we've got then you know we can go from there. Um I think I saw a hand over here.

I mean it's related to this discussion when I hear a request to make sure we've exhausted 100% of all potential avenues. It's sort of a question of at what cost, at what resource level. And so I just want to make sure that I understand, you know, like are we giving direction on level of effort to put into in order to get to that 100% point. Um, and and also will we end up with a trade-off uh regarding the goal of having it being really readable, understandable, and not with sort of miscellaneous like additions to it. And so I'm just sensitive to that tension. I think every decision we make whether it's in the big picture or individual development cases like there are trade-offs that we always have to face and those can be difficult and I just think there's a risk that if we try and manage each of those to 100% level that that ends up taking like massive kind of it's a it's a huge resource like lift from staff and you know our time and I I have some you know also reservations about like if if that took too much and then things get delayed. Do we in order to try and protect 79 or 79US 52, do we do we delay the opportunity to get much more than that through the new uh LBC? So, so like you know, philosophically, I'm with you, but I'm just trying to wrestle with the practical considerations of the direction we give staff around like, you know, 100%. But I heard you sort of tempered that a little bit and I'm certainly willing to have them come back and and you know, give another piece of input. But let us know if this is like a huge lift and know that like I'd like to see that, but I'm also understanding that there will be some trade-offs in this transition. Agreed. And I'll turn over just a second, but um agree. I think the we can set the the guard rails here of we want the document to be like the vision that it currently is. The the structure, the accessibility, it's democratizing the the development code is what it's doing. like the current code is not accessible to to people. The

the new LDC, the draft of it is accessible to people and that's a big deal and we want to keep it that way. So, I would definitely agree. You know, that's the guard rail is we want to keep it that way. Um I just 79 units, 79 families. I don't want to kind of brush over that.

So, what we're talking about are seven projects, one being that 52 unit one. I I definitely think that staff can uh reach out to those um and see where we are if we hear back from projects that they no longer plan to move forward because all of these except uh one. So only the 52 unit one has a site plan. All the rest don't even have anything beyond the the zoning, right? So if we hear from them that they're just not planning to move forward, right? um and that they weren't going to move forward regardless, then are you all comfortable with us basically kind of like that takes that off the table because we can't force someone to develop, right? Um and if we are able to get the 52 unit one to voluntarily sign on, then again, are you all okay with that approach? Because what I and I'm happy to come back. I think um I mean, we've had a lot of conversations. I think staff is very well wellversed legally in what we can and can't do. Um, so I don't think that there's going to be any new ideas on that front. If I'm being honest, I don't want to waste a month's worth of time in something that staff may be able to over the next week do our due diligence and resolve it one way or the other. And so what I would like to to kind of ask if you all are comfortable with is if we can reach out, make contact with all these and determine, you know, whether or not they're going to come on board and sign um or whether they're even going to do the project at all. And if we can confirm one of those two things, then can we move forward with this approach?

And if not, we will come back and regroup with you all next month. So I just want to clarify because I do understand the urgency in the moment. So, can you just like um confirm that you would just take a week of your time to like try to reach out to these individuals and after that week has been exhausted then you would just move forward the process because I understand like the urgency you don't want to like leave it out lingering. So, I just want to make sure I understand like what and then so and then also I'm new here but what are like your going to be like your contact methods for outreach for folks as well and the duration of that.

Yeah, that's a good question. Um and you mean contact like these specific folks, right? Um, so we do have applicant contact information. We would reach out to them um, via email, via phone, like whatever we have in our system is a way to contact them. Um, I said a week like thinking, you know, we're going to jump on this. We're going to try and like move quickly. Uh, if you know someone, maybe they reach back out to us and say, "Yeah, I'm happy to talk, but that doesn't happen till like the week after." Like I don't want to just say we're going to cut them off as a week. If they're responsive, we'll kind of keep working through it. Does that make sense?

Yes. I'm for that. I just want to say that. Put that on record. And the reason I'm for what you suggested, um, Sarah, is because living in Durham as long as I have and developments, people want to develop stuff and it doesn't come to fruition. So, I think that's a good plan. I'm also good with that, colleagues. Yeah. I like the conditional approach.

One, I do have one other question. um for so these these profers for affordable units they were attached to I assume some sort of upzoning potentially even annexations so would they be transl like in the new in the new LDC would they be translated into an adjacent of what they've already received or would they go back to prior to receiving their their profer so I think reszoning

yeah I think that we there I think that is ultimately a question for you all. We would try to map it to the place type map. Um, but if you all thought that maybe it was better to be RB than RD and it, you know, if it's surrounded by RB, then like maybe that's a better translational zoning as well. And maybe that's something that we can also bring back next month in terms of just asking that question of you all of like, you know, these are the ones that are not planning to develop, you know, are you comfortable with this zoning or would you?

So, we we actually can't do that under the downzoning statute. If they already have a zoning that allows them a certain density, we have to match them regardless of what the place type says, we have to well, the place type should have been amended now to match their zoning, right? So, it has to give them the same. We can make sure it doesn't give them any more, right? Um, but legally, I think we have to give them the same. I see um attorney Miles nodding. I I was I was going to jump in if Sarah hadn't, but yes, that is correct. Full disclosure did not go to law school. Uh go ahead Robin.

That is actually the end of the presentation. The last question is the last slide is for questions. So we are all good.

Any questions colleagues? Uh, one thing I do want to raise um is about the timeline. Um, we uh decided on a timeline. Um, I think there was some some back and forth and we kind of arrived on on one that I think we were all just slightly uncomfortable with. Um, which is good. You know, a big body uh not getting exactly what every individual wants. Um that timeline was dependent upon the consultant uh delivering the the full LDC draft in 2025. Uh that was delivered last week. And so I did want to put to staff your thoughts on that. Um that obviously cuts out like 50% or more of what was already a pretty tight timeline for um community engagement. So just want to turn it over to you and see if you have any thoughts. Yeah, I uh appreciate that. Appreciate the question. It certainly um was not staff's uh intent to kind of crunch the timeline to or stay with um you know the original kind of adoption schedule. Um our intent was to you know as the timeline and we've already done this in previous phases of the project as the consultant schedule slipped for a variety of legitimate reasons. we then kind of you know moved our whole timeline forward. Um it is uh this is not the way that I think staff ideally would have liked for the project to unfold at this stage. Um I think we would have and I have some concerns uh about not having adequate time to be able to be responsive to community comments uh planning commission comments and make the edits and turn that around. I I do feel like it does a bit of a disservice honestly to the um the

process that we've run all along. Um and so I do want to share those concerns. I I would be more comfortable uh with a more um I guess a less rushed timeline that would allow the planning commission to do their thing. Um and would bring this forward probably right after the summer break to elected officials so they could deliberate in the fall with like a live date of January 1st. That is just my opinion as your planning director. Um but you all certainly are the ones that give direction. So if I'm understanding based on the timeline that was set in December, there was an understanding the consultant would have had the draft at that time and

should have been in the fall actually in the fall. Okay. But several month sorry I don't mean to interrupt but just to give context like we are many months now behind schedule which is why I think in staff's mind the adoption schedule should have also been slid forward you know the matching kind of many months if that helps.

Yeah that's what I was trying to to to get at. So now we're early November when it was released and so it's at least a couple months and so you're asking for you're saying a couple months would be helpful from your standpoint to be able to take comments, give people a chance for input and then deliver it back to us. Okay, that's helpful to know. Thank you. So, I'm going to push back a little bit because what you're proposing now is instead of us adopting in June, literally pushing back six months to January. Is that what you're saying? No, what I'm saying is um because right now we had talked about adoption in June and then the effective date probably in Septemberish. And so what I'm saying is you would adopt maybe August, September and the effective date would be January 1. So adoption is separate from effective date obviously because we need transition time to you know do a bunch of implementation and clean up things and give cases a chance to kind of purge through the pipeline. So probably likely I think September uh adoption assuming that that the governing bodies will want to deliberate. So pushing back four months the adoption. Okay. All right. I mean I understand the issue. I just want to, you know, to to just say the urgency around it is what we've seen like what happened what's happening with Northgate is, you know, again, the longer we wait, the more opportunity there is to see things come forward that are not necessarily congruent with what is in the plan. So, I just, you know, I just want to raise that. I understand um the concerns but it it people need to

be aware that there are consequences for delaying it real consequences. So, and if we and if we are going to come up with a new timeline like I mean

there really has to be a commitment to that because we're going to continually hear reasons to delay it and this has gone on for years and there's been such robust engagement around this process at every step of the way and we're going to always hear people who say well they need more time. Um so yeah so I I I yeah I have concerns about delaying it but I understand also it's a balance but just have to be also very clear about there are it's you know like the previous discussion um there is positives and negatives. Yeah. Commissioner Jacobs, I hear you sharing that one drawback and I also have concerns, right? I think there's real benefit to getting this done, moving it forward. But, you know, I I also have felt like it's been crunched particularly with the consultant and hearing staff share that that they're experiencing that that's an external factor that's, you know, outside of, you know, us or engagement or anything like that. And so, I'm I'm I'm open to considering it. I'm curious if we're already planning a windown, a slowdown of allowances of development cases under the existing UDO uh in anticipation of the LDC. Would it be possible to maintain that timetable uh even with an extension before adoption? meaning like not allowing more time to consider it as being an opportunity for more cases reviewed under the under the current UDO if that makes sense because I've heard you say that like in anticipation of the the LDC coming we're going to see a slowdown in development cases coming before the planning commission and council this spring.

Yeah. So I I think actually what would happen is if if the timeline is pulled out a few more months, then we likely would have another, you know, couple of months where we could keep moving things along through planning commission um just to dispose of those cases. Now, they would still end up being translated to whatever new district they're going to be translated to unless it was, you know, a a PDR. Um, and I think uh Aaron and his staff have already been having conversations with applicants that are in the pipeline about um changing their application over to new districts or whatever needs to happen. So, I think we could look at that to see like what could be disposed of um in that intervening couple of months uh versus what would just need to be translated over to the new set of districts. You know, there's some some cases that are relatively like they're just annexations, no zoning, right? it's a a translational thing. Those could easily just keep moving forward. That's not an issue.

Yeah, that distinction makes sense. Thanks. Um, and I'm just curious to understand what the other implications would be of that 3-month extension. Um, obviously there's scheduling, right, which is, you know, things can be rescheduled, but I know we have the joint city county meeting in April to review this. planning commission has two meetings dedicated to this is the idea that then all those would be pushed out or those would be maintained and the additional time would be like on the back end so if one concern that I have is if we come out of let's say the planning commission is able to get to some consensus and make a recommendation on March 10th and then we have the joint public hearing for the governing bodies on April 22nd that, you know, fiveish weeks is going to be really, really tight for us to take everything that has been heard, synthesize it, propose edits to the consultant, work with the consultant, and then turn around something. And really, you know, we would have to have it back in the public sphere several weeks before that public hearing. Otherwise, the public is going to be like, what are we even talking about? like I don't um I think once we sat down and really looked at what it would take with the consultant and us that really doesn't give us the expectation then is we're going to be able to turn this whole thing around in like a week, a week and a half to get it posted back so the public and and everyone can digest it again. Um and that is that is very aggressive. Yeah, I will I'll add as well that like we've been working around the clock to try and meet this expedited deadline and no matter what y'all choose, we will continue to we'll do that. Um, one other point is that you all are meeting every month right now as the JCCPC and normally you meet every other month. Um, so as long as this is extended, we would

likely keep that timeline. I believe that's what you all agreed to do is to meet at the JCCPC every single month. So that is small potatoes compared to the rest of it. But I did just want to throw that out there that you'll you'll get to see me every month.

So So if I'm understanding then the additional timeline would be mainly for staff to be able to synthesize and communicate and get engagement on what comes out of the joint city county hearing that would be maintained for April. So that's what that time would likely be used for versus pushing back planning commission and that that hearing. So, I I would suggest if the timeline's going to be pushed out, well, and I guess this is a point of direction, right? Do you all want as elected officials, do you want staff to be able to revise the draft before it comes to you all before you have your public hearing with the community? Um, or do you want to have the public hearing with the community, then us do a cleanup of the draft before you vote on it? I I I guess it's a sense of like when do you want the community to be able to see how we were or weren't responsive to the things that were raised through this last round of engagement and through the public hearing process at the planning commission?

Yeah. I mean, I think this gets back to what does the timeline really look like? And my concern is, you know, in June, you know, we all adopt our budgets, then July, the city has no meetings. I mean, we have one meeting. Um, so I don't related to when is there a joint public hearing and then when does it come to the boards? What are you thinking of? because we don't we can't push we don't want to push out that joint public hearing too far cuz then that's going to really Yeah, I'm I'm just I'm trying to understand what is the timeline line in terms of when the different public hearings are and when the boards actually take action. What what are you proposing?

I mean I think we could do one of two things, right? We could say that we're going to do the public hearing early August, right? when everyone comes back. Um, that gives us your little July break to make sure that everything is cleaned up and, you know, we've got time to make all the edits. If the planning commission does not act on um March 10th that they continue it and continue to deliberate, this schedule is out the window anyway, right? Um, so that I think is also a reality that we need to consider. Uh but so we could do it, we could schedule it for um August or if you wanted to get it done before the break, which I think might be more difficult with budget and all that, we could try for June. But I I guess my recommendation if you're asking for one, we do it at the beginning of August, right when everyone comes back.

And then how much then when would it come to each of the bodies? September.

In September. Okay. and then it would be you all work for the rest of the year and then it's implemented as of June January 1st. I would just like to say that I have been uncomfortable with the short turnaround time from the specific UDO meeting with the planning commission scheduled on February 24th to we have to vote on it two weeks later. I mean, there's going to be a lot of input. we're going to have to incorporate that or make our comments. And then if they're not incorporated, if it isn't enough time, then we're still going to be asked to vote on something and the public is going to be like, "Hey, what about what I said?" And then are we going to then be in a position where we vote no because we didn't have enough time to incorporate some of the majority comments. So that's just been I've been uncomfortable with that little short twoe turnaround time since we've first proposed these dates.

Do you have a response to that, director? What's your thoughts on that?

May I do I agree with the chair that that is a challenge. Um, I think if I think they're going to have a hard time and what I don't want to see happen, if I'm just being very candid, is, you know, we have all collectively worked so long and hard on this project. Um, and I would love to be able to move the project forward with positive recommendations, with positivity in general about the project. Um, and I think staff and the consultant have worked incredibly hard to try and balance everything. Um, so I would like for this project to be a success and I think part of that is making sure that we are being responsive and that people feel like, you know, they're being heard and that we really, you know, are we going to make everyone happy at the end of the day? No, of course not. Right? This is planning. Um, if everyone is a little bit unhappy, we're doing our job. Uh but uh I I think that the time crunch is is potentially going to be a big potential detriment to this project. I'm worried about that. I concur. And it's nothing we did. It's nothing anybody here did. It's just what happened when you do a big rewrite like this with the consulting firm. So it's not like we're putting it off on purpose or anything like that. We're just getting a little I mean and if they're six months behind on their schedule and then we only come in one month behind on our schedule then yay us we're positive plus five months. Uh so this is very helpful discussion uh and um you know definitely am willing to you know entertain building this more flexibility um from you know what I've heard in in uh particularly from director Young and from Cherish Garris here um and just from folks who want to be able to to engage and provide input

and this is a lot to be able to digest and process. My question is um what do we see the purpose of the final public hearing to be? Um you know and this gets at your question of like how much time to have between the planning commission meeting and the public hearing uh or between the public hearing and adoption like what is the what do we expect to happen? What is the objective of that public hearing? So, I will say that um I think between the joint public hearing for the governing bodies and y'all's consideration and adoption, I I don't think we necessarily need a lot of time for that. I do think that we need time to do one more cleanup of the draft, right, and before it gets to you all. And that's the part that I'm concerned about. I mean, we as staff have already identified things um that we're like, "Oh, yeah, actually, we need to fix that." So I I don't necessarily think that we will be making yet another round of revisions. Uh but I would like to make sure that the draft that's coming before you all is like the best draft possible and has and you know we've taken into consideration all the things we needed to are there still going to be things that people are going to want to you know potentially tweak or bring up through that process. you all yourselves may have some potential things that you want to change but I think from staff's perspective like putting our best work forward collectively with the consultant

and so that one more cleanup after planning commission is is I think what we need to do that

okay so that that helps also thinking about when that final planning commission meeting is thinking about this twoe issue that you've raised it seems that as elected officials who eventually be adopting uh voting on whether to adopt this is that we should also be planning on doing like our homework work, our engagement, you know, really in many ways most of our decision-m um you know, following the input at that final planning commission meeting, not at the public hearing and following that. And so where the time for you is more helpful then is between the planning commission and the public hearing, not between the public hearing and the vote to adopt. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. I mean, we need to be doing our homework now, uh, as soon as possible. The earlier the earlier the better. Um, yes. And just to clarify, is the proposal that we still are keeping the the current schedule with the planning commission meetings. Okay. Because the other thing is I don't want to get to, oh, we're going to push that back and that, you know, um, what I I'm sorry, can you repeat? Well, whether we're keeping the current schedule with the February and March planning commission meetings that are just focused on the UDO.

Uh, yes. Now, they will have a couple of things on on their March agenda that we just couldn't uh avoid, but um the majority of the March meeting will be UDO. I think this gives them also the space that you've heard from Cherish Shaggeras to not feel like they have to, you know, either potentially vote down the new LDC. Um, so I I would imagine that if we did this, they would, you know, we're still going to have the public hearing on the 20 on February 24th.

Um, they would still deliberate on the 10th. They would probably deliberate again in April, you know. So I I think it gives them a little space to do that. they would have to be done with it. Um so they get 90 days basically three months. So from February 24th which is their first so February so March, April, May, right? They have to be done with it. Okay. Um they cannot carry it beyond. Okay. Well that's good to know that builtin is a deadline where it does have to come out of the planning commission. Um yeah. Um just want to clarify. So we would keep the special February 24th planning commission and you're that advertising is going to happen happen

may have already happened. It has happened. Yep. It has happened. So let's go ahead and keep that. uh then March uh the regular uh planning commission meeting and then planning and then basically what happened what the recommendation here is to allow some breathing room for the planning commission to sit with it get comfortable with it make a solid recommendation for edits to ongoing edits I mean we already know that there are ongoing edits happening so to not rush uh staff and then you know July staff can like really get that document comfortable where you all like it, then it comes to us in in August and it's

yeah,

it's our job. And so my suggestion is that if okay if we're going to change that April meeting that we you all reach out to both clerks now uh for us to get that joint meeting scheduled for August like getting it on our calendars now and also of course the September you know meetings for each of the bodies because I know there were some issues around that April meeting. It didn't get on city council members calendars the way it got on county commission calendar. So, so yeah, making sure that that is the joint meeting in August is already in the works. Yeah.

Yeah. if if this is the direction that you all are giving us today on revising the schedule, what we will do is we will jump on that um ASAP um and then we can also bring back next month kind of what that new timeline looks like with dates. Um

one thing that I just wanted to add is that we did mail out 150,000 letters to both owners and residents for those two dates in February and March. So we we're not going to change those. Um, but did just want to let you know that we have staff we have we have staff that we have sort of shifted their duties just to like fully answer these questions, these emails and calls that we've started to get. Um, but did just want to let you all know because you all might start hearing from uh residents as well. Um, so it's it's begun.

So my question about the schedule, February 24th is the first UDO LDC hearing with the planning commission. March 10th. It is already on the agenda. Um second UDO hearing but not the final one or is it also the final one? I mean I think it's up to you all as the planning commission, you know, what you what you do with it. Right? If you all are not comfortable um making a recommendation on March 10th, then you continue that and you take it back up again at your April meeting. Um, yes, because I mean I've seen some of the public notifications and there's a a local meeting on February 22nd at in my area and so that's like between the 22nd where there's going to be some community input that's two days before the 24th and then the 24th and then two weeks to the 10th. So, it would be up to us at the March 10th meeting if we're comfortable. If not, uh, one cycle continuence or whatever because y'all's joint meeting is April.

Yeah, we're not going to have not having it now. So, right. So, what we're talking about is rescheduling that April joint hearing to the very beginning of August. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. And I'll just I'll just add too that like we've we've been doing really robust engagement like you know office hours you know all the different things I'm not going to go through them but we fully expect that people will come out for the first time at planning commission as well. So that does actually give us time to like also hear those you know um people don't have the opportunity to come to all these engagement efforts. So having the opportunity to respond to things that we hear at planning commission is also important. If um if planning commission did end up making I don't anticipate this, but if planning commission did choose to make a recommendation at their March meeting, would you would it come to us uh sooner or would you still want to go to August?

I personally would still want to go to August. Um but that uh I'm not the director.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I think the issue there is if they get done with it March 10th, right? Let's just pretend that happens. Um, in order for us to get a draft posted probably at least several weeks before the April 22nd, right? So, we need to post something by early April. That like two week turnaround between their meeting and I just I don't think that's enough time for us to get our heads together about what should change and then get the consultant to actually make the changes. It's really tight. Um, yeah, April clearly is quick. I mean, what about May or June? Like, would June work instead of August? And does that help us at all in terms of adoption? Because I guess then we would then what adopt in June or August instead of September? I think that that is potentially viable, but I think that maybe what we would do is so since we're going to keep meeting with you all every month is depending on what we're hearing and what happens to the planning commission provide that schedule. Um, but I think maybe planning on August and then seeing what happens with the planning commission is probably uh more likely, at least from what I'm hearing from Chair Shagaris, it sort of seems like there it's likely to have another continuence or at least like I think it's good to at least have it planned um or to plan for it so that at least even if they do make a recommendation in March, they don't feel rushed or pressured. Um, but I do think that potentially there is the ability to move up the deadline depending on when they vote. Um, but we just have to make sure that we know far enough in advance that we can advertise that properly and make sure that folks know and then we have the draft updated.

Yeah, I will say if I if I could, June tends to be a very busy time for elected officials. You know, there's budget public hearings and budget adoption that happens. Um, so I think June might be just tough logistically for that reason. Um, but yeah, I mean, we work at y'all's discretion.

I want to acknowledge that uh, Council Member Cabier is not here and we all know she's been a a big advocate of an expedited process. So, I just want want all of us to imagine Council Member Cavier sitting here saying we need to be moving it faster. Um however um this is just you know staff are kind of telling us you know we are kind of observing like we're not really changing the time the timeline was changed when um you know we didn't get uh the uh full draft um in in December from the consultant and I I really want this to succeed. I don't want us to to try and, you know, push a round peg through a square hole and fumble it at the 10 yard line. I want us to be comfortable. I want staff to have the time that they need to to get this done. So, um, yeah, I think we'll go we'll get through the planning commission meetings and then, you know, we'll want to hear what you have to say following those and and what kind of timeline you need to feel comfortable with and taking this to the finish line.

Yeah. So, another thing that we can do, we'll obviously start looking for an August date. Um, if it's all right with you all, maybe we will for now leave that April date on your calendars and we can have a conversation with our consultant before we release that date and make sure that they do not think they could turn something around quickly. Um, if by some stretch of the imagination they're like, "Yeah, actually, we got nothing to do that week." Um, you know, we can certainly regroup. I doubt that will be the case, but I'm just trying to be like fully, you know, explore all the possibilities. Um, so, so yeah, I think we we can kind of play it a little bit by ear, but I think knowing that the reality is likely August

is the best we can do. Yeah, I I've been pushing for a new UDO since uh 2018. Uh, so Lord knows I I want this so badly. I wanted it uh almost 10 years ago. Um and if we just need an extra whatever staff needs here to be comfortable and get it get it through, I I feel like I'm comfortable with that request. So, yes.

Yeah. I think the other thing that we have um heard channeling um council member Cababayro about and commissioner Jacobs about concern um with uh moving this forward quicker so that more things have to comply with the new code. I think we also have to be realistic that because of that downzoning provision in state law and the way that we're having to address that by giving people an option, I think it it is likely that some of these projects would still regardless of when this is adopted have the option to go under the old code because as we've said before is very difficult to quantify every possible nonconformity, right? A slight change in a setback or or something else. Um, and so I don't think that this necessarily uh would prevent a all things from being able to use the old code because we're having to go that route for the down zoning stuff, right? We may not be protecting um or or preserving our ability to apply the new code to everything. Anyway,

you guys are going to kill me, but I have one more thing that I skipped over that I meant to come to. Are there any final thoughts on this?

Well, I hear what you're saying, Sarah. I do think though that there are some very high prof again, I'm not going to belabor the point and obviously I support, you know, you know, I'm always going to back up the staff. That's my number one. Um, so I totally, you know, hearing it coming from you. Yes. Um, but I do I don't want to be labor, but I do think that there are some key parcels in sites in Durham that it would not amount to a down zoning, but actually be encouraging much more mixed use and higher density and, you know, the walkability and all those things that we're trying to do. So those are the those are the sites that I think just very very key key sites but it's okay. Thank you colleagues. My apologies for skipping over this. Um can you bring up the slide with the thresholds for the um textual development plan? This is the last thing. So, okay. So, we've got the change for a project of 50 acres or greater is required to provide a development plan which can be text only or graphic. Um, resonings for sites which are 100 acres or greater uh are required to provide a graphic development plan. Colleagues, I just wanted to bring this up to ask if you had any input on these thresholds. I like to see pictures with the high turnover rate we have on the planning commission. Um, and having been part of

the planning commission when we did get graphics versus not having graphics now, it it's easier to understand as I know Commissioner Jacobs has mentioned this numerous times. Show me a picture. So, I don't know about that threshold 50 versus 100, but once it starts getting up that large, graphics are very helpful. I would love to see 50 plus acres at a graphic development plan. Any comments or input on that? I think Go ahead. And then

Okay. Um I mean I think I'd be curious to hear from staff. I think we talked a bit about these thresholds and I know that they're you know there is like they're a number, right? Um, I think it's helpful to understand both one what a graphic development plan gets us versus a textual in terms of uh just from like an educational standpoint because I think sometimes there's a belief about what a graphic development plan means versus what it doesn't mean. So I think that's helpful to clarify and also just uh about what it does in terms from like a cost standpoint. Um, for me I like to see pictures too. I've heard comments in planning commission and council that it's helpful to see things visually. I would like to have more of that and so I'm open to seeing flexibility in this. I think my two concerns are one setting an expectation about what that means and second of all understanding that you know all the ways that we add cost into projects we drive up the cost of the projects the cost of housing and we make projects more favorable to large corporate developers versus others to participate in the process. And so I just want to be mindful of some of these trade-offs when we introduce something like this. Um but yeah, I like pictures. So curious to answer to those those questions.

Yeah. Could you could you answer Yeah. spec specifically what is and I guess we'd even be changing that in the LDC like what is and we can define that. What is the graphic development plan?

And can I also add to that I'm also wondering because I agree with everything you just said Matt. What benefits are we going to automatically be getting from the LDC? Because so much of the LDC is the pictures of like this is the kind of street you're going to have to implement. This is the way you're going to have to, you know, do open space. like what are what are all the benefits that we're now going to get automatically from the new LDC that will take take away some of that pressure that we're we used to be putting on that picture. So I would like to understand that as well.

Yeah. I'll I'll start and then I'm going to hand it over to Robin to um talk to. Uh it might be helpful to have a little bit of history on the textual development plans. Um that was something originally they were called texton development plans and the only thing that you could do is impose use limitations, right? um they were I think back in I don't remember what year it was exactly uh we did a change to the ordinance um to broaden textual development plans now they're called textual to basically anything that you could um describe clearly in writing you could now just do in writing and for that was for a couple of reasons. one, we heard a lot from folks that it was very expensive, not the the administrative fees, right, of processing the application, but it was very expensive to hire a consultant to draw a graphic development plan. Anywhere from 60,000 to $100,000 um was kind of the price tag we were hearing. And that that was cost prohibitive for uh folks that maybe wanted to do smaller projects, but still profer some things. um that it made it more difficult for some of our homegrown kind of developers to do projects and that in general it added cost that was just eventually going to be passed over to future homeowners likely um you know for something that is uh just a zoning entitlement and not actually a development approval, right? Um and that may or may not get approved. So that was the the rationale for kind of expanding what could be textual. The other thing that we when we were doing those changes that we realized was that a lot of what is required on a graphic development plan is just depicting standard ordinance requirements, but the community thought that they were like

getting something right. And the reality is that that something was still going to happen anyway because it's just a standard ordinance requirement. Um, and so we were really trying to think about, and I think we did do this through the LDC to kind of like, okay, what really should be shown on a graphic development plan. Um, there's certainly things that we could consider moving forward in terms of uh ways to capture additional information for uh textual development plans that don't have, you know, graphics, but that's something we could work through. So, that's a little bit of just kind of history, but Robin, if you want to talk about I think uh to Commissioner Jacob's point about like what is it that we're getting essentially with the new LDC that people maybe were um I don't want to put words in your mouth, but like would have been profering that now maybe is just required.

Yeah. Um so really trying to think about open space differently um for one and that includes both tree coverage and the requirement for the preservation of natural and cultural resources. Um that used to be just essentially a part of conservation subdivisions and we've since expanded that. So it it is just something that you have to preserve now. Um some other things too are that for PDRs uh we're requiring that they have to show a unified plan for open space. Um, we hear a lot about, you know, uh, different ways to grade or that the open space are just like sort of in random little parts and it doesn't work well for like tree coverage and wildlife connectivity. So, requiring that it's a unified plan for open space for every PDR um, is another portion. Um, there are a lot of different things within the ordinance that we will be getting um, through just the LDC. Um, I think that we essentially chose 100 acres because in the the previously drafted PD district, which we translated to this PDR, but in that PD district, it was 150 as the sort of base. And we'd heard from you all that maybe that could be lower. So, we went from 150 to 100 acres to sort of um, you know, try and match that with trade-offs um to Sarah's point around cost. Um but knowing that large sites um do likely, you know, can probably subsidize the cost as well, um or find other ways to sort of distribute cost. You know, if you have to do 60,000 to 100,000, but you have, you know, hundreds more units, right? Then it's a little bit more feasible to do that without increasing the cost of housing. Um so that's that's sort of where that threshold came from. Um we're certainly open to um altering those numbers, but I do think that council member Kovak did make a good point that we are trying to make sure that it isn't just always um certain larger corporations that you know enter into this process. Um but

certainly it is a trade-off because the graphic development plans are um you know certainly more accessible. Um so there's there's both. Yeah.

Yeah. Um, I'll just say I think, you know, if it's 50 acres or plus, I mean, it's probably a corporate developer. You know, you're not doing the small guys. But, um, I'm fine with staying at at 100 for graphic. Um, I guess I would be, you know, I I always I think that this provides a useful tool um to be able to uh work with uh developers who want resonings. Um, I'd be interested in lowering lowering the text only. Um, especially since that is bullet points rather than hiring someone at $100,000 to spend a bunch of money and draw out stuff that they're going to be drawing out anyway during the subdivision review process. Um, would would colleagues be interested in entertaining something a little bit lower than 50 acres for the text only? I mean, honestly, the city, the county, we have not been doing resonings for quite a long time. I I think it's I I would I would really defer to what's happened. You know, well, Matt, you've been on planning commission, you're on the planning commission, what you're seeing. Um, and again I I think I I I don't think I can speak knowledgeably about that because we just we haven't been seeing those and we don't Yeah. And I guess I want to hear again staff input on it and we also can always change things over time u be you know we are going to be revisiting this every five years and that we can make changes and it can be iterative. Sure. So

yeah, I would be curious uh to understand from staff what the potential implications would be of that. I like the idea for sure in principle. Um any thoughts on on lowering that just means smaller projects would be giving more detailed uh information um in written form, right? Or or could, right? And all that stuff. But my thinking is there have been some reasonzoning cases where someone's like, "Oh man, I wish that you could do this on your site." Um, and the developer's like, "Yeah, I'd be open to that, but I haven't submitted a a textual development plan, so there's no way for me to I'd have to go resubmit and go through this process again." And um I don't know, I think it's just a useful tool. I wouldn't go all the way down to like everything or five acres or 10 acres, but I could see something lower than lower than 50 acres. I mean 30 acres or something.

Yeah. One one thing that I'll add too is that anytime there's an annexation, they have that translational zoning map change. So, we do just want to make sure that like those folks don't have to have a development plan to your point about smaller ones. So, but I do think that um a smaller threshold than 50 acres um could make sense if you all have direction. Well, we could also talk internally and maybe bring back a recommendation next month since we have time and we're going to be making obviously more edits to the draft down the road. Um, we don't have to like solve this today, but maybe we can look at some recent cases and kind of see if there's already a natural threshold there um to adjust to and and propose something next time.

Folks okay with that? Okay. Thank you for putting up with We were about on time and I apologize. I made us 15 minutes late. So, um, thank you again. I do want Oh, we have one more item. Okay, I take it all back. I take it all back. I'll be We've got the work program item 11 here.

Yes. I'll be super quick. So, um, you know, in February every year, we kind of bring you a preview. You will get the actual work program draft in April, and at that point, you will actually, you know, make a motion to hopefully recommend it. U, but I like to just kind of, this is the early detection system, as I like to call it, in February. Um there are a number of large projects that are going to carry over their multi-year projects. So they will be taking up a good bit of space on the work program again next year. Um particularly the Lakewood and Bragtown small area plans. Um we paused the landscape manual update when we realized that um this was going to be getting the UDO LDC was getting more complicated and we really couldn't do them at the same time. Um so that will be picking back up. Um, as you heard, we've got the open space plan. Um, we've got a multimodal traffic impact analysis um that is getting started. We're gonna we're working on Orange Factory designating that as a heritage community. And then we're also um we've got a three-year project to update our local historic district district's inventory. So, all that carries over and fills up a pretty good portion of the work program. There are however a handful of what I call kind of smaller projects that we would like to add. Um, one is just recognition that implementing the LDC is going to take staff time and so I wanted to name that in the work program. Um, we are going to be coming back as you all remember there was some talk uh about tree canopy assessment stuff a while back. Um once general ser the city's general services department finishes that assessment um we are going to be doing a bit of analysis to try and formulate recommendations on how do we make sure that we're hitting that goal similar to the goal that we have for open space. Uh we the city also passed a resolution to become a biofilic city and we are going to be taking the lead on kind of getting partner departments

together and pulling the metrics and seeing what we need to do to do that. So um that has been on hold until uh we have a little bandwidth to do that next year. Uh we also was mentioned earlier want to do a little research on natural resource protection overlays. That is not necessarily implementing them. That is essentially doing the research pitching you all you know pros cons what we could or couldn't do and then um waiting for direction. Uh we're going to reinstate our urban design studios program which uh we've gotten a lot of questions as part of the small area plan program, you know, where people have interest in very specific sites and want us to do small area plans for single sites and we don't won't do that. That's not a small area plan. But urban design studios was a program that we had years ago where we essentially can do um cherettes or other kind of workshops with the public to come up with a vision for like single sites. And so we're going to be relaunching that. And then the last thing is also another big behind the-scenes thing which is Clarity which is our new cloud-based platform that will replace our permitting system. That is going to uh we're starting implementation now. That is going to be a big staff lift to that permit system. While folks may think of it as internal one of the beauties of the system is it is external. anyone will be able to from the outside world residents you all whoever pull up any permit any approval and the plans and look at them in the system. So I do think there is also a big public benefit to that but I want to recognize that that is going to be a huge um lift on staff part the staff that you all don't see usually at these meetings but that constitute the majority of the department. So, super fast. That was the rundown. I was like, okay. Um

I a few questions. Um around the small area plans, um I would like to un I mean I know they're very important. I'm wondering your thoughts on what I think there should be discussion open discussion about understanding what what they can and cannot do and what is the value that they have but what also the limitations because like what happened with the Wall Street area plan just wall town sorry not Wall Street but just you know I think there was so much work that went into that process. And not to say it wasn't wasn't and still is valuable, but on the part of the community staff, um just and like are there ways is there anything that we've learned from that process that informs anything going forward? Because that that will be a lot of the work plan is staff working on those small area plans. I'm just I'm just I'm just putting out there. I'm just curious about is there any way to improve anything or anything that we you know whatever. I'm just throwing this out just to have a conversation about it. So I will say that um Walltown is a bit of an anomaly, right? Because there was a lot um half that plan is about a single site essentially. Um, I think that moving forward, you know, the the other small area plans that we're working on, wow, they will potentially have some large redevelopment potential sites similar to Northgate. Um, I I think that they are

um we're trying to catch things earlier, right, in our small area planning process. Um, so there is more ability to really influence change. Um but I think we have been transparent in the past that small area plans they're just they're a visionary document right um we do our ordinance and our future ordinance both say that things have to be in conformance with a small area plan or with our adopted plans that include small area plans. Um, but I think a lot of what uh the public needs to understand is that policies are big picture aspirational and they're not um there may be multiple ways to comply with a policy, right? And so just because um unless there's a specific regulation that is super targeted to a policy, a a project may be able to develop a number of different ways and be in compliance with a small area plan. and the code. And so the plan is not necessarily dictating a very specific outcome. And that this is something I think we struggle with um making sure that residents kind of understand that and that there's not this um you know they don't feel like they're misled about what what may come from the plan. That's kind of a constant struggle I think with any long-range planning project. But

and of course with the LDC it there may be that may impact too what's possible with the there may be more alignment between the small area plan and the LDC and that I think that will be really important way to help residents engage with the LDC is like hey you know we have these new ordinances now so this really can help support your vision in this way. I mean that that can be something exciting. The other thing is that I got really excited when I saw the discussion about urban design studio and this may be more long-term not to add more work to you all but it I think it's really exciting to think about what could that morph into and especially thinking about that merging with the small area plan. Does that could we have something really dynamic and cool going on in Durham where we're bringing people together who are working in in the this ecosystem? In other words, bringing local developers together with, you know, homeowners or neighborhoods like how can we work together to actually build what you want? And even something like UD um ADUs, like there are a lot of residents out there who may want to do an ADU, but it's just like overwhelming in a lot of ways. So like even having you know urban design studio around adus where again we're bringing devel you know people who build them or design them together with property owners like I just think that this concept is and you know we've got folks like city builder now that is active and doing stuff like how how I just think this is an exciting avenue for us to think about in the

future for the community for all of us. So, thank you. And the other qu my last question was what is a biofilic city? Just Googled it.

So, this this was a term that was sort of coined by Timothy Snder, I think his name is. Um, but it was a resolution that was brought forward to by council and I I think council member Rrist. Yes. Um and so it's essentially a part of a network that you join um with other cities and they you provide an annual report on different projects that you're doing which sort of um try to show how you are working towards a city that is both um submitting or not submitting uh uh you know oh man I'm hungry um that that is like uh combining the built environment with the natural environment green and gray infrastructure and doing things of those nature. So, we'll be working with general services, um, environmental street services, seeing what other projects that we already currently have underway that are working towards those goals. And then you join the network, you report on your um, progress, and then you also get support from other uh, cities within that network who have done similar things, who might have feedback or uh, different ideas.

Thank you, colleagues. Yes. and then yes, thank you chair. Uh let me just shine light on your past work in this area around uh the small uh small area plans. I mean you've been talking about the value of those plans for for a number of years. So I'm sure that you're you're happy to have us have a brief discussion with respect to that. But my question is about the clarity implementation. So, with regards to our our residents and public access, what what is our what's our plan in order to um talk to our residents about access if at all?

So, we're we're not Okay, let me be clear. Clarity is going to be our permitting system. There's no public engagement on that. No, I mean access but they will have access. So the one of the reasons the platform was selected is because the um the user interface they will literally see the system basically the same way we see the system.

Um they will be able to you know it's it's very robust. There's a mapping feature where like they can look up a property on a map or they can type in an address. There's a bunch of different ways they can look up property and then they'll be able to see all the activity on that property from a permitting standpoint. they'll be able to pull up plans, see, you know, what's been approved, what hasn't, um, all that without having to ask us. So, you know, there'll be a link on our website that takes them to that platform and and obviously once it goes live, you know, we'll do a lot of, um, kind of PR to make sure people know that that is yet another resource that is available to them. Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does because I can imagine people asking me, uh, how do I get access to that? Yes. And uh if you could just indulge me uh chair, I didn't get an opportunity to be recognized that we're on our discussion about the timeline around the UDO. And so I just want to lend my name for supporting the recommendation that you've made uh here today. And I believe uh commissioner or council member COPEC also uh is in support of this plan, but he go on the record so people have a record of him actually saying he's in support. That would probably be great. Yes. I'm in support of what was proposed. Yes.

No, that's it. I think uh we've run out of time.

I'm so sorry that you're hungry. Um let's wrap things up here. Um before we all get hangry. Um, so I did just want to say thank you for I I specifically requested that you make it a visual of all the work that you're doing. Um, they've got the bullet points underneath. This is a massive list of long range projects. I think it's really exciting. I also because it is so large because we're doing the LDC, I think we need to have um some grace in the timelines. Uh, this is dynamic. I've asked staff to um include this graphic for us uh every month just so that it's in front of us so that we can see it, but we need to be understanding that because there are so many items um you know and hopefully hopefully we we're thinking through like we're not trying to cram everything in. We're being realistic, but we do need to have grace about the timelines. Um because things change, conditions change. Um it's an exciting list and we want to get all these things done but we do them well. So um want to thank staff for for uh creating this and in advance for um showing this to us um every month. And also, um, commissioners, I want you all to feel like you're able to be proactive about thinking about potential projects, um, while also considering that there's already a lot on on the plate and perhaps keeping keeping any requests um, small, at least until the LDC is done. Um, but I do want everyone to feel, you know, you're here. You're this is a planning an important planning body in Durham. I do hope that you feel like you can um think of creative planning projects to to work on um and that we

can deliberate those here. Council member, you No, you just Yeah. All right. Half an hour over. All right, everyone done? Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. We are uh adjourned at 12:30.