And we are live. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our June 2nd meeting of the joint city county planning commission. And I just want to make sure that we do have a quorum. Sarah, are we good to go? Thank you so much. And Sarah, thank you for, uh, for joining us today. I know this is your, your week to be on vacation. And here you are with us, uh, at our meeting. So I want to recognize that. Um, we have incredibly dedicated city and county staff. Um, and I also want to, um, excuse Mark Anthony Middleton. From our meeting today, if, uh, we could have a vote on that. Well, you know, we'll wait until we get further into the agenda. Um, any adjustments to the agenda? Excuse me. Um, would you like for me to call role? Actually, that would be great. Thank you. Council member Reese. Commissioner Jacobs. Here. Council member. Here. Commissioner Burns. Here. Council member Middleton. Commissioner. Here. Planning commissioner member Busby here. And I believe we have our alternate member here today. Uh, council member Freelon. Here. Thank you, Susan. And if we could, um, Have a vote to excuse, uh, council member Mark Anthony Middleton. So move. Second. Uh, Move by, uh, Council member Freelon seconded by council member Caballero. And Susan, if we could have a voice vote on that, please. Council member Freelon. Uh, I. Commissioner Jacobs. I. Council member Caballero. I. Commissioner Burns. I. Commissioner. I. Planning commissioner member Busby. I. Motion carries six to zero. Thank you. Uh, council member Caballero. Yeah. Do we need to do the same for council member Reese. An excuse to absence. He let. Thankful member Freelon and I know he would not be able to attend. Okay. So do we have a motion for that? So moved. Second. Council member Freelon. I have moved by commissioner Busby seconded by council member Freelon and another roll call vote, please. Commissioner Jacobs. I. Council member Caballero. I. Commissioner Burns. I. Commissioner. I. Planning commissioner member Busby. I. Alternative member Freelon. I. Motion carries six to zero. Thank you. Do we have any announcements this morning? Okay. Moving on. We have consideration of approval of the minutes from our April seventh. 2021 meeting. Do we have a. Motion to approve. So moved. Second. Second. Move by council member Freelon seconded by. Council member Javier. And another voice call vote, please. Commissioner Jacobs. I. Council member Caballero. I. Commissioner Burns. I. Commissioner. I. Planning commissioner member Busby. I. Council member Freelon. I. Motion carries six to zero. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. And. I. I. Motion carries six to zero. Thank you again, Susan. Next, we have sitting in County manager priority items. Nothing from the County. Similar for the city. No. Priority items. Okay. Thank you both so much. Number six is our comprehensive plan update. That item. Yes. Hello. Good morning, everyone. Of the Durham City County planning department team working on the comprehensive plan. And we are excited to share an update on the comprehensive plans goals and objectives and then the work that our team has scoped out for the rest of the plan. So moving on to the next slide here is a brief list of what we're going to discuss today will be primarily focused on the upcoming scope and schedule for the comprehensive plan. So at the April JCC PC meaning staff shared the process to revise the community goals and objectives based on feedback from the community and received final JCC PC feedback. Planning staff is now working to bring the revised goal community goals and objectives through the adoption process. The planning commission held a public hearing on April 27 to consider the community goals and objectives for the plan and the planning commission recommended approval 10 to one of the proposed community goals and objectives. Planning staff has reviewed the comments from the planning commission public hearing for consistency with what residents have shared through engagement so far and have drafted edits, which are shown in attachment one of this agenda item. So these edits will be provided to the board of county commissioners and the city council for consideration during the adoption process. Both the county commissioners and the city council will hear an informational presentation on the community goals and objectives next week. And then there will be a special joint public hearing on the community goals and objectives for the comprehensive plan on June 15. And then there will be a public hearing on the community goals and objectives for the next following week. And we anticipate adoption by the council on June 21 and commissioners on June 28. So we shared information about our current engagement on the southeastern focus area last meeting, and we'll share updates on what we've heard through those engagements with you all today as well. The staff is continuing to seek general guidance on our comprehensive plan work. This morning we are particularly interested in hearing any questions or concerns you have as our team begins the next phase of the comprehensive plan. So we'll now move on to talking about what's next and share the upcoming scope and schedule for the remaining components of the comp plan. So over the last two months, while the community goals and objectives have been in the adoption process, we have shifted our focus to creating a more detailed scope and schedule for work on the remainder of the plan, and actually starting this work. So today we will share highlights of this work, which we anticipate will begin the adoption process in late 2022. We'll focus on what the section of work is and how it will be used. So to begin the place type guide is a list of all the types of places the community would like to see into the future, including a description of how each place will look and function for all of Durham. The purpose of the guide is to provide detailed information and guidance that informs how development should look for certain place types as a community grows. It will replace the future land use map categories. The guide may also include information about desired features of each place type, such as land uses, development patterns, building heights and placements, more detailed uses allowed, parking location, infrastructure, like transportation and sewer service, and desired grain space. So simply put, the place type guide provides the descriptions and characteristics of every place type that can be found within the community. The place type guide will be used by planners, developers, city and county officials and residents to better understand the future desired physical characteristics and uses of land. The place type guide will be used along with the place type map, which we'll talk about in the next slide to determine where place types will be located and guide growth and development for all areas within Durham. So the place type map section includes a process to develop a new future land use map called a place type map with it with a designation for every property within Durham. The place type map is a geographic depiction of what the community has said it wants to look like over the next several decades. The map shows where the community wants houses stores businesses or schools to develop or where to protect farmland and green space. So the place type map is not legally binding and does not change a property owners rights under the existing zoning, where the zoning map is legally binding and shows what is allowed to be built on a property today. The place type map is a guide for future decision making. Local government staff will use it to evaluate requests for new development informed decisions about infrastructure investments like extending water and sewer or adding new roads sidewalks or bus routes and inform how departments and agencies plan their facilities and programs to best serve Durham residents. So moving on to policies policies and the comprehensive plan are the words that accompany the map. These policies will work towards implementation of the community goals and objectives. Identifying tools and strategies for work towards the outcomes residents want to see in Durham's future. This work will include policies that apply across the county and also include policies which are tied to a specific place type. The policies developed for and adopted in the comprehensive plan will get used in two primary ways. The first being to review new development proposals that go through the planning commission city council and board of county commissioners for review and approval. And the second mean to develop an informed departmental work programs, particularly the planning departments work program. For the planning department, this may include proposing changes to the requirements for development in by right applications, meaning they are allowable or permissible by law, or through amendments to the unified development ordinance. A legally binding document, as you all know which sets the rules and regulations for zoning and development or amending departmental processes and procedures. So there will be two focus areas for the comprehensive plan. The Southeast Durham focus focus area select was selected based on requests from the planning commission and the city council for near term recommendations on how development should occur in this fast growing area. And the bright town focus area, which was selected in response to needs and requests coming from the bright town community association, due to high development interest in their neighborhood and staffs commitment to equitable engagement and outcomes. So for reference, the Southeast Durham focus area is bounded by us 70 Sharon road and C 98 and the county line. The purpose of the focus area is to develop near term recommendations that apply the plans goals and objectives to a specific area, understand what residents see as existing means and priorities for that area. And which land uses such as types of housing locations of new stores and environmental protections residents want to see. And lastly, to recommend new future land uses or place types to inform zoning and annexation requests. Place types and policies specifically drafted for this focus area will allow staff in the planning commission and the elected officials to begin using this guidance to inform decisions about rezoning and annexation requests in the Southeast Durham area. Staff may also better understand if there are refinements needed or issues that should be worked out and improved for the larger comprehensive plan. Is Brooke, are we losing you Brooke, or is it just me. Other folks having trouble hearing me. No, I got you pretty good. Now, okay, it's on my end. I'm sorry. Sorry about that. Moving on to brag town. So in line with the comprehensive plans focus on equity planning staff is dedicating a section of the comprehensive plan to work with brag town to ensure that the brag town community has meaningful role in development of the plan to actually engage brag town residents in this project and to identify and implement ways the plan can further the needs and priorities of brag town. So these priorities are shown here. And we are working together to ensure that the brag town community has an active role with intentional support from planning staff to shape a place type guide a place type map and Paul and a policy section for the comprehensive plan that further the goals of the brag town community. So to begin this work together, planning staff and the brag town community are developing a list of shared values and agreements. And yes, this slide shows a list of priorities that the brag town community association has developed. So in the previous slides that we have two focus areas and we wanted to share the differences between them. The entire Durham city and county are part of the comprehensive plan, and we'll have land use recommendations and policies for every parcel. The two focus areas have different purposes for the southeastern focus area. We are looking at this area now because city council and planning commission have asked specifically for early guidance to handle land use cases in this area and because the current plan is insufficient for addressing current needs and priorities. After the initial recommendations a more detailed look at this area will happen with the rest of the plan. And then second for the brag town focus area is a historic historically black neighborhood north of downtown along Rocksboro road. We're partnering with residents in this neighborhood as part of our equitable engagement strategy. This area has a wide variety of land uses, and this partnership can help us think about equitable outcomes. Learning from this focus area will be applied to the rest of Durham, along with our community wide engagement opportunities. The community goals and objectives report card is intended to measure how we are doing in reaching our community goals objectives and guiding values. It will help ensure government transparency and accountability in assessing progress towards the community's vision after the plan has been adopted. The report card will contain a series of equity measures which are broader descriptions of things that we think are important to track and are directly related to the goals and objectives. So these measures will help us understand how changes in each data point are impacting people of different races, ethnicities, ages, incomes and to speak different languages across Durham. So for each equity measure, there will be a series of what we're calling data points that are specific and measurable that we can track over time. Next slide shows an example of a potential equity measure environmental justice, along with possible data points associated with that measure. So this section of the comprehensive plan will also set forth a process for who, how and when the community goals and objectives report card will be routinely developed and reported out to the Durham community. The report card will help planning staff, elected officials and residents evaluate how the comprehensive plan is meeting our community goals and objectives in guiding values for years following the plan's adoption. So after the adoption of the community goals and objectives for the new comprehensive plan, staff may identify near term implementation strategies as resources allow. These examples include changes to planning department work policies and procedures, such as communication and engagement around proposed development and unified development ordinance updates with clear support from the community goals and objectives. So as the adoption process for the full plan begins in late 2022 staff will start work to determine implementation strategies for the new plan. This work will again be based on the goals and objectives and will primarily focus on implementing policies in the new plan. We expect implementation of the new cop plan to begin immediately following its adoption. Examples of post plan implementation could include revisions to the UDO to implement policies, including the creation of new zoning districts, selective rezoning to better match place types, changes to city and county policies and procedures, such as the capital improvement plan scoring process and continue long range planning through potential further studies. So lastly, our team is researching various plan document and platform formats that can be used to produce a comp plan and product which accessibility showcases and includes all playing components. The aim of this work is to ensure an easy to read and navigate comp plan that is accessible to all Durham residents. So we also wanted to share with you all of the anticipated schedule for the work we just described. As you know, we're nearing the end of the goals and objectives work this June. We're continuing our work on the Southeast Durham focus area to develop early guidance to use with development projects happening in the study area, and those recommendations will be in draft form and presented at the end of September. We're working on work with bright town building relationships with the bright town Community Association developing shared values and agreements and scoping out the work together. We see this work continuing through the end of the plan. So going forward, the major portions of this work will be interconnected with portions of the work happening simultaneously. We've already gotten a lot of input in the previous rounds of engagement about policy recommendations and places that folks would like to see the intend to build on that input and the community goals and objectives and start these sections this summer. The later portions starting next spring and summer include the report card implementation list and getting the plan ready for adoption. As mentioned, many portions of this work are intertwined and happening concurrently. This slide summarizes the workshopping process and engagement strategies for the three key remaining sections, the place type guide, the place type map and the policies. We've challenged it, we've challenged ourselves to do this work transparently by including resident perspectives from the beginning in early drafts of this work. But with while writing the community goals and objectives where staff wrote an initial draft, then we discussed the drafts with the outreach team first and then engage residents through the community to ground truth those drafts. We're following a similar model here where we'll be working with smaller groups listed in each box to get the materials and a draft form before taking it out to the larger community wide engagement efforts. So these three sections show the groups you want to workshop each section with early on. While we're still designing the bright town work with the bright town community association with like their perspectives and shaping place types and policies that will be used community wide. Similarly, we want to keep our outreach team involved in helping us with these sections. We are also seeking input from the planning commission, along with help from the staff technical team to better understand the service and operational needs of different place types and policies. For the policy work we're planning to structure policy working groups to help draft these, we've envisioned these to be small groups working on writing policy language and comprised of residents and staff to bring multiple perspectives to this work. Through all of this we plan to continue providing updates to this group as well. So this is our workshopping model that helps us to get ready to share these materials for community wide feedback. We're going to engage the place type on the place type guide the map, the policy groupings in two different phases. We're aiming for this to be October and next March. Each phase of engagement will last about three months. We've heard support and encouragement to continue the engagement ambassador program so we intend to continue that with these two phases as well. And for our broader community engagement approach, we plan to use digital tools like surveys interactive maps and forums. So finally, we wanted to share a simplified timeline of the different plan sections when work is anticipated to be starting and being or continuing. This work is interrelated and we are taking an input and revising our process as we go. You can see each phase on the left column of the chart and the filled in part of the table indicates when each section will begin and end. The top row shows the general timeframes by fall, winter, spring and summer, all leading to starting the plan adoption in late 2022. We've indicated a star showing the major community wide engagement for the place type guide, the map and policies. With all engagement we do, we work to simplify our language, remove technical planning jargon where we can and add definitions if we can and publish our work in Spanish. Also to improve transparency, we've been sharing data sets in the form of a spreadsheet with the input we received in each phase, as well as sharing revised versions based on input in the previous phase. In between each engagement phase staff is revising the drafts based on what we heard and iterating from there. This entire process particularly our work towards more equitable engagement and more equitable outcomes has been a new undertaking and learning process. Lessons learned from each phase of engagement will inform future engagement. And this iterative process will continue throughout the development of this schedule. So before I wrap up, I wanted to give a brief update on the southeast arm focus area work in early March, we began seeking input from residents in a broad online engagement opportunity. The online engagement site social pinpoint has more information for residents to learn about the focus area and allowed residents to add comments to an interactive map and take a survey. So here is a quick recap of the demographics we collected from the engagement. Most respondents listed to 7703 as their zip code reported they have reliable access to a car, lived in Durham for 10 or fewer elite years, enlisted household income of 75,000 or more. We didn't hear from non native English speakers, renters, low income residents, or longtime residents who we know do live in this community. It's for these reasons that we don't only do broad engagement or online engagement, because we know we're not reaching everybody. So we're especially trying to reach communities of color renters and low income communities to name a few. We previously shared that we're planning focus groups to hear from residents we don't typically hear from in our broad engagement efforts. These are scheduled for May 24 and June 2. We modeled these sessions after our successful focus group experience seeking input on the community goals and objectives. While we were able to reach a handful of residents primarily Hispanic and Latina residents to invite to these focus groups. There were a few challenges that have caused us to shift to a focus interview approach, focusing on discussion with individuals about their experiences hopes and needs for this area. This project has had to do with time needed to create relationships in this area. This area has a mix of city and county limits, and has not been the focus of neighborhood improvement services engagement work. The new connections had to be made from scratch. For the purposes of this project, we were able to conduct focus groups with pre-established groups, many of whom are already doing work with other city or county organizations like DPS or NIS. We struggled to find existing and formalized groups of folks we were trying to reach through the focus groups within the southeastern focus area. And while a lot of the community has shifted to Zoom and online platforms, the communities we're trying to reach may have technological and language barriers to participation. So many folks we reached aren't connected to larger organizations like HOAs or coalitions that have familiarity with local government and that relationship building takes time, as we all know. Because of the pace of this part of the study with council and planning commission, need and guidance, we've shifted to an interview model led by our program assistant, Ami Mejia, who is helping us reach Spanish speaking residents to hear their needs and priorities for this area. These focused interviews will allow us to hear from residents who we did not reach in the social pinpoint phase, just in a different format than we had originally envisioned. This is a great example of how equitable engagement is challenging and sometimes requires shifting our approach to create engagement opportunities that are the most accessible to residents. So we want to include these perspectives in our engagement summary and ensure we center these perspectives in our draft recommendations. So that said, we want to share what we've been hearing from residents that have more access to online tools and local government processes with the caveat that this does not necessarily reflect what we will hear from residents will be talking through with those interviews. We shared this information at a community meeting we held on May 20 with residents over zoom. The purpose of that meeting was to share what we've heard so far, how southeast girls fits into the larger comprehensive plan project and listen to any additional concerns. We received over 1000 visits to the site residents left 85 comments on the map and 35 survey responses. So you can see a pie chart of the kinds of comments we received back on the map. Most comments were about things that needed work or concerns about getting around, including transportation barriers. There are a number of things residents said in the survey in addition to that list, like we've done with previous phases will share the raw de identified input on our website. We will also share a full summary of what we heard later as well. So our processes to start understanding and contextualizing what we heard is to organize the comments and survey responses by a goal and objective category to find patterns and common sentiments alongside the context of the community wide engagement done so far. We wrote summary statements to describe the key issues, the highlighted impactful quotes that residents gave us are also sharing ideas we heard that seem to differ from the goals and objectives as well. So we have examples on the following slides together so you can see what we mean. As we've mentioned in the past, the community goals and objectives are guiding the rest of the plan work. So on the left side we have a related goal and objective and on the right side we have a summary statement quotes that are in alignment with the objective as well as quotes that differ. This is an example of comments we heard that fit under one of the housing and neighborhoods goal in the related objective which is creative and varied housing solutions. So in interest of time, I will not be reading all of this slide but I just wanted to share the summary of in quotes. So the summary related to housing was, we heard a need for new development to have a mix of housing types and price points. No one is priced out of the area. We heard suggestions to increase the variety of housing options in the area through accessory dwellings condominiums or tiny homes. Some of the quotes that support this goal and objective read mixed types and price ranges price range housing to encourage rod diversity. There's already a concentration of 55 plus housing in the Leesville Road area. Further development should look to family friendly communities in all price ranges to entice a wider range of residents more reflective of a growing community. Transportation infrastructure must be part of this. The next quote is accessory dwelling units should be encouraged and condo development would be helpful to diversify the choices. This isn't an area for rentals except along route 70 and 98. Other quotes that differ read keep as single family homes. And I think we have an overabundance of multiple family dwelling units. This part of Durham needs more housing options for those willing to spend over 600,000. So related to the transportation concerns, the intentional and coordinated transportation and land use objective of felt the most relevant to what we've been hearing. The goal and objective is on the left for reference. We heard interest and walkable access from homes to resources like a public library branch parks and grocery stores that are designed with the environment and connected transportation system in mind. Quotes that support the subjective include we don't have a lot of commercial development in this area. We have a lot of sprawling communities being developed in which transportation is difficult. And there is a strong need to get to basic essentials and zone for high density and affordable housing with close access to walk to retail and grocery. And then some quotes with differing ideas. No through streets from major streets people speed on connector streets, low one to two story homes and townhomes parking lots with lawn and park areas incorporated into them. And then the last one that differs limiting and commercial unit until what what space is currently available is used there are many empty buildings and RTP and surrounding areas need new goals for buildings, housing and otherwise to be most energy efficient. Okay, and then finally, the environmental related comments we heard the harmonious and respectful development objective felt the most relevant. The summary of what we heard reads, we heard the need to preserve trees, wooded areas and natural places and protect wildlife air and water resources. We heard that while higher density development is more energy and resource efficient. These developments should provide easy access to parks, natural spaces and recreational areas. So, some quotes that support the subjective again, high rises are more energy and resource efficient, but they should have parks and other recreation associated with them. So, this example is an abuse of land and natural, natural resources, and a similar vein tall and close buildings block out nature as well. An intermediate, an intermediate is the best connecting streets and plenty of green space is important. Also the ability to safely commute across the area via foot or bike. Lastly, some two quotes with differing ideas are to control housing density to maintain environmental quality do not over develop and then short and spread out like Ryder Creek on either side of 70. So, these examples give a snapshot of the key areas that we heard perspectives that are similar and different than the goals and objectives. As we get further into the plan development we are going to hear different needs and priorities that represent trade offs in the place types of development that residents prefer. Again, this is preliminary information we wanted to share. We will be using all of the input we received from our drafts recommendations for this area. And once we've included this focus area work. This will not be the last time we engage residents here, but it will be folded into the larger comprehensive plan work. So that concludes our presentation our team is happy to take any questions that you may have. Again, planning staff is continuing to seek general guidance on our comp plan work, and are particularly interested in hearing any questions. Concerns or guidance you have as our team begins the next phase of the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you so much, Brooke for that incredible presentation. Wow. I'm just really blown away at the work that you and Lisa, all of the staff working on this people in the community. Part of the engagement team it's it's truly amazing work. Thank you so much. Thank you for the questions input from JC CPC members. Brian, go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to second your comments. I think the staff's done a remarkable job from the planning commission perspective I just wanted to share it was really heartening during the public comment period. The community vision came forward. There were a good number of speakers who were there saying this represents my perspective. And that is always what you want to hear. And so I think that the staff has done a really nice job with taking some of the additional comments from the planning commission and offering those, but but taking the ones that continue to put the community front and center so I do hope the governing bodies will take a look at that revised document that's that is going to come forward and you'll see there are some targeted additions that have been made but I think the staff that a really nice job of keeping the community perspective right at the heart of the vision and then adding in some of those additional comments from the planning commission. I'm also just impressed with the amount of work, particularly during this challenging time where we're having to still do a fair amount of remote work to move forward with the small area plan beginning to work with Bragg town. My only question for the planning department staff is it wasn't clear to me and if it was in the presentation I apologize if I missed it. The thinking around after all of this and I know it's a big lift but then the unified development ordinance or the UDO is still remaining. And from my perspective that's a really important piece of the puzzle, because that's that's the rules of the road. What's the thinking about the timing to tackle that because from my perspective, if we don't get that in place after we get all the vision in it's going to be hard to get the vision to where we want it to be so I'm just curious about the thinking from the planning department staff on the timing of the UDO process. That's an excellent question. We have planned from the beginning to go ahead and start doing some UDO text amendments kind of concurrent with the later phase of plan development so not necessarily waiting till the whole plan is done and adopted before starting some of that. So probably taking the items where there's already clear direction consensus items where the biggest impact will be made and going ahead and processing text amendments to that effect so we don't know exactly obviously what that'll be quite yet, but that has been our commitment from day one is that we will start that important work concurrent with kind of the final phase of the plan work. That's great. Thank you. That was my, that was my question. Thank you, Brian. Have you. Yeah, good morning. That was an excellent presentation. We didn't get those slides in our packet did we I was looking for them. I we just got them out. Could somebody send those to me, or to all of us, whatever it's just helpful to have them. Thank you. So that was my first request. And then I have a couple of questions. How is it being communicated to residents and I'm thinking specifically about Bradtown. You know, what my concern is that these are really important processes, but that then you all have to hand stuff over, you don't implement right Sarah you've said that many times. So, what I have seen from many residents, not just Bradtown residents is sometimes a disconnect for how long things take. So just because they're telling you all they want bus stops and sidewalks doesn't mean they're going to get bus stops and sidewalks and six months and so I just want that to be communicated really, really clearly to residents because I don't want to oversell something. I appreciate all the engagement I think it's important. I appreciate the aspirational compete like pieces of this but this is not a legally binding thing you said that at the very beginning and I really need our residents to understand that because sometimes, you know, there isn't a council and I learned something new every day right so I really want that communicated to residents and I definitely think that educational pieces is has to be primarily embedded in everything we do. And then secondly, and you raise this in one of the survey questions around the 10 year, you know, has somebody lived here 10 years or less, particularly in the Searle's area, I would like to actually know if somebody's been there two or three years. What I see consistently in zoning is folks who are not from Durham and I have no problem with that you know we have it's we are a huge community there there has been consistent movement into Durham because we have so many universities and other entities that have flexible you know folks come to do their medical residency there's lots of reasons why people come and go. But what I see often in that particular area is folks who are very new residents and then don't want more housing out there. And I kind of see that as lifting the ladder behind you so you got the thing you needed, but you're not necessarily willing to let other folks get the housing that they may need. And so I really want that kind of honed in. At least for the Searle's since we're doing the small area plan so my, I guess my question is, is there a way to did we capture that data with the survey is there a way to capture that moving forward. So we did collect more detailed information it was actually an open ended question asking folks. So we got responses from you know three months to there were I think three respondents that had 20 between 20 and 30 years of residency, but you're right it is primarily less than five years. And so we were trying to call out some of the major like there were very few people that were over 10 years but there was that we have more detailed information that will be as part of the overall engagement summary that will be sharing out. And we have what what folks have said we know based on how long they've been there so part of what we wanted to share with you all this morning is starting to get at what you were just saying there's some of what we heard is very much in line with what we've heard from the overall community and what we want this place to be in a more inclusive more equitable community for everyone. And really focusing on the folks that we haven't included in our processes and in positive outcomes in the past. And then we intentionally shared the perspectives that differ from that, because they're strong voices, and we wanted to make sure that you all I'm sure it's not a surprise to you because you're here in cases in these areas. But just to know we're continuing to do our strategy around, not just equitable engagement but centering those voices in working towards equitable outcomes. So we are, we can make sure that you've got that level of information and just wanted to kind of highlight those concerns for y'all and I will share just quickly on the frag town and related to residents kind of understanding what the comprehensive plan can and can't do that's been very much on our minds as we're trying to build trust with residents that we can't do that if I'm, you know, talking about the comprehensive plan it sounds like it can do everything because of the name. And so we've been really working on this like very explicit discrete examples of what the comprehensive plan can do around each one of the priorities that bag town has. And then using our understanding of working within our organizations to help connect frag town residents to other staff that are more involved in some of the implementation aspects, and to help advocate for their perspectives to be heard and that work so that's all part of what's come out to our shared agreements work so far. Thank you I have one follow up comment question if that's okay, and I'll let Sarah go first. I just wanted to share that I am really proud of my staff and the job that they have been doing, especially as we get into more and more of these meetings, where our equitable engagement strategy is really being, I think, resented by folks that have traditionally had power and privilege, and they're really pushing back on us as staff. And I just want my staff to know how much I appreciate them for how they are really stepping up and doing their best to help explain and educate and I just didn't want that moment to be lost here because I know that you all knew it was coming we talked from day one. But you know, I just want you know that a staff were living it particularly in circles. So I think it was very important to see kind of the two sides of what's going on in that area so so that's all. Sorry for the interruption. Sarah I actually appreciate you sharing that I'm sure you all, you know, especially if you're the messengers a lot of times you get the front, you know, you get the run of what people are feeling so I a lot of gratitude for staff room on this. With. And I think I lost what I was going to say so it's fine. It's okay. No, it's, it's like, yeah. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. And this goes into like the green and equitable infrastructure bond and really thinking about CIP that there is a connection right y'all are saying these are the goals and objectives and then these are the this is how it relates to other city events and other city work and so that there isn't, it's not that there's not an opportunity for it, it's just in a different space. And so, and I, and that's our job. I mean I, as a council member and I don't know. I feel like there's a lot of consensus around the Sun Council. If there needs to be a reordering of projects to meet our goals, right, especially when we're talking about equity and, you know, historically disinvested communities then we have to be the ones, you know, who really push residents who are used to getting their way. Saying well things are different now. So, I look to you all to help us with that and and other city staff but just want to say that in this space that I think that there's a deep commitment on council to do that. I think that the bond is going to give us an opportunity to do that. And I just appreciate all y'all's work. Thank you for those comments. Any other questions comments from other members. Well, I just want to add a few comments and questions. One is, when I think about the Southeast area plan. I think about the impact of decisions that were made about 15 years ago. When I was on the planning commission in 2005 to 2011 I was on the planning commission, and I think it's important to remember that that the impact of decisions that we make around land use because a lot of the developments, they were they were approved. I approved them. Same thing without on 70. You know all of those Sharon Road Mineral Springs Road they all first came through during that time period. And so things happen for a reason. And I think it's it's just what I'm and I'm it's, I think it's really, I really appreciate that you all are focusing on Bradtown and Southeast Durham because Southeast Durham. We're now seeing the results again of decisions that were made. And then we're seeing the impact I noticed the comments that you got so far were very much related to infrastructure and environmental impact. And, you know, so, just thinking about those two factors to have years point. That when we talk, I think those are two things that well the environmental impact, I guess what one of my questions is how does that. I think that's a limiting factor for promise because that's a limiting factor all the time. And then the infrastructure is limiting because it's based on how much money do we have, whether it's from the state or it's at the local level to put in the sidewalks that we need, and the bus stops and the bike paths. I think that gets back to Javier's point about some of the limits that we have creating what we what we want. But I'm really glad you're focusing on Bradtown because there's just so much pressure now there. And, frankly, we've never been able to be successful. I can't think of any success since I've been involved with this versus the planning commissioner and selected official, how we deal with market forces, and that we, the idea that could we could possibly be preemptive with Bradtown. I hope, I hope we can be. Because that's, I think, part of what we're all trying to do, right, is to lift up, lift up the community. Somehow as an equal, I don't know, but kind of a Herculean effort so thank you I again want to echo what we've already said the appreciation for this, this work, and getting back to what Brian said. And I guess one of my concerns is that the, the place type map is going to be more visionary. And then how does that interplay the fact that it's not legally binding. And just want to hear your comments about that versus the future land use map. What has had versus this. They actually will function the same. The place type map is just including different and additional information into what is our for future land use maps so instead of just, instead of focusing on use and a range of density. We'll talk about some uses that are allowed but it won't be single use oriented in all cases. It will talk more about the character of place. Instead of just the use and density so it's very much equal to the future land use map in terms of its functionality for the basis of making decisions around rezonings. And to getting at realizing that vision. I think we mentioned briefly in kind of the implementation list, you know, creating new zoning districts or revising existing zoning districts to better match what those place types are is going to be part of what we'll need to do that will be generating that list towards the completion of the plan itself so that we can be getting started with that work right away. Thank you. And I appreciate that you all. This is so complex and that timeline and all that you're managing is just amazing. But I appreciate that you all are not waiting till everything is done before you implement. My last question is related to this, the measures, the equity measures. How are you going to go about. I guess, is that I guess I'd like to hear a little bit more about how you're going to develop those measures I know I saw on the timeline but how you're going to come up with those measures. So we think they'll be a good connection from the work that we'll be doing with the policy working groups to brainstorming ideas around metrics that will help us understand how well we're doing at trying to get at the goals and objectives. While we don't have the work starting on that report card piece until later in the process with the start of the policy working groups which we're hoping to have up and running by late summer that the work of those groups will be sort of starting to generate ideas towards how staff can be thinking through as we're trying to develop the structure for that. And then in the, I think it was the spring time frame indicated where we're actually beginning that work will be trying to start from those ideas coming from the working group so we're not just starting with staff ideas but getting a mix of perspectives from planning commission folks from staff and from residents about how we can measure those things. Thank you. And one last, I don't, I just want to mention the East library is open now. And I didn't know if you had looked at that as a place to engage with people because I will say that our libraries are places where we really do see all, you know, sectors of our community coming to. So that is. Thankfully it is a place that is open now I just wanted to mention that. Yeah, thank you. Okay, before we move on any other comments or questions. Well thank you again and I saw that the attachment that had the revisions and they, they look great so thank you again to the planning commission and everyone involved with that. Next we have our legislative update with Michael stock. Thank you very much Michael stock with the planning department. Here to assist with this is our excellent city and county attorneys, Don O'Toole Krista Kukuro and Brian Wardell and Don you wanted to introduce Krista. Yeah, I'm sure our city council members are familiar with Krista Kukuro Krista is a senior assistant city attorney in our office. And I asked Krista if she could attend this morning, because she serves in a role that we created about two years in the city attorney's office. She serves as our legislative liaison so she works very closely with Karmisha Wallace in the manager's office to respond to any questions that are received from our legislative delegation. And finally keeps up with legislation for our office gets up with the League of municipalities as appropriate. So I just wanted you all to know who Krista is, and why she's attending this meeting. Thank you. Thank you Don. I will begin I'll be the primary presenter but our attorneys will be here to assist. And what I wanted to start off with is just a brief overview of the legislative session the next slide will be, please. So we're currently in the 2021 legislative session. The crossover deadline for bills has passed I believe it was mid May, May 11 or 12 around there. And crossover, if you may not know means where one bill where bill was introduced in one house either the house or the Senate, and was approved by that chamber, and is thus crossed over to be considered by the other chamber. And so those are the ones that we're really going to focus on in this presentation we're not going to go over that monstrous list of bills that was in the agenda. We'll try to answer questions about the bills as best as we can we may need to just follow up with you. Because some of these bills have been sitting idle in committees for a long time we're not might not be experts on them but we'll try to get you that information bills that have not made crossover do do sometimes sneak into bills that have there are options made so we do try to keep tabs on that too so it's not surprising to see oh well this bill never made crossover but then see the language pop up in in a bill that has. Next slide please. The one bill that we did want to focus on but did not make crossover was this increasing housing opportunities bill h 401. This was the topic in the planning planning discussion and planning community. We passed will currently this spring we're still in spring but earlier this spring. It did a number of it would do a number of things and if there was anything that would probably be substituted into other bills we maybe smart money would be some some items from this bill. To quickly go over it. It does expand the classification of single family residents to include duplexes triplexes and quads and quads are our four unit buildings, like triplexes or three unit buildings and do duplexes or two unit buildings. It does require all zoning districts that allow single family residences to allow those other three housing types. It does exempt local national historic districts. And they can be regulated but you can't create, quote unquote, unreasonable cost and delay whatever, whatever that may mean. We did something we did something very similar to this with the expanding housing choices amendments that we, the city council and county commissioners approved back in 2019. And one big exception and a couple exceptions is that it really did focus on the urban tier at that point. And also focused on expanding the allowance of duplexes with with some minimal expansion of triplexes or quads in very specific locations but it wasn't as based as what this bill would allow, but it also did not exempt local or national historic districts because the your the elected officials believe that no no neighborhood should be exempt from from these kinds of housing opportunities. And again it doesn't really is unclear what unreasonable cost and delay would really mean. There's further limit down zoning on down zoning is defined as reducing the density or intensity of what the current zoning would allow. It doesn't eliminate the opportunity for do it for doing it but wherever there's access to public sewer and water and access is in itself kind of ambiguous to doesn't mean that it, that it's actually serving the property but it might just be that it's potentially available to serve a property. And it does limit the pot may limit the flexibility of a jurisdiction to further plan. So we talked about just recently with comprehensive plan and possible selective rezoning to to match adopted place type maps or new new zoning districts, and we're going to go ahead into consideration to see if what we what the zoning map changes that are being proposed are our actual down zoning and and how to handle that that instance. Next slide please. We're talking about cannot banning use as not industrial or a nuisance Durham doesn't practice this we actually Durham actually updated its ordinance a few years ago in response to actually case law where case law said that you cannot have an ordinance that would give it a use you did have to accommodate a use so that has already been adjusted in our UDO and for ad use or accessory dwelling units doesn't have a lot of impact to our ordinance, because we're we with prior to expanding housing choices and then even with housing choices we've made ad use, at least regulatory wise, much easier to do, but the expand it may expand into triplexes and quads since the let since the bill considers triplexes and quads under the same definition of single family. Another provision talks about. If you have conflicting regulations, the more lenient would apply, and that generally runs counter to most ordinances not just Durham's where if you have a conflicting provision within an ordinance or between different ordinances, usually the more restrictive applies so that that would be a substantial change. And then final, I believe there's a final slide on this one. If the applicant has has had a favorable challenge to his owning change in court that the applicant can can choose the zoning district. If the court finds in favor of a challenge to his owning change or classification. The governing board can settle zoning disputes, which is an interesting insertion of a governing board into these kind of legal matters. And it can if there has been substantial commencement to work that received a quasi judicial approval like a use permit or variance, then that prevents appeal, which, which is not what would not be a desirable effect. It would limit the ability to appeal those cases. And then finally there's a section on reporting to the legislature, I believe it's annually or by annually. Number of permits received number of permits that were denied and the reasons for the denial and then number of down zoning ordinances enacted. So that's it. It was a rather comprehensive comprehensive bill not necessarily. And it had mixed mixed opinions there. There are a lot of altruistic aspects to that bill, but there wasn't a lot of jurisdictional input to developing the language of that bill we have, we did receive requests to comment on this bill. I believe March or April from our legislative delegation and we did the city attorney's office and planning, did review that bill and provide comments through the manager's office which has thus passed those comments back on to our legislative delegation and I don't believe we've heard any response from them is that correct on. That's correct Mike, and Mike, I think you gave a very fair and balanced presentation of this bill. I don't think I viewed this bill, potentially as positively as maybe you've portrayed it. It felt like it was a lot of the legislature imposing its decision making on local government and, you know, I think local government is in the best position to decide what's best for itself so I didn't view this as just a neutral. Okay bill. I was glad that it didn't make crossover, and I hope it doesn't reappear. Yeah, it has altruistic aspirations, but I think its approach is as Don related needs a lot of work. So the next bill there's one bill that did make crossover the virtual meetings bill and this one was relate one Durham bill that did make crossover and this was for virtual meetings. And the earlier version of it that was just applied to the county Board of Adjustment but that language has changed. And I'll go over it briefly, but I think Christa, if you want to you can jump in after I summarize it. I'm happy with an unlimited continuance of a case if a party for the BOA is is not happy with a remote hearing setting. So there's adjustment this bill would limit that continuance to the next full board meeting in person or next regular remote meeting did I get that correct Christa or did I summarize that correctly. Okay, I'll just add the sort of complication that the Board of Adjustment has experienced is that when when residents or folks with standing have not given their consent to the remote meeting platform for the meeting to be held that way. It just has created limbo for multiple cases that just can't be heard because people are refusing to give consent so this remedies that that problem. So we're operating in this remote meeting platform. Thank you. Thank you. Next slide. So we just wanted to highlight some other bills that did make crossover. This bill the H 218 provides for a limited additional methods to exceed impervious surface limits under watersheds. It's usually for a single family. And then also increase in building footprints under an approved development agreement Durham has one approved development agreement right now and that was with the if you're from remember the Farrington Road affordable housing development agreement approved last year. It's an eminent domain. It's to put it on the I guess to put on the ballot to revise or amend the Constitution to limit the ability of using eminent domain. Right now it reads for public use or public benefit and it would remove the reference to public benefit. And this is important too because not all eminent domain procedures or what's also called condemnation is going to be just for public use not just for say adding right of way to a street. Sometimes it is for a public benefit maybe it's, it's condemning land to serve, provide utilities to an affordable housing proposal or something like that. So that it can limit the ability for a jurisdiction to use condemnation. Yes, this is done. Can I make one comment on H 218. Absolutely second bullet point that that would conflict with the current language in our UDO that basically says the development agreement cannot be used to lower environmental requirements. There you go. Thank you Don. Next slide. H 366. There's discussion about allowance for manufactured homes can't required masonry curtain walls are skirting the bigger issue with with H 366 is the nullification of ncdot billboard rules or recent recently adopted ncdot billboard rules done can you jump in on that one for a little bit. You bet. Christa and I have both been involved in this. The North Carolina Department of Transportation is the state agency that's charged with regulating billboards in the state of North Carolina. There was dot in response to changes in state legislation was required to revise its rules. The state agency was trying to hold the line and preserve local government authority, the billboard industry which is very powerful has pretty high powered attorneys. They were trying to argue against that. In the city of Durham, we did submit comments on when this went to what's called the state rules review commission and provided comments in support of what ncdot was trying to do. And thankfully, the rules review commission held strong and appelled ncdot's version of the rules, which is what Durham supported this bill, actually, what it says is those recently approved ncdot rules cannot go into effect. So at this point, we're not quite sure what the implication of this will be and whether some kind of affirmative statutory language is going to come out of this bill requiring dot to do something specific. And we'll be keeping an eye on this. Next one h2 h420. Oh, no, I'm sorry back up for one second. Previous slide please. Thank you h425. And that one just if there is no, if a property has split jurisdiction. Then there's no agreement, then between the jurisdictions, then the applicant can choose which jurisdiction to do its development review and annexation and such. There's a lot of agreements annexation agreements and such with with neighboring jurisdictions and most development in the county that most most property in the county that is seeking for more intense development is more often than not seeking annexation with the city. There's 496 property rights and trees. This one is getting a lot of talk also this and this bill kind of pops up every year or so. It's it's legislation that that pretty much nullifies any tree ordinance, unless that jurisdiction already has special legislation. It does have special legislation dating back from 2001, but it's a little, but it does not it that special legislation did not include the county. So it might be very impactful with the county our current ordinance does not require tree preservation requirements in the rural tier so there is some alignment with that already. Some of the properties within the suburban tier that our tree coverage requirements do apply to, and some of those properties could be in the county. So remains to be seen how this moves forward. There is a lot of there have been resolutions adopted by many jurisdictions, municipal and county jurisdictions opposing this and from what I understand it does not. Crosses political lines jurisdictions that are maybe seen more Republican leaning are also not have not been generally in favor of this type of bill. Next slide please. This one does have astounding. It would not be subject to any kind of special use permit. It would have to be allowed by right. That does not mean that we couldn't at least our understanding it does not mean that we couldn't not establish some definitive technical requirements for schools, but it cannot. But we cannot send it through a special use permit process. It also cannot restrict schools to a long state maintained roads are current or current ordinance. So it would not be subject to any kind of special use permit. It would have to be allowed by right. That does not mean that we couldn't at least our understanding it does not mean that we couldn't not establish some definitive technical requirements for schools, but it cannot send it through a long state maintained roads are current or current ordinance does not do that but since that was put in there, our assumption is that there are some jurisdictions that have done that place that requirement shipping containers and affordable housing. There is no shipping containers for residential units to follow construction and design standards, but it really doesn't get to there's nothing about it that is specifically towards affordable housing unless the market rate for these kinds of units would be market affordable. There is no. I don't have any of my provisions about it or any other special requirements that gets towards affordable housing it's just in the title. The use of native plants. The power bill funding for transportation improvements and any projects of the city does will need to use native plants for any required landscaping of those projects. Our ordinance really already leans towards a lot of use of native plants. I think that the board of commissioners and city council I've seen text amendments go through that that have changed our requirements for remediation of sites to use 100% native species. We've improved we've updated our landscape manual just recently as as both boards, hopefully are remember to update our prohibitive plan and invasive species lists. So we're pretty much in a, in a good place but this would be a state mandated use of native plants. And I believe finally, this is just a notification requirement for any rezoning or text amendments that that change permitted uses that happened within five, five miles of an airport and we just have to notify the airport authorities of those of those hearings. So that's the final slide. That's the final slide. I believe that's the final slide. Thank you very much and we'll be happy to answer any questions again we may not have the answers to all the, all the bills but we will definitely follow up with you if need be. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. And if you could also make sure we get those slides along with the comprehensive plan slides as well. Thank you so much. Thank you for that overview and Don and Brian also for your and Krista for your help with those Wow, it's it's really overwhelming. Just, you know, reading reading the list that we were sent out and then just, you know, it's, it's everything but the kitchen, everything but going into there. The kitchen sink as I say so any comments or questions from work members. On any of these items. Javier. Yeah, thank you just real quick. One of the things. So the, the very first bill that you always talked about which was like kind of expanding housing choice on steroids a little bit. One of the things that I remember that we didn't the reason we didn't expand it like triplexism quads was because of actual building code right which is then you have to get into commercial code once you get into third three units and more with sprinklers and more intense firewalling. Is that getting updated. You know, if it passed like are they trying, like how do you align that or is that just not even people I believe that, and I'm going off a recollection, but I believe that the reclassification of those types of housing would be under single family. Okay, so then they're okay. Yeah. So, so there's some positives there I know that they're, I know that there is there was a lot of, and I know that's not one that made it to crossover. Just wondering what components and I don't want to spend too much time but if, if to me I think there are some strengths and some of these bills, especially with expanding what is defined as single family when we're facing such intense affordability issues in Durham. But I understand that there's also a lot of negative there so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out and that was a bill that was by had bipartisan support didn't it didn't come from both Dems and it did. It remains to seem be seen to the extent of what that bipartisan support looks like and where that the folks behind it but it was sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans. Thank you for that. Any questions or comments. I guess to our attorneys, my question would be. What is the status. Do you all know of, at least, for instance, the one that we heard the most about the H 401. NCA CC was concerned about it because again getting back to preemption of local authority being a very big concern. I don't know where the league. What has been on it. I know planning organizations I was contacted by some about again their concerns about it. I mean, what is the status of that one in particular. Don you mentioned things can get inserted into other bills. Right. Mike, I was just checking that one didn't make crossover right. Right. That's that's correct it did not. So it sort of remains to be seen whether all our parts of that bill may appear in some other bill that did make crossover that frequently happens. They'll clean out a bill that makes crossover they'll just clean out all the language and then insert different language in it. So that remains to be seen whether that will happen. I haven't heard whether there's any effort to move that forward. Okay. Yeah, I haven't heard anything either. I would anticipate that some of that will be sort of we refurbished and sort of pushed along. I don't think it's going to be a development friendly language so I would I would be surprised if some of that isn't isn't. If there isn't an attempt to push some of that along and some other bills and may have made crossover. And do you have any recommendations for us. And anything that we should be doing. In particular, with any, any specific ones. So with our delegation or NCCC or the league. Yeah, I think when these, when these bills come up, they get reviewed by planning and then they forward them through the city attorney's office and then through, through our office and we review them. And then I provide them to devil Craig Ray to sort of vet them for any issues that may be effective. And then we go to the county. And usually we're on the same page, since we got, you know, pretty much the same issues. So my recommendation is to continue to be vigilant. North Carolina Association of County commissioners is always on top of this, and they give us updates. And so that's the best way to handle it just to continue to keep your eyes open and your ears to the ground because it will pop up and then you have to sort of mobilize as quickly as you can. Thank you and appreciate that all three of you are are staying on top of it. It's a lot to be monitoring. So Commissioner Burns. Yeah, it didn't I know is speaking about House bill 401 it did make crossover but if I'm not mistaken, I could be wrong. It was Senate bill 439. It never made it out of rules committee, but to her point, you know, we do see him on both sides. There's a question about, you know, how can we, you know, how can we engage our delegation I think we brought up a decent bill. If we think back to even 2019. Probably the person in the delegation or this person in the state, Senator Woodard did the most amendments that I can remember and I could be wrong to the billboards bill back in 2019 so if we go back, he tried he introduced four or five amendments so that cities and counties will have it. So for anybody on here I mean I'm just going back on something that Commissioner Jacob said, you know when we do see those things, we really have to engage them and, and we actually do have a delegation that when we asked them, they pretty much I can't it was four or five amendments. They didn't pass, but at least he was in news about it at least, you know, and now billboard is back again and if y'all don't remember, I think billboard popped up in 2015 didn't pop up in 2019. Now it's back again but at least we got somebody on record.  I just want to throw that out there you know we can do that with everybody on there but I didn't see it on crossover either but I'm happy that we have a delegation that does that. And that was all I want to throw out, and I hope we keep doing it. Thank you for giving us that history. That's important. All right, well thank you again for this overview and keeping us up to date. I appreciate it. And our next item. Last item is the article three update also with you Michael stock. Yes, thank you again. I believe the slide show will be pulling up momentarily again Michael stock with the planning department. And this is a proposed set of text amendments to the audio that does focus primarily on article three which is our applications and permit section. If you can go to next slide please. It's going to focus primarily on the common review procedures that are found in article three. And then what it's doing is taking some application procedures that are either not found at all within the audio but planning department generally handles or reorganizes and relocates or relocates some existing ones the ones that are currently not in the audio or the street closing or withdrawal. Renaming processes and annexation some the reorganizing or relocation will involve the statutory development agreements that were that we'll talk about a little bit in future, and then some modifications to existing processes for zoning map changes. Next slide please. So for common review procedures primarily technical updates but I want to point out to non technical updates. The first one and this is I think is the biggest one is we've heard not only in recent years that we've gone before the planning commission and city council, but in past cases to moving beyond just property owner notification, and getting trying to notify all residents within a notification range. We're working on that and this begins codification of that process. Unfortunately, we have limited access to, say addresses for large apartment buildings and such and Durham County records are not always going to be complete with properties that have multiple residential items on them. But we are going to codify it to use that information to the extent that that information is available, and we are working with our GIS department. We are working with actually talking to at least other departments that do have more comprehensive lists to see if we can get access to that list just for notification purposes not getting names or anything. So what we do know is that we can tell through property records where there's a difference between a site address and an owner address and so we can notify based upon that information and sometimes we do have additional address information but it's like maybe it's a duplex so it's 126 a and 126 be whatever street, but so the, the text amendment would, would allow for that and codify for that. But it wouldn't. The information is just not available. We just can't provide that notification at this time but we are working on it. The second thing is to also clarify, put sign posting requirements. It's, it's very loose on how many signs to put out based upon the number of street frontages and we're just making it very explicit that if it has a street frontage then it gets a sign. So we're just making that explicit. So street closings are a legislative decision. They can be processed through the city. We do most street closings happen within the city but the county does see a street closing request every once in a while. So both of these are administrative procedure allowed through state statute. Both processes do have state state statute and city code requirements. Withdrawals are allowed by right if they meet a certain if the right of way has not been used I believe within a 15 year time period consecutive time period otherwise it has to go through that street closing legislative process. So planning has traditionally handled those applications. And we are just simply codifying those application processes. Next slide please. Street naming and renaming. There are no specific statutory requirements for this. Basic street name requirements are found in the UDO and there are actual guidelines that our development review work group and I believe our E 911 department used to review names. And again planning historically is handled both naming and renaming. The initial naming process is handled through a plat process. So if there's a new subdivision and there's new streets being proposed, the names are, are part of that review for renaming an existing street that does go through governing body approval and I think the Board of Commissioners just actually went through a street renaming process just this month or last month. So we are codifying those procedures and we are looking to codify those guidelines to so they're just not guidelines they are actually in the UDO. Next slide please. Development agreements, those are authorized by state statute and as you may recall, we added explicit authorization for them in Durham. Last year in article one, and when we started to take a look at the formal process for them. We believe that since we are adding these other processes the street renaming and closings and annexations to article three we should move development agreements to that same section. We are not reducing or changing any of the limitations that were approved. We are maintaining the process requirements that are consistent with rezoning so we're not changing any of that. We did add some limitations to them for article 12 which involves infrastructure we felt that was important to add those limitations to but otherwise there's no change it just really just fleshes out the process, just like any other process that the planning department handles. Next slide please annexation, again, we're just codifying the application process it's both there are both statutory and city code requirements for annexation departments that are primarily involved the playing department. Handles the processing of the application but not just planning but public works clerk's office and the attorney's office are often involved in these applications. And again it's just codifying the process. And then finally for zoning map changes we are making some changes to these zoning map change or what most people call rezoning process, we are codifying interpretation regarding contiguous properties for development plan rezoning. Most, almost all development plans the boundaries of them contain content properties that are adjacent to one another, or if they're not quite a jay if they're not adjacent to each other they're directly across across a street from each other across a right away. And we're just codifying that interpretation or practice of allowing those within one development plan. And then we are updating the deviation section to for development plans and that was actually this was in the past omnibus 16 text amendments that went through planning commission, but we pulled out because we felt it needed a little bit more work to review. We do. We are clarifying the rules for the changes making making it a more intuitive as to what requires a change in the development plan or rezoning. We are codifying the interpretation of how we consider development plans that were approved in different areas. There are three distinct areas of development plans and hey, our development plans go back to my early 1970s. So there's a lot of review, especially for those kind of plans as to what applies and what doesn't. And so we're codifying that. And we're trying to make it explicit and transparent as to what, what amounts to amending a current plan versus what truly is a zoning, a rezoning of the site. The processes are generally the same, it's more for understanding the extent of the chain that's being proposed it still goes through the same public hearing process. And then there are also departments public hearing through planning commission and then ultimately governing body approval. And then we do have, I'm sorry, back. Keep, keep, keep there. There's a lot for this one. When commitments are obsolete or no longer warranted, we are trying to codify specific procedures for that. There are times when there are situations where NCDOT will not allow for a certain access point or certain commitment has already been handled by another development. So we're just trying to codify that situation. Trying to clarify rules for changes when pro project clarify rules for changes when projects are subject to property has an HOA on it. Sometimes there are requests to change development plans where a lot of the development is already built out. They might have 300 townhomes on it already. So we're trying to wrap our heads around how to handle those kinds of changes and property owner notification and sign off on those on those applications. And then also this is the existing allowance but we wanted to be much more transparent and explicit about it. Any, we don't, we, there's no requirement to change the development plan if a development wants to take advantage of the affordable housing bonuses that are in the UDL. We just want to make that much more explicit than the way it reads now. So that's all that is it doesn't change it. It just makes it much more explicit. And then next slide. So finally the next steps. We do still want to make sure that the changes meet legal muster and there aren't any other outstanding word changes or make sure that the changes read clearly so we still have it out for interdepartmental review which includes the attorney's offices so we'll make any modifications that are necessary or changes and we'll let the planning commission know if there are any kind of substantial changes that came from what this board has looked at today. And then, as I foresee the adoption process, we anticipate getting moving this to the planning commission for their hearing in July or August, and then hopefully to the governing bodies. We anticipate fall 2021. So that's, that's all I have to say I'll be glad to answer any questions. I appreciate it. Thank you. Well, thank you for that excellent presentation, Michael, and any comments or questions on the article three updates. I appreciate that these are attempts to really, it's very evident to really clarify a number of issues. So thank you. Absolutely. Any, any comments or questions from board members Brian. Thank you, Michael, thank you for the presentation is really helpful. I had two questions. The first was on page nine it's section 3.5.11 be just curious about the thinking of removing number three and that's the not granting an expedited hearing. I don't have the language right in front of me but basically there's one item that it took out and it basically was, it looks like it was a reason to not grant an expedited hearing related to it. Other items, what was the thinking on that. Oh, because those are just, I mean, whether a think that's a good question to bring up that one was removed because we didn't feel that that was a worthwhile criteria to hold up a project if it needs a TIA needs a TIA and it'll go through that review pro review process so it doesn't. But if the governing body felt it was still warranted to have an expedited review, whether or not it has a TIA shouldn't shouldn't come into play, especially if it's trying to meet grant funding. It doesn't mean that it expedites the TIA review if the TIA has to be reviewed and there are and there are aspects to it that the development needs to meet. It doesn't get any applicant out of that it just takes out of a criteria of whether it's eligible for getting granted an expedited review. Okay, thanks for that clarification. And then the second is it's a bigger one it literally is like page 10 through page 13 it's section 3.5.12. Can you just spend another minute or two on it because, as I read it. It could be a it could be minor or it could be a really big change and I'm just interested in hearing the planning department's perspective. And I'm particularly thinking about if I'm a community member that was a part of a rezoning process way back when, and maybe there was some proffer that at the time was a really big deal. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the community's ability to know that something is getting changed when they think that maybe it's already been taken care of or dealt with so. Absolutely. So that was that a lot of that was in your omnibus 16 that you reviewed a couple months ago that we pulled out. And what we did was we tried to reform it and say, and a make it clear as to what are these what are these issues that warrant a rezoning or or even a zoning amendment to the development plan. I'm trying to rephrase it so it reads a little more intuitively. Nothing about these changes. Allow for a buyer. One thing it does is takes away discretion from the planning director there's current language in there that had that list of items and then said, and any other let any other thing the planning director felt was substantial so we took that discretion away and that was actually that was taken even in your version that you saw at the planning commission, but I just want to emphasize that that that discretion is being removed so we're being held to that list. Secondly, it codifies how the current and past planning directors have looked at development plans from those different eras because they had different requirements back then under the previous zoning ordinances so it really just codifies how those are looked at. There's nothing about that I'm aware of nothing about any of those changes that undermines any community community. And adopted committed elements. So if it's it, there's nothing that I'm aware of that undermines those that are put on a development plan, we will definitely take another look at that to make sure that we're not missing something, but there's nothing about it that's there, and especially with the transportation improvements the focus was and actually had this conversation with Don. The focus was to make sure that any of those transportation improvements that are just not warranted or warranted based upon a TIA and not and weren't transportation improvements that were agreed upon based upon community discussions and negotiations that weren't in addition to that there were just purely technical improvements that were based upon a development that was envisioned back in 2000 but but was developed at a much lower intensity and and density that just doesn't warrant those improvements and isn't warranted for yes it saves the applicant money and time and doing those improvements but also save say the jurisdiction for accepting and maintaining those improvements that aren't warranted. So it is a big change. There is a lot of words there I definitely see it's a it's a lot of change but it's really designed and will definitely as part of our, our review what we definitely review it before it goes to planning commission to make sure that is understood. Great thanks Michael yeah when it was a lot of words I started getting lost. Absolutely. I hear that from other people in our department to Thanks for those questions Brian any other comments or questions. So my, my question is not exactly related but item 3.2.5 notice and public hearings section three about posted signs on pages six or seven. I noticed in the beginning of the of the information that was provided to us there was the comment that there is a desire from that from the community that we have better notification for residents about rezoning and board of adjustments and changes and that we don't really have a good fix for that right now. But one thing I want to raise up is asking if we've ever looked at simply what our signs look like. And the information that is on our signs and the reason I raise this is because I've had the opportunity to see what public notices look like in other cities and when I was before the pandemic in Vancouver at a Revolution conference. I was really blown away by their public notice signs. They're a lot larger than ours, and they have a lot of information on them so that anybody walking by or resident can really learn a lot about what is being proposed on that site. And, you know, recently I've walked through past two of our signs that basically have a big B on them. And, you know, our signs just don't have a lot of information they usually have like a contact phone number or, you know, like I said a B or a Z, but they don't really have a lot of information so I'm just wondering was there any discussion with us looking at actually changing how we just do our signs. So we are looking at how we do our signs. One of the things that we actually have been providing more information on our signs, whether it's Board of Adjustment with the B or Z for zoning. We've color coded them so when people call them in, they might not remember the sign that they saw but they might remember the color so we can reference it that way. We find with signs that are in a very urbanized area versus, say Durham where a lot of our signs are along busier roads or right of way where there's very little pedestrian traffic is that they become illegible, to a certain extent. The focus is really making sure that people there's a QR QR code on them that you can scan and get that information. We have made sure that the signs are in English and in Spanish. But we were the purpose of these signs that we see are to get. They are 24 by 36 which is generally movie poster size which is they're pretty big signs. The color is is pretty vibrant and in your face whether you like the colors or not, they're very noticeable. We used to have it just yellow and red. And they were in your face but people didn't some people didn't like those colors so we went to the color coding which I think has actually helped and help distinguish people who are receiving the phone calls. And what case somebody's calling about but we want the signs to be able to get people to be noticed, since it's a lot of it is more auto oriented than pedestrian oriented. Get them legible from English and Spanish speaking populations and get them to the right people in our department to ask more questions about that project. So we are also possibly reorienting them to get more information on them and to also make them more legible, but the primary primarily we see these signs as we want them to be legible in your face and be able to get you to the right person in our department to answer whatever questions you have about that project or case. Well, thank you for that additional on tax go you say get to the right person. Is there even, could there be a link to even just something on a website that has information so you don't actually have to be able to talk to somebody. So we will have email information on there to the HR work group actually has their own emails now so land use has policy at Durham NC dot. dot com. There's the board of adjustment I believe has its own emails and such. Thank you so we will have more individualized emails to get you to that work group. If there isn't an individualized email just get you to the playing department or or the DSC. And then there is the QR code that will get you that information. And then we do have that information posted on our web on our website to. Yeah, I think people shouldn't have to email or call somebody though, I think to get information. I think there should, you know, I guess I would suggest you will look at kind of what we're doing with the, the new social pinpoint, where people can maybe get linked to what information is there about the development that's being proposed more in the institution. And I don't know maybe this is something that an intern can work on over the summer but really looking at what other communities do relating to this issue, because I actually was walking downtown recently and one of the investment signs or the ones with the B on it was knocked over on the ground I tried to pick it up, but it was actually really heavy. So I couldn't. But it was for the behind the crest building that project and it was, it had been knocked over. And so, again, I just think it's something that we should look at doing doing as much as we can. It's just a tool that we have. So, yeah. All right, and I also want to commend all the staff that worked on the language related to the street names. I really enjoyed reading the commentaries that staff had worked on related to clarifying what is acceptable for street names so I don't know who worked on that but that was a guide that's been in place for a few years now. I know 911 and planning and probably some other work groups have had worked on that over the years and that's what the board of commissioners just heard it's renaming case last month it had to go through that naming guidelines and we felt it was just important to codify it instead of just leaving it as a guideline. I thought they were very helpful. Thank you. Okay, any other comments or questions before we adjourn our meeting today. All right, we'll see none we will adjourn and everybody have a great day. And thank you again to staff for your excellent work. Take care. Bye bye. Thank you.