good evening everyone good evening it is August 19th 7M I'd like to call this meeting of the durm city council officially to order for the purposes of faithfully discharging the business of the people of durm good evening to my honorable colleagues to our staff to our neighbors in Chambers this evening and to all of you watching on whatever platform you may be watching his honor the mayor is with other fellow North Carolinians in Chicago serving as a delegate to the Duram National Convention this evening we wish him well and we'll try and get through it this evening uh in his absence I'm going to ask you all please to join me in a moment of silent meditation thank you at this time I'll calling council member Freeman to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance thank you it's our practice to stand and salute the flag as we say the Pledge
thank you so much Madam clerk would you please call the rooll good evening mayor Williams has an excused absence mayor bent Middleton I'm here council member Baker here council member k here council member cook here council member Freeman present and council member rist here thank you so much friends tonight we have two uh really great and important ceremony items the first one will be breastfeeding familyfriendly Community Proclamation that will be delivered by council member Freeman and after that we will have a very important Proclamation for women's equality day 2024 and that will be rendered by council member cook in that order thank you and uh as a breastfeeding mom or a former breastfeeding Mom this is a
great opportunity to highlight just the difference and challenges that women face in the community so I appreciate you being here and so I have love Anderson Beren bernardet green and Freda Robin free home Robin here today to receive the proclamation and I will start so whereas the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life with continued breastfeeding while introducing complimentary foods for two years or as long as mutually desired by a parent and child families are a priority in durm and part of helping families to thrive and ensuring that they receive Community Support to develop and sustain Healthy Lifestyles and whereas there are long-standing policy gaps and underfunding of Public Health initiatives that address that needs that that the needs of lactating parents and healthc care providers that serve them which unduly impact
historically marginalized populations resulting in reduced breastfeeding rates and an associated increase and risk for a variety of negative Health negative Health outcomes and whereas a parent decision to breastfeed their child and lactate should be unbiased and supported by their family community and health care providers and by providing a supportive and welcoming environment and whereas our community is proud to have obtained board support and direct community actions Duke Regional Hospital has attained a baby Friendly Hospital initiative design designation the durm County Department of Public Health and local businesses and organizations and child care programs in our community have been designated breast breastfeeding friendly now therefore I Leonardo William mayor of the city of durm North Carolina do hereby Proclaim August 2024 as breastfeeding familyfriendly Community month and Durham and here and recommend its observance to all citizens witness my
hand and the corporate seal of the city of durm North Carolina this the 19th day of August 2024 I want to thank you so much for this opportunity we first approached the mayor's office six years ago where uh for every one white baby that died of infant mortality in Durham 11 black infants died we've been working for six years diligently because in putting in place some of these breastfeeding friendly practices like the Baby Friendly Hospital initiative at Duke our child care providers becoming baby friendly and our hospitals and our health department becoming Baby Friendly have helped to reduce those infant mortality disparities so now for every white baby that dies in Durham County seven black babies die we have more work to do and you will see us again but it's really important that every three years we come to the mayor's office and we
remind the city council about this important work that you're doing and you'll see that we're all wearing our t-shirts today because um citizens of Durham as you go to local parks will see lots of images of different families lactating and feeding and they're a little controversial because they represent the reasons why families are often asked to cover up or move um so I look forward to sharing those all with with all of you thank you so much [Applause] all right if I could ask Dr Amy Odum to come forward or if anyone else wants to come
forward for the women's equality day 2024 okay whereas August 26th is women's equality day which Comm commemorates some women being granted the right to vote based on the 1920 adoption of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United United States on the basis of sex and whereas women of color had to wait an additional 45 years with the passage of the Voting Rights Act to receive their right to vote and whereas the city of Durham hereby issues a formal proclamation to acknowledge women's equality day 20124 and renew the city's commitment to advancing gender equity and protecting women's rights including the right to vote in free and fair elections access to reproductive Health Care Economic Security and pay Equity
enshrinement of the Equal Rights Amendment into the US Constitution and freedom from gender-based violence and now therefore I Leonardo Williams mayor of the city of Durham North Carolina do hereby Proclaim August 26th as women's equality day 2024 in Durham and recommend its observances to all citizens witness my hand in the corporate seal of the city of Durham North Carolina this the 19th day of August 2024 [Applause] thank you uh council member Freeman and council member Cook for those wonderful uh proclamations and thank you all for the work uh that you do uh that warrant that does these small gestures uh of the Excellence you bring to our city at this time I'm going to yield to my honorable colleagues for any announcements from council members and I'll yield to you council member cook my far left
no answers yes ma'am good evening good to see you mayor protm um I just wanted to say a couple of things I know that lots of folks including the mayor uh spent the last week moving lots of kids across North Carolina and other places uh as they launch off to college and other Adventures so I'm just thinking about those uh families because I know it's a big step and then Durham Public Schools year round not year round uh traditional calendars all start school next Monday so I'm thinking about all of our Educators and everyone who are returning to buildings all of the grounds Folks at DPS and maintenance people who have done probably a lot of work on some of those buildings uh throughout the summer and preparation for our students and so uh thinking about everyone and I know with folks with little kids summer can be challenging with a patchwork of camps and things so I know that there's probably a lot of families ready to send their kids off to school next Monday morning um and then I want to thank the Freshman students from duke who came to visit uh today they were here with
council member rist and I there was easily over a hundred students who were doing um it was the citiz what was citizens program Public Service track for orientation service track or the citizens track at Duke and so they're all very eager and want to learn about public policy and are focusing on local government so they came here and spent probably about two and a half hours with us and uh certainly knew their stuff uh had a lot of questions for us it was really great to spend some time with them this afternoon thank you council member council member Freeman thank you I want to appreciate council member kier's um announcements as well and just acknowledge that um there there's some there's some challenges that along with moving all these people and children across this city and uh we just want to make sure the folks are paying attention to being very Vigilant about paying attention to our safety laws um I will just note uh we there was a call I got a call today about um JFK towers and I did want to
just make sure that my colleagues were aware and I did want to make sure that we figure out how to reach out to the county as well and make sure that any department heads that need to be on site for this visit with the interim secretary's assistant uh Tiffany I didn't catch the last name we'll be there tomorrow I believe around 1 and I know I won't get there till about two but I did want to make sure that someone was there that some of us were there um as well and then uh just want to uh just appreciate and just say thank you to dcab for their wonderful annual banquet and annual Founders Day banquet and just congratulate the honores and I did want to just point out the uh great opportunity to celebrate with durm Community Land trustees and the ground B groundbreaking for Guthrie Village which is 16 11 or 16 units of Veteran housing um in our community and then on Commerce Street the groundbreaking um from the Housing Authority and that was all thank you thank you council member council member
R thank you mayor Pam uh council members mam city manager mayor PRM it's great to see you with the gav there it's you know it feels a little bit awkward you're not right here you know next to so like you know you've been by my side since I just got on the council so I'll be back soon yeah um thank you for the opportunity and thank you residents who are here and online um just a couple things so on the I want to pick up on uh Council woman C's comment about back to school the Duke is great meeting with the Duke students um they're not only like our constituents now they're also my neighbors so I it was great to be there and I really challenge them to continue to be involved in the city of Durham during their course of study here in Durham um also had the pleasure of participating along with Council woman cup cup year on Saturday at Duke Energy's day of Champions at the Emily K Center providing backpacks and supplies for uh middle school students in DPS great to be there we appreciate uh Duke Energy for sponsoring that and for all the community groups that were there to be part of that event um you still you covered the groundbreaking there great that those two groundbreakings uh last week both durm Community Land Trust as well as the the DHA um with DHA
development which is part of the downtown and neighborhood plan that DHA is working on this is the first development I should note that is part of the $30 million I'm sorry $40 million Choice neighborhoods grant that Durham received which is a big honor for us so this is important stuff in the Redevelopment of affordable housing downtown and I think it's a big day for Durham um I did also want to say two of things first of all tax bills came out this week not always a cause for celebration but I wanted to make sure sure everybody knows I know taxes have been raised but I want to make sure everybody knows that um we've heard those concerns want to remind you that we are one of the few cities if any cities in the South that provides an important low-income homeowner relief program so if you are a homeowner have owned your home at least five years and below are below 80% of area immediate income you qualify for one of three tiers of support to help you pay for your property taxes we realize that property taxes um without this kind of support hit families of lower incomes harder than those of of Greater incomes and so we have this great program that we sponsored that we Fund in collaboration with the county to provide
that relief I want to also mention if you are if you've owned your home for five years if you're 60 years and older and are below 30% Ami will reimburse your whole tax bill so this is an important property tax relief tax Justice um initiative that the city and county are part of you have to apply a DSS they're the ones that manage the program so be aware that the money has not always been utilized in the past year so please if you qualify we want you to take advantage of that program to make sure your taxes are relieved as we are raising taxes to make important investments in the city of Durham last thing to say new seats at the Carolina Theater if you haven't seen them they're awesome the old seats were a little bit uncomfortable the new ones look awesome and they're more comfortable so you'll enjoy the next time you go to the Carolina Theater and you'll enjoy the new seats there so thank you mayor P thank you council member Council fre of course go go ahead thank you and um council member it's reminded me to make sure that I mentioned that this Saturday I had the opportunity of joining uh Community Partnership in North Carolina bail fund and doing their uh expungement clinic for the residents in community who
m. and the do should be open around 6 6:30 and we hope that all who can attend will be available our great assistant City assistant city manager Deputy city manager Keith chadwell's team will be in place and offering some updates on Transportation parks and wreck and Community Development thank you colleagues thank you for your announcements at this time I'm going to turn to our staff for priority items and I'll first yield to our city manager for any priority items she may have good evening Madam manager good evening Mr Mayor protim members of the Durham city
council I have one priority item uh for you for you this evening agenda item number seven which is update on the Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street this item was placed on the consent agenda in Era and has been move to the general business agenda for this evening thank you thank you madam Andre now to our City attorney for any announcements she may have good good evening uh councelor good evening mayor PRM members of the council it's good to see you the city attorney's office does not have any priority items tonight and at this time I'll yield to our clerk for any announcements she may have good evening Madam clerk good evening mayor pemp and members of city council the city clerk's office has one priority item for your consideration tonight it is item four boards committees commissions and task force fiscal year 2023 2024 annual attendance reports council member Freeman's attendance has been updated for the audit Services oversight committee the human relations commission and homeless Services advisory commission um per the list
council member Freeman is alternate to audit HRC and hsac thank you madam Clerk and Madam manager and Madam attorney your items are noted at this time now I'll turn to our consent agenda and read our agenda for the record consent agenda items are items that have already had treatment uh by the city council at a previous work session a deep dive um however any item on the consent agenda can be pulled by any member of the council or any member of the public uh consent agenda items can be passed with one vote uh by the council all collectively in an Omnibus form unless one of the items are pulled in that this time I'll read for the record our consent agenda item number one Durham cultur Advisory Board appointment item two Durham Sports commission appointment item three Durham bicycle bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission appointment appointment item four boards committees commissions and task force fiscal year 2023 to 2024 annual attendance reports item number six
resolution approval of a multif family housing facility to be known as 500 East Main and the financing thereof with multif family housing revenue bonds Bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $29 million item number eight condemnation action to obtain one easement at 1505 Holloway Street SW 66 item number nine Solid Waste Management concrete repairs Engineering Services agreement with A1 Consulting Group Inc item number 10 Solid Waste Management Yard Waste Site repairs Engineering Services agreement with Smith Gardner Inc item number 11 First Amendment to contract between the city of Durham and Cranium holding holding Inc item 12 resolution accepting the Build It Forward Grant from the United States tennis Association Southern for the repair of tennis courts at boundaries Park item number 13 annual support agreement and license agreement for munice software item number 14 contract with securance LLC for virtual Chief
Information Security Officer managed Services item number 15 First Amendment to the contract with ESO Solutions Inc for fire records management system that ends the reading of our consent agenda under General business agenda tonight we'll be taking up item number 5 2025 city council meeting schedule item number 7even update on the Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street under General business agenda public hearings item number 17 univi development ordinance text Amendment Omnibus 19 tc4001 item number 18 zoning map change Duke central campus Edition that is the end of our agenda at this time colleagues I will entertain a motion to uh pass our consent agenda so moved second second I've heard a motion in second Madam clerk would you please open the vote would you please close the vote and Report out and the motion passes unanimously
thank you Madame clerk all right colleagues we'll turn out to our general business agenda uh item number five 2025 city council meeting schedule who who uh why is that on did somebody have any questions about that I thought we discharged of all that at the work session I think there was a question about the July 24th work session at which I think the mayor was going to be out of the country but there was some there's not consensus on that yeah if there that's my recollection I was I believe that that we were going to hold the current schedule which is what would have just moved this forward in the general business so I'm not sure why it was not on consent but do weor I do recall um you know quite a bit of discussion around the movement of the meeting uh for that would be scheduled at the uh in the last week of July um there were two dates
that were proposed one was on I believe July 31st and the other was on the same day as the work session as the council meeting that will be scheduled for August 4th and it the the agenda was approved with this particular item um not on consent so we we're just here with it okay otherwise it would be July 24th council member copy thank you madam manager council member copy error yeah I think there was interest in moving it to as late in July as possible but there were a few council members that weren't 100% certain of their schedule this far in advance so I think maybe we're just going to leave it and then amend it if needed but I wasn't sure well it it it's within our purview to amend it later if if we need to so what I'll do is I I'll ask for a motion to pass uh item five so moved second I heard a motion in a second Madam clerk would you please open the vote please close the vote and Report
out and the motion passes unanimously thank you so much all right uh colleagues uh that dispenses of item five item number seven update on the Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street and we do have some cards we do have some speakers who want to speak but I I want to see if the staff has any framing for us good evening Stacy Poston city of Duram General Services Department here this evening um to provide another update on 505 West Chapel Hill Street as a part of the discussion um that happened at work session um staff is recommending a revision ision of the SEC the the third motion the second substantive motion and um I believe those are in your agenda packets happy to read it if Council prefers or available to answer questions all right for the sake of the viewing public would you just go ahead and read it if you don't mind sure
absolutely um so the motion reads to authorize the city manager to negotiate a non-binding term sheet outlining the the terms of the development agreement and other proposed excuse me and other required transactional documents with TPC 505 WC comma LLC for the base scenario request for proposal submission as necessary for the Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street with consideration of the potentiality of a ground leas structure and additional affordable units thank you so much for that uh colleagues I think that captures the spirit of the conversation we had but before I go to um comments from the public do any do council member cook please I just have one quick question for staff so um I know that the developer received the motion or the language of this amended motion before the agenda was published and before it went out to the public is that something that normally happens I just want to be able to communicate to constituents in
the future uh I am not sure of the exact timing I was doing a lot of communication but those things happen at about the same time so as we are drafting agenda motions and those are getting approved we are communicating with um The Firm that we are recommending is that something that might happen in the future is there do you I mean I'm just curious about to have a sense of when that might happen I know a lot of community members were surprised by that I was surprised by that because it was before I had the language as well um and so I was just curious if there was how I how I can better communicate that to the public right so um I am not sure at this very moment exactly what the time was I was doing a lot of communication with a lot of stakeholders that we've got going on so I'm not sure if the the publishing of the of the agenda happens on Friday sometime during that Friday afternoon so not sure exactly if the developer received the information prior to the publishing of it or but it was the intention that
those are those things are happening generally simultaneously okay yeah I mean I know that they had it at least a full day before the agenda was published so that was the question okay and it might have been longer I'm not sure okay I mean the attention is that generally we are trying to around the same time of all with all the stakeholders all the parts and pieces yeah that's what I figured I just right like I said people were surprised about it so I just wanted to make sure okay thank you thank you thank you Council anyone else with questions I I I do want to say the for th for those who watch that work session the language was pretty much crafted in real time um with the presence of the developer there um so anything and I believe the language um keeps Fidelity with the conversation that we had at the work s there's nothing substantively different I mean we actually that doesn't sound much different than what we said at the work session uh to me but but to to council member uh Cook's point we certainly want to you know make sure that the the you know folk get things at the same time but I'm comfortable in that the
developer was there when we all heard it um and for our purposes tonight I I think that Fidelity is kept but I I do want to associate myself with certainly keeping vigilance um and any member of the public um that has any concerns free up some time and watch some of our work sessions or or you know if you have time and and nothing to do they're archived as well um so I I think there is a there's a a Fidelity to what we discussed out loud at the work session with respect to the motion Council Maris did you okay all right I'm going to turn now to members of the public I'm going to well first off I'm going to start with our um neighbors are online uh Madam clerk Stella Adams wishes to speak on this matter and if you would enable her if you see her in the que hello can you hear me M Adams thank you good to hear you uh thank you for being with us you have three minutes thank you um mayor protim members of the city
council my name is Stella Adams and I am speaking today on behalf of the durm committee on the Affairs of black people the dorm committee supports the letter sent on behalf of the 505 project Coalition that letter clearly states that we were dissatisfied with the city staff's RFP while none of the proposals satisfied the needs expressed by the community With The Changes we are advocating we could accept a modified proposal from Peoples Peoples is a blackowned firm and it is the mission of the Durham committee to create opportunities for black businesses in Durham peoples had the highest percentage of mwbe participation of the considered candidates and increasing mwbe participation is a key consideration of our participation the durm committee stands
firmly with the Coalition in demanding that the city maintain ownership of the land to to ensure affordability and perpetuity the Drone committee stands firmly with the Coalition that more affordable housing needs to be added to the contract this can be achieved by reducing the amount of commercial space by a 100,000 square feet which would yield between 80 and 100 more units the durm committee shares the concerns of the Coalition on the heavy Reliance on the prop proposal of City funds but we believe that City retention of ownership of the land and the potential for additional private Capital can reduce that dependence on City financing thank you for considering the community's needs for additional affordable housing units and that the city retain ownership to ensure
affordability and accountability in perpetuity thank you thank you Miss Adams at this time I'm going to call the first five speakers I'll ask that as I call you if you would uh line up um against the railing uh to my right uh your left and I'm pleased to welcome Janetta Altin Mr Mayor pemp Janetta Austin actually pivoted to being online she's virtual oh do you have her all right very good then we we'll hear from her now miss Austin can you hear me yes can you hear me I can good evening thank you for being with us you have three minutes okay good evening council members the reason I wanted to speak is because of the situation that I'm sure you all are aware of I have concern with building or reconstructing 500 East Main Street when we have a 100 plus citizens right down the road at JFK
towers that are living in squalor there has been no mention in no meeting that I have heard of of what even though that is a privately owned place we are citizens and you're building something new but no one's taking charge to say to this um millenum group you can't do this in our town I mean when does that happen you know I'm showing up everywhere trying to make everybody aware this is what's going on with our seniors and our handicap people living in squala right down the road and to build something else without addressing what's already going on makes no sense to me as a
citizen that's what I wanted to to bring to your attention this evening thank you so much Miss Aon for being with us right I turn now to to our neighbors who are here with us in chamber uh Nicole Thompson Jane Williams Cynthia Williams George smart Reverend James Blake if you would good evening you'll just stay your name for us and you'll have three minutes thank you for being with us thank you good evening mayor proom Middleton council members city manager Paige City attorney rurn my name is Nicole Thompson I the president and CEO of downtown durm Incorporated located at almost forgot 307 West Main Street site 102 DDI is excited that the Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street may be moving closer to reality this site is a pivotal piece of property
sitting in a key location in our downtown as such you the council must treat it as a catalytic and transformative development that it can be you are in a unique position to ensure that what happens at this location is just the first in a series of Redevelopment that continues to fuel downtown's downtown Durham's growth and vibrancy you've heard from a number of organizations already about what they'd like to see on the site open space commercial lab space housing affordable housing maintaining the existing building Etc these are all important when considering the overall development and when considering downtown's growth but I ask you to take a moment and think of the bigger picture and how this Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street will interact relate to inspire encourage and push development and growth throughout downtown with the ability to form a very strategic public private partnership with the preferred developer 505 West Chapel Hill Street could become an important impetus to how downtown continues to recover and grow this site says adjacent to or in close proxim to a number of to a minimum of
five other private development sites it is adjacent to the NC Mutual building the go triangle parking lot it's just two blocks from the Gregson its back Southeast corner is just two short blocks from the proposed ATC expansion and it is just four blocks from the Durham ID Master development to develop the 505 West Chapel Hillside in a vacuum would be a disservice to downtown you must strongly encourage your preferred developer to reach out and discuss and collaborate as appropriate with adjacent property owners these five sites I just mentioned have a total of 30 Acres that are in some stage of Redevelopment for downtown's long-term viability it is essential that these and other developments start working collaborative collaboratively on how they support downtown's continued growth and needs I remind you of the role the city played in the creation of the Durham Bulls Athletic Park which led to the complete Redevelopment and growth of the American Tobacco campus in adjacent property with fa5 the city sits in a similar position and with an intentional and thoughtful Redevelopment plan encouraging coll collaboration with other potential redevelopments the city could lead
downtown's next phase of development and growth we all know that this site sits along West Chapel Hill Street a busy theller through downtown but I ask that you remember that this property also also sits between Gregson and Duke two busy car dependent oneway streets that have no real connection to downtown but rather work to move traffic vehicular traffic in and out of downtown as quickly as possible as you consider the Redevelopment of this property I ask that you consider how the city and NC do will work with this development to make Gregson and Duke a more pedestrian friendly Corridor a corridor that encourages people to walk to around and through wow really thank you it goes quick thank you so much for being with us man I've got a lot thank you so much we look forward to working with the prefer developer thank you good evening thank you for being with us thank you council members for your time and attention my name is Jane Williams and I represent the walk-in
Ministry of First Presbyterian Church First Presbyterian is a Downtown Church by choice we are located a block from the urban Ministry of Durham so we see people in crisis from a wide range of social economic backgrounds on Mondays and Thursdays of each week our ministry works with individuals and families who are are struggling to pay their rent and utilities this certainly includes people of low wealth but the shortage of affordable housing and the lack of increase in earnings to cover these higher housing cost has resulted in our assisting individuals of higher income for example last week I talked with a mother of two children who works for Durham public schools and is on a 10-month contract she was behind in her rent and needed assistance before being filed against for eviction we frequently have
employees from duke who work full-time and struggle to pay their rent because of the lack of affordable housing employees often have to live outside of Durham and drive significant distances to their jobs the need is great and the 505 property is the city's last opportunity to direct ly address the housing shortage there is no magical number for how many affordable units are to be built at 55 if the council goes with the proposal to retain the Milton small building and convert it into a hotel there is a striking contrast there will be a hundred available hotel rooms compared with 92 units of affordable housing on the site this comparison seems out of balance are people visiting Durham more important than people who live and work in
Durham we would urge the council to direct the staff to negotiate a significant increase in the number of affordable units offered including exploring the possibility of subsidies by the city to cover the increased cost of more units thank you [Music] [Applause] you good evening my name is Cynthia Williams I'm a durm resident from the 27713 area code I'm also one of the co-chairs of the Coalition for affordable housing and Transit known less formerly as cat I want to thank thank you mayor protim and your fellow council members for the opportunity to speak on the 505 project several cat Volunteers in their counterparts from five Citywide
organizations spent multiple hours working with City staff and interested real estate developers to communicate durm residents needs for affordable housing at the 505 site the 505 community group reviewed the people's Corporation RFP submission and shared with City staff the developer and available council members its concerns with the current people's proposal cat offers is continued support of the process we only ask that productive negotiations take place to one significantly increase the number of affordable housing units in the final contract and two an agreement be made that the site's acreage be leased rather than sold to the developer for clarification cat agrees the people's corporations RFP submission yield a workable proposable proposal for the city there are aspects of people's proposal that we believe will make the 505 site a great asset for Durham's future however we reserve full support
until the completion of the RFP negotiations we ask Council to provide City staff and developer with instructions to address the community's two concerns as I previously stated before the contract is finally signed downtown Durham has few prominent sites left to make a visible state about our community's commitment to Equitable aesthetically pleasing affordable housing for all income levels especially for those low to mid income residents with the greatest affordability needs your guidance for further good faith negotiations to take place will help to achieve the highest feasible number of affordable housing units for our residents on behalf of cat I ask that tonight's council help make the community's hopes for significantly more affordable housing on the 505 site come true I believe you can make it happen finally I want to affirm cat's informed actions representing Multicultural multiethnic multigenerational and multiclass concerns about derms housing at the 505 site please be assured that
my voice communicates the voted upon stance of the many organizations in the Coalition I want to especially thank the cat Partners who are here tonight helping excuse me helping ensure that the council knows we are representing many parts of the durm community whose voices need and want to be heard thank you for your time thank you so much for being with us GE smart thank you for with you have three minutes thank you hi I'm George smart I'm the executive director of North Carolina modernist 37e resident of Durham our organization is a nonprofit that works to preserve mid-century modern buildings and houses across North Carolina I was wondering just to be curious how many of you in the council have actually been in the building by show of hands so some of you it's gorgeous it is really an attractive building you've got cherry and mahogany along the walls you've got terazzo floors you've got floor to ceiling
Windows you've got great architectural elements that were put in place with the building by Phil freelon and Patricia Harris when the building was rehabbed a number of years ago our organization is here tonight to fully support the current discussion around giving this contract to peoples and preserving the building whatever use that you use it for it is a prominent place in Durham's history it is a beautiful building and we just encourage you to keep saving it thank you very much thank you for being with us Reverend Blake thank you for being with us sir you have three minutes thank you sir good evening mayor protim and members of the city council my name is James Blake I'm the pastor of the Fisher Memorial United holy church here in the city of Durham also serve on the strategy team of Durham can and I'm a member of the clergy caucus I'm here tonight to publicly remind this body of the promises that have been made relative to affordable
housing in the city of Durham specifically I'm here to establish a relationship that promotes accountability of the developers selected for 505 West Chapel Hill Street we want the council to encourage the developers to maximize the number of affordable units at 505 West Chapel Hill Street we stand watching and waiting just as we are doing with fet place we all are aware that the cost of living or the cost to live in our city is continuing to rise and many who work in our city are unable to afford to live here there's a great need for affordable housing in our city this need has resulted in many organizations joining forces to support and petition for more affordable housing tonight there is representation from Durham can the durm chapter of the NAACP the Durham committee on the Affairs of black people People's
Alliance and Duke Memorial Church we know that any success in providing affordable housing comes from the collaborative effort of organizations within the city who hold not only the city of Durham accountable but also hold one another accountable to lend its voice to the fight in affordable housing Durham is a great place to live and people from other parts of the country and even the world are learning of the greatness of our city our responsibility as citizens of Durham is to ensure that Durham is a city for all and not just a destination for the elite we need affordable housing now and forever and collectively we can provide affordable housing for current and future Generations thank you thank you so much for being with us I'm going to call the next five names Sharon Fosbury Sharon fosberry Kathleen Turner
Julianne Patterson and Mimi Kesler in that order if you'll will approach the uh Podium and thank you all so much for being with us this evening you'll each have three minutes if you'll just state your name and you have three minutes thank you for being with us hello city council good evening um my name is Sharon Fury and I live on lemongrass Lane in Durham I'm here on representing the People's Alliance but also a Derm resident who really really cares about affordable housing as you've heard the need for affordable housing is great and you as city council have noted that have noted that it is great um I just wanted to talk about how like the cost of living has skyrocketed and displaced many people in in Durham affordable housing is one tool not the it's not going to be the Panacea of everything right but it's a tool that can be used to fight against displacement although it's a great tool many times it is hindered by costly land acquisition variances and other things that's not the case here you guys the city owns this land the city owns this land you
guys can use it for the true needs that Durham has durm needs affordable housing right and so you guys just looking at the zon the amount of affordable units that could be created downtown with the height the height that's permitted like this is a golden opportunity to make a serious significant contribution to the city's inventory for the affordable housing inventory in the city this is a great opportunity for many other people to develop more affordable housing in the community and we need true affordable housing 60% Ami or less not 80% right we need multi we need more more than one bedrooms we need it for families not for individuals right so we need 80% we need in perpetuity we need deed restricted we need it to be for families right that's what's going to keep the people of Durham here right your public servants your teachers your your workers your your city hall workers right they need to be able to raise their families here
in Durham so the People's Alliance and we just the board has also voted to really urge you to keep ownership of this this is in the city's hands right now please please use it in the right way you have control over this and you can make a real real big impact and make a serious decline in the displacements that happening in the city thank you so much thank you Kathleen Turner good evening thank you for being with us you have three minutes mayor Williams and members of council my name is Kathleen Turner I'm the pedmont regional director for preservation North Carolina my office is in Durham on 9th Street preservation North Carolina strongly supports the city of Durham's selection of the people's corporation based development proposal for 505 their thoughtful proposal not only preserves the historic iconic home security life insurance building it presents a comprehensive proposal that meets all the city's stated priorities for the site preservation North Carolina is the
state's nonprofit leader and historic preservation dedicated to protecting and promoting buildings sites and Landscapes important to the diverse Heritage of North Carolina for decades we've worked with communities in a variety of ways to achieve this Mission we've also been involved in numerous large- scale development projects that involved the production of affordable housing we've witnessed firsthand how the preservation of historic buildings meets the needs of residents as well as answers the call to be better stewards of the environment in which we all live including its citizens opened in 1959 is the office for home security life insurance company this building represents the first Mis vandero inspired tall office building its original design subsequent Renovations are associated with nationally and internationally renowned Architects including our very own North Carolina Milton small Pat Harrison Phil Freeland however the 880,000 foot building is more than an architectural Benchmark for the city it its preservation represents a smart and Innovative path forward for the
Redevelopment of the Cities downtown the people's corporation based proposal answers this call by adapting the existing mid-century building into a 100 room hotel that brings vibrancy to the site creates new jobs and provides substantial Revenue to the city while also supporting the other components of the project utilization of historic tax credits produces a substantial cost savings that can be applied to other components of the development and support that as well from a site planning standpoint a hotel um uh in this location makes so much sense it's right off the freeway two and two Transportation hubs and walking distance to downtown additionally a hotel use in the existing building would shelter the proposed residential structures on the remaining 3 acres from noisy Street traffic providing an oasis for residents within the progressive city of durm is fortunate to have a streamlined and architecturally Progressive authentic Landmark designed by North Carolina architect Milton small in its heart preservation North Carolina is pleased to support the pebles corporation base development proposal which meets all the
city stated priorities thank you thank you so much for being with us Julian Patterson good evening thank you for being with us you have three minutes yeah thank you for having me um Julian Patterson I'm the executive director of preservation Durham based here in Durham um our offices are in the Chester Field building um and I'm here once again to express preservation Durham's enthusiastic support to move forward with the people's Corporation and their base proposal plan that includes the Adaptive reuse of the historic home security life the Milton small building into a hotel um I shared my suggestion at the work session to encourage use of the historic tax credits um the state and federal tax credits are available to any incom producing property that's listed on the national register of historic places um that completes a certified Rehabilitation of a historic structure for this project um they'd be worth about $5 million um and I cannot stress enough that these credits have played a significant role in the revitalization of many of Durham's tobacco warehouses and historic buildings downtown um including a mid-century modern Hotel um but really
buildings are just containers for stories so I figured I would share a couple stories um and touch on the history of the building that was mentioned at the last meeting um so the building served its first and longest life as a corporate headquarters for an insurance company and that use gives context to the surrounding landscape and the rise of the landmark andc Mutual Tower across the street from it um which was built in an even more adventurist and modernist style during the Civil Rights Movement to Tower over the earlier design of the wh Le insurance company we need both of the buildings to tell that story and to give that context and we also need the history of the police department to tell the story of how Pat Harris one of the first black women licensed to practice architecture in the state of North Carolina and Phil frelon fed designer of the national museum of African-American history and culture in DC were hired by the city of Durham in one of their first public contracts to do the retrofit of that building converting it from the corporate offices into the police station Pat Harris is on the board of preservation Durham and she's watching tonight so hi Pat um but she wanted to
share on her behalf that she believes it took a lot of Courage for the 1990 city council to hire a black Architecture Firm to renovate the building of an insurance company that would not write policies for black people during Jim Crow she believes that decision was one that led the way for Durham to become the progressive and inclusive City that it is today um so that's just a reminder that history is being made every every day and the stories that are history the stories of our uh historic buildings are not static um and Durham has a real opportunity with this project to write the next chapter of a dynamic mixed use Redevelopment that combines new and old to serve as a model for preservation for other cities so I just once again uh want to say thank you for prioritizing historic preservation um and getting this project where it is today so thank you thank you for being with us thank you for being with us you have three minutes hi my name is Mimi Casto I live in Durham I can't be any more eloquent than the people who've spoken before me so I'm just going to give you
the bottom line please don't settle please get what we need please don't settle for something that isn't what we need thank you thank you so much I believe I've exhausted all the cards that have been given to me Madam cler is anyone else in Q all right then I'm going to turn now to my colleagues U on the day is for any questions or comments council member Baker I have a question for the developer the development team uh my question is um if I and is the development team here well um we've heard a little bit about some of the uh development issues that you've run into in in Charlotte I was wondering if you could give us a little rundown on what exactly happened in Charlotte and um
how that that the issues that you ran into in Charlotte might be avoided here in the Durham context so we haven't met before I'm Don Peeble so I'm the founder and chairman of the company so I figured I'd take this U first of all um it's good for me to be back in North Carolina my grandparents are from North Carolina and my UNC my cousin who's like an uncle to me cheered the Duke Endowment for many years um and as a triple alumni of Duke uh Clarence new so it's good to be back here in North Carolina and I'm happy to be here um I run um a development company that I founded in 1986 in Washington DC it's considered one of the largest uh development firms in the United States we have over8 billion of projects in our pipeline have committed nearly completed nearly $3 billion dollar of development projects around the country it's the largest african-american-owned development company in the United States and has been for a couple decades um we've been Black Enterprise company of the year we have been one of the most influential
firms and one of the things that we have done is set a new standard in Washington DC where this company was founded in terms of economic inclusion before it was disgusting before it was popular because in 1986 we did over 35% of our contracts with minority and women owned businesses and of course I was taught the real estate business by a black woman my mother who was a real estate broker so this is a tough business by the way and you mentioned Charlotte North Carolina so we were selected to develop uh what was Tried by two other developers by the way um and unsuccessfully so a neighborhood called Brooklyn Village which was a historically black community that was vacated in uh for the purpose of urban renewal and so we won a competition in fact one of our competitors in this site bit against us as well and uh um U we were successful uh but Charlotte and and meinberg County moved too quickly um they didn't a were not able to give clear title to the property so we were
selected in 2016 and I believe we got clear title they got clear title about two years ago we went through an entitlement process and uh and then completed that entitlement process and closed within a matter of months thereafter so we own the site and we have done phase one and ongoing with phase one right now which is site work so I'm trying to figure out what the issue is that you said was an issue with regards to Charlotte what's the issue that you're concerned about um based on some conversation that I've had and things I've been told articles I've pulled up um there was a delay in the process um no there's not a delay in the process actually so um I don't know what you've been told so again we closed when this um when mecklinburg County was able to get clear title to all the property the city of Charlotte had rights to the property and they negotiated and and between the county and the city government negotiated the terms of the them giving up those development rights and those and they
had a right to repurchase a site Charlotte did the city did from lenberg County and in order for us to proceed that right had to be extinguished and that was a part of the RFP and they negotiated that between the two governments resolve that so what you're probably referring to is a couple newspaper articles um so we have in our contract like every development agreement does um certain Force majure events so you know labor shortages Financial uh changes in the economy things of that nature those are fourth major issues and when they take place you have to notify um the other party um in order to have an opportunity to preserve your rights so in this instance we are working on the site right now it has been financed we have spent millions of dollars getting um the parcels ready to build building one um however and we will not be ready to do that um until
when is it um October next year so and so we anticipate given the current economy and the interest rates have tripled since we made our uh development agreement with them so I mean we signed an agreement interest rates were essentially zero and the cost of capital um was about 4% it tripled and so if rates are as high as they are then it's going to be difficult to finance building one but we are optimistic on the site so we spent millions of dollars paid U meinberg County the purchase price in full um and are doing work on the site and but if things change and interest rates start declining then we'll proceed as schedule but we did notify them of an anticipatory um you know challenging the financial markets that's it thank you have some comments um I don't have any other questions if there no you can make your
comments now if you like okay great um so I had to miss the uh the work session so I just wanted to share some of my priorities on the site I know that um I I appreciate council member cook um relaying some of some of the things that I want to see um yeah this is an this is such an important site um as so many speakers uh spoke to um one reason is because my mother actually used to be the gardener at at this site um back when I was when I was growing up um I want to see as much permanent deeply affordable housing as possible as has been I think relayed by everyone up here and and so many people in the community um I also want to make sure that um even in the market rate units that there's a maximum allowable rent increase from year to year um I would like to ensure uh public ownership and um public dedication of course the land is already
is already public but ensuring that um any open space either we have retain public ownership of the land or there's public dedication um of of the space so that it's not privatized open space uh we've heard folks talk about quality Urban Design it's a Gateway into different parts of downtown I think that's that's important that is that's iconic um has great downtown design features um goes above and beyond our UniFi development ordinance um requirements wide sidewalk Street trees um the street level activation um making sure that there's permeable frontages uh on the first on the first floor that there are small retail spaces and and non-residential types of spaces on the first floor so that people are moving in and out activating the the street um and um we we heard a little bit from DDI about the importance of that the construction process and engaging with adjacent Property Owners um I I think
that's going to be important moving forward as well is some sort of construction plan that involves uh engaging with with property owners um so um and then for me I know that this is something that we had in the r RFP the return a return of Revenue to the city for me uh that's not as important as getting making sure that we get this right and making sure that that's the best possible development that we can get so those are those are the comments that I was not able to share at the work session want to make sure that I got them out there thank you thank you council member colleagues uh council member R please thank you so much um yeah we had a robust discussion at the work session I appreciate all the comments that were shared there um I and I'm glad so many folks have come here tonight to share their opinions on this I believe deeply in the importance of not selling the property um and also increasing dramatically the amount of affordable housing on the on the site um and as we get to the I think at the reppr time is later as we get to the Motions I'd like to offer a substitute motion for motion three that's on our agenda so I just want to let you know that when we get there I'll happy to offer that
motion anyone else council member thank you um so I I don't have any questions I'm just going to make a statement um I just want to say that I really appreciate the work that has gone into this from the community um I think that that y'all hear me say this over and over again but it's really what makes Durham just an outstanding place to live and also um a place to be a representative uh the engagement and depth of knowledge and care that everyone brings to pretty much everything we do up here which is awesome um and I think that we can see from the turnout and from the engagement that this is something that's really important to Durham this is as many people have stated the last really large parcel in downtown that the city owns and so I just want to Echo what I've been hearing from the community uh which aligns with what I hear on an everyday basis right and and I work with people
um in my city council role who come and are politically engaged but I also have another role where I work with people who are not politically engaged um who maybe don't have time or the ability to be politically engaged um or the privilege to do that and um and these values I think are pretty consistent among everyone that I have talked to now of course there's a diversity in terms of who wants the building and who doesn't want the building and do we want a hotel and all of these things but I think that the core values of maintaining a large amount of affordable housing and also a vibrant downtown that is for the people who live here these are consistent values that I hear again and again um and so here's what I'm going to say um I'm not attached to the build and I know that folks have different feelings on that again I've heard really really really intense and extremely personal um opinions on both sides of the building but to me if the building
and particularly another piece of this if the lab space is coming in between our priorities then they don't need to be there and that is that's what I'm going to say about that I I like the idea of a hotel I understand that Durham is growing and we want to have visitors we want to be a place that is inviting and welcoming um and I I understand that several of my colleagues are excited about that Prospect um but to me if we're going to have a limited amount of space and we're going to have just some affordable housing and a hotel and lab space then we only have a small amount of remaining commercial and what I want to see is Comm commercial that is serving the people who live there I don't want to see commercial that is tailored to out of town guests and I think that's the danger that we run into when we have Hotel spaces and development that is tied in by a hotel right when the hotel becomes like sort of the central focus of that um you heard from downtown
Durham uh folks already today but y'all people that live in downtown Durham they're leaving for all of their stuff right there's nothing here people drive into downtown Durham they have dinner and then they leave there's no Pharmacy anymore there's no grocery store people can't get their basic needs met here we have a super amazing opportunity to make Durham downtown Durham an actual place where people can live and not only survive but also thrive in downtown Durham and I really think that we need to prioritize that and so I I am excited to hear what my colleagues have to say in terms of um potentially offering a different motion I'm interested to hear what the developers are able to come back with I agree with several of the folks what they said that I think that this is a good Baseline but I'm excited to hear how that project Echoes back the clear values and priorities of this community so I'm hoping to see something that really really works to
support what I and I think a lot of other people want to see in downtown dur thank you thank you council member you have anything thank you colleagues and thank you all of the members of of our community who have come out um I think I'm a member of about 95% of the organizations that are part of the Coalition um I I want to we are at a decision Point uh in this process and I I want to I want to speak to a number of the different currents that are informing uh this debate and this conversation firstly just from historical point of view I think it's worth noting that we are here because the original plan felled through we would have already been developing this plan this property so we are here and we approved something based upon Community input based upon a robust vetting and hearing of a number of constituency groups we've
heard some from some of them tonight our economic folk from DDI our preserve Ral Durham folk our affordable housing folk which you know no secret I have great Affinity uh for cut my teeth in public service end during with affordable housing but I I I want to there are a couple of things that I think need to be said in this conversation the first number we had for affordable housing that would have been on that site didn't come from the council it came from the community um what we have before us now is more than the first ask um and and I think that that's where saying the other thing is that the RFP that we sent out we have a different and I understand we have a different Council now and I want to speak plainly to that reality the RFP that we sent out was based upon a community conversation and many of the groups here participated in that first conversation um that brought us that RFP and there were a number of things that we wanted to achieve a significant
financial windfall to the city affordable housing um and activated Street capap keep the building all of these things all of this wish list this wish list that was brought to us um we try to achieve everything give give everybody a piece of what they asked for and that's what informed the RFP and that's what these proposals were based upon so the pros that we have before us from Peebles um we like it but it's almost as if we like it but we want it to behave as another proposal we have a proposal before us that retains the land and increases affordable housing so I just want to say to my colleagues we we have a proposal before I I I don't want I think it's accurate I don't want to call the name errant but there is a proposal that retains ground leav and increases affordable housing so we we we we we like peees but we want it to look like
something else which is fine I I do I do want to speak to to the the facticity of a statement that um the only way we control what goes there is if we keep the land if we keep ownership um black folk in this country are very familiar with the the ability to retain your values on a piece of land and still sell it they were called restrictive covenants um think of a restrictive covenant with morality we can sell this land with terms and if a developer agrees to those terms then those terms are legally binding they don't get to just down the road say okay we're going to flip it for something else and the way we were going to meet one of our requirements for a significant financial windfall was to sell it I there's no other better way to there's no better way to put it with a restrictive covenant on it that is you have to use it for affordable housing and then when you sell if you sell it down the road the city gets a stake in
that that's how we were going to meet the requirement of a financial windfall for the city and if we tweak that which we can I'm not saying I'm against it if we tweak that that changes the numbers that changes the calculus one of the propositions that were on the table when we first started talking about this was we can retain the land and develop it ourselves and I think it was council member Johnson who said we don't want the city in develop it we do not want to enter that bill I mean we could retain the land and just do all affordable hous I mean that's an option to us but if we if we want affordable housing and economic empowerment and a financial stake then at some point we're going to have to you know one of the best definitions of leadership leadership is a Latin word meaning sometimes you have to piss your friends off um everybody will be happy no one will be ecstatic um if we want to keep the building if we want affordable housing if we want to make money if we want it
activated then we're going to have to make some hard choices where everybody gets a piece of what they want uh and not everything if we want to go back to the drawing board and and and make it an affordable housing totally we can do that that's within our power but I just want to say to my colleagues that saying pebles bring us this with more of this fundamentally changes the math on this and fundamentally changes the numbers um and this was based upon an RFP that we've done already I'm not saying that we have to go all the way back to the beginning but and the language that and I don't know what substitute motion my colleague plans on bringing I don't know if there have been subsequent conversations but the purpose of a work session we had a full vetting of this at the work session staff presented us with language I pulled the house and we were all in agreeance then so we haven't had another meeting since that work session so I don't know what subsequently has occurred between that work session and now but we held a
work session public in good faith um we went around the table we were there for a good while and the staff read back to us the language which included the things that we wanted the staff to do namely come back with the potentiality of a ground Le and more affordable units and that was captured that was captured so and I I and I want to main I want to maintain Fidelity with the public robust conversation that we had at our work session which is where these things happen so if we you know I'll put a pin on it here I mean we have motions before us the Motions capture what we ask the staff to do this motion is not to start moving dirt tomorrow this motion is to go back and bring us what it looks like to keep the land and what it looks like to increase units anything other than that at this point is is I think it I just don't think it would be wise
for us as a council to to do anything other than that before we get the numbers this may ultimately be an affordable housing and I'm listening to the you know I'm reading the the lay of the land and listening to the conversation from my colleagues this may very well be an affordable housing project downtown and and that's within our purview but the Where We Are Tonight is where we said we would be at our work session and we communicated that and trans uh uh uh uh put that out in public transl that translated that to the public and I think these motions adequately give us um the runway to get the information we need we're not deciding tonight to break ground we're deciding tonight as was the will of this Council to move forward with pebles and to empower them to come back and bring us back what we've asked for so let's let them bring us back what we've asked for which we captured uh at the work
session and then move forward from there that that's my recommendation so colleagues anyone else council member riss uh appreciate your comments I will say we had a wide ranging discussion at the work session my recollection was at the end of the discussion we all said what did we really decide here so I think we had a lot of conversation I think we we instructed the staff to work with the development team to come back with the revised motion that would reflect the the concerns we shared on Thursday at the work session about the ground lease versus selling the property and about more affordable housing so what's come back in the motion and I'll offer The Substitute when we get there but I think the language certainly where as you say we're authorizing the manager to negotiate a non-binding term sheet right the language is pretty squishy about the potential consideration of a potentiality my amendment is going to make that much more direct and I'll offer that at the time but I want to make clear that I I think when we left there I'm not sure there was clear I don't think we voted on the language that's in that third motion so thank you council member and I I appreciate that
the the mayor well the language is not squishy that that we we had a robust conversation the staff did an excellent job in capturing what we said it's archived we can go back and watch the meeting what was said the language I see before me says to authorize the city manager to negotiate a non-binding term sheet we're not moving dirt outlining the terms of a development agreement and other required transactional documents with TPC 505 wch LLC for the Basin Basin are request for proposal submission as necessary for the Redevelopment of 505 West chaper Hill Street with consideration of the potentiality of a ground Le structure and affordable units that that is precisely what we asked for and that is the precisely the language that is in this um this motion I think the staff did a excellent job in capturing what we said as a Council and there's no squishiness here that this is what we say at the work session I was
there all right Council copier thank you mayor Mr Mayor Pro when are you ready for to accept language for a motion I appreciate that when I'm ready I will thank you all right uh colleagues we have several motions before us on item number seven uh motion number motion one is to approve the recommendation of the pe's corporation pees Corporation doing business as TPC 505 West Chapel Hill LLC as the preferred development team uh I'll receive a motion for that so moved all right you've heard the motion and a second Madam clerk would you please open the vote please close the vote and Report out the motion passes unanimously second motion to authorize the city manager to negotiate a non-binding term sheet outlining the terms of a development agreement and other required transactional documents with TPC 505 West Chapel Hill LLC for the base
scenario request for propos proposal submission as necessary for the Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street with consideration of the potentiality of a ground lead structure and additional affordable units here I'd like to offer my my substitute motion if I may let's well first of all let we need to get a motion and a a secondary motion and then in the discussion you can offer your substitute motion moved second all right we have a motion and a second discussion may I offer now so I'd like to move um a slightly modified motion to read as a following to authorize the city manager to negotiate a non-binding term sheet outlining the terms of a development agreement and other required transactional documents with TPC 505 wch LLC for the base scenario request for proposals for the base scenario request for proposal submission as necessary for
the Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street with a ground lease in consideration of additional affordable units or an annual cap on rent increases not to exceed 6% discussion can can we hear from the city attorney on I guess just making sure that that language makes sense I mean the language is for the policy makers to consider it's an alternative motion it's an amended motion council member cier this is you you'd ask for discussion at this point discussion okay yeah so I'm comfortable with this motion I think it gives the flexibility to the developer around the affordable units there had been conversation around the rent capping we're not dictating the amount of units we're not saying you need to deliver X you know there had been conversations
around oh there needs to be you know 120 I think a number was thrown around and so it it does uh let the development team figure out it as um at the end of the day we need a affordability whether that means 60% Ami or your rent's capped it to me it doesn't matter and so then the the math goes to you all to figure out and we're not dictating to youall the the particulars of it we trust your expertise and your professionalism and uh the way you do business to come back with us uh with some options I certainly wasn't comfortable being too uh strict around that language because there has to be some flexibility within that for the development team otherwise it's going to fail um so that is where I am at uh I think I was really clear at the work session about retaining of land here's here's the thing if this development fails for whatever reason it's not going to but things happen I mean we're here because a previous one failed um and for whatever reason we do
not retain the rights to that land anymore then we have gotten absolutely nothing as a city and I I know as a as an elected leader quite frankly I couldn't look y'all in the face if that were to happen so that is for me um a really particular sticking point um is that if a development deal doesn't happen we all know how sticky uh development has been these last few years between construction costs and everything else uh again to the mayor Pro's point we're here because of previous development deal failed and so I need to know that I'm making good uh for residents and voters of the city and while there are other um public publicly owned properties between the city and the county and the schools uh there's several of them uh I do want to thank DDI um for for uh Nicole Thompson sent her comments that were um cut and she made that point in her email to us and that's true there are other Parcels of land that are publicly held I don't think that we have five five and a half
acres at least continuous like this elsewhere in the downtown core left and so uh it is important I do also just want to highlight and and I'm trusting you all right I think that the fact that that you have a good reputation I think that you were the folks who delivered an RFP project that clearly showed connectivity to our community that clearly showed you understood the history of Durham um I think it's going to be an excellent project um and but I do need to know that we retain the the rights of of of ownership um and that we fought as hard as we could on the affordability piece thank you thank you council [Music] member um and I want to say that I agree with most of what my colleague has stated particularly in terms of ownership of the land um I think that there of course are other methods of transferring land and and rights in land and and we heard earlier about restrictive covenants but
those are things that require the seller to look into the future and make decisions and as we know because we've seen a global pandemic in The Last 5 Years change every the way we think about everything it's extremely hard to imagine contingencies for every outcome um so for me the land ownership also feels super vital um and then I I was wondering council member if you could just read the last section one more time because I think I had a comment on it but I couldn't quite remember the language yeah so the last Clause was uh let's see so required transactional documents with TPC 505 wch LLC for the Bas scenario request for proposal submission as necessary for up here the Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street with a ground lease and consideration of additional affordable units or an annual cap on rent increases not to exceed 6% okay
thank you yes so um I I understand the the need to be flexible in some of the things I for me I would like to see it be a substantial number of affordable housing or a substantial number more affordable housing or the cap um of I think we said you said 6% um and the reason I'm thinking about that is because that has been the number one thing that we've heard from all of our community members we sit up here and talk about affordable housing as a priority on this Council all the time y'all know that it's my biggest priority and that I've literally spend all of my days working on that all the time um but also that was the number one priority listed on the RFP so I think that that is the thing that has been the consistent thread through line um from the Inception of this third iteration all the way until this new Council today um so that would be my request if it if it was a friendly
Amendment are you suggesting to amend the amendment with well actually I did have a question about that because um this is an amendment that was or a motion that was brought by staff so I'm not sure who declares it to be friendly or not but I was I was asking that the substitute proposal have an amendment yes so the council you want to add an amendment to count you want to further amend council member R amendment is that I said the addition of one word yes all right let me let me let me establish some framework from a parliamentary point of view of we we have a motion a live motion we have a we have a substitute sub itute a motion substitute a motion we are we are now in discussion um so be before we amend your Amendment and did this is what work sessions are for um amend your Amendment we're we're going to did you have another I just had a parliamentarian question around that point what you have point of
order I I have a question sure okay I just was asking my understanding would be that we would have to vote on it and then could I don't think we can amend an amendment I guess is what I'm trying to say yeah and thank you for that clarification that's that's we we'll get we'll get to the uh the parliament parliamentary nuances but I do want to just since we're in the discussion part now um we've just voted to designate preferred status to a particular developer and now we're considering a a substantive change to now instead of saying what we agreed upon at the work session consider consideration of the potentiality of a ground leas structure we're saying we want it to be a ground lease that's the proposal but we've chosen a preferred developer already if we're going to say that this must now be a ground lease why would I lock myself in as a decision maker to
one developer without seeing what others might do I I that to me that because somebody might bring us back a better deal I mean I I'm going to prefer one developer but then substantively change the terms of the agreement when we've got another developer Conifer offered us a 65y year um land leas agreement with more affordable housing unit why didn't we just take their agreement um it it's kind of like again as I said earlier we want pebles to behave as someone else rather than just choose to someone else um this motion and again colleagues and I want to be very transparent and just very forthright um and not bite my tongue at all clearly some of y'all been talking since our work session and and it that's clear because we we had an opportunity to vet all of this and to to ask us to uh contrary to what we said at the
work session which is a public meeting to now dictate that it's going to be um a land Le when we're not binding we can let them bring back the numbers we may not like the numbers and we still have the opportunity to um tweak it or change it I understand constituents I understand uh uh uh uh wanting to be responsive to the folk who we feel beholden to I'm beholden to a lot of people in this city but we are now at a decision point we fiduciaries of this city and and we we're we're in these chairs to make some tough decisions the tough decision before us now is choosing uh a developer who will most uh effectively um capture our values and affordable housing was listen full disclosure it's it's my chief value but there were other values The Preserve folk had values our economic friends had
values uh our our our other community stakeholders had values as well and I I just want to be very careful that we first off when we when we transmit something to the public in an open meeting that we keep Fidelity with that secondly and I say this respectfully to to you as decision makers to choose a preferred developer and then sub if I were Conifer I'd be pissed be because we're essentially saying we prefer a developer but we want you to do what somebody else already presented and to me as a decision maker I I just don't I just don't think that's a road we want to go down in terms of our appearing effective and judicious to the folk who put us in these seats colleagues I believe this this this motion that our staff worked on that we said we agreed with at the work session gives us enough flexibility and Agility to do what we need to do we're not moving any dirt tonight all we
are saying is what we said at the work session go back bring us what this looks like I think that for tonight for a council with no numbers before us to say it's definitely going to be a ground lease when our legal staff C can come up with all kinds of ways for us to even if we sell it to still retain our values it happens all the time municipalities do it all over the country folk do it all the time sell it with terms uh and our legal staff is the best in the business in the state of North Carolina they will protect us to do anything other than that tonight to me um I'm not interested in in in in virtue signaling I'm not interested in um um yeah well I'll just leave it at that to do anything other than tonight I think is would be borderline irresponsible without numbers in front of us this staff has given us a a way to get what we need to make an informed decision and I'm comfortable with what
we communicate at the work session so I'm supporting the motion as is council member cabier oh council member Freeman thank you I I really appreciate um mayor protm spelling out kind of what it looks like to go through three different processes and to be three different or four different councils at this point uh what I will say I will add to that in that I think what what for me this evening what drastically shifts from the work session conversation is that this is a public hearing and that there have been a lot of public comments shared that align with what council member riss uh stated in his substitute motion but I'll also add it's also the conversation that Mr pebles brings and exactly what happened in Charlotte and so to your point about the you know restrictive covenants those can be removed what can't be removed is
the only ship and so if there is a way to to complete this project with a ground lease I would like to see what that possibility looks like um and I think it's a great idea to at least acknowledging that there have been troubles in the financial Market to at least allow the developer to move forward and to include some of those things acknowledging the shift in Charlotte um and so just from those that two very specific positions I can hear the conversation around um and I'm trying to catch it the sub substantial housing or the housing you have to say that last part again yeah with a with a ground lease and consideration of additional affordable units or an annual cap when rent increases not to exceed 6% and I think to that point um the piece where you saying additional affordable units being flexible around that I think is is probably where I have a little bit of angst because I do think that there are numbers that have been floating
around around and we're very well aware here in durm that we're very engaged and that folks have ideas in their head and they usually circulate amongst each other and they've been shared publicly and so I've heard the number 225 I haven't heard it come forward today but I do want to make sure that the developers aware that there are numbers and the more Community engagement that you do do the the the more likely you are to have more Community Support which is why in the work session I kept stating that this is likely to come back before us a number of more times I don't want to keep seeing it change because what I'm very clear on is that I am still waiting around the corner from fville Street for it to be developed and we are yet in in another iteration of it and that has produced zero affordable units and so when we talk about affordable housing I am at my wits end on the lack of housing that is actually being developed I think Willard Street is the last of it that we've been able to get done and I would like to see us get more done so that's where I am I I
appreciate mayor Pro Tim's comments I do think that to his point making the changes on the Fly is never what you want to do but here We Are Tonight uh post pandemic post uh Charlotte situation and acknowledging that finances aren't always uh as clear as it can be with the murkiness around it I think we're giving you a little bit more guidance as a as a new Council there are new members and they have some ideas and so rent caps you know land Le ground lease however it looks it's better to have more information up front um even though it's post the RFP I want this process to continue that's all thank you thank you council member uh this isn't a public hearing this is a general business uh item um that is subsequent to a work session per regular order uh work session that would have been on consent but it was placed on General business it it it's it's not a a public hearing I appreciate that correction and just noting that there were public comments shared in a in the general business item
no doubt yeah there were public comments I I I heard them um uh this there were public comments and in deference to those public comments I I for example the the 6% I have I don't know the math or science behind that number maybe it might need to be higher than 6% I mean where did the where did that number come from I don't I don't know the calculus or or the the the equation that came up with that number why don't we let our professional staff do what we pay them to do and bring us back numbers so we can make an informed decision I have no idea where that number I I don't know if that number is high it might need to be 9% or 8% and and without doing the due diligence um at a Monday night where we're voting on motions that were crafted during our work session just on the back of an envelope write down numbers I'm I I just don't understand why why we would do that um when we could be shorting ourselves I think this
motion gives us enough leeway to get in we're not breaking any dirt we're not writing checks tonight we're asking our staff to go back and bring us more information and everything we're doing now we can do again in an informed intelligent way with numbers before us I understand wanting to um honor what our constituent the I'm part of these constituencies too but this is this is leadership now this is decision- making and and you know you got to get used to some folk being unhappy with you sometime and we'll still be friends but I cannot support after what we've done at the work session in public just on the Fly substituting variables inserting numbers as policy makers with no with no science or no math in front of us when we've got you know enough leeway to do what we need to do in an informed way Council M Freeman then I'll come back to the end of the podium thank you I I I did just want to offer um hearing your angst about the numbers that it it
is actually a um statement from the president of the United States around developing rent caps um that can highlight some of some of this 5% conversation around the rent cap so it's not just a number out of thin air I do want to say that that came out in July I know it's newer it hasn't been vetted or tried in many other cities or towns but I do think it's something we could do here that does demonstrate um what a cap how we can work with developers in a public private way um to make sure that the Caps are in place to prevent people from losing their housing and I'm just offering that because I hear your angst I understand it and I I just wanted to make sure you're thank you I'm not familiar with the president's comments saying six% but council member I think C council member did you have your hand up okay council member copy arrow and then we're gonna thank thank you I just wanted to highlight that the motion says or with the rent capping and I think the reason we are interested in that is for flexibility for the developer I think that that is that is it's not and um
there there was a a Nuance to choosing um the conjunction we chose um so um I think it comes to the development team uh to to show us your work I mean that that's essentially what it is and and the the bar is set high and Durham um I think uh I understand the mayor proems angst I've said it during the work session there were many of us that I was not super pleased with the way that the RFP conversation went down I felt that and I and I am the council member who said actually the city should just develop this so I know council member Johnson at the time and I were not on the same page um so uh um I just want to highlight that there's a reason why we chose you know there's an or and not an and uh and I think it does provide flexibility for the development team I think the the rent capping idea often you'll see a three or 4% on a on a rental property if you're trying to ACR passive income that's a pretty standard thing that a landlord will do on a lease just year-over-year regardless of what they're doing or how
they're improving their property um they will just include it uh and so that that is kind of um just what happens a lot of times with investment properties and what's been happening across the United States is that you're seeing eight 10 10 plus rent percent increases for no reason it's not because that building got a new roof it's not because there's a new HVAC system it's because somebody put some paint on a building and decided to up your rent your income hasn't increased especially if you're on a fixed income as a senior and so we do actually have to have these conversations and certainly I think at least my trust in this developer is to this is going to be a collaborative process this is going to be a process where we work together because that is what was stated To Us by the developer at the work session thank you council member Baker Baker got a question um for for staff um first of all I'm I'm comfortable with the the um the goal post um that that has been proposed here tonight with the uh amended motion um to to staff I just
wonder if you could tell us what is the next decisionmaking Point uh for the council and what are the steps we vote on this tonight what are the next steps that follow this what's sort of the general timeline could you explain that to to us and to the public uh sure Stacy post and general services department so what we would do um if the motion passes this evening is we would begin to enter into negotiations with the preferred development team and attempt to draft um a term sheet development agreement whatever documents were necessary based on the framework of the deal um and include those elements and we would then come back to council for concurrence and recommendation to advance so the um you know generally we would need to have a discussion with the preferred development team to determine what the negotiation ter term might look like um and so we would be able to sort of have that conversation and then come back to council with with those documents for your consideration and what would be the
decision-making point for Council right so you would would make a decision on whether to accept the terms that were in the development agreement um and have discussion about those documents um to determine if they had Fidelity with um the intent of council's Direction this evening okay thank you thank you uh council member I I think it's worth noting that if if we're going to substitute every variable and Define the terms then there's nothing for us to consider we we what they're going to bring back is what we tell them to bring back if we say 6% they're going to bring back 6% if if we say ground leas they're going to bring back ground leas and whatever those numbers are we've already told them you're our preferred a developer not not withstanding there's another developer that might do better and we're here in the public saying that we prefer you so so the motion as it's stated now from the staff allows us to do everything
that we've been saying for the last hour and and and still be in a position to um look at the numbers um look at the terms and make an informed decision on behalf of the people of this city rather than us substituting variables just to be substituting them um so I I would say that to to your point uh council member Baker that what they will bring if if we close the door on the research and say this is the number and this is what we want then we're not going to be surprised by what they bring back because we as as the final Arbiters of of this City's business they're they're going to do what we tell them to do um so who else may I I just want I want to Echo council member Cav's comments we're simply providing a little bit extra direct guidance to staff as they have these negotiations we understand that that means a negotiation with the development team to figure out what's
possible giv these more explicit directions that's all we're doing here so I'd love to call for the vote I think we got some I got we've got some clear language we've given we said either more affordable housing or the rank cap idea we want ideas more affordability as we heard here tonight T and that's what the motion will do thank you thank you um but your and I want to do justice to your substitute motion because now you use either or language we are not at the point of a motion so I I need a clear motion um so if you would because we've had some discussion about amending the amendment and either or an a motion and kind of a menu of items we are we are now as a council getting ready to engage in a legal Act of of casting a vote I need a clear motion so so if you would for us I think I've offered that I'm I'm ask well and I'm telling you subsequent to your offering we've had a whole bunch of discussion so for the sake of the record yeah if you would restate well restate the entire motion yeah yeah okay
to authorize the city manager to negotiate a non-binding term sheet outlining the terms of a development agreement and other required transactional documents with TPC 505 WC LLC for the base scenario request for proposal submission as necessary for the Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street with a ground lease and consideration of additional affordable units or an annual cap on rent increases not to exceed 6% motion to substitute as R hold on a second that's your motion is there a second for that motion I I just made the motion but no there's a motion is there a second for that motion I'm sorry I thought that you were just reading the text were you making the motion that's my Mo that's my motion that's second
sorry are you seconding that that's I did second the motion we're going to vote on The Substitute motion if that motion fails then we vote on the first motion if this motion passes then we don't vote on the um motion as stated all right you've heard the motion uh it's been seconded Madam clerk would you please open the vote please close the vote and Report out and the M motion passes 5 to one with mayor pretent Middleton voting no do we need to do the okay all right all right the next motion is to adopt an order orance amending the general Capital Improvement project ordinance fiscal year 2024 to2 as amended the same being ordinance number 16338 so moved second I have a motion in the second Madam clerk would you please open the vote please close the vote and Report
out and the motion passes unanimously final motion to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute a contract for Consulting Services for the disposition and Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street between the city of Durham and hrna advisor Inc in an amount not to exceed $250,000 moved second discussion um sta I have a question if with respect to have we just decreased the level of work they need to do and do we need to spend this 200 50,000 um I would I would not say that we have decreased the amount of work that we need to do I I think that we are going to need to re as a part of the negotiations as we enter into discussions with the development firm and they provide financial proformas and Alternate scenarios to us we are going to need to uh formulate and run models
based on the varying array of options that are in these motions and so we are going to need to have some discussion with our consulting firm about what it's going to take to be able to achieve those things okay all right the motion has been read did anybody it was move okay this discussion yes all right Madam clerk would you please open the vote please close the vote and Report out and the motion passes unanimously all right thank you I believe that disposes of of item number seven thank you all so much from the community for coming out and for being patient with us tonight for your input thank you colleagues for a great discussion mayor protim um I would just like to raise my um Amendment as well having we we've already Yes uh we had to dispose of it by vote before I was able to amend it and we've disposed of it so I'm going to reopen my Amendment well
the he he did a substitute under 2710 k M number hold up a second when council member wrist read his motion that was the motion you read in full you weren't accepting any friendly amendments to I asked you to restate your motion it was seconded that motion carried so what what do you what is it that you're trying to amend yes so I'm just reading the the mo the substitute language and it says that um a substitute to a substitute motion may be offered um but no further substitute motion may be made until the last offering substitute has been disposed of by vote and it's the same for an amendment so my reading of that is that we have to dispose of it by vote which is exactly what council member cabier stated to me when I was talking about the extra language we've disposed of it by the vote and so now I'm raising that as an amendment to add the word substantial or substantially can't remember the exact wording before the affordable housing okay I thought you were offering a friendly amendment to
his stand by for a second I want to add the word substantial additional sub a subst substantial additional yes additional yes substantial additional yes okay i' like the addition to be substantial I'd like that language to be in there so essentially the the motion as it reads but just with the addition of substantial before additional that's correct all right the motion is to authorize the city manager to negotiate a nonbinding well this is the old I don't have to um if you Madame attorney would you read The Substitute did we capture the substitute motion and if you would read that and with the addition
of substantial for additional okay um it would be to authorize the city manager to negotiate a non-binding term sheet outlining the terms of a development agreement and other required transactional documents with TPC 505 wch LLC for the base scenario request for a proposal submission as necessary for the Redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street with a ground lease in consideration for substan IAL additional affordable units or an annual cap on rent increases not to exceed 6% okay is there a motion for as readed well you I'll take Council M cook as offering the motion is there a second second all right I hear a motion in a second Madam clerk would you please open the vote I think is anybody else having issues with all right well there it is
open the vote please close the vote and Report out and the motion passes unanimously all right thank you I think that is the final disposal of of item number seven thank you so much uh members of the public for being with us tonight for your patience thank you colleagues [Applause] okay colleagues we'll suspend for a minute while our neighbors exit the chamber I think I
yeah we're going to we're going to have to look at that we're all right col colleagues we're going to go uh start our general business agenda public hearings we're just shy of 9:00 P pm. we'll get started um the first one is item number 17 UniFi UniFi development ordinance text Amendment Omnibus 19 tc240 001 this is a public hearing uh and we'll hear from the staff good evening uh good evening uh my name is Robin Schultz with the planning department and I'm happy to be here with all of you tonight uh before I begin staff would like to State for the record that all planning department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law uh and affidavits of all those notices are on file in the planning department uh I'm here to present to you all tonight on TC
24001 uh which is Omnibus 19 that is a staff initiated Amendment to the Udo as a reminder an Omnibus consists of minor technical revisions to the ordinance and not larger policy initiatives uh for Omnibus 19 these changes can be roughly divided into three categories uh the first being bringing the Udo into compliance with State legislation uh correcting minor in congruencies after the passage of scad and fixing other minor inconsistencies within the text uh so just to go through those a bit for scad Corrections we removed all mentions of required parking uh clarified that exceeding 20 adus requires a plan and ensured that all height calculations match the new ordinance language we also corrected density requirements in the CN zoning districts and clarified that scad did not remove the requirement uh for project boundary buffers when a site is mated as far as State Legislature State legislation excuse me we enacted three changes uh the first of which being that
we have updated public notification requirements for Street renamings remove design requirements for anything included within the Residential Building code which now includes Tri and quad plexes uh and lastly we removed any ordinance which conflicted with uh ncde Q's per viiew um so this is a non-exhaustive list of all the changes made throughout omnus 19 which makes changes to 11 articles within the Udo in total uh we also included two clarifying additions within the definition of affordable housing at the request of The JCC PC uh namely the first being that Ami average averaging excuse me is permissible and and that housing Choice vouchers are able to be utilized for those units uh lastly we made two changes to the grading setback section after meeting with Habitat for Humanity the first being that we clarified that street frontages for sites that aren't being massg graded shall not be included within the grading setbacks and additionally allowed uh for grading within the setback for positive drainage
2 and in 1A it reads that the uh own
1 on the standards is the grading necessary to accommodate positive drainage and that you know the purpose shall be allowed to encroach two feet into any required
25 and reducing parking spaces is valid in that we are getting to be an
m. hour we're going to take a break uh until 910 then we'll be back in session and I want to take that's right hold on to
it e [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music]
com
[Music]
e e
e e e
e e e
but if you guys wanted to withdraw that change I don't that's a okay friends it's 9:10 we're going to get back to it we are still on item number 17 univi UniFi development ordinance text Amendment Omnibus 19 we've heard from our neighbors online I'm not turning to those in chamber with us I'd like to welcome Sher Zayn Rosenthal and Mimi Kesler in that order you can't hear me not my fault turn them turn the mics up one 1212 yes I got a green light hello hello hello can you hear me now you can't hear me are y'all messing with me I can hear you but I can't hear you through the mic check check it's
2 sub 1B six and what it says is that it would allow subdivision development of up to
20 homes without any site plan review where they're characterized as adus of course which can be up to 1200 square foot now which is enough for a three-bedroom two bath and um I want to point out that one site that qualifies for this kind of intense development is the old Club Boulevard school that's across from the wtown rec center and it's own by Jim Anthony who you may remember as the Raleigh developer who paid for the scad amendment and who's a board member for the conservative John Lock Foundation there is a church that rents on Sundays the auditorium of that old school and that would be enough to allow him to use that so-called place of worship provision which I think is unconstitutional um and it also is unconstitutionally vague as written I think but with this provision you could all of a sudden have a 20 unit subdivision right there with no site
plan review for example there are very old water and sewer lines for that site and you wouldn't have the kind of review that other development of that size would get in order to determine where the storm water goes um whether the services are sufficient to serve it this is dense infill in an old section of the city and we should be more conscious about how we do that kind of thing and to continue making peacemeal changes to our code through the Omnibus text amendments is I think uh to continue toward deregulating residential development uh and flies in the face of the comprehensive plan and our process to completely rewrite the code I think we should be doing this comprehensively and not through these Omnibus text amendments finally I want to protest the changes to the neighborhood overlay districts of Lakewood and Old West the point of these overlay districts
themselves is to vary from the overall development ordinance and so why since the point is that they get a variance from the overall development for different rules that were developed after a lot of negotiation with the neighborhood and developers that work in those neighborhoods why then would passage of the scad amendment mean that you need to make it Con attorney Ros thank you so much for being with us tonight Mimi Kessler thank you good evening thank you for being with us you have three minutes thank you than you um my name is Mimi Kesler live in Durham there are a number of problems with this ominous text Amendment group um page three 4. 6 c2b removing all references to height of the primary and secondary structures leaving only square footage this means the Adu could be taller than the than the primary dwelling this was a provision in scad that I thought was not adopted um so if that's true why is it here it seems like
2 B1 B6 uh increases the number of adus um that can be developed in Civic use which um M Rosenthal just spoke to from 10 to 20 and I just want to say that there are some unintended consequences that could come up can you show my slide there okay so on the on the left is um two different houses small houses uh there were three being developed on one piece of land and there was no Restraint of the storm water which um caused harm to the the other for
existing neighbor um her foundation and so forth and this there needs to be a provision that prevents this from happening to adjacent properties um then they also took out on page 12 they also took out all um mention of where the front entrance of a a dwelling is and so I I why do we want to have side and um back of houses on the street I just don't understand that um and also in the section in that section um newly named C garages and access it references North Carolina Residential Building Code as I understand it there are many aspects of the State Building Code that we articulate in the Udo which I have been told are there only because it is state law so I don't understand why this particular reference to state code is so generic um I have no idea where to start so I object to these changes they primarily uh to make development easier
they provide no assurance that any given resident residents would be welcomed would be a welcomed addition to any neighborhood we want to change the density of Durham not the look and feel of every neighborhood by building random buildings on any in any old way thank you thank you so much for being with us this is a public hearing that I've exhausted all the cards I have is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to be heard on this matter all right with that this is Staff initiated so staff do you want to respond to anything uh that you've heard tonight I'll just say that I'm sorry did you go ahead I'll just say that adus still cannot be constructed in front of the structure uh the changes to that language reflect scad which stated that instead of being restricted to going behind the rear building line adus or excuse me accessory structures are allowed beyond the front building line
uh and so since an Adu by definition is an accessory structure we have all of that language matching now um and as far as height goes uh they still have to be subordinate to the primary structure in terms of height um that's what it says we don't we don't yell out from the gallery please continue please um and then as far as the entrances that was uh reflecting the change in building code uh that is a design requirement that we uh were instituting uh and since those uh zoning districts allowed for quadplex triplexes ETC uh and those now fall under the Residential Building Code uh we can't Institute those design requirements uh uh due to say law thank you so much colleagues uh questions or comments counc M please um I just have a couple of clarifying questions I I I am reading the height one and
I'm 5418 yeah I'm just not sure it says the square footage of an accessory structure shall not be larger than a primary structure but it does not have any height restriction so how do we know that it has to be subordinate so I think that's not included in the text because it's not changing let me pull up the Udo oh it says it below sorry it's looks like it says it in C the maximum height of an accessory structure shall not exceed the greater of two stories and 32t or be the height of the primary structure in feed correct yep removes it from a I see okay yeah that was confusing that it just it just toled down the page okay great and then um there was some question I believe it was
2 um he was asking about striking seven um and the positioning on the lot and at the time there was some there was some conversation about consistency with the intent of scab but I was wondering if you could just speak a little more to that yeah so essentially it's it's going back to what I was talking about earlier with the the change from like the front building line uh to the rear building line and so we changed that language to match since an accessory structure I mean since an accessory dwelling unit by its definition uh is an accessory structure and so we were having the ordinance say two different things about where an accessory dwelling unit could go uh and so that's why we removed that portion um namely we were having staff in the DSC
1 B1 says that accessory structures associated with a single family or duplex structure shall be located to the rear of the front building line of the primary structure great thank you m was that a council member thank you colleagues council member
42 B16 yeah so scad initially listed both of those it had 20 and 372 under applicability and then it had uh 10 in the other section so since uh Council had approved it as 20 um at its most gratuitous portion of code we just made them match because otherwise it was the code was in direct contradiction of itself okay so that's that's a a cleanup that it that just matches with with uh
2 B1 B okay thank you um 683c um can I just get a quick explanation on the reasoning behind the removal of the language around the main entrance yeah so that is a design requirement um state law says that
anything within the Residential Building Code should not have design requirements and so that was removed okay sorry and main entrance so that's theer that we think that's a design a design requirement yes okay so we can't so we're considering a design requirement just where entrances on buildings can or cannot be correct okay all right um let's see yeah like I said I mean I think some
of this stuff I don't quite I don't I don't I don't love everything in here but I think I'm comfortable with most of it um I will just say sort of generally um reading through this and and thinking about accessory dwelling units in Durham it feels a little bit like scope creep accessory dwelling units where um increasingly they're no longer accessory and they're just becoming dwelling units and we are sort of freeing up what you can do with accessory dwelling units um which I love accessory dwelling units when they're accessory and small and provide that that special kind of use and that special kind of space and when you you know you have a single family house and one or two accessor dwelling units with access onto an alley um but you know we've sort of made accessory dwelling units you can have more of them you can create like a little village you can have larger accessory dwelling units um and and so I'm I'm sort of I'm just pointing this out um it just kind of feels a little bit like scope creep like
the accessory is being taken out of the the Adu um and and it's and it's almost losing a little bit of its meaning when it comes to what an acccessory dwelling unit is and what it does um so that's something that I'm I'm just keeping an eye on we'll we'll be looking at as we uh move forward with the Udo rewrite um for the most part I am I'm comfortable with most of what's what's in here um especially with some of the clarification um that that you've provided um so thank you thank you council member council member R please I have one question thank you may PM um just one question for staff um as you know we we U pay close attention to the Planning Commission written comments in all our packets and so I see here that the Planning Commission supported the this omous packet of changes 7 to one although the comments there are fairly thin only a couple comments so I wonder if you could just clarify did this kind of zip through the Planning
Commission or was there larger discussion just not reflected in written comments or just give me some sense of like yeah what happened yeah um I don't want to say that it breathes through Planning Commission um I will say I don't go to Every Planning Commission so I can't really speak to amount of attention I will say that generally that these are proposed as just being technical changes um larger text Amendments have engagement uh you know lots of different um coordination among you know different departments Etc we have like a much bigger process uh which is what we're undertaking with the Udo rewrite so I imagine that the fact that it's in Omnibus which is not supposed to have any sort of larger policy initiative I feel like as that's probably why um you don't have a lot of comments or uh very um long comments from the Planning Commission thank you thank you council member colleagues council member Freeman please thank you I just a couple
questions I I really um just wanted to track back to the chart and I'm going to get to that page but essentially I just wanted to understand if there was any any look at if you're moving to moving more of these accessory dwelling units and more of this to um uh in a way that it doesn't go through or does go through site plan review is there any any way that you could relook at the site plans being posted as well because I noticed that they're not is there a reason why you didn't consider under that in this uh can you clarify do you mean site plans being posted as in uh byri development being available online yes gotcha um I know that we were doing that for a while Sarah I don't know if you want to speak to that yeah good evening everyone um Sarah Young with the planning department that is something that we will be able to do
once we get our Land Development Office replacement which is the permitting software we use um so we're excited about about doing that that's in the works um coming up and then just as I was trying to capture um Miss stanach usually sends an email and I just wanted to is she still on the line because the level of detail that she shared I just want to make sure that we didn't miss anything I didn't miss anything specifically I I wanted to know about the parking if they were changing the parking because they said at the beginning that some of that had been removed and you know based upon what was there I wanted to make sure that they weren't making changes to that no the only change that we've made uh to parking is that there were still a few parts from the ordinance that referenced required parking and we clarified there is a a portion of the the ordinance that says that if you provide a certain
18 point1 I'll I'll do that one first I will say that I did not respond
to miss aac's comments so that's my apologies not uh so the reason that that changed is that uh building code requires that there is positive drainage away from the foundation that is something that we made more difficult uh through the text amendment process so uh through that Amendment excuse me so we are simply altering that piece of code to uh ensure that people can still meet the building code uh and as far as the as applicable I think that's because that Clause initially said must go before the health department or the state as applicable uh but now it is just the state um and that language was uh floated to environmental health who are the ones that do a lot of the coordinating or do the coordinating with the state on those those Wastewater systems and and to that point I think there was someone else who mentioned the harm to a resident neighboring structure
is there any recourse that we're setting up in place to address that because I feel like this is going through a lot less like a lower level of oversight and it's just kind of like going to happen by right so where's the recourse for residents in the community that might be affected by um the you know water running into their Foundation yeah I mean ultimately that is a civil issue we did not change the code Beyond making it uh easier to meet the required building code uh I will say that that's definitely something that we have to think about as we're increasing density through the Udo rewrite given that this is not supposed to be a larger policy initiative we just changed the language so that people could still meet building code uh but I do think that's something that we need to consider as we're uh intensifying in the uh Urban core thank you I appreciate that uh that's all I have right now thank you Council Baker okay I think I've whittel it down
2 use categories um and you're saying this is making it can you just describe that again we're we're making that consistent with another section of the Udo yep that's in 372 which is the applicability under site plan plan um and so scad had both 20 and 372 and 10 and 54 so like today if a project came forward that fit into this provision you would say actually this is just old an old number we're actually looking at the 20 number anyway uh so it's actually just be it just would cause confusion there actually the the numbers are the same age which makes it worse I think the numbers are what the numbers are the same age um so both of those were put in during scad and I guess it was just
maybe a mistake on their part okay are we concerned at all about about that about raising that so that you can build so many units without there being any site plan review so technically 20 was already approved by Council through scad so we're just making it across the board the same throughout the ordinance um those were definitely concerns raised through scad and approved through Council um so we're I think that's definitely something that needs to be considered um but not in the space of an Omnibus okay yeah all right I I actually really appreciate that yeah because I I think I was um I was I was an opponent of much of what was in scad um so you know some of this stuff gives me heartburn but I also am a fan of consistency um within legal documents so um thank you for that clarification and I am comfortable with uh voting to approve
this thank uh director young sorry thank you I wanted to um clarify a couple of things that have come up um and one is council member Baker uh had questions about the aesthetic controls limitations that we have and so I went back and I thought it would be good just for everyone to kind of hear what is covered or not covered yeah design controls yeah the original legislation was called design and aesthetic controls and so I went back and that it dates from like 2015 and it included this for the purposes of this subsection the phrase building Design Elements means exterior building color type or style of exterior cladding material style or materials of roof structures or porches exterior non-structural architectural ornamentation location or architectural styling of Windows and Doors including garage doors the number and types of rooms the interior layout of rooms and then it
goes on to say um building design elements does not include any of the following height bulk orientation location of a structure buffers and a list of more traditional kind of zoning things so I just wanted to share that um so folks know where it is that we get the definition of what elements we consider those design control limited by those design controls can you can you state where that was again sure that was part of of the original legislation um since that time 160d the planning statutes from cities and counties were merged um and I don't think that same uh wording I'd have to go back and check um but um that is where the the wording originally came from that defined what it was was the original session law that created that and then the 2015 that was around 2015 since then after that 160d was the merger of the planning statutes from counties 153a and 160a cities into
a 160d and that exact wording I'm not sure carried through but that is definitely what is considered like I'm not sure that that definition is still there but that is the working definition that everyone uses yeah because in 2015 it was single family in duplex and then through 160d they broaden the definition to anything subject to um the Residential Building Code the residential building code and then recently the Residential Building Code was expanded to now include Triplex and quads so here we have this kind of progressive um movement but I just wanted to give that additional bit of context for folks um the other thing is a quick clarification on the height of adus that language came from another section that was already Modified by scad and again for consistency sake we're just copying that same language it does I wanted to clarify something that Robin said which is if you had a very short primary structure you could potentially have an Adu that is taller than that structure um but it would
still be capped to either the height of the structure or I think it was yeah whatever I don't have the warning pulled up but I just wanted to clarify that you could have a very short primary structure and a taller um Adu thank anyone else thank you colleagues uh thank you staff I'll be supporting this I I don't know how many of the things I've voted on over the years and and council member RIS point the the probably the reason why the Planning Commission comments were so thin are these these tend to be non-controversial um it's a it's a text Amendment it's not an amendment to the Udo uh itself uh it's really a glorified proofreading um exercise to to consistency and and terms of these are always done in light of existing law there is absolutely no incentive or benefit for our staff to uh through subterfuge or any other kind of way try and make substantive changes to the law it would be more of a headache for them to try and substantively change
through Udo than not um so I'm I'm I'm comfortable but this has been a good primer and I think for those watching and I I really do appreciate the conversation um from our colleagues to kind of demystify uh some of this but but these are always done in light of existing law um and there's absolutely no incentive for it to be otherwise for the staff because they get in a lot of trouble uh if they try and uh do anything other than that so I think the Planning Commission got this one right uh and if there are no other uh comments I'm going to declare this uh public hearing clo I I was just going to ask I know that U staff noted um some some area of uh distinction that you couldn't cover is there any list of those areas that we should be tracking you forward things that we did not include within the Omnibus well not not just what was included but from what you're so just in this proof reading of
m. virtual via Zoom um they will be talking about the zoning
districts uh but to answer your question uh we do have a an internal running list that we're using throughout that process um but obviously there can be uh some subjectivity within that um planners are opinionated throughout our staff thank you that was all thank you council members I'm going to entertain a motion uh number one to the public hearing is closed um by the way I'm going to entertain a motion uh number one to adopt an ordinance amending the UN UniFi development ordinance incorporating revisions to article three applications and permits article four zoning District districts Article 5 use regulations article six District intensity standards article 7 design standards article 9 landscaping and buffering article 10 parking and loading article 11 sign standards article 12 infra infrastructure and public improvements article 14 non-conformities and article 17 definitions so so moved
there a motion in clerk would you please open the vote would you please close the vote and Report out and the motion passes unanimously thank you at this time I'll entertain motion number two to adopt a consistency statement as required by ncgs uh section 160 D- 605 so moves I have a motion and the second Madam clerk would you please open the vote please close the vote and Report out and the motion passes unanimously thank you that matter is disposed of we move now to item number 18 zoning map change Duke central campus Edition this is a public hearing uh and I will declare this public hearing open and I'll start with our report from the staff good evening good evening mayor P Middleton honorable council members um good evening I'm Andy ler with the planning department and it's good to be with you all a request for a zoning map change has been received from Rachel saterfield of Duke University and Durham realy Inc for 60 Parcels of land
50 s acres and located just west of downtown Durham the current zoning is office institutional office and institutional with the development plan commercial General commercial General with the development plan residential Urban multif Family commercial neighborhood compact design core with a development plan University and college and university and college with a development plan the applicant proposes to change this designation to University and college with a graphic development plan to allow for future college and institutional uses the properties are currently designated institutional campus in the place type map the proposed University and college with a graphic development plan zoning is generally consistent with the designated Place type thank you staff and the applicant are here for any questions thank you very much for that report uh colleagues any questions uh for staff relative to this case council member cook thank you yes thanks hi um okay so I my understanding of this is that in order to move some of these Parcels to the UCD designation they have
to rezone all of the parcels can you is this we we're looking at a a listing of like 60 but there's only really 10 or so that they're looking to rezone is that correct technically um so basically there is a scattering of essentially Duke Parcels that were not Zone UC um I think the intent of the applicant was to reone those Parcels under one development plan and because they were disconnected they needed to be contiguous with one another to do that one development plan and because the majority of the parcels were in an existing development plan um a lot of those those commitments were sort of translated into this overall new new zoning District okay I'm I just I think I'm a little bit confused about the why we have the list of the many many Parcels when we're literally only looking at those 10 right we're looking at just the the 10 the I have the Reids for all of them
but I'm not sure that that's when you help the proposal is for 60 Parcels technically you have to look for at all of them but those coming into a UC District are only 10 okay um is there any change in taxation or the way that these partials can be taxed if they change their zoning I'm un unsure about that thank you those are all my questions for staff thank you council member colleagues anyone else all right this public hearing is open Mr go welcome how much time do you anticipate meeting five minutes please put seven minutes on the clock um and uh good evening mayor him and members of the city council my name is Neil go I'm an attorney at the Morning Star Law Group 700 West Main Street here in Durham and I'm representing Duke University uh for this rezoning request um we've been working on this rezoning and another one which we have withdrawn for a number of years actually kind of hard to believe that we're here and
unfortunately we're here tonight without our main uh point of contact from duke Adam he is out of the country on a much deserved vacation but um nevertheless we stand before you ready to present a a full uh case here the as well let me first start by thanking uh Mr ler for his presentation this is a complicated or I should say unique uh rezoning request um and as has been referred to we are essentially adding 10 Parcels to an existing UC zoning District the existing UC zoning District I guess the best way for for me to explain it it has a zoning case number it's a p316 I believe it is um and that is the zoning case number for the UC zoning district and we are adding 10 Parcels to that zoning District If This rezoning Were approved all of those Parcels would be Zone UCD and instead of it being referred to
as P p316 it would be this zoning case number instead so that's essentially What's Happening Here the zoning on all of the 50 Parcels that are already zoned UC see that are part of this zoning application is not changing um we have work with staff a lot on how to go about this rezoning and um nothing is materially changing about any of of the zoning that currently exists on the 50 Parcels already Zone UC we have updated some of the language on the zoning commitments for example back then uh we used the concept the parcel identification number or pin number that has been changed to real estate identification number Reids so we updated a language like that um and but generally speaking all of the conditions that that were previously associated with the 50 Parcels remain associated with the 50 parcels and we are adding 10 Parcels uh over the time over time Duke has acquired parcels and continues to acquire Parcels around City uh that are
not zoned us UC of course is a zoning District that was created specifically for our institutions of higher education so so there's a UC district for Duke there's a UC district for Central as well they are essentially the same zoning District they have some Nuance between the two of them but that is what Duke is trying to do is take is rezone property that they own uh and change it to the zoning District that this city specifically created for Duke that's that's what this zoning request is about uh I'm happy to tell you so we've had many Community conversations that have resulted in well really was a lot about East Campus rezoning which we have withdrawn the central campus rezoning really hadn't received as much attention from the community but we did have many Community conversations about it uh and it was considered robustly I would say at the Planning Commission we're proud that the Planning Commission had voted to recommend approval by a vote of I believe 8 to one um and our team is
available to answer any questions that you might have uh we have a couple of our folks here will Tricom he's with the legal team I guess at Duke and Adam Klein is also at Duke uh thank you for your time look forward to answering any questions and having your support thank you thank you so much I don't have any cards uh for this public hearing and I don't believe there's anyone in que virtually this is a public hearing is there anyone in chamber who wishes to speak on this matter this is a public hearing if not I'm going to bring it before back to the roster before my honorable colleagues any questions or comments uh colleagues council member cook please all right thank you attorney go for that presentation um so at the Planning Commission actually I'm realizing more and more that I am the only person that watches those um there were uh some comments um and this was back in April that the city and your client had different ideas regarding a bike path
and mobility and I you stated that you were going to have a conversation or a further conversation with the city and your client and I was wondering if that conversation happened and what we have not had a further conversation with the city about it we have this this conversation would take place at the time that Duke is actually developing over in that area so this is over in the area where elf Elba and Pratt if you're familiar with those streets um there are two City sidewalk projects and the comment uh or the request from Transportation was to coordinate some sidewalk and bicycle uh connections 10 foot share path along those streets and um Duke's vision for that same area uh is aligned with the goals of the city to create more pedestrian bicycle connectivity however uh I think they have a different Vision than simply following the existing Street Network which is kind of a grid in that area and so they have a a different concept that um they have
worked on previously actually prior to my involvement with Duke so I don't actually know a whole lot about the history of that but there are no I mean one way or another uh pedestrian bicycle and pedestrian connectivity would take place in this section I think the specific concern well there's two specific concern is probably if Duke would have it there right not in the way that Transportation has suggested here which is essentially a 10- foot side path along the street um the other thing is the commitment or the request from transportation did not come with did not come with a timing component which is a little bit confusing there there are no plans that do cast for development that are associated with this resoning or another way of saying that is the resoning request is not related to any specific development that Duke is trying to do so the commitment doesn't carry with it uh a timing component which made it unclear as to when the city was expecting it to be delivered uh but Duke would invest in
The Pedestrian bicycle transportation infrastructure in this area when they are developing in that area um so you've actually like laid out my next question very well which is why we are seeing this change without any development plan yeah that's because of the nature of the UC zoning District itself so one of the unique features of the UC zoning district and I think is specific I mean this is kind of the point of it is that it the UC District allows all properties that are Zone UC to be considered jointly for infrastructure purposes all of the time right so this allows Central or Duke to kind of Master Plan their campus storm water for example can be handled for development on any UC property on any other property also zoned UC uh the uses can be spread that way the way Duke's planning process works they have a conceptual master plan
for University these Parcels these 10 Parcels are included on that conceptual master plan the conceptual master plan as it stands right now does not show any new development on any of these 10 parcels and the reason it doesn't show that is because they're not Zone UC unless they're Zone UC the way that they can think about developing them you know that changes depending on what their zone so this is consistent with the way that Duke has approached their UC zoning um generally I mean historically I should say well what you've just said is literally every application we get which is the land use will change with the zoning and we all the time get plans for that use why is it that Duke is unable to give us any plans for the use of these I understand that they're not yet zoned for that use but no because they they literally do not have plans on how these Parcels would be developed if they were zoned UC and but you said that
they've been working on rezoning these for a long time why why well we've been working on the rezoning application a long time I mean the reason is because it's this a unusual zoning request I mean we've we've gone through a couple iterations on how to approach it I mean I guess I'm just stuck on on the fact that this is this is how things come to us and when you put an application in for a zoning change you don't know if your zoning change will be granted or not but you're still coming up with a plan and presenting a plan whereas you're asking us to make a change without having any idea what the plan is but there is a need for the change by your client or you wouldn't be here they wouldn't be paying you I assume to come here and present this case and so there is some driving fact behind getting the change and then you want us to do the change and then you will I mean this was this came up multiple times I mean it was comments for the other the East Campus one but I think it's all app
that the zoning is Broad and so we have no control over the changes that are made afterwards as oppos to how this process usually works which is be you come before this body with proposals and we decide if the change comes after I'm also I'm just curious also that about the timing of this because how long have y'all been working on this rezoning oh gosh Ian I I don't I don't really know more more than two years I know that much do you know when all of these Parcels were purchased oh over the over many years yes I mean I don't know specifically but yeah I mean they they've been I mean Duke is acquiring properties just at a regular interval they've they've you know they acquire properties continuously I guess is what I would say I don't know how old the oldest one you know was when it when it was acquired the newest one uh and they own other where if they own other property in the city that is not Zone UC
that also is not the request of you know being requested to be rezone these specific Parcels are on the periphery of property R own UC and that's why they're they're essentially just trying to bring it into the fold of Campus the oldest one is 13388 which was purchased in 1968 two plots of land for $10 P the Deeds for all of them um there's a ific number of them bought in the 9s um early 2000s it's just it's interesting to have this come before us with no plan in place no like even hint at what it might be there's some conversation about oh yes in the future we'll work with staff to to develop something that works but there will be no enforcement mechanism at that time once the zoning has changed um and so and and I've looked at the master plan that's a policy document just as well as you know
our comprehensive plan is and Lord knows we've had conversations about that up here but it's not it's not required right it's a guiding policy document and so it not having anything in there I don't know it just to me it feels like too many unknowns and I'm not I'm not really sure what the Press is about doing it right now like why the timing is coming up right now these pots of have been acquired over decades um and I just feel like that I would like to see a plan before making a decision on resoning this property that's all thank you thank you council member colleagues anyone else Council M cabier thank you um I just had a couple questions I think more for staff I was just looking at the um the sorry I had to open attachment 10 comprehensive plan consistency review it's our table that that staff does for us and so my understanding would be and
I'm just using the transportation one because it was clear there was an ask from Transportation I hear um attorney go saying you know we'd be happy to work with the city but if reson they don't have to right like they can do what they want essentially and that might be a better question for Bill judge so there's a like it's the 10 foot shared path right I get that that's our that's what we are moving to as a city in theory we could say yes to this tonight they could decide well for Duke we don't need a 10- foot shared path even though that's the city's vision and then um but if we've rezoned it and they come up with something different like they they it's it's on their terms correct uh correct so Bill judge uh assistant Transportation director the um I think the main difference so right now they
are um eelf and Elba and Pratt those streets are all still public streets so if they were to be rezoned and then come in with site plans to develop even within the UC they would still have to meet the sidewalk requirements which would be filling in any missing sidewalks but that would limit it to basically a 5-ft sidewalk along the Frontage so um we were trying to get that full uh bicycle and pedestrian connection from our sidewalk project there at the corner of uh fton and uh Pratt Street over to essentially The Pedestrian signal there in front of the emergency Drive um trying to get a connection through there utilizing primarily the existing public street so that it would be something that the city could maintain and that the public would have access to perfect and then to attorney goes point with a timing part of it I was just a little bit lost that there wasn't a clear timing mechanism is it because there's not any site plan essentially to tie it to like often um
yeah they apologize if that was not clear in our comments um typically those would be prior to a certificate of occupancy at least for those Parcels or that area knowing that Parcels may get recombined it can get a little bit tricky into how you would actually write that into a text commitment but um we certainly would not you know since there are other areas where they might develop I don't know that we would require or look for them to build that connection if they're doing you know work in another part of Campus that's subject to the same uh zoning since it is quite a large area we would want to we would tie it to basically activity in this in that area so there is a mechanism to to get it if we needed it yeah we just would have to probably work on on some wording knowing that parcel numbers or other things may change in the future okay so in general um and I I I said this to the applicant earlier if this was just a regular application seeing that so many
of our policy were not met we we ask a lot from the development community that is significantly smaller and less resourced than Duke University that last time I checked I had this was seven eight years ago had billions and billion dollar endowment and so I feel kind of uh my suggestion is that we continue this case I'm one council member so that we can get clarity on some of these things I think the applicant uh wants uh this resoning it makes sense from just a land use it's it's nccu has it this is not anything different I I I know that Duke is in a in in their master plan they have a lot of questions um but we all know that Duke has also not been the best actor sometimes and so there is community distrust and there's certainly distrust on this Council around Duke being the best actor possible as the largest private employer and the largest Lander uh land holder in durh in Durham County and so my job is to do as much due diligence as I do with somebody who's trying to get a a rezoning for a duplex as the largest uh private land
owner so my my ask to my colleagues would be if folks are open to a continuent so we can kind of dig into the weeds and I'm happy to have more um in-depth conversations with the applicant so that we can so that I feel comfortable with a yes because tonight I'm certainly not comfortable with a yes thank you thank you Council Council thanks mayor PM U I just want to follow up on those comments from my colleague Council woman cabier um and so my questions are are probably similar and the answers may be kind of the same but I just want to note these so and this goes back to the consistency review so um I know Duke just announced a large climate initiative I was surprised there was no commitment to sustainability at all in this in the in the and again it may be because there's not it's not clear what the use is going to be but that's again for me was like a big sort of like big question mark I figured that would be like a simple thing for dude to say yes we want to we want to address and exceed the Udo in terms of climate sustainability the other one is on storm water I know that the commitment was to meet the the Udo again given Duke's big investment in the environment I was expecting some kind of innovative storm
water management stuff here but again it may all be because there's not not clear what the applicant wants to do but again those are those are again for me more the same kind of questions like I would support the continues because I'd love to see some more clarity on some of those questions so yeah just to respond to that so I I recognize how unusual this is however I will say that is exactly what the UC district has set up to do is provide flexibility for our institutions of higher education and so part of the issue here is that do does not have plans specific plans on how any of these Parcels are going to be developed which is not inconsistent with how any other property that Duke currently owns at Zone UC is situated they they own property that is Zone UC for on which there's no current development for which they have no plans for development but the zoning allows them to figure out first so from an engineering standpoint for example you're talking about storm water uh any other development any other zoning District if you are developing
whatever just a building um you're required to figure out how you're going to control for storm water on the same parcel that is being Z Duke and Central have the ability to kind of spread that out right so you can build something on one parcel and have that drained to another parcel that is zoned UC and and you know deal with storm water that way also I you know it's not a surprise that as one of our educational institutions they have multiple fields of study they you know it's unclear what all or any of these parts would be used for but I want to give an example of like a um a farm uh like an academic Farm so the way I mean the way research gets conducted there might not lend itself to some of the sustainability requirements or yeah I I guess sustainability initiative that Duke has placed on itself generally speaking right like you have to do the research to figure out
how to do something more sustainably if we're talking about simple vertical construction I mean I think that again there are there are processes that the university does that might not lend themselves to some of those I mean like like it or not the city has it as well industrial complexes things like that Duke has um Wastewater Management systems and things like that it you know we can't tell you that every building that's going to be built on these 10 Parcels is going to meet a specific standard that's why we can't make that kind of commitment on the zoning right but that doesn't negate the fact that Duke has a commitment as an institution to uh you know fighting climate change um some of the the commitments that you're I mean I guess that I think that probably response to to your question or your comment rather thank you council member colleag council member fre did you have anything or before I go to
council just the one question I was just trying to um understand if and it's I'm not um sure who would could answer it but does North Carolina Central have storm management storm water management on campus I was just checking thank you council member Baker yeah I I echoed the sentiments of my colleagues um with the desire for a continuance for this case um or or we could defer consideration as well um I think that some important points were raised um the the point about the unfulfilled Transportation request um the comprehensive plan policies and really I think um through my colleagues I think summarized some of the sentiments I think very well the relationship between Duke and Durham the the desire and the need for co-planning
and and collaborating and cooperating with one another in a democratic and fair relationship between the two Duke being the largest land owner in the city I think there's a real opportunity here for us to um be engag in this Democratic relationship um and uh we we don't have any information we don't have enough information about what is happening the UC zoning district is a great zoning district for someone who owns property within the UC zoning District because it has that amount of flexibility um and on the other hand uh Duke owns very important uh properties and and a significant amount of those properties in core part of the city of Durham and so um understanding how all these pieces work together I think is going to be very important so as moving forward um you know I I hope that we can have those kinds of conversations between uh folks who are leading this effort on Duke's side as well as those up here on the Das and and others in
leadership of the city um those are my those are my comments thank you council members well I I um I think the zoning uh Planning Commission got this one right uh again and I I would point to the the lack of commentary from the Planning Commission I am I'm not going to use the particularities of this case as a cudgle uh to go at Duke with any other beefs I may have and may I just say there's no other elected official in this city that has gone at Duke um when we had the light rail issue and I recommend an imminent domain I almost had to move out of durm uh and nobody else had an appetite for it so so there's nobody in this city that has you know said let if you want to hold Duke accountable let's go to the mat um and I I I want to resist um employing a standard that I would not employ with North Carolina Central um to Duke in
this particular case um I think it was Chris Rock who said that you know black people's relationship with America is is difficult it's like your uncle who paid for you to go to college but molested you um it's a difficult relationship um Duke Willard Street had a lot of Duke money in it our office is Survivor care Duke money other issues with Duke I mean it's been a complicated relationship in history but I want to be careful not to use this particular case to Pro Ute other legitimate conversations and questions that we may have with that institution that I think are better carried out in in in different context um for the record we we have voted on rezonings without development plans what we had was a list of what was not going to happen um the UC District I mean it's it's it's a university it you know they're G to they're not going to build
a strip club I I don't see how that's going to forward their mission uh and there are things that um we know are gerine to the forwarding of of universities to their their mission and so I'm not I'm not going to as tempting as it might be employ a standard to them that I would not employ to North Carina Central there are folk on fville street I get emails from folk who are concerned about property acquisitions by Central on fville street and HBCU Central uh and there there are black folk along that faval street Corridor who have some issues uh with Central's land Acquisitions as well and some of their policies um so I'm not going to I I I don't want to bring a different standard um to substitute for legitimate conversations we need to be having in other context I don't think this is controversial at all they already own the parcel it's not like we're going to get them as a city um we know the list of things that universities are going to do and not
going to do as we've approved other plans without um um I I don't know how many we and we've asked do you have a development plan said okay but here's what we're committing what we're not going to do gas station electronic gaming center all all kinds of things um and we know that the UC this this designation is for University and institutional purposes um so I think the Planning Commission uh got this one right I'm not interested in in a continuance because I if if Duke knew what they were going to do they would have said it already so I don't know what to continue with is we're going to I'm not going to I'm not interested in forcing them to make something up on the spot or tell me what they're going to do I'd rather just vote it down and let them come again um you know this they got as you said they got a lot of money and a lot of smart people if they knew what they were going to do they would have said it tonight so I you know and they're not asking for a continuance I'm not interested in in helping them they got more money than I do I'm not interested in helping them come up with something what they want to do either vote it down or or vote it up would be
my recommendation um but I don't really have an appe Ty to to press Duke on what they plan on doing um like I wouldn't Central it either um those are my comments thank you and I'm just trying to I I was trying to find in the uh UC zoning I know there was something in it that stated specifically that when you came for a rezoning there should be a a development plan attached or a new development plan submitted it didn't say like should it actually said shall which I interpret to mean as usual you have to submit something and I'm just trying to understand if that onepage map is supposed to be like the development plan that's updated St 2020 staff will response your inquiry council member yeah so so there is the development plan for the entire 60 Parcels I think the graphic development plan I think on
sheet three three shows the entire um UCD zoning district and on I think four and five shows sort of the specific characteristics of the 10 that they're bringing into the UCD and typically what that means is that they'll for the UCD they they need to illustrate the transitional use area which is essentially a buffer for the UC District so anytime at it buts um a zon District that is not UC there's extra restrictions on that perimeter of the district and that's Illustrated in the development plan and the reason I bring it up is because I also had to just take a look and just see what North Carolina Central had and I noticed that their plan was like 118 pages and it covered a whole variety of of different things and I was trying to figure out where Duke's plan like that was that submitted and it may have been submitted previously and we're supposed to refer back to it but I didn't see it in our documents this evening
could you rephrase that please so for North Carol the other organization in the city that has a UC zoning that previously I know has come and requested a zoning map change submitted 118 page U master plan around what they were doing on the campus and I just want to know because I'm assuming there is and it's just missing a document that shows what Duke is planning to do for the current UC zoning and then of course with this request a new additional UC zoning on those 10 Parcels it shall be submitted with the updated um master plan and so I'm just making sure that U I'm not missing something good question council member um if you look at attachment uh it's number nine or H whichever way you want to look at it that is the master plan that Duke submitted as part of this yeah
that's the problem um the ordinance does not specify what is contained in a master plan or what they submit so I will defer to them if they have another document that is more like the the the central one and I can share the central um website uh link if that helps but I do think it might be helpful to kind of come back with a little bit more context for what's been going on and how the UC plan like how the UC zoning has been used over the last what I mean just from 2020 looked like from the last plan or or the date from this uh map I'm sure there's been some work around what the master plan is for the campus it'd be helpful to have that context in this conversation even if it's not specific to the exact sites that you're trying to develop we need some there just needs to be some more effort in this yeah and can I ask a question you said I'm not familiar with Central's master plan uh so this was something they submitted to
the city when they were resoning well they've made it available publicly and so it's publicly available to the like anyone can pull it up and please do send it uh to me um I'm just not familiar with it so I really can't can't speak to it um yeah thank you no problem thank you um thank you uh colleague so much I I I would say that um I mean I'm familiar with Central's master plan it's it's not a it's not a a legally binding um document our every we all make plans um and and and you can go line by line of Central's plans there are some things that have been realized or some things haven't been realized um some things that probably won't be realized but I I do want to take caution not to represent plans as hard core you know inflexible governing documents they are not um so again I I uh we just council
member cook I'll yield I'll yield well I think we might be going towards the same place which is that I think there are three of you that ask for continuance and I'm just wondering if you could give me a little Clarity I'm I'm trying to decide what I would like to see happen tonight so what we're looking for from the applicant what would be needed in order for you like very specifically in order for you because I know we heard about Transportation but you could just be more specific yeah I would like to have a better understanding this is just me um so if you look at our um policy document on our comp plan I mean I tend to um use that um when I make decisions and so uh I would like to have a better so yeah I understand that you don't have a specific resoning or in sustainability but you still can say we're going to have a goal around x amount for anything that we reone in that like there's no reason not to have a goal there's no reason not to have uh goals around
housing or affordability or whatever it is there has to be some understanding or some clarity I guess is what I'm looking for for then just a broad re zoning um this is the leverage we have I mean council member Baker always talks about the power of of uh of zoning and land use and like I want to wield it um and that that that's it and so um and and I expect um and again I had conversations with with both uh attorney go and Adam Klein earlier today they were very gracious to hear me so this was not a surprise to them that I was going to ask for a continuance um and often when we have been a little bit more deliberative there have been plenty of cases where there's been a continuance and we get a better product we get a better outcome and I think um uh attorney go knows that like I like I like to get to yes like I'm not a council member who likes to turn down things I think that uh time and money
have been spent and so I want to honor that and so uh looking at those policies getting some clarity with Transportation staff on any of the things around this uh shared youth path this is the opportunity to do it and so I would like to take it again I'm one council member but I think that a pause which is what a continuance gets us will ultimately get what the applicant wants which is a yes vote and it will help um provide some clarity for those of us who are either on no or on the fence or having some some um anxiety about it thank you thank you have a comment and a question I and I appreciate Council M Cabo's uh comments I I mean for me the the clarity is college and institutional uses and I can imagine what that looks like for a college and institutional use I mean the other thing is that you know if this ain't going to be the last time Duke wants something from us if they screw us on this you're coming back before us again at some point in the future for something um Duke is a
significant land owner um a you know a a vested member of this community um and you know if if they just go buck wild and and build something ridiculous that has nothing to do with education or research or amenities for their students um and then come back before us asking for something else I mean I I'm pretty comfortable with the designation College in institutional uses whether it's research Labs or building for housing um but that again that's just me I'm one council member I do want to ask um um Mr G uh representing your client you haven't asked for a continuance if if we Grant it what's going to happen in that time what are youall going to do well I think uh the thanks for the question uh mayor Pro and I think we're getting feedback right now I can't tell you specifically what's going to happen but I can tell you that you know we're taking notes so what
would happen is we would be working on that feedback the I'm for just by way of illustration the transportation request I've already gotten more clarity tonight than we've had through the process which is you know I uh to Mr judge's credit you know he said yep he acknowledges this doesn't have a timing component that is problematic but he mentioned some ideas on how to do that I think that's something we can work with um I would say that we are open to a continuance we have not requested it I did talk to staff um earlier uh about that and my understanding is uh we would we would be requesting a continuance to the October 7th meeting based on the way the agendas are lined up and um I think that gives us time to work on some of these items all right then I'd be amable to that then to the staff what what is our do we know what the docket is looking like thus far for that date or schedu
rather yeah so far we have um scheduled two RightWay annexations which should be very simple and straightforward I'm sorry humor for you there um uh and then there is a Consolidated annexation case and a just a rezoning for an industrial site so two other cases that are not right of way so that's why we suggested that date that lighter than some other agendas we have coming up okay Council would I just keep the public hearing open until that date all right I'm going to poll uh the membership and just look for uh consent I think we've crossed the four vote threshold can I get a thumbs up we continue with October 7th all right opinion of chair it's unanimous so this public hearing will be held over until October 7th is the date all right thank you Mr go thank you and just an FYI it'll be in your
inbox this evening did you say did you ask for the master plan council member Freeman colleagues are we are do we have a qu uh that what you have requested say it again you asked for the master plan well I was sharing the master plan it's on our website yeah I do think that document would be helpful attorney go as well on our website thank thank you uh colleagues I think that comes to the end of our agenda with no other business coming before this Council it's August 19th 10:25 I'm declaring this meeting adjourned thank you all God bless Durham thank you