City Council · Regular Meeting · January 8, 2026

Back to meeting

City Council

January 8, 2026 · Full Transcript

Good afternoon everyone. I'm going to go ahead and kick us off. The mayor is in transit.,.

Could I please have roll call? Madame clerk. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor Prom., Mayor Williams is delayed. He will be arriving shortly. Mayor Prom Cabayro >> here. >> Council member Baker here. >> Council member Burrus here. Council member Cook >> here. Council member Kopac here. Council member Wrist >> here. >> Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. Does anyone have any announcements this afternoon? >> Yeah. Council member Cook. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone., I just want to say briefly that my heart goes out to Minneapolis and, specifically to the family of Renee Nicole Good., obviously not the first person to be killed by Customs and Border Patrol.

In even in this recent sort of sting we've been seeing for the past year. But certainly feels like one of the more egregious because it was on video and by someone who is doing legal observation and in front of their partner and just in their car. I know a lot of us have been doing this type of observation., I've seen many of you community members out in the streets. Being out here for our neighbors is something that I take very seriously.

And it is heart-wrenching to hear from the federal government to disbelieve what we are seeing with our own eyes and to assume something different happened than what we can clearly see happen., we know what that is. We have words for that. Propaganda and gaslighting., but it is meant to make us feel afraid and meant to make us not come out for our neighbors. And I just want to state very strongly that, we will not be intimidated by this., and I appreciate the leaders throughout the country and especially the leaders in Minnesota who have stated very publicly that they have seen the video and that they know what happened and that they will not be swayed and that justice will be served for this family. and just want to add my voice to those leaders across the country that your Durham City is here for the protection of our every person that lives in this city and I personally will continue to be out and if that means.

Putting our life on the line I think we already knew the consequences of that were possible and will continue to be out there myself and I hope and expect because I know how great Durham is that I will see my neighbors out there as well. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Rist. >> Thanks, Mayor Pam., yeah, I want to echo the comments from Council Member Cook and just say I'm also absolutely disgusted by the ICE shooting that took the life of Renee Nicole Good., our hearts hearts go out to everyone in in the Twin Cities in Minneapolis., we've also seen the the the disruption, the terror here in our community, with ICE agents here. And so we are our hearts go out to the folks in the Twin Cities. I want to give a special shout out to Mayor Jacob Fry who actually sever of us met a little more than a year ago on the inner city visit to the Twin Cities. Great mayor and I really appreciate his colorful and direct terms.

About how he wanted ice out of his community. I really appreciate that. I want to lift up Mayor Fry and as Council Member Cook said, we here on the council support our immigrant and refugee communities and we'll continue doing that even in the face of this kind of terror and disruption. two more things. said, "We've been getting a lot of emails in the City Council about tennis courts in Durham.", so I just want to say to the tennis community, many of them are friends of mine. We compete together., that we hear your concerns. I had a meeting actually late last year with members of DPR, with general services, and with the ENO Community Tennis Association about this very issue., and so as we kick off the budget season for 20 for the next budget year, I just want to let folks know that we'll be look I look forward to discussions about the CIP and how we can include in our budget appropriate funds for the continuing reservicing of.

Courts in Durham as the tennis community thousand strong continues to grow in Durham. The last thing I'll say on a lighter note, I got a great flyer yesterday from DPR. So, for folks who are ages 13 to 17, if you're interested in a flight simulator, the Durham Teen Center has a professional-grade flight simulator you can sign up for. And in the afternoons at the Durham Team Center, they'll be giving folks the chance to really do like flight simulation. Pretty cool stuff. So, DPR is working hard to make sure tennis courts are resurfaced and make sure our parks are are in good shape. But they're also doing this really innovative programming. So if you're between 13 and 17, sign up quickly if you want to try out the flight simulator at the Durham Teen Center. So thank you, Mayor Prom. Also great to see DCM Windbush in the in the seat there. So thanks for joining us.

>> Thank you. Council Member Bers, >> good afternoon. Looking forward to a very efficient meeting today hopefully. I did have the opportunity as I stated on Monday, I will be following up some business owners in Wellland Village in regards to public safety. So I did have a chance to meet with a business owner. I'm not going to disclose the name of the business, but it's a very enlightening conversation. I want us to think exhaustfully about what community safety looks like, particularly for areas where you have business owners. This business has been there for over 50 years and we know about the recent crime or just like the the crime that keeps occurring in that community. So want to think about the impact on that. when people have services they offer to a community that is maybe probably just a little bit more disenfranchised than others and people are afraid to patronize those businesses. We should not that that's never okay. And so thinking about it also figuring out for go triangle or.

The transit there's a bus stop right there which people just feel like they lord often. So thinking about if we want to encourage people to use public transit they have to feel safe in doing so. And so we have some areas in our community where people do not feel safe utilizing those services. Want to uplift that. Also receive feedback from members of the community in regards to East Main Street where there is a community of folks that are unhoused who have put a couch on the sidewalk. And then I'm also getting complaints about people erecting fires in these areas as well as drug use. This is a public health concern and so I want to elevate that and figure out how do we address these issues. what I heard from business owners what he says like it feels like this a law it's a lawless land over there and that people are allowed to have that behavior where it would not be conducted in other parts of the city. So.

I really want to take a deep dive and explore why we are allowing certain communities to be terrorized is what it ultimately is. If you have fear about going out to going to work because of gun violence or just public safety then that is not okay and acceptable. So we should make sure that as we have comfort in certain communities to offer that across Durham. So just want to uplift those conversations. I will continue to meet with people particularly our business community thinking about the cost that business incur when they try to hire private security to secure to make their patrons feel safe and think about the what that impact of that is as well. So just wanted to put on the record for us all to think about it shouldn't just be one person going out community meeting with folks about the issue of public safety and want to be exhausted how we address that and I know we have some great things in the pipeline but people need help and.

Support now. So thank you all. Thank you, Council Member Copek. >> Thank you, Mayor Prom., so just to to echo and I share the sentiments of my colleagues, Council Members Cook and Wrist about the horrific murder of Rene Nicole Good in Minneapolis by ICE., none of this would have happened if not for the harmful and unnecessary policies of the Trump administration, which are making all of us less safe. and we've seen that harm here over time and across communities in the US and and so I appreciate them raising that and want to echo that. I will continue to be out and like council member Cook said we will not be intimidated. We will continue showing up for our neighbors and I know you all will as well. from the Environmental Affairs Board monthly meeting last night, want to mention a couple items.

First of all to acknowledge all of the input provided by the EAB on the UDO and the staff engagement on environmental issues in the UDO. I want to highlight the great work of general services and our urban forestry department u and keep Durham beautiful who are doing such important work to expand, protect and inventory our tree canopy with an equity lens. And I encourage everyone to go to durhamreees.org or where anyone in Durham can request a tree or trees on their street in their neighborhood. And so I want to encourage people to check out and take advantage of that of that resource.

And finally, in light of the announcement we received, I want to honor and thank Chief Andrews for her dedicated service as well to Durham. This is a loss for our city. and I want to thank her for her steady, thoughtful, and collaborative leadership. And I wish her the best in whatever comes next. So thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Baker. Thank you all for being here. Look forward to a productive meeting. >> Thank you. I would just like to note that the mayor is back so I will be passing over chair duties to him. Thank you and good to see you Madam Limb Bush.

Thanks for being here with us today. I know manager Ferguson is at a national conference. I just wanted to say one more thing which I forgot to say earlier which is that I am the newly appointed council member for the Durham Museum of History. And I went yesterday to meet with the chair of the board and the director of the museum. And what I found out yesterday that I did not know ahead of time is that there's free parking by the museum. which you know I'm I walked over there and it's of course accessible from the bus station if anyone wants to take the bus but I would encourage all to check it out if you haven't done so already. The the the exhibits change every six months. and so as as they said to me very lovely yesterday, if you don't see yourself represented, come back in a few months and see yourself represented then. they try and take subsects from all over the city and all different histories., and there's really meaningful.

Permanent displays in there as well., so if you are find yourself downtown with a few moments to kill, I would highly encourage everybody to head over there and check it out. Thanks. >> Okay, thank you., go ahead. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone., I just want to say thank you to my colleagues for their great remarks., I want to extend I know many current and former council members, town council members, city council members in the state of Minnesota. Local progress, which is a national organization of progressive local elected leaders, has a very robust presence in Minnesota.

And so my heart goes out to those communities., we know that the state of Minnesota has had a rough road these many years between the murder of George Floyd and what they're experiencing now. I also very much want to thank our police chief. I cannot say what an impact she's had on this city. the success of HART, in my opinion, the best program nationally rolled out is is because of the collaborative nature of our police chief. In many communities, that transition to an alternative to police response is adversarial. And it's because the police department feels threatened. And that is not what we've experienced here. We've experienced genuine collaboration, genuine curiosity, and a real belief that community safety comes in all forms. And that is why we are as successful as we are. And so, while I am personally very happy for her and I hope she has an incredible umbrella drink, waiting for her on the other side of retirement, I it is a huge loss for this city and it will be very, very.

Hard to replace such an incredible community leader. Thank you. >> Thank you so much, colleagues for your comments. Thanks everyone for being here and thanks for you know just being a community that's going to continue to highlight what's happening in our communities across this country. Obviously the mayors across this country we we have a very close-knit community., and we'll all be together later this month in Washington. And this is going to be a, you know, what's happening in our streets is going to be a a really big topic of discussion with the federal government., what it feels like and what can be argued in many cases is American communities are under attack by its own government, by the American government. That's what it feels like. and to to have to witness such a thing.

I'm glad that we live in Durham because we're not afraid to speak, not afraid to speak up. And I of course stand in solidarity as we all will with you know Minneapolis and any city that's having to go through this and I'm sure they will do the same with us., but we will remain steadfast here in the streets of Durham and look forward to seeing everyone tonight on the streets. There was I I had a few other comments, but I'm just going to just hold those off and and get us going today., Miss Manager, I see there.

Okay, I'm going to try and sort out the comments. I see people that have signed up for items, but I see general comments as well. So, I'm going to try to work through that as we're getting started and and after the consent agenda, I will get us to those citizens comments. But, thanks for everyone for being here. All right., priority items. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. And of course you know we are Madam Chief is announcing she's announced her retirement. I deal with separation anxiety. I hate to see her go, but I can say I am proud that she has set a template of what public service, you know, actually looks like. And while it feels like a loss, I think it's an actual game because we know what to look for. We know what to expect. And I I just appreciate having a a a leader, a police chief that is so compassionate.

Thank you. that's so that's so compassionate and and has a steady hand. And I look forward to her continued service as a private resident in this community. And yeah, we have some big shoes to fill and I'm sure the staff will be taking care of that process at the appropriate time. All right.

I'm going to I'm having some technical issues. Go ahead. >> Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Prom, members of council. The city manager's office has no priority items. I would like to recognize and welcome Justin Rose, our new management analyst in the city manager's office, who's sitting over to the right. Justin will be working under Mary Grace Stone King, our assistant to the city manager. Justin comes with us comes to us with great experience after working in the Baltimore mayor's office. So we welcome Justin and we appreciate him joining us.

>> Thank you. >> I can't wait to tell Brandon that we got you. >> Okay, good. You know, people who normally get their life together, they move to Durham. So, welcome back. All right., Madam Attorney, >> good afternoon, Mayor Williams, Madame Mayor Prom, members of the council. It's good to see you., the city attorney's office has no priority items today. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and welcome, Mayor, Mayor Prom, and council members. I have the board and committee report.

The mayor's Hispanic Latino Committee appointment. The nominee is Unknown name context Hernandez Cruz. The participatory budgeting steering committee appointment nomination goes to the youth position of Ezra B. Green and the affordable housing implementation committee. I'm requesting that that item be referred back to the clerk's office. And that's the end of my report. >> Thank you so much. All right. At this time, I'll read the.

There's 30 action items that speak to the UDO in the comp plan. One of them specifically talks about or there's a policy that talks about creating districts that align with the adopted place type map. and again we'll talk a little bit more about that. of course the other theme that you'll hear or that you all are very familiar with is the growth manager strategy in terms of the urban growth boundary concentration of growth within the UDO itself. Of course is the development rules and so these are sort of the specific regulations with the intent of transforming the play site map sort of vision into the rules and regulations for each property. So they should align There we go. So, just general goals of the project., housing choice and affordability, right? So, comprehensive plan talked a lot about allowing for a mix of housing types throughout all of Durham, encouraging the creation of more affordable housing and of course just different types of housing. You know, we all have different housing needs.

Community has different housing needs and find ways to provide a mix of those throughout the community rather than having them segregated. In terms of the built environment, the hope of the or the goal of the project is to facilitate more transit oriented and pedestrian friendly development while continuing to recognize and preserve Durham's existing character. also looking to increase open space, protect tree canopy, also make sure that we've got stringent rules as it relates to the replacement of forestation. U promoting sustainable development as we densify.

Again you concentrating growth inside the UGB and preserving rural areas outside grow in and up and not out. I will also state one of the big goals of the project is creating a more accessible, more usable, better organized ordinance. this includes more graphics, more tables, less zoning districts that all sort of mean the same thing. more of an emphasis on form rather than density. Doing the best we can to create more predictable outcomes so that that's very clear what the regulations allow compared to the current code. The example that I've been saying for the last at least a year and a half probably is currently someone comes into the development services center and is looking for answers about setbacks.

Depending on where they live, it may take four different references in the code to tell them, you know, where they could put their house or where they could put their accessory structure., and so really the the hope is that we create a document that is easy for us to administer, easy for the community to expect what could be built, easier for, applicants to understand their expectations and of course easier for you all as the decision makers. So just I'll I won't spend too much time here. but I will say just in terms of some of the things that the UDO does regulate, right? It lays out the or prescribes the application processes, permit types, all all of the public notice procedures, the responsibilities for different bodies and what they may or may not approve.

It includes our enforcement guidelines as well. It will codify these zoning districts, the ones that I've mentioned already. And of course these zoning districts will include you know land use, building size, site design, open space, etc. Some things that this this is not and this is certainly been a theme as we've engaged with the community, you know, trying to establish clear expectations on on on the project itself. It is not the building code which includes includes accessibility requirements. It's not minimum housing code, of course. we we still have other regulations like our storm water development code that meet development among others. and then just a reminder we do not have the ability to impose design elements on single family or any development using residential code. So one, two, three, four units at a time. we also cannot regulate the cost of housing also known as inclusionary zoning. So,.

So this slide just really represents the types of things that the UDO regulates, right? Like the massing of a building, the lot and form, the size, where the building can go, how tall it can be, how wide it has to be, how what's the maximum width, building exterior, so windows and doors, entry features, other design requirements, use and density, so the types of use or the ways that the property is used. As well as the number of dwelling units. and then site design. This is you know things like parking, parking dimensions, circulation, solid waste facilities, the screening of a site, open space, street coverage. the the document is hundreds and hundreds of pages. So much of it is site design.

We can talk about that all day. So these these are the types of fidel regulations that are in in the ordinance. So that the first module that was released fall of 24 this the content was really the zoning districts two pages of regulations for each generally in most instances. I'll show a better example later. Here's the list of the new proposed zoning districts. Now you'll see we're introducing mixeduse districts RX and CX with various types based on the allowable height. our current code does have a mixeduse district.

I will say that it is used on a limited basis and there's quite a bit of opportunity for improvement., also with the comp plan's focus on 50-minute communities and and more mix of uses expanding those districts and sort of right sizing them where appropriate is it'll be more effective with having the multiple districts. You'll see here the list of the residential districts as well as commercial. a couple of those will look very similar to our current districts. employment centers and then more community focused districts. This is which of these are are new. I'll just point out that a civic district park conservation those those are very new and then university college that's not new but it is being expanded a bit in terms of the way that we have thought about it as you all know as you've recently adopted the changes to the UC district.

Again, the districts themselves, I've already talked about the height and density uses in terms of the regulations., what I want to point out here is, each district, I'm sorry, each property in Durham, city and county, proposing to to reszone all of them to align, with the place type map. so you know what we've sort of grappled with and what you know we've been seeking direction on from JCCPC and make and feedback from the community is ensuring that the zoning districts match the vision in the comp plan. And so the zoning map is the attempt at matching that.

Here's the example of the two-page district standards. RB residential suburban. So this particular district is most similar to our existing RS20 and and you'll just you know I want to point out the use of graphics for one the tableing just you know being able to see yes you know the street side setback there you go and so in a lot of ways we'll be able to you know just from a customer service standpoint it'll be night and day better than currently what we have to do when folks come in. but the the RB like I said residential suburban this is more suburban area and much of the standards are similar to RS20.

So the the use table you know obviously we have a table of use uses in our current code and the proposed code where each district is assigned sort of a yes no or yes with particular conditions or limited standards as they're called in the in the table itself., this is something I just want to really highlight here where while engaging with the community, while working with the JCCPC., you know, we made we have made some changes to the draft over the course of of the project and I think we're pretty excited about some of these changes., so, one of those just being an allowance for neighborhood scale non-residential in the RD district. So, we'll we'll talk more in a bit, but the RD district is probably the most common mapped district for the established residential place type.

This with 5,000 foot lots, fairly similar to our RU5. so, we're proposing that if if you obtain a special use permit from the board of adjustment, you can provide small scale, commercial, retail, restaurant up to 5,000 square feet. the idea behind this provision of course is right we want to see more walkable neighborhoods. We want to see neighborhood services closer to where residents live where where the neighbors are. and we recognize that you know through our regulations we we can only sort of set up the framework where the market will then provide those services, right? And so obviously the comp plan you know the place type map shows neighborhood services areas obviously through zoning we will do that as well. But we we don't have the you know we don't know who's going to want to sell the property. We don't know if there's a shift in in development pattern that a particular corner or particular street may make it more viable. And so we really wanted to open up the opportunity to see those.

Those coffee shops, those small retail spaces, those dental offices, you know, other other neighborhood scale services that that folks could could walk to. So, they don't have to get into a car and and and drive necessarily to to go to the places that they need. U also you'll see through looking through the code that there's increased areas where agriculture uses are allowed. the current code's already fairly permissive. we worked a great deal with many stakeholders in the community to just ensure that urban urban agriculture was very much a very real and and viable thing and was not the room barriers for folks to be able to grow their own food or grow food for their community or or obviously others. there is a bit of a shift to legislative decisions over quasi judicial in some instances.

Just one example I used there and and well two examples. one we've already we've already made. there's some fairly impactful land use decisions that were going to board of adjustment for minor special use permits. Just using u schools for for an example, right? Very impactful, a lot of interest whenever a school is is proposed and the quasi judicial process that the board of adjustment runs under is much less equitable in a sense that interested parties. You know, they may be expected to hire experts for sworn testimony.

They may not have the time, right? They have shorter notice than the applicant. the applicant knows they're proposing the project right when they they come up with the idea whereas the residents you know have 10 days 15 days and so in instances for some of these pretty substantial uses schools churches etc they'll be required to be in the civic zoning district which would be a legislative decision which of course allows residents the opportunity to you know provide their feedback to to you all or the county commissioners as a part of the process rather than the it being simply outlined in the quasi judicial procedures.

And then yeah, so and this is there's a whole lot of just changes that that are to be that are made due to the sort of the abandonment of development tiers. so current current or the previous comp plan and and subsequently our current UDO references development tiers for many regulations obviously making those tweaks to live new standards and other areas where tiers are an issue. >> Just walk and L and P and then the L what is >> yeah great question. So L well P is permitted right? So that is allowed in that district. L limited would be the limited use standards. And so that would mean that there would be u maybe there's an additional landscape landscaping required additional screening requirements. Maybe it's only required if you are 500 ft from a particular residential use. you know I certainly don't remember all of them but just the the idea that it's it's allowed as long as you do X.

Any other questions while we pause? >> Yeah, I'm sorry. you you might have already said I might have just missed it but you were talking about moving from quasi judicial to legislative and you mentioned the schools example but I think I missed if you said moving that to away from the quasi judicial process to what is that? >> That's correct. Yeah. So schools places of worship because they would require the civic district they would require a resigning >> legislative. Yep. opposed to and I'll also just point out here while we got the table up if there's a dash there's no then it's prohibited right so yes and no so you know if you look if you look at the use I'll just if a of light or concrete plant you know that's not going to be permitted in RD district and so there'll be a dash also if there is an M so we are not getting rid of all special use permits obviously there's still times where it is very.

Much appropriate to go through that quazi judicial procedure both minor which goes to board of adjustment or major which would go to you all. that would be what the M's are in the table when you look at that. So and and some of them are extra fun where you see an LNM and that's where there are limited standards they have to meet and they have to obtain the special use from >> Is there a key for that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah.

>> Yeah. I this is a great table, but do you have definitions for for our uses somewhere? >> Many of them are defined that is in the administrative section of the of the ordinance., so, >>, there is not a definition necessary for all of them. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just curious like we've got agriculture and then we've got like bonafideed farms, which is an interesting >> both of those are defined terms in the in the code. >> And then I'm assuming we've also got it for like congregate living and co- livingiving.

>> Those are also defined. >> Great. I will find them. Thanks. But I don't think for example I don't think retail is defined or a restaurant necessarily but obviously the >> the ones that I hopefully have questions about will have definitions and and where and I can find them in the tell me again where they are. >> So so the definition section is in the administrative portion of the draft which is the one component that we have not yet >> that's part of the fourth model.

>> Okay. So I'm not missing it. Okay cool. Yeah, I I always say that that section is not necessarily the flashiest, right? But it it has a lot of very important sections. There was something on there. So the the place type method was adopted as a part of the comprehensive plan. As I sort of repeated or said earlier, you know, each the entire county all the properties have a designated place type. The intent here with the UDO project and the zoning district is that they they align. it's not 100% onetoone as as you'll see and we'll talk about that a little bit more later.

But for established residential most of them are mapped RB RDRX3 our transit opportunity areas. so right that's where our transit corridors are and we want to or our frequent bus stops and transit access. We want a a walkable mixeduse dense so we want to see our our most intense development. And then of course neighborhood services, the CN that I talked about earlier, CX3, CX-5, sort of smaller scale but still mixeduse pedestrian friendly development regulations. This here is we've had this posted online since the first module where you can go online, you can see the proposed zoning map in multiple viewers, you can see it in a side by side, you can search your property and see what it is today and what it is tomorrow as we've engaged this community. there's a tool where map feedback can be or I'm sorry feedback on the map can be inputed directly. so just certainly for you you all's awareness and and the community this is a really really a great tool to you know provide and say.

Hey we don't think that that particular property is or or that particular district is appropriate for that place type or and obviously we have heard this through our engagement you know is that place type right today because you know it's been two years or maybe they have different opinions. All right. Okay. So, we'll be digging into how the new UDO will be implementing the conference of plan. Really looking at it in four separate categories. The first will be housing. Second will be transportation. You know, how will the new UDO support vision zero 50-minute communities framework?

And then of course environment, how will the new UDO incentivize sustainable development, protect our natural resources? And then there's a few issues that don't really fit into categories that we'll speak on at the end and potentially hear some direction. Speaking speaking on housing, right? So the the conference of plan sort of just pulling some themes from from the comp plan, some you know a mix of policies and actions you know focusing the development on within the urban growth boundary in including more infill units where we have existing infrastructure.

I think I think you all are very aware in terms of the benefits of this a mix of housing types and a mix of densities in new neighborhoods along with supportive non-residential uses and pedestrian friendly design and infrastructure. also of note the retrofit of aging and vacant shopping centers to mixuse transit supportive developments that include housing. Right so that's why you know we have a lot of TOA areas that are sort of shopping centers that are you know function as as very large surface parking lots right and so place I imagine the the redevelopment of many of the shopping centers the incremental change of existing developments to incorporate a variety of housing options with a mix of units heights densities again getting to the point of providing housing for you know we all have different housing needs different sized families, different expectations within these existing neighborhoods as well. also including allowing new uses as I already talked about with the neighborhood scale commercial and really just you know finding ways to to make more walkable.

Neighborhoods or more walkable neighborhoods in our existing places and then of course creating an incentive structure for affordable housing for both new and infield development. So some of the ways that the UDO tries to address the comprehensive plan or try and implement the comprehensive plan right through in terms of focusing development within the UGB you know a big chunk of this is is done by the map itself right by you know having the RA which is our rural preserve zoning district very similar to our current RR being mapped outside the UGB and by by focusing the the districts that allow more intense development within obviously allowing this housing you know looking at our densest districts that allow residential uses RD residential and then the CX and RX mixeduse districts. we are including some height bonuses which and density bonuses for both if you provide compact units and more affordable units. this is through most of the or this is through those residential districts in the UGB. I'll get into details of that.

In a minute. and then of course you know these mixeduse districts the CXs you know sort of focusing that density along existing high frequency transit corridors. And so I just emphasize again you know going from the sort of the comp plan to the UDO a big part of that is is sort of the mapping of the districts themselves. done. So talking a bit about the map itself. So the four res residential districts are residential preserve. This is the RA district similar to RR 3 acre lots, you know, think, one family, think agriculture uses, you know, wershed protection., residential suburban RB, very similar to RS20. So, 20,000 foot lots, more suburban style development.

That's the yellow on the outskirts. And, and forgive me, the RA is the the green. RC manufactured home park. this aligns with a an item in the comprehensive plan where it's a district that will be mapped for existing manufactured home parks and will allow manufactured homes home parks. the intention is to preserve our existing right because that's some of our sort of existing affordable housing. And so that that zoning district will apply to existing obviously could could be used for subsequent new proposed manufactured home parks or RV parks.

And then RD is residential neighborhood. This is most closely it resembles our RU5 or RU52 districts. and this is currently being proposed belonging to established residential type within the city. So the the yellow being the RB are areas much of them not not all but much of them are areas that are outside of the the city but within the UGB. Talk a bit specifically about the RD zoning district as that is most prominent district in the established residential place type. you'll see here this is the sort of the the graphics for that that two-pager that I showed you earlier or the version of the two-pager. So the base requirements for the RD 5,000 foot minimum lot size.

You'll you'll still be able to have an accessory dwelling unit. obviously no affordable affordability requirement as I started the presentation saying that we don't have the legal authority to do that. no limitations on the unit size other than setbacks or height restrictions of course. But as that lot is developing that there are two options for them or two additional options that are optional development frameworks and these are all considered by right these would all be approved at the staff staff level. the second one or I'm sorry option two RD2 as we've we've termed it is fairly similar to our small lot small house option that we have currently that is allowed in the urban tier you know so roughly I don't know how the roughly between two or four miles around downtown.

The one change to it of course is the allowance or making it easier for the units to be for rent, not just for sale, right? So you don't have to subdivide them. Many of the small lots that we see today are are just or you know for sale units. we're our hope is to see again a mix of for sale and and for rent. the one unit per 1250. I think we've actually that aligns with the the current current code.

And so in this instance, the maximum size for each unit would be 1,200 square feet with 800 square foot footprint. They do have some flexibility in terms of the design itself, right? So whether that be multiple units in one or or what you see here. So, so when you see these graphics, we're obviously showing examples. Of course, not every lot in Durham, you know, is a perfect rectangle as as shown here. So, there may be some different configurations that you'll see. So, that that is the the compact option for RD. I I'll just pause here and see if we have any questions on that.

I was really intrigued at how we were talking about generating you know something economically affordable through design and so I don't necessarily have a question but I just wanted to really highlight that because you know this document is going to be our you know our operating document and and I I think what I'm most intrigued about is how our decisions you know, align or, you know, how do we it's like we have the UDO and I know that we can press, you know, applicants when they come before us. But I'm really interested in how, you know, moving forward, this is going to better align with what we're, you know, wanting as a council and and I hope that, you know, we we continue to reflect and make sure that we're using this to guide our way forward., but but this is really helpful. I was I was holding my question because we're talking about affordability you know and and there was a slide earlier where we talked about housing affordability and environment and there.

Was something else out of legislative or whatever but this is helpful to see utilizing design to encourage or incentivize affordability. Yeah, that's that's certainly the intention, right? Is with housing typically being priced at, you know, cost per square foot by putting that cap on the size of the unit that could be provided. Of course, in our current framework in the urban tier, you know, we see many folks building up to that 1,200 foot line, right? I will say that fairly recently, we've we've got some of our smaller scale de developers have gotten a little more creative and they're providing more units that are even smaller. right like we've seen more of more of that which I think does speak to offering different housing types in these existing neighborhoods that otherwise are fairly unaffordable you know obviously that's relative but and so it speaks to that and of course the increased density contributes to some of our more walkable community goals. One one more question. I on this legislative front, it's probably not the sexiest.

Section, but I think it's some really big things that we need to talk about in there. in regards to affordability, for example, the I don't know if it's the state housing code or board code, whatever, when they determine, you know, no longer being able to use euro lumber, well, that made things way more expensive, >> you know, and we never talk about that. And then you think about the labor that we have to pay in the building process. I I'm really interested in digging down into the multiple factors that cause development to be so expensive.

And you know as I'm looking at this these diagrams here how we are doing our part by utilizing design and you know and incentive programs to encourage more affordability. But I I don't want to, you know, and hopefully our UDO can help us, you know, have this conversation with our state leaders, but I I don't want to just, you know, not have that that that dialogue to happen. And and as we're trying to get more affordable, there are two major things we can do at the state level that are that are policy that could really bring down the cost. And I don't know if that's federal or what, but >> you know, so I just wanted to put that out there. Those are two things I'm really interested in that affect the cost of the building process. And then of course we did what we did in SCAD which was also affecting the process.

But yeah just putting it out there >> just one question. So on on this option two you just described the compact option. So so is the assumption there that these like these small these are like 1,200 square foot maximum unit size. This is there's no affordability no affordability requirement. is the assumption that this is kind of workforce housing is that sort of >> I mean yeah certainly you know a lot of that we we can't dictate but yeah it's you know we have seen with the existing small lot option and and I don't have the numbers in front of me but obviously there a a new home that is a small lot is substantially is priced lower than a a standard 5,000 foot lot right just the cost of land dictates that I mean then obviously the the 5,000 the base you know looking at this example here you know it's going to be a much larger home subsequently it would be priced higher. So, so yeah, I.

Mean I think that's fair to say that you know the intent is just to to make sure that we have multiple degradations of of housing options and subsequently prices >> and that so and again option two the compact option would be would be that's a buy right scenario in the RD district. >> So can you tell me right now under our current zoning rules the small lot option what do you have to do to to like to sort of be able to use the small lot option? So, they submit a a subdivision plat to to staff staff level review and then submit a building permit. And we've seen I mean I don't have the most recent numbers several hundred of those built since 2019 when they were first allowed by the expanding housing choices.

>> So, so it's a it's a modest review process. You got to apply for that. You got to get the approvals. It takes some But that's not a super cumbersome process or how long does that take to get the approval for a small lot? I mean it's it's the same as the standard lot. Forgive me. The the plaid itself may be an additional process, but it's it's fairly smooth, >> but it's not by right still. >> It is by right.

>> Oh, the small is by right. >> It is by right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That's your point. All of this is by right. That's that's the point. These are optin. These are like opt-in districts. So, >> so the base would be on the left there, but all of these are allowing different things that are not discretionary review, but they're saying you can opt in and so therefore it subjects them to potential additional requirements that are in the code or not in the code.

So, a question on the affordable option and maybe you're going to talk more about this, but I'm curious about the >> the focus on 80% and 30%. >>, are you coming to that? >> Yes. Can I can I >> will be happy to wait. >> Yeah. Awesome.

>> Yeah. Just the >> the last Oh, you're still on that picture. Sorry, I was looking at my slide. So yeah, the only one where it's like if you want it even denser is where you apply that affordability piece of it, right? You can do the middle, right? Like the denser you the denser you want it to go, like then you have to pony up affordability. >> Okay, >> great. So I'll talk a bit about this third affordable option. just as council member Copek queued me up. So you can seek or seek by right you can choose to get a one unit per 625t lot area. You'll see here that we've shown you know multiple multiplexes on that same existing lot. There's probably a multitude of of ways to to develop it.

I'll say that we probably anticipate the affordable option going, you know, because of sort of the math on it, we expect those to be, you know, not two or three units, right? This probably is more like eight units on the same lot. So they get that additional density if they provide at least 8% of the units at 80% AMI or 4% of units at 30% AMI. And I'll just speak to these numbers in general and sort of why it's proposed at that number. Obviously, we're here, you know, if there's additional, feedback from you all or direction as it relates to those numbers, that's that's what we're here for., our current code has an affordable housing density bonus., and that the required percentage for that affordable housing density bonus is 15%.

That has been in place for a a lot of years, I believe since at least the '9s and we've gotten I believe eight units with that existing percentage. So it was certainly our thought that you know we wanted to encourage the use of the bonus. We did not want to carry forward an incentive structure that sort of stayed on the shelf and didn't actually create any units. And so our our first thought process was to reduce from that 15. We then took a a look at what was being profered at the resounding stages, right? And you know what the percentages were that applicants were profering given the the risk that comes with the reasoning application and the length of time that goes through the approval process. It was our assumption that we could increase from what you all were seeing at city council or what was being approved at city council. and so believe that number was like 5.9%.

Obviously most of those were developments that were larger, right? You didn't you don't see a lot of property units with your you know 30 unit town developments that's larger. So we also knew that we couldn't go too too much greater than that 5%. And so one thing I'll just add the city of Minne Minneapolis's inclusionary zoning policy of course and of course that is different state law. We're not in a place where where that could be our ordinance but their ordinance is 80% or I'm sorry 8% at 60 and 4% at 30. the 4% 30 obviously the the thought process there is if you're providing that deeper affordability without without subsidy right then we're open to a less stringent structure and so that's where how we landed on the 8 8% and 4% the 8% AMI that's consistent with the current for sale definition in our code now for affordable >> do these rounded up when it's so if it's an 8plex are they choosing between doing one unit.

At 80% or doing one unit at 30%. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So just to capture what you just stated about the 8% and the 4% there wasn't actually any empirical information about the actual need here in Durham. It's just based on trends and patterns. So it wasn't anything to form how this would actually benefit our existing community and what the needs are existing housing market is. Just want to clarify that. >> Yeah, the the need for housing at those affordabilities both 30% 80% and 60 60% later is greater than what this incentive structure would provide.

Obviously this is just one tool in the toolbox to try and try and get at those affordable units. there's thousands of affordable units that have been profited as a part of resonings. there will still be reszonings. So there will still be profer units and then obviously there are the affordable units that either nonprofit or government government monies are going to. So this is really just provided by the market. So it's really just a supplement. It's not intended to meet 100% of the needs which is why that that number itself didn't drive it. It's really like right now just to in terms of the growth and pattern comparison right now it's eight over 25 years.

Forgive me. Now it's like we're getting almost none. And so that was sort of the the thought process is these would be more than what we're currently getting. >> Yeah. >> Were you done? >> I had to follow up on Shanetta Shenetta's comment. Previously in the JCCPC meeting, we've we've talked about further incentivizing 100% and more deeply affordable. And I know right now we're just looking at the RD district on the slide, but just in general, is that something that we're getting clo because I know that we weren't quite there yet and figuring out what we're going to do, but are we closer to what we want to do there?

>> Yeah, as as I you'll hear this a lot where we're stealing from other parts of the country. somewhat loosely modeled after a program city of Austin's doing we will be creating incentives just like this and allowances in terms of height as well for 100% affordable options I mean on a weekly basis right like we have these lack projects where we we keep finding barriers and and parts in the process that are making it more difficult to have these affordable units come online and so one of the things that is not in the the text just yet.

Again, we're still sort of working working through it is a path for 100% affordable that is u for one easier and and then of course and further incentivized. I'm just I'm I'm getting a bit stuck on the on the fact that the option number two doesn't have any minimum lot size because what I heard you saying was that we kind of based the percentages on the affordable option three over like the profers that we were sort of seeing as we're getting projects in front of us which seem actually more akin to option number two. And so now it's like we've sort of excluded our ability to get any affordability in option number two just for the hope that there will be some choice of option three. And so I'm I guess I'm confused because like no minimum lot size. So that could be I mean we're looking at four units because this is a scaled down picture, but that's not that's not necessarily what this is going to look like because.

There's no minimum lot size. It could look like a lot more units densely compacted and no affordability requirement at all. >> That that is correct. If it's a if if it's a larger lot, again, the the math modeling was that the it would be one unit per the same amount that we would allow. So, but if they right if it if they didn't if they didn't subdivide and they had a larger lot, it could look a lot different in terms of how the the structures that that's provided.

That is correct. But the the assumption I'm sorry the assumption the the framework again is the the same as the current small lot. >> Can you explain that on the sub? Yeah, just help me understand that better. >> Yeah, just to speak to that a little bit more. There's no minimum lot size because there are some housing types which do not have like a you cannot do attached town homes if you have a lot size or something like that because they don't have they wouldn't meet the setbacks, right? Because it's wall wall.

So even though there's no minimum lot size, they are still held to the size from the parent parcel. So at 5,000 square feet, the base lot, you divide that by 1250 and they can only always get four. So it's showing four because that's like the max they could do. But this could also be like a multiplex. It could be a multiplex of four units. It could be four town homes, etc. And none of those have a base or a minimum lot size themselves.

But they are still held to the density of the 5,000 square foot that they of that parent parcel. Does that clarify things? >> Yes. So I think I think where I'm confused is I'm like, okay, so what we see in front Yes. We we see the scaled up projects that come in front of us where there's like a hundred lots theoretically that are being that are being included in these mass projects, right? And then what we would then see is like 400 units available on a 100 lot project and no affordability, which is like way less than what we're getting now in terms of affordable housing.

>> Yeah. One of the sorry one of the reasons for that sort of framework was as we have seen you know like I said several hundred of these small lots which are somewhat more affordable they're all for sale and so we're trying to create a framework where we could have for rent options using using this options and so that was why sort of opening up for both by not having that because you had the minimum lot size but what we would then see is just that right there and really trying to see a little bit more than just the same, you know, for sale product, >> right? I guess I Yeah, I mean, I hear that.

>> And just to follow up on that, I I understand what you're saying about the larger So, I think the way to address that would be we could institute the minimum lot size, right? And then and recognize that we could probably see more for sale as a part of the the compact, which, you know, that may be the case anyway, right? Because that's probably more attractive, I think, on a lot by lot basis. There's a couple other factors, right?

Like we're the storm water code is still the same. limitations on grading are still the same. And so at at a in terms of just how many units that you would see using this option, it there would be some limitation on it that from other regulations. >> Okay. I mean, to me, it just feels like we it's like every minor shift has like consequences that maybe I just like can't foresee because I just like don't understand the code well enough for that., so I hear what you're saying and I understand like that we have some some push to have rental options and and for sale options and I understand that.

I guess I'm just confused about like what stops this from having and I want to say also that I what I really want to see too is that like we're allowing our small developers to do this work right on single lots. Like I I I think this is really useful for our local developers to be able to like purchase single lots and do that build as opposed to like what we're seeing is like the ability to buy like dozens of lots at a time and do these mass projects that just like aren't accessible to our local developers. So, I do want to incentivize that in some ways, but I'm just like worried that we what we'll see is that this sort of gets transposed into like a bunch of lots that are right next door to each other and then we lose any affordable housing options that we could have had there.

>> Yeah, I think that's a great point and it's definitely we can sort of come back and think a little bit more about like a scaling mechanism for sure. as part of this presentation, we're trying to get feedback from you all. So, that's really helpful for us as we keep moving forward and come back to you. One thing that I did want to talk about too is that as Bo mentioned earlier, since option two and option three are voluntary. and applicants can always build under option one, we can assign additional development standards to two and three. And so in part of that we are trying to add sort of more requirements to option two but not to three. Right.

>> so >> that's what Yeah. >> Yeah. So we have a sustainable development matrix that I'll talk a little bit about later. so you know if you do want to do two you have to do more. additionally things like infill standards so they'll have height restrictions that affordable housing won't have and things of that nature as well. but definitely heard your your insight >> scaling up. Thanks. >> Yeah, thank you for that. And you know it is helpful to see how versus our current code which I feel incentivizes more of those larger developments that this opens up the possibility for more of that smaller local scale development. So I really like that with option two. I mean getting at kind of council member Cook's point I mean you know if the concern is about this being applied at a very very large scale >> you know you have here an example of you know 5,000 square foot lot. Is there any like conversation about like what the upper limit is on that in the.

Development of this like or is there an upper limit on it like how should we think about that? >> I mean I I think our thought process on that and again you know we're here to hear from you all but there's no limit on the scale for the 5,000 foot lots. And so in those same areas where council member Cooks, you know, using that example that somebody would come through and build a bunch of little units that have no income restriction, well, they could also build a bunch of the single family 5,000 foot that would have no income restriction and be, you know, roughly two $300,000 more each. And so that that's sort of where we're Even at a larger scale, option two can get us more units that are at a, you know, per per square foot or I guess not per square foot, per unit cost a lot less than what we would see in the in the base option.

>> Correct. Yeah. So that's, you know, again, I think we'd be open to some sort of some sort of cap, but I don't I think given the where we expect it to be developed, that's not that's not what we've proposed. >> Thank you. I just want to say I appreciate this. We've had these conversations at JCCPC a bit. We what we want to incentivize is best use of land, most effective use of land. And folks who build houses, build what you make is easy. They they're they're there. They run a business. That's what they're there for. and so if you incentivize whatever you make harder to build is what they're not going to build. So if we want while while we see that option two may have some things that you know we don't love, we don't want to make it that option one is the easiest thing because then that's what we're going to get a lot of. we want to see not large single family homes because.

We're not that's still going to be allowed. A 5,000 foot lot's still going to be allowed. And so I think that that to me at least is the the purpose of finding that kind of middle ground which is like we have the very you know very loose restrictions because you're providing affordability. We want to p we want that path. Providing affordable housing is difficult. It's not an easy thing. It the folks who are going to be in that space are going to have a lot more hoops to jump through to get the subsidy. And so only folks who have real expertise in that are going to be able to follow that path. whereas the option two is kind of the the in some cases a sweet spot and it's based off what we've seen and the success that we've seen with expanding housing choice. So the at least for me that idea isn't just out of nowhere. That idea is based on six years of of seeing what's been happening since we loosened some of.

Our regulations back in 2019. I just real quick one one thing that again not not a cap on this particular housing product being provided but we we are proposing a distinction sort of under four acres and greater than 4 acres in terms of tree coverage as well as the infill standards right so recognizing that in some or many instances this is creating sort of infield development we we're carrying over I think Robin already said this but the height restrictions and setback back restrictions in our in our current infill standards. that along with the additional tree coverage are required at 4 acres. There's also a few other I think sort of trips at four acres and at that point you know it may not it's certainly less viable for the developer to provide all small houses right like you know and again we don't see this because this isn't something that we see because they go through reszoning they don't have this this limitation but you know is it you know it would be much.

More profitable at that point to stick with stay with the option one base if they were doing such a large scale., again, that's somewhat speculative, but I think that 4acre cap sort of speaks to that. >> Yeah, I appreciate the conversation here both with you all and my colleagues about the sort of like the implications and sort of hypotheticals with these different options and given that option two doesn't require affordability., but it seems like none of this happens in a vacuum, right? So if someone were to acquire like a hundred 5,000 foot lots and build 400 of these smaller homes, right? At some point like there's a there's a market dynamic, right? So So is it not correct that if you had like 400 homes then in the market that you've then got to sell like if you're going to prices all at some point like the market does adjust, right? So supply and demand is part of what we're going for here is having more supply that will drive potentially prices down. Correct.

>> Yeah. I mean, I think that combined with sort of the infrastructure comment that council copy made. >> U yeah. Are we looking at facilitating and and streamlining the process of making it easy to feed units into the subsidized housing realm? >> The answer to that is yes. I I certainly and I will I will not commit anything certainly but but we know that as we continue to if if if we see success with this we're going to make sure that we have to have the infrastructure in place for smallcale developers or or even large scale developers to you know whether it be through compliance, whether it be through education, whether it be just through coordination. we need to do the best we can to make it as easy as possible to provide these these affordable units.

>> Yeah. Thank you. and then to what degree would you say option number two, the compact option is a carry forward existing regul what >> to what degree are you attempting to carry forward existing regulations and just kind of simplify it through this method? I've already discussed at, you know, JCCPC that I don't like that option. I like option three. I would like to us just to, you know, steer developers toward, option three., I worry about this being applied in certain parts of our city where there might be smaller scale, somewhat affordable, single family housing units or even duplexes that might get torn down and replaced with more expensive, you know, smaller lot. So, I'm just curious like to what degree do you think this is being this this is an attempt to carry forward kind of existing regulations?

>> I think that's a a fair fair way to call it. I will say though it's carrying forward with additional tree coverage requirements that today don't exist at all. additional sustainability requirements today which don't exist exist at all. Additional design requirements today that don't exist at all. So I think it is fair to say that it is modeled after the current code but it it is a more stringent version. I'm just I'm curious because I where I thought you were going to go somewhere different when we were talking about the restrictions that started at 4 acres and I was wondering if y'all like talked about doing maximum lot sizes restrictions at all or is that not a conversation? I mean to me it seems like we're kind of not interested in having like single family homes on large lots, right? And so like just curious if there was conversation about disincentivizing that usage.

>> There has not been conversation in terms of providing or including a cap on that. Obviously finances themselves, right? Like the number of lots equal amount of profit for developers. And so that sort of incentivizes the smaller lots themselves. So that has not been a part of the conversation. But you're right, you know, we do not want to see large single family, you know, large lot subdivisions. >> Yeah. Okay. It's just it's just something to think about. I mean, I'm I'm also like kind of curious about the underlying sort of economic theory behind these choices. Like I'm I'm kind of with my colleague here like disincclined to appreciate option two. I mean, I wish that it were so easy as supply and demand, but like we know that that's not a thing that works with housing in that most simplistic theory., and and it is worrisome to me that we're like sort of losing this ability to to ask for any affordability in two out of the three baseline options or like buy right.

Options. And so nothing has to be made better or presented better to us because it's just going to be automatically granted in two out of the three of those. And what we know and what all of us have sort of been running over the past couple of years, those of us who have run, well, everyone here has run an election over the past couple of years, that affordable housing has been a huge priority. And that as what we're seeing is that housing is getting less and less affordable as like all sorts of prices and costs rise and except for our lovely city employees like mostly wages are not increasing, right? And we're seeing fixed income folks and like all sorts of folks that are stuck behind. and then it just worries me that like two out of the three of these are not including any affordable options at all. So, that is that's my that's my concern with it.

>> And and I I just want to make sure I I want us to go deeper into that conversation at some point., I think that and because and I think if we can find a middle ground understanding, Council Member Cook, around, you know, whether supply and demand matters or not, whether, you know, subsidizing these things matter or not, and how we get there. I think we're going to find our solution because I I wholeheartedly believe wholeheartedly believe the supply and demand is a major factor in addition to other things and you know as I talked about earlier you know the cost to build and we are going to force affordability then I think about the end user you know we're it's going to be paid for at some point somewhere you know affordable housing to me it doesn't mean that the structure is cheaper to build it means that it's going to be paid for somewhere some Okay., and and I I just want us to not have that conversation on the.

Surface. I think we need to go deep and I I think part of our retreat hopefully we can get into some phil philosophical conversations and dialogue as well. >> So, >> can I respond to that? I just want to be clear that I like >> I do think that we're going to have to put money in and I think that that is the answer. It's not >> it's not like depend on privatization for everything. It's not going to >> We know corporations are m profit maximizing. They're just they're never going to prioritize affordability in the way that ideally a government would. I know that's not true of all levels of government, but hopefully this body will be prioritizing. And like we are going to have to put money in. And I just want to make sure that we are setting ourselves up with our UDO in a way that like takes us closer to our goals that like maybe supply and demand might help us a certain part of the way, but it's.

Not going to take us all the way there. It it just isn't. It's like it has never been successful in that way. And so like I don't want our entire UDO to be set for the next 10 years in a way that doesn't allow us to like move towards our values and actually like put our money where our mouths are and like start really providing that house. >> Yeah. And that's my whole point like the money that we put in is money that's going to come from the people who are going to live there. So it's I I look at local government as a jigsaw puzzle., so I I that's what I I think that when we have this conversation, it's going to be so rich and I think that we're gonna it's going to get us really far., and and I'm just looking forward to that.

So, I'll go here and then come over here. >> Yeah, the healthy discussion. I I mean, I think both things are true here, right? I think the notion that that supply and demand doesn't matter, like I don't understand that. I think it's been well documented in the last year. The rental rates have actually stabilized across a triangle with increase of housing. So like that's well documented. At the same time, we can't rely to council member Cook's comments. We can't rely on the market. And well, I should say this is one way we produce affordable housing, right, through profers. We've also got mission line developers that do that. We've also got public housing. There's different ways we can create affordable units. It's also true that we may that the market itself may not create those units that are 30% and below, right? And that's the role of like housing bonds, the housing authority. So there's different ways we create a vulnerable housing. This is one of the tools and I think we're trying to.

Increase our ability to use this tool through the through the through the private developers that we're increasing the the supply of affordable housing, but that's not it's not enough. We're going to need more bond funds. We're going to need other financing tools to to reach those goals. It's it's all the above. >> Yep. Because everything's going up, but wages. So, I I I think you're right. Multiple things are true. Council Mayor Pro. >> Yeah, I'll be quick because I know we we're past time technically for the amount that we allotted for this presentation. several 15 maybe almost close to 15 minutes. just so two things I there was a presentation that the subcommittee chair for land use presented to joint city county planning.

I encourage my colleagues to go see that one. he is an affordable development provider. He is in the weeds on this every single day. I will say that the scale of the problem for us of affordability is a billion dollars. That that is what it's going to cost us and those are units that are already identified. That's that's need now, not need in the future. I mean, well, it is need in the future, but it's like we know what the scale is., so when we say we're going to solve affordability, we're not serving affordability as a local government. We need to have partners at the federal and state level, and we know that right now those partners are not aligned with our our values and our mission as a city government. So, I just want to be real clear as we're having this conversation.

It is a billion dollars., I am open and want to use every tool at my disposal. Some of that's going to be bond money. Some of that's going to be private developers partnering with affordable housing developers and doing litec. we saw that about a month and a half ago where we had 100% LITC resoning in front of us. That's another tool. There's a lot there. I was just really because sometimes public is hearing this or press captures this. This is one small incremental tool and there is a lot of really robust data around affordability and land regulation and efficiency of your land regulation is one of the many many tools. It's not going to get us all of it. And I want to say because a lot the the percentage of housing that is produced by the private market in this country is overwhelming compared to public housing or government. The harder we make it to deliver units, they're going to default to whatever that is. And if the default.

Is a large single family home, that's what they're going to build. And we need our rules to allow flexibility on that. Thank you. That's. >> I'm back. Sorry. And he left. Council Member Baker, you have >> Yeah, let's go. >> Sure. So this this this slide is sort of a continuation of the same topic, right? So the the map you'll see the blue. What we've done here is we've shown sort of the increase in density that's being proposed versus the existing.

So the heavier the blue, the the bigger change. And so what you see there on especially on the outskirts right it's RS20 going to R to RD which is you know 20,000 foot lot minimum to 5,000 foot lot minimums and so not to drag us back to the last slide but that itself is sort of that is sort of the upzoning that we've talked about or a portion of it at least in in those areas if those areas are mapped with that greater density greater intensity as as the comp plan calls for. Then that's where we get the 5,000 foot lots of course. Then the RD2 option is to you know I guess address the issue of just getting those single large single family on those 5,000 foot lots. so this map shows the gray area they're non those are districts that are not residential.

And then of course the white is county. Any questions on this? This is really just showing where the the start and I think council member Baker this was actually something that you had asked for during our meetings with JCCPC. The asterisk on this is I mean there's not actually one up there is that we're kind of showing you know on the outskirts of the city greater change in density but we talked about during JCCPC many of those areas are already covered by HOAs which have their own layer of restrictions because everything we annex has an HOA applied to it.

Yeah, just for further clarity, this is just based on the regulations. This isn't based on the density that is existing or potentially vacancy that's there, undeveloped land. This is just, you know, zoning district to district and what those standards are. And and sort of the lighter blues, those are your your RS8s or RS10s. >> Thank you. I'm going to keep this going. >> I'm here for that. all right. I mentioned this early. Whoops. I do not want to go backwards. all right. So many parcels located within the UGB that are also established residential place type are proposed to be RB instead of RD. So right all of established residential RD except for these proposes RD. This is they're outside the city limits. they're going to require an annexation to build at that intensity anyway. So, for one, it's just more reflective of of, you know, what that what those properties and what that area looks like today. And it's also a little bit clearer to residents in terms of what's allowed.

Now. and so before they go through that public hearing process. And like council member Baker noted, you know, many of these areas, existing residential subdivisions do have private covenants which would limit these various housing types or intensities. All right., so the mixeduse districts that I talked about an hour ago, sort of the the CX districts, they're mapped to align, with the RX, of course, either the apartment, townhouse, neighborhood place type, mixed residential, downtown, and our toas. That's my favorite place type.

Many of these areas are replacing you know low inensity commercial zoning districts with higher intensity zoning districts in order to facilitate increased density and disincentivized autocentric developments. So of course they also have use limitations and and similar requirements in terms of vehicle vehiclecentric requirements. They also have additional design requirements as it relates to better pedestrian access. These mixeduse districts also include a similar affordability incentive structure and compact incentive structure. >> It's not on council member Ris. Council member Baker next.

>> Council member Baker thought you wanted us to keep going. >> So we have like commercial I know we have we have like commercial and then we have commercial mixed use, right? the mixed use does not require a mix of uses. Is that right? It allows a mix of uses, doesn't require mix of uses. Is that right? >> So, we're currently working on a provision where at a certain size there would be a requirement., we are we are not recommending requiring a mix of uses for smaller I don't remember the do you remember the low 200 >> I don't want to say the wrong area but but is a works.

>> Yes. say larger scale would require and then I'll just also note the CX20 CX8 would require ground level non-residential this is similar to what we have today downtown right like CX20 would be really within the loop >> it would require ground floor non-residential >> res like on every frontage >> yes obviously there'd be some allowance for service and and whatnot but. Th this slide really just lays out, you know, sort of the design requirements I already briefly referenced. I won't go through it, but these mixed use districts are form- based, right? The idea again similar to 9th Street or Patterson Place or the recently adopted page Miami.

The corresponding incentive structure for compact units or affordability. One distinction I'll make here is it's not based on density. It's based on the height of the multif family buildings or mixed use buildings. And the other distinction or one of the other distinctions is rather than 80% AMI it's 60% AMI. This aligns with both more what we see profered and the current definition in today's UDO. You'll see that for the compact option obviously we for a you know if for a four story or sixtory apartment building we didn't think it made sense to require all of them to be compact but just you know 25% of them to be 450 again that is a a housing product that we see downtown we we don't see it elsewhere obviously we may see it in some of these toas at a lower price point any questions here before we >> Okay, this compact option I really don't like I I don't I don't see why we height incentives are so precious.

There are so rare opportunities where a developer actually wants to go up and provide something for that and to just have it be for really small units. I I feel like we need to reserve that very precious commodity of of allowing additional height for something that's actually truly affordable. And that's I think that's something that's really important. I also think that it's really important that we do aim for those because we we want we want height in around transit, right? We want parts of our city. We want we don't want to be a monocentric city anymore. We want to be a polyentric city and we want to build that. We want to be able to build out transit so that we have rapid transit going from center to center around our city. And I just I think that it's very important that that includes truly affordable, you know, at least somewhat 60% 30% AMI affordable units.

I I think that's very important and I think that we aim for those heights and I think that anything above existing heights today should be should be counted as as essentially a density bonus to get those units.

Thank you. We have that now, right? That density bonus with height. >> We in our downtown Yes, we have a version of hyponus. >> How often is it used? >> Not often. >> How long has it been there? >> 2011. >> Yeah. >> Oh, >> yeah. >> That's what I remember. I think that that's where I'm at. I mean, the nice thing about the UDO is a we can do amendments when needed. I think that we have these tools. They're not working.

We need to try something like I think it's not going to help us, you know, and we we we've had maybe we just council member Baker and I just need to stop because we do this at JCCPC every single every single month or whenever there's a module presented., so I I think that that's my whole point. My whole point is we have we have the development patterns that we have because of the rules we've allowed and then financing associated with that. If we want something different and the comprehensive plan has imagined something different which was already passed we have to have different rules that align with that plan. You don't you don't get the things we want just you know people respond to what you allow and we have to allow different things if we want the building community to respond differently and we're not those folks like we don't I don't build housing I just have to figure out how to provide government subsidy for affordability.

Council. >> Don't be afraid. Just a few things to that. One is we're talking about recalibrating the density bonus and affordable housing. two, we can't give density away for free or we shouldn't give density away for free. And if we do, then there's no incentive to to do a density bonus because you can just go get a go get a a legislative change and get your density. Three, the recent state legislation that has said municipalities can go one direction and one direction only. You once you give that density away now it's gone. You can't go back. that is what the recent legislation at the state level said in 2025. So I think I think it's very very very important that we this specific issue that we do not give density away for free on a large scale in this UDO rewrite.

>> Thank you. I just don't understand how you build a city. We're just going to keep doing this. I don't I don't understand how you build a city without density. Like I from just a pure and I am not an urban planner but I have traveled a lot. I have been in lots of cities. I've lived in large cities. They're they're cities because they're dense. That's what that's like a defining quality of them. So, I don't understand like and I don't understand why we would imagine a comp plan. Like I don't get how you get this like 10 minute what did we talk about yesterday? This five minute walk shed.

There's not a way to accomplish that if we don't change the rules around how many people and how closely they're living together. I don't I just don't understand from a philosophical point like you're going to give density away if you want to create anything close to walkability. >> I never said don't do density. I'm in fact let's let's do density. Let's do density. Especially when we're thinking about creating polyentric city when we're thinking about being more pedestrian oriented and transit oriented density is very important. What I'm saying is when we get density we also need to get affordable units for we need to be an equitable city. We need to be a just city. This is how we do it.

>> Sorry, we we don't have the legislative power to do that. So, I think that that's that I guess and I'm going to let it go here because I'm trying to be respectful of my colleagues, but I I I ultimately think that to your point, mayor, these are I think that it is our job as elected leaders like we live whether and I've said this before and maybe not on this council, we live in a capitalistic society whether we like it or not. And it is un I don't think it is transparent with the public to say that a we have power we do not have. To the council member's point, we have had zoning powers stripped. I can do less now than I could in 2019.

And I I I think that we are so limited and we have we haven't been able to get the things we want. 20 years of a height density that people can't utilize. I think that there's evidence and we have to make decisions based on evidence at least in my opinion. And the evidence suggests that we have to have a different way forward than we are if we're ever going to really achieve some of our goals. Some of those are affordability, some of those are efficient land use for many reasons, sustainable reasons, all kinds of things. And I'm going to stop talking now.

>> All right, real quick. >> Again, we need to recalibrate. we do have legislative authority for voluntary inclusionary density bonuses and we need to use them and we need to use them effectively and this is our our opportunity to do that. What at what point thinking of stories and I I may be getting into commercial here but or residents too. At what point does building structures go from wood to steel, sticks to steel? >> Five. All right., yeah, I I I was I always think about the economics of it and and that's why I I'm I think this conversation, this dialogue is so rich and I think that we need to make sure we create some space for it. So, we're going to put this on the agenda retreat because I I I think it's important, you know, and I think we we bring these skill sets to the table and I'm okay with, you know, naming my bias. I like to see it practically ran out and I if I.

Don't have the the authority to carry out something idealistic, then how do we make it happen in practice? And and what I do love about what we're doing here is we're encouraging affordability through design. but I do run into a little trouble of putting on documentation, you know, if you want to do this, then you must give this without getting into the financing of it. I I I always go back to it. I sell chicken for a living. So, you know, it it I think about it in that black and white term. You know, it's like, all right, I want to go higher, but I got to do affordability and affordable housing and like, all right, I still have to pay for that, and it costs just as much as the market rate.

So, do I charge the market rate more? And well, now we're talking about how people can afford to live, you know? So, I I think this is a rich conversation is what I'm saying., we probably won't solve it today, but we're going to work on making some space for us to have this this conversation. Council member Cook, >> thank you. could you just help me be like help me understand more the density bonus that we had previously because I don't it's not as simple as like height it it was not ubiquitous across all of the zoning rate. Is that true?

>> So the we have we have multiple versions and I don't >> the height one I want to know specific >> the height one was in our in our design districts. >> Okay. >> >> solely >> solely which so downtown like I said there's four of them. Lisa here, do you remember the specifics? >> Yeah, just in terms of what we were given and what? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think one important distinction is we don't so like downtown, we don't have density requirements. There's not a compact option. you there are height bonuses that are allowable and we've adjusted since the design district was put in place downtown in 2010 2011 adjusted what that was based on what we were getting and trying to make sure that we were getting what we wanted.

Affordable housing is one of those things. There were, you know, we tried out sustainability, public art, public parking, all these different things, but compact units was not one of the things that was included that would get you a a height bonus in in the design districts. >> Okay. >> And and affordability was one of the ways, but it it's never been used. >> Okay. But it's only in those in those four areas. >> Yeah. Where the design is. Okay. And then and then there's we we have a another affordable density bonus that is just is not based on height but on density and that's throughout the jurisdiction. Right.

>> Yeah. >> I just I want to be careful because I feel like that we really oversimplify this conversation about the density bonus and I feel like I hear it's like it's never been used or it's rarely used and then therefore we should get rid of it which is maybe not like always the answer like maybe it is somewhere in the middle like it wasn't used because of what other limitations. And I just think it's important to like understand where it was, whether it was being used or why not, and like be able to move from there. So that Thank you.

>> Could staff if it would be helpful for planning staff if they could send us the presentation we got at Joint City County Planning around density bonuses across the city and the research that y'all did around that so that colleagues could see that because it's not just Durham where it's been underutilized. It's in many, many communities that have really struggled. All the different tools and ways that people have tried to think about prompting affordability. At least it was helpful for me. Thank you. >> Continue.

>> Sure., so >> we can speak fast too, you know. >> Yeah. To put a to put a button on this, which is the first of our four topics we're going to go cover., obviously with a comprehensive plan that's calling for greater density, obviously recognizing the limitations of the of the existing affordable density bonus and that reduction. Same is somewhat true with RD the compact option. Really just trying to allow that that density. If if you all deem otherwise, of course, we will. you know, that's why we're here, right? To to get that direction direction from you. So, this is, our consultant code studio and and of course our attempt at sort of trying to thread the getting additional density while still offering that bonus.

At this time, I'll hand it over to, Robin Schultz to speak about transportation and environment. >> Yeah, the incredible news is that I will not be talking about housing at all., all right. So sort of similarly to the way that Bose started I'm going to talk first about the sort of policy guiding where the UDO has started or the new UDO project in drafting. And so when thinking about transportation it started with both the vision zero action plan and the comprehensive plan.

So the vision zero action plan being that we have no traffic fatalities for pedestrians bicyclists anyone at all in terms of transportation. Right? So really using that as a guidepost for our new transportation improvements as well as the comprehensive plan which calls for complete street design for all new streets including things like reducing vehicle travel lane widths in order to reduce speeds and reduce the amount of time that pedestrians spend in the rideway while also still providing safe and comfortable options for people who want to bike and walk and roll right and reach transit. we know that a major barrier is that folks don't feel safe doing those things. and development obviously plays a big role in that. so also thinking about increasing connectivity really focusing on pedestrian friendly development creating direct routes, reducing travel distance and enhancing safety.

So to that end, the new UDO for starters requires complete streets for all new streets that are constructed., this is something that we worked on with Lauren Grove, the city's vision zero coordinator., and so you'll see that it includes things both from NACTA, which you all adopted a resolution from the National Association for City Transportation Officials on adopting their standards into street design. So that's going to feature things like smaller lane widths, really making explicit when bicycle facilities are required, wider planting merges, for those street trees, and you know, transit facilities so that we do have standards when those are required. as part of the vision zero action plan, they will be adopting a street design manual. And this is supposed to be sort of I don't want to speak for transportation, but kind of the end- all beall, right?

So thinking about road diets you know not just new streets but any any scenario in which we are changing our streets like what it should look like. The UDO cannot accomplish that. so what we've done is instead created those two new street designs or excuse me two new street categories for the streets that we see that are constructed most often by private development. And those are going to be the streets in new neighborhoods and streets within mixeduse districts. Additionally, we are retaining the street connectivity and block size standards from a text amendment, actually that council member Nate Baker worked on., so we're keeping all of that., we are also trying to, you know, provide increased density and mixed use development along those transit corridors, right? Really thinking about, growing in, and additionally, we have, new development standards that really focus on pedestrian friendly design. you know reducing the amount of time that pedestrians spend in rideway and the amount of land that's dedicated to vehicles. so really trying to put street require buildings closer to.

The street. decreasing driveway widths and we also have new types of required pedestrian access. really trying to get at the pedestrian experience in the built environment rather than focusing on parking. Moving from there talking a little bit about the environment. so the environmental section the comp plan has a lot to say about the environment. This is a big a big topic for residents. some of the larger goals are establishing 30% of the county as permanently conserved. 55% tree coverage within the city limits, prioritizing preservation over replacement and native species when possible. attempting to encourage green infrastructure and those innovative storm water practices and really thinking about increasing open space and tree coverage standards.

So the new EDO is tackling a few tackling this in a few different ways, right? So increasing density within that existing UGB so that we stop seeing so many sprawling you know developments., additionally creating new zoning districts that are specifically designed to further those strategic goals around conservation and recreation planning from the comprehensive plan. So that's the park and conservation zoning districts. we exist we're retaining all of our existing standards for street trees, landscaping mass grading and phase development which you all recently approved in 2023.

Additionally, increasing things like the species diversity requirements, and native species incentives from the existing ordinance., and additionally requiring the preservation of existing plant material, whenever a transition, which is, which was once called a landscape buffer is required. So, in the current ordinance, that is usually only required when a 30-foot buffer is being provided. We are saying that anytime that a buffer is being provided, if that vegetation is there that it should stay unless that it is you know invasive or otherwise unwanted.

So some other things that we've done tree protection, tree coverage and open space. This is this has lived in two different spots in the UDO. It's been kind of confusing. You can count tree coverage towards open space in the current UDO. We are trying to sort of separate this out a little bit more so it's very clear what you are providing and why. So tree coverage and open space are now in one section but they are separate requirements here. And so there's no longer you know a passive open space standard. It is more specific and reflects the goals from the comprehensive plan a bit better.

Another big thing that we've done is the Tuscaloosa Lakewood neighborhood protection overlay has a 7% tree coverage requirement., so that is only in one small part of the city. We are expanding that to any RD parcel that is less than 4 acres., this is a pretty huge move even if it doesn't seem like a lot., but that does require both that it is native and that it be undeveloped. so that's a big move in terms of infill development. It this does not replace any of the other landscaping requirements that we have. So it would be in addition to additionally we've removed conservation subdivisions from the UDO.

This is something that sort of functions as a tool to provide compact development within the rural residential zoning district. Currently we have had like a lot of residents not really support this. So instead what we've done is instead of providing conservation subdivision as a way to get increased density within the rural residential we've instead taken those primary conservation areas from those standards and instead required them for any new subdivision. so that's also a big a big shift for us. and sort of lastly on that sort of point we're allowing Pedmont prairies to count towards your tree coverage requirements.

This is also a pretty cool new new take. essentially right now you can't count area towards tree coverage if it doesn't have 60% coverage of trees. prairies are grass and forb dominated and therefore do not have that coverage. However, they are an important ecological facet of our native ecology. and Durham County Openspace just did a a study on them as well. So that's pretty cool. So allowing those to count so that we are not providing any incentive for those to be removed where possible.

Just a quick question. Do you and this is exploratory. Do we have like maybe AI capabilities to take this information and I guess create a display of what it would look like example housing with x amount of percentage street coverage from you know initial to actual finished develop pro project. I don't know anything about AI because I am scared of it, but I think probably yes. We were trying to get at a little bit in this diagram right here. So, you'll see that, on the left, those two little squares are going to be 7% of those lots that have to be retained forest cover or replanted with native vegetation, right? So, you'll see the little house on the front, etc., however, once you get above 4 acres, which is that site, the larger neighborhood on the right, you have to do 22%. So, that's that's one of those other things that we were trying to get at earlier with the RD2 conversation around, you know, if you have a large lot, what is sort of.

Limiting you from just putting a million things, right? So, one being that once you hit 4 acres, you have to do 22% tree coverage, whereas 400 4 acres and below, that's 7%., so that's just one of those strategies., I believe that we could use AI, but I we'll we'll talk more about that. >> Yeah, I I just I would love to see it and I don't want to become Texas, you know, just no trees. >> Yeah, for sure. >>, just out of curiosity, and this is one slide back, but were there was there a conversation around the masquerading or phase development >> and changing that and why? Yeah. Why did it get left?

>> Yeah. So essentially since it was recently adopted and we haven't heard policy direction from you all to shift that we are trying to retain it. Additionally there have been talks around shifting it. I think it's sort of hard for us to measure the effectiveness of that ordinance right now because there are so many projects which were essentially grandfathered or permitted under the previous and so their sedimentation or their erosion etc into those waterways is sort of happening at the same time as ones which are now held under those standards. So that's that's one part., additionally, one thing that we did do that I did not mention, we've been working with Ryan Eves to sort of talk about what we can do., the thing about messing around with this portion of the ordinance is that it has to go before the sedimentation commission, which is fine., however, it does, you know, create an additional roadblock.

And so, one thing that we found was that we could increase, we do have what's called high quality wersheds right now in our ordinance, and they have, higher standards. And so right now it's I believe it is don't quote me but it's going to be the watershed protection overlays wershed and so we've done is in include third fork yes where we also have the total maximum daily load plan we've also included the lake creek wershed because we've seen a lot of development there and that also institutes those additional standards and a 20 acre rating limit., however, if you all would like us to further explore different grading approaches, that's something that we're also open to hearing as part of this.

I mean, I'd be interested, I think, in in at least seeing and and comparing to maybe other like kind of high standard environmental protection on this issue and just just to see because I feel like yeah, I mean, even if we aren't able to study, I think we all know that there is there is impact there and so like it would be nice at least to see the options and and if we could make it a little bit more stringent, this seems like a a good time to do it. Certainly overhauling >> we can pull that together for you.

>> all right so some of the other things we've expanded the list of elements that can count towards open space and we've really created an incentive structure around things that we've heard from residents and also the concert or the comp plan excuse me. So having a new incentive structure for public art public plazas and courtyards and a new requirement for the preservation of natural and cultural resources that's also included within the open space table. definitely recommend checking that out. Essentially what's happened is that within those conservation subdivision standards that I mentioned before they were sort of split between required tree coverage standards and the preservation of natural and cultural resources. So that's how they've sort of been taken out of the existing ordinance for rural residential and replied to all new subdivisions. So that's sort of the the the dichotomy of that. it also establishes a new sustainable development matrix. essentially what this is is that it provides a lot of different options so that you know the different development patterns you get within the.

UGB will hopefully densify more sustainably. so different opportunities for things that we can't actually require by state law. so thinking around you know they are you were required to have a certain number of points and then they are technically optional because there are none that you were required to do. so how are we we are then taking things that we've heard from our environmental affairs board from from the New Horiance a lot of really great stakeholders who had a vested interest in making our UDO more sustainable., so it includes things like increased conservation measures, landscape, native landscaping, you know, green storm water, command, green building. Is this dying or am I just moving too far away?

>> Okay. >> Okay., we also have new standards, for decreasing light trespass. this came. I want to just, you know, give a shout out once again to the New Hope Bird Alliance who really had an interest in talking through oh gosh, not vision zero, what is it? dark sky. Yes, thank you all. so really trying to incorporate those standards where possible. So we have new light trespass standards for those things, especially when adjacent to natural areas to try and decrease the the impact on wildlife.

And so talking a little bit more about riparian buffers. we're >> Sorry, we have just one quick question. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. So a question about the flexibility about what counts toward required open space standards. so I'll start by saying I'm a huge advocate of finding ways to incentivize public art and other cultural resources which are critically important to our health as individuals and the community. I'm just trying to understand if that will be well defined about what could count in the point system.

Because it it's different perhaps to have a plaza with a public art display, you know, versus it it it may be something less substantial. Yeah. >> That then limits the ability for folks to have space to be outdoors in nature with each other. And so will that be well delineated about >> what what what does count? >> Yeah. So the way that it's set up is that open space has the sort of required percentages at the top of like you are required to have tree coverage, you're required to do this, etc., etc.

And then public art, public plazas, things like that are below as things that you can include but are not required to, but you can use those as tools to get towards your requirement. And there is like a public art can only count as 1% total., so generally we haven't seen a lot of public art for open space because 1% of your site often is a lot of square footage, right? And so what we've done is instead incentivize public art by saying that if you provide public art that goes before the public art commission, it doesn't need to actually meet that square footage standard, but you still can get the 1%. However, the 1% will never get you to the to the finish line. we will still need to do you know either preservation of natural and cultural resources or other kinds of like flexible space or public plazas etc. So that's how it's sort of set up. however if you all when looking at that table have input on how.

They're weighted right that's a policy decision on how we implement the comprehensive plan and we we certainly welcome that as you start reviewing. >> Thank you. Mhm. So lastly, just going to talk a little bit about the riparian buffer standards. We are retaining all of our existing riparian buffer standards. As you all probably know, we are both in the Jordan basin and the news basin. We have the delegated authority for review in the Jordan base. The state retained it in the news. the noose has also updated their standards. and we have not updated our match. currently the way that the riparian buffer standards function in the UDO is that they are they're sort of combined right and I think because previously the Jordan and the new standards were more similar however instead we are adopting by reference so that it is very clear who has the authority what you allowed to do etc we are retaining like I said all of our standards even when they're more strict it's very hard to make these.

More strict because there is state law that says that we are not supposed to however we do have a federal storm water permit connected to the clean water act which then supersedes state jurisdiction in that way. So since there is a clear connection to a higher law we can we can keep what we have. So we are retaining our standards where they are more strict., additionally, we have the we are establishing a new watershed protection overlay. Essentially name, right now, the Little Mickey, sorry, the Little River Lake Mickey district, is delineated, into essentially what's kind of like three different overlays, but they're not done. So, name, and they use the future land use map, which is now defunct because we have the place type map. so we are changing that instead to the little the lake Mickey little river 3 and it essentially matches the existing bounds all of which is to say that there is no increase in the allowable impervious through any of the watershed protection overlays or in the.

Amount of land that is currently contained within those. and lastly we worked with staff in storm water and some folks over in environmental and street services to really think about steep slopes. And one thing that we've done is required that any disturbed sleep slope be required be con reconstructed at a grade of 3 to one rather than 2:1. this is something that they recommended as a way to reduce downslope erosion and further minimize grading and the removal of vegetation. this came about largely as a way to help implement the the TMDL plan that I mentioned earlier for Third Fork Creek.

So trying to pull it all together., one nice thing about working with Code Studio is that, we were able to ask them for graphics to really help, especially as we were engaging. So, this is an example of what an RD neighborhood might look like. On the left, you'll see the plan view. On the right, you will see, a 3D version., you'll see, both that there's, a riparian area in the top left. You'll see tree coverage of 22% preserved throughout the site.

You'll see required street trees which are separate as a landscaping requirement as well as lots and SEM storm water control measures. I just wanted to go through a few of these just to show this is an example of both the street type. so this is the neighborhood two street type which on street parking. it featured units and units with driveway access. One of the street sections is that they do not permit both on street parking on both sides of the street at the same time. Right? We're trying to decrease the amount of time that pedestrians spend in the ride ofway. So you have the two travel lanes and then you have the the one bump out for on street parking, right? Really trying to reduce our lane width and reduce the amount of time that people spend in car centric areas.

Additionally, this is a a pictorial representation of what the RD2 compact option would look like when incorporated within a neighborhood. It's a cottage a cottage court style development. So, you'll see that instead of the one unit, they have six they are smaller units at capped at,200 ft or an 800 square footprint., you'll also see those the the the same street type running north, neighborhood two, and neighborhood one is running to the south. And lastly, this is just what an example of an RD3 housing option might look like., so you'll see that it is, I think, a stacked multiplex, so eight units, four on the top, four on the bottom with one of those being income restricted at 80% for 30 years.

And that is also with the in one or neighborhood one street type. and that being said, I think that's it for me and I'll pass it back to Bo. Yeah, Bo B's back. He'll be more efficient at this time. So just going to go run through a few issues for discussion. so in terms of the mapping of course we're proposing the proactively reszoning and implementing the place type map through the zoning districts. this does entail densification within the urban growth boundary as talked about earlier. A lot of that is accomplished through the RD but it's also accomplished through the mixeduse districts which allow greater densities in the TOAS. So, that was one I talked about earlier where a lot of the uponities were occurring. You know, it's in places like I said that currently allow residential, but they have density limits., I'm speaking of many of our shopping centers., just one thing to note, because it's not one to one, right? There's different zoning districts that, may meet the place.

Type map. You all deal with this couple times a month, right? When, thinking about, sort of a mixed neighborhood, right? there's, you know, so therefore RX3 or potentially RX5 or RD could all meet that place type. The example we've got here, there's multiple CX zoning districts that may be appropriate for a TOA. so sort of to the conversation earlier, CX3, CX5, CX8, CX20. These are all mixed use. These are all transit oriented developments just with scale of intensity. And so we we have done our best both from a a mapping logic standpoint and from an engagement standpoint of of trying to right size but there is some very certainly some variability.

Just to note the legislation that was referenced a couple hours ago December 24 there was a limitation placed on local government in terms of the the downzoning of non-residential properties. this is something that we are currently fleshing out in terms of the administrative section. but what it does mean is that the new UDO will will not apply to existing non-conforming uses or existing non-conforming situations and that it would apply to new development. It also means that there are instances where a development or a property may have a current right to construct it at particular height or a particular density that we would not propose the reduction of.

So, and I'll just I guess to get the details of of the example we've got here. >> And the map you just showed. Yeah. So, the map shows those darker or whatever different color. Those are the those are the essentially the the mixed use districts >> the Y and downtown. >> Yeah. Just that example there, you know, it points at sort of the the height caps for CX3 or CX-5 currently. if you've got a maybe a CC district or CG, you might be able to build to a particular height, the CX3 would would be a a down zoning from that height standpoint.

And so there's we've gone through and and adjust to that. And so that that's sort of the justification for why we've chosen a particular district where it looks like there may be multiple multiple that would work. This slide's really just and this was I think a discussion that we had at JCCCCPC as well, but you know there sort of a misnomer that after the adoption of of this new UDO that there would be no subsequent resoning requests or there would be no more public hearings.

I'll just first state that there's no changes to public hearing process. If anything, there's the new UDO includes additional notification requirements and and the same requirements. I also note that over half of the resonings that you all are hearing today are all related to annexations. those same annexations would still require resonings and they would still go before the same process and you all would have the same legislative authority., as talked about earlier, obviously new schools, places of worship, and government facilities, those would all require resonings., that is currently not the case., so in some ways there may be an increase in resoning requests. And then obviously there's a a significant portion of the resonings that, you see today that you would continue to see just due to applicants wishing to develop differently than what the current zoning allows or what the current place type envisioned., and and we thoroughly expect that to continue. Are you saying the new UDO will not take away our ability to still legislate this process?

>> You will still have the same legislative authority. >> Thank you. >> just briefly, all of the content is available online at engaged Durham. In addition to all the content, there's a a plethora of engagement materials that we put together through our engagement events, our presentations and memos to joint city county planning committee. I will also give a a plug for our code connects which our consultant code studio will walk through in detail. much lengthier and even more boring than the dense presentation you've seen so far in terms of going through each component of the ordinance and explaining the requirements. And so for for you all others that are interested u you know please go to the website and and feel free to watch these. the last thing that I'll say you all you know we're here to support you. We're here to draft what you all want to see and what the comp plan or the adopt comp plan states.

So if you have questions and you want to meet with us individually or as a group small group we are open to that and I I thoroughly encourage that as it is a a large dense document and it's difficult to respond to all questions in this forum. So that that's it and thank you all. >> Thank you. Well, we had our share of questions during, but are there any additional >> colleagues? Yep. >> Thank you so much., and congratulations on making it to where we are. It's a big This is a big deal. This is a generational change. the UDO shapes the city that we live in and we will leave the city that we build to future generations just as we inherit the city that that was built that that we live in today. And every little tweak matters. I mean, we're we're in a zoning district right now.

Uses are applied to this spot. Dimensional standards were applied at the time that something was was built. You know, it it affects everything and it's it's a big deal. So a few questions. One is what hap so right now we get some we'll get like a zone reszoning with a development plan sometimes. what happens to that? Do we still have development plans? >> So you >> yes we will still have development plans. the applicant would just have the ability to make such commitments or limitations.

>> Okay. so. So like in a scenario where let's say we have 30 to 40 or 50 acres of an aging mall or strip center or something like that and there's a desire to to redevelop it and a plan is created between the community and also the land owner. How would we make sure that the developer carries out that plan? Would they reszone to like a CX something with a development plan? >> Highly spec. Yes, you it would most likely be reszone CX and I don't know the which particular grade. but yeah, if they as a I guess part of part part of why I'm hesitating so much many of the shopping centers, certainly the ones that are or the ones that are placed type to TOA were proactively recommending CX zoning. if they wanted to redevelop and it was a different district or maybe a higher level CX for example then a development plan would be an option for them and obviously that would be a way to commit to various.

Requirements or you know things that have been discussed with community. >> Okay. Okay. And so there's been a lot of organizing on certain major sites throughout the city. One example being Northgate Mall. It's one of these interesting situations where the existing zoning regulations are old and random and there are issues with it. But one reason why the neighborhood and the community have been able to have any say whatsoever is because of one little strange little provision or lack thereof.

How are we going to I know that that's some you maybe don't need to answer that right now, but that's on our radar screen and we're working on it. That's all I need to know. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think using that site and there's nothing unique about that site as it relates to this provision but there's a a maximum height that they can develop too I insinuated or I referenced earlier about you know certain height regulations the new districts that would be applied and how they would they expect to be consistent or obviously they could be greater., so that was one of one of the sites that I was thinking of.

>> Do you think that there are provisions or or elements of the draft UDO of this and we're going to change it to land development code, right? that incentivize gentrification. I think that the UDO is baking or there's definitely as it's proposed more opportunities for in infield development and smallcale commercial and so those two you know infill residential small scale commercial I think at times can certainly could could contribute to elements of gentrification idea >> has that Has that framework been something has that lens been something that we've been looking through as we've been going through the drafting in an attempt to one add tools that would limit gentrification or two not add fuel to the fire of gentrification?

>> Sure. I mean, I I think to to really answer your question, I think we need to talk a little bit about specific what gentrification means or what components are because obviously through zoning by itself, right? Like it's just it's a regulatory framework. I think there's a whole lot more efforts that are not related to zoning or not related to the code at all. would be the way to really mitigate those. And then how do we make sure that in you know we've we've annexed 7,188 acres since 2017. That's half the area of Manhattan. How do we make sure that in what land remains in the county that that get gets annexed into the city that we are growing in a not in a more sustainable way that's not completely 100% carentric.

Council member Baker, much of the presentation we talked about today talked about the sustainability requirements that the new UDO would include as well as the street hypologies with complete streets. And so much of that is to address the requirements for many of those developments that have been annexed. >> But they could still there could still be a development that has a large that's 100% single family homes. So we the current draft would allow more than single family, right? Expanding when two family would be permitted for sure, but it would still be legal for a developer to to build single family.

>> Okay. So we this doesn't solve all of our all of our issues. This isn't a you know, set it and forget it. this is some additional tools and some changes and then we still need to stay focused on making sure that we're making good decisions. So Council Baker, if I will just to further better answer that question. We there is a planned district that is included that we didn't go over here because it's actually requires a base district which is one of the others and a site of a certain size as they come forward with a reasonzoning with a development plan. It would be a plan district and that plan district would require a mix of housing. So, so yes, it would be potentially legal if there was a 101 acre site that was zoned RD for 100% single family, but the the sites that would be proposing the resoning or annexation we'd anticipate would be a play district.

>> I have a long list of kind of additional and more in the weeds comments. not going to bring those up today because it's been a long meeting, but I do want to just bring up what I'm so excited about. So, I've been advocating for a new EDO since I joined the planning commission in 2018. Would have loved it back then, but I'm glad that it's happening now. This is so so important. We are changing overhauling the DNA that shapes the world that future generations will live in that we will live in. you talked about the accessibility and readability of the document. That's not a small deal. That is a huge deal. it is the current document is so confusing, so difficult to access. Things are located in strange places. and the document that you're presenting today is just going to be I mean it's like democratizing this whole process. It's going to be so much easier for people ordinary people to open it up and understand where things are supposed to.

Be and and understand the rules. So I'm very excited about that. I'm excited to get away from the tears which which reinforced our monocentric thinking and moving toward a more polyentric framework of growth. Even just building orientation, the existing regulations essentially put the building back in the middle of the parcel and surround it with parking. And this does the exact opposite and brings buildings up to the sidewalk and parking behind. And that is a massive change. Better street design. and you showed us two crosssections that'll go in as we you know continue to work on the you know the other work that we're doing on streets.

I think sustainability standards incentives that that's huge that matrix that you presented that's a that's a big piece that we don't have today. Design standards. We have barely any design standards outside of the design districts today. And now this will be more broadly applied across across the city to benefit pedestrians and transit riders and people on their feet, not just in their cars. I'm excited about the quasi judicial hearings moving to to legislative. I think that's important. I think quasi judicial hearings are there's a place for them, but they're strange and pretty inaccessible to people.

Neighborhood scale nonres non-residential that is huge. trying to weave in kind of the daily needs that people have into the neighborhoods that people live in in a in a contextually compatible way. and I will also just say I'm I'm I'm actually happy with the engagement that's that's been done so far. it's pretty robust for a code process. most places just are happy with the engagement that they did their comp plan and then they do the code. But you all have done a lot of work and of course the hardest part is in front of us here in January, February and through the adoption process. So those are those are things I really want to celebrate and lift up. this is a really big deal., we should, if there are big things, we should work on those immediately., and not save those until the very end., and and talk it out, Council Member Caviierro, and try and try and find a place where we are all satisfied., and then I will,.

You know, I have a long a long list of of other other items that I'm interested in talking with you all about from short-term rentals to data centers. and we'll look forward to having those conversations with you >> colleagues. Council member Brist. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. yeah, first of all, like thank you so much for all the work that's gone into this. This is a massive amount of work. Appreciate the work you've done, consultants, the engagement process. and appreciate that ultimately like the details matter so much here. I know there's a lot to pour through, but this is a amazing body of work and appreciate that. I'm glad that Council Baker celebrated so many good things about this. I think there are a whole lot of things to like here.

I love the creativity trying some new things when the the the things we have on the books of density bonuses have not been working. So trying some new things and that we'll keep evolving that. So appreciate that. I'm also glad you clarified that with like we love our resoning hearings, right? We love doing those. So glad to clarify that those are going to continue. We're not going to that's not going to end in the city of Durham. I have a bunch of questions too. I'm just let me just ask one that's that's in the details or in the weeds and that is we because we went through this pretty quickly but there is a new zoning district that we're calling manufactured home park right can you tell me how we define manufactured home.

>> yeah we it'll be >> and if it's yeah if it's we can also if you want to do we can do this offline as well I'm just because I know there's different there's there's modular homes there's homes there's different kinds of ways we can and I know I guess the reason I bring this up is that that manufactured homes as they're done now. This is we're not talking about the old school like pre76 old mobile homes. Manufactured homes done well can be a very efficient way and affordable way to de deliver housing. And I noticed that that we only allow I think manufactured housing in a couple of >> districts. So like is this not a tool that could be one way we can build housing more efficiently and more affordably and should we not allow that in all over the city? Council member >> because in some ways because you know folks again there's a lot of misconceptions about manra housing. The ones built today are probably indistinguishable from stickuilt.

Housing. Right. So it's a it's a source of housing that is actually could be one that we want to look at as a way to create more affordable and efficient home. >> Yeah. Yeah. So manufactured home so modular would be considered stick built >> right because that's built on site. Sorry manufactur is like factory built. >> Yeah. So we had this conversation just yesterday actually in terms of you know our current code manufacturing homes are limited to a park or an RR and so yeah that we're certainly sort of looking at that and trying to consider you know again that's why we're here right feedback from you all if you want to expand it because we do we do know that that would be a a potential option for additional affordable >> love to talk more thanks >> Cook.

Yeah. I just want to appreciate y'all. This is a lot of work that goes into this. I also want to appreciate that we have a city planner on council and I thank you for just being on this council with you for the past couple of years has been a real learning experience for me., so I just want to appreciate all the work I know that you put into it as well. And, and you also mentioned a couple things that you actually like helped format in there which is really impressive., so just lots of work., I I am curious. I didn't really feel like we got an answer to Council Member Baker's question, so I'm just going to ask it again, which is the question of whether we developed tool or we developed this with a anti-displacement framework, whether that was a priority when we were looking at this new UDO.

>> So, so the the tools for anti-placement, anti-displacement are really outside the realm of of zoning. And so really just you know these are the regulations for development and how we expect or would expect a particular property to to grow and develop. So there's all types of other you know factors that go into the displacement that through zoning alone are very limited., >> yeah. I mean, I understand the limitations and and I'm not trying to like say anything about this, but I mean, we we talk about like the power of even numbers, right? If you're having a conversation about like race and displacement, how you present numbers even can impact that conversation. And so like I know that zoning isn't the end all be all, but certainly there are impacts in like the language that we use and the and the the outcome that we're sort of looking for. And so I just do want to make sure that that is a priority because it's a priority for me and also that.

Like we are taking all this amazing community engagement that we did and like having something that reflects back that that engagement was like utilized in the process. and being able to like sort of communicate that back to to folks who did engage. So that feels really important to me too. and I do have some more questions and mainly I'm kind of interested in I know that other cities in the in the state are doing are doing displacement analyses on their on their redistricting as part of their like application process.

And I am curious about adding some of that in. so that's just something that I'll follow up with you. Just want to appreciate all of that work and yeah, I know colleagues that were like very divided on housing and affordability. this isn't like something that's unique to Durham. This division exists all across the country and and I know that some of us have really really strong feelings about it and and they I hope all come from good places. we are going to have to find some some middle ground and that is just what that's going to have to look like and we've got a few months where we really have to like dig deep and have those serious conversations and we're going to have some long nights here and that's that because this is a this is a big document. land use impacts all of us. It impacts the way that the city runs. It impacts every single one of our residents. and we owe it to them to sit here and have those.

Conversations. We were all elected and and we all represent an important voice and we really need to find some middle ground. So just want to say that I'm like I know none of us are looking forward to it, but I am in it for the long haul. ready to have those conversations. I know we're already tired, but it's only January. So, I hope everyone is ready to do that and, looking forward to having those conversations. Thanks. >> Good afternoon. I know I've been very quiet because I love to let the stars shine and do their thing., I wanted to take a second to address, I think, a really important point that Council Member Cook has brought up about the displacement analysis. We did do a version of that with a comprehensive plan and I think that we could we're going to try my staff behind me is probably like we're going to do what?

We're going to try to overlay that against the map that you saw with like the change in density kind of see how that lines up to essentially update that displacement analysis to look at what it might look like now with the new district. So I think that is something we can do for you all >> colleagues. Any other comments? I'll come to you last time. >> I'll just say thank you to staff for your work on this. Thanks to my colleagues for engaging in this. I am very much looking forward to digging into this further with you all in the coming weeks and months to get this at a place that really serves our communities and reflects our values. So, thank you all.

>> Thank you. Council member. Go ahead, May Pro. >> Thank you. I just first want to so I am now the only council member who's been up here through a comp plan adoption now through UDO. one thing I do want to remind colleagues at the count county commission also get to approve. We are not the only voices in this and their voice is critical and I I will go back and watch their work session. They heard this on Monday night. Joint city county joint city county planning committee is made up of both Board of County Commissioners and council members and so we have had the opportunity to hear some of those voices in those conversations. I encourage council colleagues to go back if you have the time to watch. We've had some really great robust hard conversations at JCCPC with our county county commission colleagues. So I really encourage folks as we are moving towards this I also want to say that the goal is to do adoption by June. the longer that our.

Rules are not enforceable and not tied to our comprehensive plan I think it puts us at a disadvantage a very large disadvantage. So I will be pushing everyone to get their questions in to have their moments of however I didn't like this part but overall I'm okay with it. We are not going to love everything. There's a lot that it was shown today that I'm deeply proud of and I'm really really thankful for staff. And then there's other parts that I have, you know, some concern around around like how is that going to actually affect the the amount of units that we get in the ground. and that's going to be the case for all of us. So, happy to have conversations with all of you. I am not a planner. I'm not a housing expert, but I have been doing this job for a long time., and I came into this with some awareness and and understanding of of of housing and development., even though it's at a.

High level, I I want to thank staff. This was an incredible process. I have had conversations with residents from other community. I'm thinking of the folks who came for the dark sky initiative. A lot of those residents were from Chapel Hill and they were able to utilize your office hours, ask a lot of questions of you. People have set up extra meetings, following up with residents, the language access piece of this, the types of different demographics of folks that was presented to us yesterday in the engagement update at JCCCPC.

It's incredible work and I think it's a reflection of the long work that this city has done around equity and we're going to keep saying that word in the city of Durham. It's a commitment that many councils have made prior to us that we will continue to do. And it's a commitment that city staff has done in planning, in engagement all across the city to serve our residences to the best of our ability. And so I just am always so proud of what we do and how we do it.

And planning is just super responsive. It's a lot of folks don't understand land use. And so you have to meet people really where they're at. and I'm incredibly proud of of planning staff and and just the response that you've given to community and I know that there's still a lot to do but we're going to get there and I look forward to voting yes on this when we get there. Thank you. >> All right. Well, of course, again, thank you staff. This is a very dense and complex document, but I want to thank you for the colors in the document. I I it's the simple things. Thank you.

It's it it gives it a little personality. also, I want to thank you for the the the acronyms. They're they're closer to the actual you know, the wording. I appreciate it. It's a much more inviting document to to read. I am very black and white when it comes to, you know, the ability to live. You know, I I like to have foundational documents to be black and white. We can get mushy on top of that, but you know, I I want to be very careful of trying to I I look at, you know, affordability, you know, as very subjective.

And I I think that to the extent that we can, you know, affordability through design is providing the option for there to be, you know, affordable options., but I don't know if our UDO is going to be able to dictate, you know, the wages that someone may has or, you know, or where they live in town., I don't know if a the UDO can actually dictate you know, the the differentiation between gentrification and revitalization. But I think that you know not causing one and encouraging the other is very important and I think that that's also going to come within our decisions. I want to be very matterof fact in our UDO. I don't want it to be symbolic.

And I understand you know the the you know the the the the focus on those issues that we talked about earlier but also at the same time you know I there there is a basic very matter of fact that you know the more options you have to provide for more people then the the more accessible it's going to be but the more exclusive it is then the more expensive it's going to be you cannot ignore that you know so for me I I I just want to be very very matter of about it and and I'm looking forward to that. There are a lot of things in this that I really really really do like. and you know I think that it will be up to us and when it comes to you know policy decisions that we make in other areas to help mitigate some of the factors that that you know helps determine what's affordable and what's not. But I don't want to say this unit is affordable, but I'm going to.

Charge you on the back end in other ways to makes everything else more expensive and call it affordable housing., so if someone takes a base option and build all of that and you know that if it's legal, they it's on them. But I don't think that's what's going to happen if if building more benefits them and us and the end user, the resident. and and so providing these options. I I can appreciate that. this is again a very big document and I appreciate the time that's gone into it. it one thing I hope we do as policy makers is we take ourselves out of it. We take ourselves out of it and think about the people that we're representing. there are people who still want to be able to own a home. you know, there are people who want a single family home and and I think it does matter where it is, you know, and if you want a single family home inside the city, then you're going.

To pay for it. you cannot ignore that the most valuable real estate starts in the middle and goes out. If it's the other way around, then we've done a really bad problem with sprawl. I also know that there are people that still want to drive. They don't want to wait. Now, I mean, you're not going to have bus rapper transit in suburban Durham. So I know that you know we we can we can build with interest trajeing in a particular direction but I I want to be very realistic and very practical of where we are now and not harm the people who are living here now and making it uncomfortable for them but also you know just encourage a direction these street designs. I mean New York and DC does it they do it already and and it's an amazing experience and I hope that we can do that here. We have some interstates going through the city, making them in Roxboro, Duke and Greg.

We have some really good test subjects we can we can redesign those streets on. U but yeah, I just appreciate you all making this document more accessible, helping us understand that. we don't have to be experts to make decisions on these. We have to be policy makers and that's what we are. And that's why I hope that we can have a deep dive philosophical conversation amongst us. So that we're able to hear one another and get you know find that I don't know if it's middle ground. I think it's more so what works for the constituency and so I think that will be a representation of all of us and we are a representation of the people of this city. So that being said thank you all thank you colleagues this was rich and I look forward to us continuing the conversation and at this time we can settle the agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor., I have items consent items 1 through 18, GBA public hearings items 20 through 22. >> All right. Entertain a motion. >> It's been moved the properly second to settle the agenda. All in favor? >> I. All oppose. All right. Thank you so much. One last thing. Bye. >> Thank you, colleagues., I need to request an excused absence for the Monday meeting, the first Monday meeting in February., I think it's a second. Second. >> Yeah, February 2nd. That's all. Thank you.

>>, I move that we grant and excuse absence for you. >> All right. Moved and properly seconded. All in favor? >> All right. All opposed. All right. Thank you all so much., enjoy your week. Your week. That way.

City Council · Regular Meeting · January 8, 2026

▸Roll Call0:44

▸Consent Agenda17:52

▸Action Items1:58:18