n our purview so to speak in that they're they're all it's all public information but it's not something we're focused on and so just noting that this could be a helpful um piece of uh support and and creating enough an account like the accountability advisory partner um around some of this information and i too along with um councilmember riece and councilmember riddleton want to apologize to the community for missing this and acknowledging that i i do need to pay closer attention um to that aspect of how the when we talk about racial equity it's not just race it's all of the things in between because there are the bookends so thank you thank you councilmember mr judge thank you you always do such great work and we're so lucky to have you thank you so much colleagues i'm going to now just ask a question to our administration and then i'll ask if any of you all have any questions for the staff uh to mr fergusson the we have now received some further recommendations in the last few days i believe staff received them at the very end of the week uh from the energy committee of the environmental affairs board uh involving the length of the franchise and also some suggested language changes in the mou and a couple uh changes in the franchise agreement but uh some language changes in the mou that are predominantly uh in the in the areas of um revising the vision somewhat and the goals and to what they feel is more reflective of our community's desires i'm wondering how staff will be responding to that and um especially prior to our discussion on thursday if they will be able to do that and get any thoughts that you might have about uh staff's response in there thank you so those documents uh were received by our staff they've spent a good deal of time today with the city attorney's office as well in reviewing some of those suggestions and recommendations our desire is to to work on those uh over the next few days and to come prepared to the work session on the 24th uh to present any modifications or changes that we feel like we can make that respond to that feedback uh obviously in the in the interim we'd be working with Duke Energy as well uh these are agreements that uh we need to be able to sign but the Duke Energy needs to be able to sign and so it's our desire to find if if we're able to find language that we believe is responsive and then also Duke Energy is comfortable with to bring that to you where we cannot do that i think we would highlight for you on the 24th uh those changes we were able to respond to and those that we felt like we could not perfect that's what i was hoping you'd say and i really appreciate that um i'm very grateful to the folks on the environmental affairs board and others who uh have worked together over the past couple of weeks to bring us some suggested changes and uh i'm grateful to the staff for already jumping in and working on that and that sounds perfect but i think that's a that's a really good way to proceed all right um other other questions or comments at this time mr bombfield i just was one to clarify procedurally mr mary you had mentioned previously about uh you were going to make a decision about whether to close the public hearing but not take any action until the october 5th meeting or continue the public hearing until the october 5th meeting so we just need clarity around that um so mr manager i was planning to close the public hearing but not take any action until the october 5th meeting is that acceptable oh yeah yes i think that's fine okay so uh if there's no one else to be heard at this time i'm going to close this public hearing uh and colleagues our plans then are to discuss this you you will have you've received and will have in the work session packet these additional attachments uh which are essentially an mo u that's been edited suggested editing by the eab energy group uh and a letter from the eab um discussing some of their general um their general ideas and concerns not that's a fairly short letter and then we will have also then we'll have uh i'm sure documentation from staff that after they have consulted figured out what they can recommend and work with Duke Energy around that um they will bring that to us as well just so to just to clarify the process that'll be this coming thursday and then uh it's my intention uh that all this will be worked out and that we would take a vote on october 5th which is the last day that the the current was the day the current franchise um expires i see our city attorney madam attorney thank you mr mayor yes i've been having some back and forth with a couple of the attorneys who are you know the experts on this area and we think it would be cleaner actually just to continue the public hearing so keep it open um so that you all can receive additional commentary and have additional deliberations so you'll come to the work session and then it will be continued again to the october 5th meeting at which time you'll take action all right thank you instead of that will be a little cleaner sure thank you instead of closing the public hearing i will now say that we are uh continuing the public hearing until october 5th thank you madam attorney well and just to clarify your first continuing it to this thursday's okay that would be a public hearing you're gonna well it's just open discussion of a public hearing item all right because you've indicated to folks that you will continue deliberating at the work so let's just keep it open gotcha i will now uh reopen the the i will now keep the public hearing open until we need to close it thank you for that advice i appreciate it uh and now um we're going to move on to our next item i want to i want to before we move on i want to thank the folks from Duke Energy i want to over here i know there's a lot of them who've been working on this i want to thank the folks from general services i want to thank the folks in the city attorney's office i want to thank uh both Ferguson and everybody who's been working so hard on this for so long thank you we are we're we're we're getting closer all right uh we're now going to move back to our first public hearing item and that is item 17 consolidated annexation nc highway 55 abc store and we will first hear from stan good evening i'm emily struthers with the planning department i would first like to state for the record that all planning department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law and affidavits of all notices are on file with the planning department requests for utility extension agreement voluntary annexation and initial zoning map change have been received from andrew porter of culture jewel tem's pa for two parcels located at 5608 and 5612 nc 55 highway totaling 11.97 acres the annexation petition is for a contiguous expansion of the corporate city limits the site is presently zoned commercial neighborhood and residential rural and staff recommends an exact translation of the zoning designation the proposed annexation area is designated on the comprehensive plan's future land use map as commercial and in areas corresponding with flood zones recreation slash open space which is consistent with the zoning request if approved this request would become effective on september 30th 2020 city and county operational departments such as solid waste fire police and ems have reviewed this request and have not identified any significant negative service impacts the potential impact of this annexation at full belt out while not yet known at this time could result in some reduction in the level of service provided by the police department the public works and water management departments have determined that the existing city of derm water mains have capacity to serve this project sewer service will be provided by the county the budget and management services department determine that the proposed annexation will become revenue positive immediately following annexation additional information can be found in the staff report staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances three motions are required for this application but first is to adopt an ordinance annexing the property and entering into the utility extension agreement the second is to adopt a consistency statement and the third is for the zoning ordinance thank you and staff is available for any questions thank you very much mr others you have reported you've heard the report from staff on the cloud this public hearing open and i'll first ask if there are any questions for staff by members of the council all right seeing none i'm going to i see one person is signed up to speak on this item and that is mr andrew porter mr porter madame clerk could you make mr andrew porter available to be heard it's available mr porter can you be heard yes good evening city council members of marshall my name is andrew porter 5714 williamsburg way dorm i'm a registered landscape architects and work for colter drill temps pa i'm here this evening on behalf of nidale solivan general manager germ county abc we don't have a formal presentation this evening emily has run through the the staff details um we believe the request before you this evening is pretty straightforward and further request approval um based on staff recommendation for approval i'm available for any other questions the uh if there are any thank you thank you mr porter now let me ask is there anyone else who's president among the attendees who would like to be heard on this item this is a public hearing matter if you were an attendee and you would like to be heard could you please put your raise your virtual hand or uh please let us know in the chat i don't see anyone else who would like to be heard and so now i'll ask if there any questions or comments by members of the council at this time all right seeing none i'm going to declare this public hearing closed in this matter is now back before the council we would need three motions to um um on this matter the first will be to adopt an ordinance annexing nc highway 55 abc story to the city can i have a motion to that effect i moved second it's moved by council member reese and seconded by council member cabrera i believe um madam clerk please call the role mayor's tool i mayor pro ten johnson hi council member caballero hi council member freelon hi council member freeman hi council member middleton i vote i council member reese i thank you very much the eyes have it and the motion passes unanimously uh item motion two to can to adopt the consistency statement so moved second moved by mayor pro tem seconded by council member reese madam clerk we please call the roll mayor shul uh mayor pro tem johnson hi council member caballero hi council member freelon hi council member freeman hi council member middleton hi council member reese hi thank you uh thank you madam clerk the eyes have it the motion passes unanimously third we'll need a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the udo so moved second moved by count mayor pro tem seconded by council member freelon that we um adopted an ordinance amending the udo madam clerk will you please call the roll mayor shul hi mayor pro tem johnson hi council member caballero hi council member freelon hi council member freeman hi council member middleton i vote i council member reese hi thank you thank you madam clerk the motion passes unanimously uh thank you mr porter for being here we'll now move to item 18 consolidated annexation for the sites property uh and we'll hear the report from staff good evening mayor and council members this is grace smith i'm sitting in for um staff this evening jamie lawson has uh left the city county planning department to pursue a job with the city of burlington so i'm filling in her for her this evening and um so uh we will miss her uh as we move forward but i wanted to make sure you knew that we are here tonight and we are representing so thank you we're always glad to see you well thank you good evening and again i'm grace smith with the planning department this request is for the utility extension agreement a voluntary annexation and initial zoning map change from just the cardesty of macadams for two parcels located at seven zero zero eight and seven zero one two leased full road totaling 40.36 acres the annexation petition is for a continuous expansion of the corporate city limits there's a conservation subdivision also associated with this parcel case d20 00010 for 80 single family lots you can find uh you can find more information about that in attachment 14 it might be actually attachment 16 for you it's the site plan uh the site is presently zoned rural residential rr and the staff recommends an exact translation of the zoning designation the proposed annexation area is designated as low density residential and recreation open space on the comprehensive plans future land use map which is consistent with the zoning request that staff recommends if approved this request will become effective on september 30th 2020 the city and county operational departments such as solid waste fire police and ems have reviewed this request the potential and uh impact of annexation um a full build out is not yet known completely at this time but it could result in some reduction in the level of service provided by the police department the public works and water management departments have determined that the existing city of Durham water and sanitary sewer have capacity for this proposed development and the budget and management services department determined that the proposed annexation will be positive excuse me revenue positive immediately following the annexation additional information can be found in the staff report about that recommendation the staff determines that the requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances there are three motions required for this action the first is to adopt the ordinance annexing the property into the city and entering into a utility extension agreement the second is to adopt a consistency statement and the third would be to adopt the zoning ordinance and staff is available if you have any questions thank you very much miss smith colleagues you have heard the report from staff i'm going to declare this public hearing open and ask you first if there are any questions by members of the council for our staff councilmember reese thank you mr mayor i can even give me miss smith thanks for pitch hitting from his lawson and if she's listening which i doubt she is best of luck to you in burlington um we're just a train right away um can you uh help me understand if there are any other pending uh annexation requests um in adjacent to this particular property so at this time there is uh it's my understanding there's not any any request it's actually adjacent like adjacent parcel wise there are several in the immediate area but not any that i knew of that are adjacent parcel wise okay um and you will hear you'll actually hear more about that at work session on this thursday there's a presentation that will talk a lot about the different um petitions that are that are pending in the area yes great um i must have missed the description of how many units this plan will build on this property can you help me with that since we have a fight i was muted i was muted it's proposed for 80 units um so they'll develop roughly half the property and leave half in a conservation subdivision and undisturbed great thank you very much i appreciate those are my quick thank you thank you council member hi there council member freeman just noting i i'd recognize that there's no attachment for planning commission notes and i just wanted to make sure that i um just got some clarity on this this case didn't go before the city cap but i'm not the the planning commission and it's just coming straight to us um yes ma'am it is a direct translation of zoning so it did not pass through planning commission you're correct okay any other questions for miss smith council member freeland yes uh thank you um my question is about the other half of the property that's not going to be developed is there um something from the developer that assures that that will not be developed in perpetuity or is that just they're not going to develop it for now could you talk a little more about about that part all right so it's a proposed to be a conservation subdivision and under the udo there are specific requirements that the uh the proposal would have to meet to actually be considered a conservation subdivision one is what one of which would be the conservation of all the the open space and the 20 acres that i was talking about that would not be disturbed it's roughly 20 acres um but it's it would be approved and would have to be executed and developed for that site plan that would be approved i think council member freeland was asking would that be in perpetuity what what is the length of the commitment oh i'm sorry so the site plan is is is valid for a certain period of time and if they don't execute the site plan within the amount of time that is valid they would have to seek another approval to develop the site at that time however if they were to develop the property based on the site plan that's approved that's what they have to build once they start their construction they're they're they're actually um tied to that approval and the conservation and the conservation i'm sorry council member freeland go ahead well yeah so i guess the answer would be forever once they why once they start building and and they were to execute that site plan yes it would be unless they came back in for a different approval for the site then they would not be able to change anything okay got it thank you thank you council member other questions for staff at this time councilor caballero you said all single family homes on the site on the part of the lot that's getting developed correct um let me double check that i hang on one second okay thank you uh huh yes it is it's all single family and since there's not a builder associated with it yet we don't like have a price point um i would have to let the applicant answer that question i'm not sure um 100 sure if there's a builder or not so um if someone from McAdams is on the line or someone else representing the application they could answer that thank colleagues we do have members of the public here to speak who's not heard yet so maybe we should go ahead and hear them and then we can direct those questions to them that's fine thank you mere thank you council member all right um we have uh three people uh who are so far signed up to speak on this neil gosh erica letham and stephanie berry uh and i'm going to um all of the um so this is a since this is a an annexation case i want to make sure that we understand that people are proponents or opponents um mr ghost and mr lee miss letham are proponents i'm not sure about miss berry we'll find that out when she's ready to speak so we can make sure the time is divvied up barely uh mr ghost uh welcome uh mr ghost i'm going to give you three minutes um and we'll see if you need more time after that will that be enough mr ghost probably so and i'm i don't think uh miss letham who's my client will be speaking necessarily unless there are questions all right why don't you start with that uh and then if we need more we can do that all right thank you and and good night i guess mayor shul mayor pro tim johnson and members of the city council my name is neil gosh i am an attorney with the morning star law group at 112 west main street in durham i am representing the applicant for the proposed application and also on the call with me tonight is erica letham of mi homes i'll start first by thanking uh miss smith for her presentation as was mentioned this is a request for annexation of about 40 acres which will facilitate the development of a conservation subdivision off leesville road this particular project will serve as the next phase of the existing andrew's chapel neighborhood which currently is being built by mi homes now the existing andrew's chapel neighborhood which is roughly west of the subject property is zone pdr 4.793 naturally i think the question is why isn't the developer requesting a similar density on the subject property and the answer to that question is exactly why the concept of a conservation subdivision was introduced into the udo the existing andrew's chapel pdr is about 115 acres but the major difference between the acreage between that acreage and this acreage are the environmental considerations there is a stream and some floodplain features that run through the property essentially cutting the property into three areas it would be possible to get more density on the subject property but the question is at what cost the site plan for this project which is included in your packet of information includes exactly zero stream crossings on the property the conservation subdivision concept allows this property to be developed at a sensible density given the environmental constraints the conservation subdivision site plan for this property preserves about 20 acres in total but nine acres of that are totally developed those nine acres are unencumbered by floodplain or riparian buffers or anything like that the only thing preventing them from being developed is the current zoning if instead of an annexation we propose a rezoning to pdr it might be possible to fit 10 to 12 more homes on this property but doing so would would require at least one but probably two stream crossings moreover sacrificing nine acres of preserved open space and committing to some costly infrastructure which would have significant environmental impacts for only about 10 to 12 more homes simply does not make sense it doesn't make sense from a planning standpoint doesn't make sense from a financing standpoint and it doesn't make sense environmentally it is not worth it at all as I said this project is an exemplar of a scenario where a conservation subdivision is preferable in this instance the conservation subdivision will allow us to preserve 20 acres almost half of which otherwise is develop it allows us to prevent stream crossings it also allows for a sensible density near environmentally sensitive areas if you think about the requirements of a conservation subdivision we're at two units of the acre on the overall acreage but we are committing to the preservation of 50 percent of the acreage so in a sense the development is at about four units to develop to the developable acre with the added benefit of the required preservation of environmentally sensitive areas in some developing this acreage as a conservation subdivision makes all the sense in the world more importantly though it makes sense for the city of Durham because it helps to provide much some much needed housing while respecting environmentally sensitive areas we hope to have your support tonight we're available to answer any questions about the project you may have and thank you for your time and consideration thank you very much mr. gosh um miss letham uh if you would like to be heard you could raise your hand in the chat uh of course if you're just here to answer questions we're glad you're here um I also see that bob zumbwald uh in the chat that he is here to potentially speak on this item uh mr. Zumbwald thank you for being here as well um and if you uh would like to speak please raise your hand in the chat I'm not sure if you're here also uh just to potentially answer questions but if you would like to speak please do raise your hand in the chat or send me a message in the chat okay great just for questions thank you we now have here Stephanie berry um madame clerk could you make miss berry available to be heard mr. mayor I don't see a miss berry in the attendee list okay um there is a call-in user I don't know who that is a call-in user yes uh how would she if she was the call-in user how would she let us know that I would allow her to talk and then she can respond okay why don't you do that is this miss berry are you uh on the phone all right apparently not um is there anyone else who was here was an attendee at this meeting who would like to be heard on this item this is a public hearing item is there anyone else uh that would like to be heard on this item um colleagues uh you have now heard from uh everyone who would like to speak at this public hearing uh and I'll now ask if there are any more questions that you have either for the applicant or for um or for staff and and councilmember cubby here I think you had a question that miss smith felt might best be answered by staff I'm sorry about the applicant I think my question was um was it all single family homes which and then if we had a price point oh if we have a price point okay uh mr gosh could you speak to that sure can you guys still hear me yes we can um so we don't exactly know the price point but I think the best indicator of that as I said am I homes is building the other portion of Andrew's chapel so currently homes are selling uh there in the 300 and 315s although I will say that I believe those are mostly town homes uh but we do believe that the price point in this will be the low to mid 300s keeping that same range as the as the next phase of development and just to give you an idea um the homes are roughly 2300 to 2900 square feet so it's a great value uh at that at that price thank you mr gosh councilmember cubby are any other questions or comments no thank you thank you any other questions or comments colleagues councilmember reese thank you mr mayor uh good evening uh mr gosh thank you thank you for being with us today it's good to hear from you um by applying for translation zoning um you missed the opportunity to get the feedback from our colleagues at the planning commission and so uh given that and given that the tight face on the um on the attachment that shows the development plan is too small for me to read some of the uh text in there I thought I would just ask you um one of the questions that commissioner miller likes to ask about and that are that is design commitments intended to reduce monotony um and make this a visually appealing community the other thing he likes to ask about is a mix of housing types which this doesn't have um and that just is what it is but I'm wondering if you can talk I like I don't know if the big text block on the first page of that plan includes some of this stuff because I can't read it so can you help me on with that and by the design commitments I hope you know that I mean um you know front-facing garages porches um that those the kind of diversity of materials that kind of sure so let me I'll just say that what we have in the staff report there is not a development plan that's something that you might be used to seeing with the rezoning that is the site plan that has been submitted for the uh conservation subdivision so it should show you the kind of lot layout and and um I think it's attachment 16 on on in your agenda uh and so it shows you the lot layout and kind of a street layout for the community there are no design commitments listed on the site plan and that's typical site plan would not include those items so I guess I would say that there are not exactly any design commitments uh contained in the site plan or something that we could point to but I will say in my homes is the builder of Andrew's Chapel and so what they're planning on building here is essentially the same thing that they've been building in Andrew's Chapel in Andrew's Chapel I knew I knew there was uh both you and Councilwoman Caviera mentioned that uh you know had questions about whether there was a mix of housing so in this community this section for which we're applying for annexation uh there's not a mix of housing in Andrew's Chapel there is uh as I mentioned the current homes the MIs building are townhomes thank you mr gush so I think that just to put another just to add a little something further I believe that since this is not a rezoning it can't have a development plan associated with it is what I'm thinking is that correct miss Smith correct mayor show this is not a development plan rezoning um the site plan that's attached is an administrative site plan approval and because there is not a development plan um in play here there are no design commitments or other text commitments being made and so in the administrative world where there's not a development plan involved for an administrative site plan we would not be able to require design commitments on single family because state law prohibits that right right thank you mr gush uh but I think uh just to push council member Reese's uh question a little bit farther uh maybe you or maybe mr zome waltz or someone else or miss lethem could talk to us about what an mi home might typically look like here and I think neighborhood I think miss lethem probably would be the best person to discuss the uh homes the mi plans in this neighborhood madam could you please make miss lethem available to be heard hi can you hear me yes we can welcome right thank you thank you for um the opportunity answered that question so um as nil said the homes we build in andrew's chapel are subject to design commitments they have everything mr Reese um talked about front-facing garages mix of materials porches um we are a commitment as a move-up builder so we we like to uh we take great pride in the exterior of the house as well as the inside of the house um so the while there aren't any design commitments and I understand that what I say here isn't the same as a design commitment we would be building exactly the same homes on this piece of property that we are currently built or we have built in the andrew's chapel community thank you miss lethem other questions for the applicant or comments councilmember freeman thank you I I I acknowledge that the design commitment aspect of this is left out because it's not a rezoning and just acknowledging that this is 40 acres of uh annexation and an area that is a two-lane road and I appreciate the 9.5 acres being committed for conservation but I'm concerned um in our previous conversation we acknowledged that there was a kind of a slight oversight and acknowledging that there could have been some unintended consequences with the lights and I'm feeling the same angst in this conversation acknowledging that very narrow opening um for is that I'm sorry I could barely see the the um the street names and all from the like the pdf because you're making it like you're expanding it from the small size into a large size so it's not very clear and I really appreciate an opportunity to view this site because I did not realize until this evening that this this this actually did not go to the planet commission and so um I understand it's a translation and not a rezoning but I want to make sure that I I actually do the due diligence and making sure that this property and the area arounding or surrounding it is um is supportive of where we're going and our conversations around um housing in that area and so I would love to have um some feedback from my colleagues on whether or not it would be possible to kind of delay this um a cycle and try and just just allow me some time to do some due diligence I I would greatly appreciate that opportunity thank you council member other comments colleagues questions for Ms. Latham the applicant or for staff hi this is mrs. Latham can I just um add one more thing of course um and I I understand that it's hard to view that pdf the the way the the site plan lays out is there's about half of the units access leisville road directly and the other half access farm pond trail which is um a main drive in andrew's chapel that then goes out to um andrew's chapel road uh so to um council member freeman's point we've we've looked at that and kind of managed the access until leisville road you've managed the access because some of the traffic you're saying is going to be going out uh through andrew's chapel that's that's correct yes thank you oh you need a free lawn i'm sorry oh yeah um my question was just building on council member freeman's question about uh delaying a cycle um and this question is for the uh folks here on behalf of the project are there any you know serious obstacles to being able to put this project in in motion that would be you know undermined i'm wording the pet question poorly but i'm saying would it be a big monkey wrench in your plan if we were to delay things by a week or two hey can can you all hear me we can yes we can now okay sorry um so uh i would turn that question to my to my client we haven't had an opportunity to speak about that so i i can't answer that right away but erica is on line not to put her in the spotlight there but um i think that question would be better directed to her i also just wanted to make sure to clarify that uh there are 20 acres that are being preserved here uh the point i was making about the nine acres is that oftentimes in conservation subdivisions um all of the acreage being preserved ends up being part of a riparian buffer or floodplain uh in this community that's actually not the case there are nine acres that are being preserved which are totally developable um except for i guess the density allowed in the zoning and the and that was the point i was making earlier we could rezone but in order to get those extra units on that nine acres it would require one or two stream crossings which just did not seem uh worth it in any sense too too many environmental impacts for 10 or 12 extra homes yeah i appreciated that hearing that by the way mr americ can you hear me this is bob zomal yes mr zomal welcome thank you good evening everyone i i just wanted to mention um farm uh farm pond trail is a collector street and um of our 80 lots i think it's 53 of them are going to be entering on to leesville road not all 80 just 53 and we are widening leesville road to a three lane section and providing a turn lane into the site so i know that's hard to read on the pds but um we are widening the road to provide a turn line into the site so thank you thank you very much mr zomal all right colleagues any other questions uh or comments for uh madam mayor pro tem thank you mr mayor i think that some of this will be cleared up by what we hear from the applicant regarding a delay but i am in general you know concerned about proposals for this area because of because we haven't really had a conversation yet with our planning department and as a council about what the overall plan is for this region regarding the lift station realistically though i also think this proposal because of its location in the environmental features is unlikely to support anything other than residential so that when we're when we're looking at the broader area with like where could the commercial go where could the office go i doubt that this corner is going to be an area in which anything other than residential actually works but um a delay beyond the presentation at the work session around the larger vision for the serals area would be consistent with my general feeling that i you know i'm less comfortable moving forward with plans for this area until we've had that conversation so if the applicant is amenable to a delay i would be i would be happy for that thank you madam mayor pro tem i will give the applicant a minute to figure that out thanks if you can hold on one minute sure now why don't you all just take a minute to discuss this and you can i have this vision of you all texting and stuff sure yeah just a minute i know these things take a while in the covet age take your time mr mayor we need a dj for moments like these that's why we appointed you i think this is a time for black space um maybe a cypher or something like that could be arranged for these moments and down you can play music through the zoom true as long as we have our copyrights on it licensing i love it double point yes pay artists mayor shul yes sir mr gush so i just wanted to confirm uh would we be delayed to the october 5 deadline if so that would be uh agreeable yes we would we would hold the public hearing open until october the fifth and we'll consult with the attorney about that but that's the plan that would be the plan mr mayor yes council member i think i don't remember we continued the leesville assemblage road from uh september i guess tent which is i think almost next door to this or very close to this project and i i don't remember the date that we that staff gave us from that time i'm just bringing it up because i know there's been two other cases that were continued i see miss yon miss yon help us out yes a good evening mayor members of council um council member caballero to answer your question the leesville road assemblage case was moved was continued to the next meeting october 5 there was an additional case that was moved to the first meeting in november as well but i just wanted to i know we're trying to be conscientious of y'all's time and the public's time we already have three additional cases beyond that for the next meeting so i just wanted to be very transparent about that and respectful of y'all's time miss yon thank you for being respectful of our time i'm not sure how respectful we are of our own time but um that's your problem um colleagues uh you have heard the request from the applicant that we delay there that they would accept a delay until the october 5 council meeting uh can i see some thumbs on that please i'm seeing some thumbs most of the thumbs i think maybe all of the thumbs okay i'm going to now hold this public hearing open until october the fifth madam attorney is that good that sounds good mr mayor yes thank you i want to thank the applicant for your flexibility and we look forward to taking this up again on october the fifth thank you very much have a great night thank you colleagues i do want to say we you all know that our we we were as you remember we didn't do a whole lot of we didn't hear much for a long time we didn't have public hearings for quite a while our staff is now really working hard to plan for us as you heard from as young about our public hearing schedule we are now throwing like giant wrenches into our public hearing schedule i do want to just so so when we have these long meetings with lots of public hearings i do want to remember who it is that's doing that okay so let's just i'll keep that in mind all right uh we'll now move on to our next public hearing item this item is item 19 unified development ordinance text amendment development agreement and we will first hear the report from staff thank you very much uh michael stock with the plan department and also presenting is dono tool with the city attorney's office i am going to leave my video off because it tends to save the bandwidth and you're able to hear me more clearly and less scattered wise if that's okay tc uh two zero zero three as a city initiated text amendment for establishing rules and procedures for statutory development agreements as with any text amendment proposal council we first asked to vote an applicable consistency statement found in attachment b and then the ordinance itself um there's going to be two parts and we're going to try to be as concise as possible due to late hour um for our staff report and the second part to start with that oddly enough will be just a presentation um that don and i will go through on this text amendment and and statutory development agreements and there is um the first part is an issue that was raised uh through a council member through an email that was sent to us earlier today the issue uh the concern that was raised was that there was a proposed text amendment i think don is pulling up the draft ordinance now um did not address or adequately addressed uh whether the planning commission had the ability to continue a development agreement hearing for three cycles as is allowed for uh zoning cases uh staff did review the proposed text and although it determined that the existing text would allow for such continuance uh we have proposed a minor revision to make it more explicit and if don scrolls down um you will see it highlighted uh we are now referencing in in in accordance with uh item c a public hearing by the planning commission in accordance with paragraph three five nine action by planning commission uh shall be required for any development agreement application that proposes modification to standards of this ordinance or is associated with the zoning map change the highlighted yellow part is the new part and that specifically references uh not only the notification requirements for uh the zoning public hearing but also uh the allowance of a uh three cycle continuance or maximum three cycle continuance and if plan commission does not act after that then they then the case moves forward without a recommendation um that that's what we just want to bring your attention and this is the this is the ordinance that we would ask for you to uh uh take action on tonight is attachment c noted revised nine twenty one twenty uh for this date and again as highlighted um that the specific highlighted phrase is in accordance with paragraph three five nine action by the planning commission that's the only change that was proposed um now on to the power point presentation and we'll try to be as brief as possible through this and again don is going to navigate for me um tc uh two zero zero three is uh for development agreements statutory development agreements are allowed per state statute um we listed the sections there and as recodified in 160 d one thousand one uh and all um the enabling legislation for cities and counties has been reorganized and consolidated into a new chapter called 160 d so that's why we reference that udos prohibit prohibited them until 2015 until text amendment removed that prohibition but there was no additional language that was put in the ud o so why now um there was a zoning proposal that you will ultimately see in at your october 19th meeting so don't add any more cases to that meeting um that was submitted to the city um that proposed for market rate additional or uh density bonus for market rate units using uh for the construction affordable housing units or land um that proposal didn't fit within the ud o affordable housing bonus provisions and thus planning and consultation with the city attorney's office determined that uh the develop a development agreement statutory development agreement was a potential pathway um and basically in short and don's going to go into more details about it it's an allowed regulatory tool for cities and counties to basically enter into contracts uh to obtain community benefits that zoning regulations cannot um and i the quote up there i'm not going to read it but that quote um comes straight from the statute um and ultimately just like any rezoning case um just like the case you had before you just now um it's up to city council or the board of commissioners depending upon the jurisdiction as whether the excise the tool and to whether to approve a development agreement or not it's a legislative decision um it's different from other uh development agreements the term is bandied about um often within city and county government um such as the old police station it's it's this is actually has statutory authority and procedures that go along with it and um there are other cities that use development agreements i haven't listed them all but we're out uh carry uses them chapel hill uses them extensively with u n c wilmington high point um i believe um uh pittsboro um and there are some others maybe i mentioned also in the state that were located uh reference in the staff report i'm sorry um and then now don's going to take over the actual statutory requirements good evening mayor and council this is don o tool from the city attorney's office like mike said just want to run through some of the statutory requirements that the city must go through before approving a development agreement just like any uh rezoning or text amendment um before entering into a development agreement newspaper notice and a public hearing is required in addition the statutes require that prior to that public hearing the development agreement copies of it must be made available to the public and as mike indicated there is if this text amendment is approved there is a development agreement that council will consider at one of its upcoming meetings um planning is making extra efforts to make sure that that development agreement is available to the public and anyone who wants a copy can get one um the other thing that the statute requires is the development agreement much like a rezoning or a u d o text amendment has to be approved through an ordinance adopted by um the governing body whether it's city council or the board of county commissioners um additional statutory requirements um a development agreement can either be standalone zoning for a property in that it could include all of the requirements or the development agreement could just be based on the the base zoning district and then the development agreement either supplement supplements or modifies that base zoning district the development agreement that you would see in a month or so it falls into that latter category it basically just supplements and slightly modifies the underlying zoning district um the statutes list out a bunch of uh different things that can be addressed through development agreements and that list is provided there permitted uses density building type intensity placement design features um what public facilities if any the development would provide to the community it can also include reservations or dedications of land for public purposes um an additional feature is it could also include additional protection if there are environmentally sensitive areas on a piece of property um another requirement of a development agreement is there actually has to be a development schedule that's part of the development agreement the agreement if it's approved and um signed by the parties it then gets recorded in the register of deeds and so it does what's called in legal circles as runs with with the land um you can also address in development agreements whatever public health safety and welfare concerns um may exist relative to that property that's a concern for the community um in addition development agreements um under conditions specified in the development agreement can be amended by mutual agreement of the parties in the development agreement that council will consider in a month only minor modifications to the development agreement are permissible if if a major modification were to be made it would need to go through the development agreement procedure approval procedure all over again and like um mike and i have said before approval of a development agreement um goes through all of the essential processes that are part of the rezoning of a property um planning commission must provide comments on the development agreement and just like any other rezoning that council is familiar with approval of the consistency statement is required so um so upon consultation with the city's attorney's office um it we went to jcc pc with um the three basic factors that we're going to go into the text amendment that you see up on the screen and that was also the same text that went to the planning commission for their consideration and through their public hearing and affirming the statement about doing development agreements that you do requirements if they were to be modified needed to be specified within the development agreement and eliminating a limit additional limiting factor that development agreements couldn't allow uses or housing types that were not otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning district so in the example that we've been talking about um it was the current zoning for that site is rs 20 they're asking for multifamily development they do need to rezone it and you will see the rezoning to a district that allows family rezoning um during the public hearing i'm sorry um during the public hearings there were uh additional like just just second mike hang on say Beverly i think you're unmuted beth i think you're unmuted okay good go ahead mike yeah no problem um so during the public hearings based upon a request from planning commissioners we added uh additional text um to add explicit requirements uh that uh the case does go to the p planning commission if associated with the rezoning or would modify udo standard um that it would follow uh the consistent with the zoning map change process in terms of requiring pre-submitted meeting neighborhood meetings and such um and then also staff added additional limitations they felt we felt were warranted in terms of uh not allowing any modifications to environmental protection standards um that includes tree coverage requirements additional stream buffers um steep slope requirements and and such uh watershed overlay a lot of that is state mandated but also the udo does go beyond state minimums in a lot of uh instances and that would uh that that's um added text there would prevent prevent any of those changes also so for um quick comparison uh city's attorney's office and planning department put together this uh kind of comparison chart here um regarding the proposed text language and whether it exceeds uh statutory requirements um uh only very only very udo requirements through a development agreement approved by apical government body it basically reiterates or makes explicit what the state statute says um cannot vary underlying allowable uses of the zoning district this is more restrictive uh shall not reduce environmental requirement uh more restrictive uh the um requiring a public hearing with uh the planning commission um it makes it more explicit uh to do it um and it does actually seem to exceed state statutory requirements where uh it appears that the statutory requirements only require going to city council um having a pre-submitted meeting and a neighborhood meeting also are not required by state law so that would exceed the requirements there um that's it for our presentation uh uh staff will be happy to answer any questions thank you very much thank you very much mr stock and mr otul we so appreciate all the good work you all have done on this and others that uh have worked on it thank you um uh colleagues you have heard the report from staff and i'm now going to declare this public hearing open i'm going to first ask if there are any questions uh for by members of the council for members of our staff and we do have uh when the time comes we do have three or four people it looks like signed up to speak on this colleagues any questions at this point for members of the staff i'm a council member freeman thank you i just had one question i'm recognizing has this been shared with the county already or are we first in this conversation i'm just making sure i just want to make sure that there are also in line for this same presentation oh sure yes they uh they will hold their hearing next monday on the 28th okay thank you um thank you i have a number of questions but i'm going to hold them until after the speakers but just want to make sure is anyone else has a question for mr stock or mr otul okay then we'll hear from our speakers um i have four names here um thomas merrigan talib graves man's michael rogers and edward llamas uh mr llamas is says he's not speaking um which if he wants to change his mind he can certainly do that i see he's here um and um so and then um yeah that's those are the ones that we have signed up uh mr merrigan is listed as an opponent uh the others are listed as proponents so i'm going to start with the proponents which is our uh custom and begin with talib graves man's mr man's are you with us still madame clerk is mr graves man's with us mr mayor i don't see mr um graves man's i don't either i think he may have left the meeting okay thank you uh we do have a call i'm sorry we do have a call in user and um they're available to speak and they have a hand raised okay uh could the call in user please identify them spells uh yes hello mayor shul this is ellen plus and i am speaking as an opponent this evening thank you miss plus miss plus we're going to begin with the proponents and then we will get you in of course thank you thank you so much um michael rogers mr rogers is here uh and madame clerk if you could make mr rogers available to speak yes mr rogers welcome and you have three minutes well thank you make mr mayor members of council and congratulations and thank you to mr bonfield as well um michael rogers from dh ic and here tonight just to offer my support for this measure i think it offers another important tool in the toolbox to put affordable housing on the ground and can offer some opportunities that might not otherwise be available to get affordable housing integrated into other development plans so for those reasons i think this could be a useful tool and i know myself and dh ic would look forward to be availability to use this to get more affordable housing developed as part of our thank you thank you mr rogers and while you're here mr rogers i am really enjoying seeing the construction going as well as it is uh on willard street and um so thank you all for that very exciting to see it see all that brick and mortar there thank you and uh we we really look forward to giving you a closer look i'm excited i want to cut a real ribbon not a virtual ribbon okay sounds good to me okay um thank you mr rogers we'll now hear from mr mr llamas would you like to speak uh you wrote down here you don't want to speak uh if you would like to speak please go ahead and just raise your hand okay um i will now ask um so uh let's see okay so deon nelson his sign-up speaks a proponent ron stort his sign-up speaks a proponent and uh and mayor pro tem is very funny okay um check her out in the chat um so uh we will uh we will begin we will continue with our proponents and we'll we'll not go now to miss deon nelson um if you could please make deon nelson available to speak madam clerk i believe i am open is that correct yes you are thank you welcome and you have three minutes thank you good evening i'm deon nelson i am president and ceo of laurel street residential we are a north carolina based mixed income housing developer uh it is our desire to do more affordable housing development with you in Durham and accordingly i'd like to express my support for this item it is our belief that development agreements will provide an additional mechanism to document the commitment in often cases of market rate developers to support affordable housing we have seen this tool used in a number of different other jurisdictions um where we have been able to collaborate with other developers to bring affordable housing in a into a larger scale often uh master plan community and we believe the tool can be used um in a like manner in Durham lastly i would say that this additional flexibility we believe could also be leveraged to support what is often complex affordable housing development processes so i'd like to use the expression we are often trying to thread a needle and really trying to work with multiple sources of financing multiple time deadlines multiple um complications that make affordable housing development sometimes difficult um i think that is probably one of the reasons you've you've seen your you've not seen your density bonus for affordable housing used because the realities of the work we do sometimes don't line up with the technicalities of the way we have written our rules and so this tool gives you the flexibility to decide when it's appropriate to make a different choice and hopefully that will allow us to serve you in the community of Durham um more frequently thank you thank you miss nelson and we're so so we're thrilled to have laurle street working so much in Durham now we're really glad you're here thank you thank you sir and now we hear from mr ron stort could you make mr stort available to be heard please madam clerk good evening can you hear me yes uh you have three minutes mr stort welcome great thank you mr mayor um again my name is uh ronald steward i am senior vice president of lull street uh again thanks for having us uh to kind of reiterate uh several points that dion made previously we believe uh i want to speak in uh in favor uh of this text amendment uh and i want to make kind of i guess uh four key points so one from a planning perspective i believe that development agreements have been instrumental instrumental in allowing creative land use because the agreements can facilitate projects that would not have been allowed under otherwise applicable zoning regulations uh additionally i believe that development agreements provided an alternate alternative when literal compliance with the zoning ordinance prevents uh the desired outcome it was stated earlier that the density bonus that's currently in place has not been utilized to date by entering into development agreements communities can avoid the uncertainties around land use since the components and the requirements uh embedded in these development agreements are agreed to in advance uh with planning staff and uh city council members and then lastly i would like to say that the fact that a development agreement is recorded provides a convenient mechanism for binding future owners to the requirements and the obligations that's been created by the agreement so again uh you know lull street is very proud to be working into them and we think this is a very valuable tool that aids in our ability to provide much needed affordable housing thank you thank you so much mr steward all right um i see miss plus and i also see um katie rose levin as a speaker miss levin are you a proponent or an opponent could you let us know in the chat i asked because we have to be careful about time give everybody the time they need opponent okay thank you okay all right um i'm going to um first uh go to miss plus and madam clerk uh if you could please make miss plus available to be heard uh miss plus uh the opponents have up to nine minutes and so i see two speakers who are opponents so you could have up to you know a little over four minutes if you need it can you hear this less uh yes hi i wasn't sure if i was unmuted i'm so sorry yes hello good evening thank you for the opportunity to address council tonight um on this um i am opposed to tc two quintuple zero three as it is currently written and ask that you please vote against this item um i am concerned with the language that was proposed to members of derms planning commission on august 11th i see that there's been a very recent um change in the pending text language according to mr stock's presentation um however i'm currently looking at the udo uh 3.5.9 section 3 which reads except in the case of expedited hearings pursuant to paragraph 3.5.9 c excuse me expedited hearing the commission shall make its recommendation within three consecutive regular commission cycles approximately 90 days total of its initial public hearing um and i guess my problem is that uh one of the reasons the commission specifically it was actually commissioner baker specifically asked for that language was because of course the commission has been placed in a very awkward position uh on the zoning case that is going to be following this amendment that is then in case b 19 triple zero 36 fairington road which i believe laurel street is a party to and um so if i understood the meaning of commissioner baker's inquiry correctly he was trying to make sure that in no way could the planning commission's ability to continue an item or form a subcommittee be negatively impacted in future issues involving statutory development agreement um the way that the article that mr stock just referred to is written still continues to contain the ability to seek an expedited hearing i feel that an expedited hearing is not in the public interest with regard to a statutory development agreement because of the unique and complex durable and long lasting implications of this specific type of zoning tool this is not the same as the development plan this is a very different animal that locks in specified custom tailored zoning for a prolonged period of time it's almost like purchasing a form of zoning insurance um and because of that uh it is unlike anything that is available to normal citizens under the u d o and so it does create a separate and unequal method for performing development in Durham going forward if this is approved um as a long time during Durham resident i have a problem with that the fact that we've all lived under the u d o together for a long time has actually served Durham well and i think creating a separate and unequal way of performing development is not in Durham's best interest um let me see i have a couple of notes here as well uh let's see yeah i i think it is a problem uh to have our city in a position where it could be placed in a conflicted position of essentially selling zoning insurance for trade while simultaneously being tasked with writing and enforcing the u d o and developing the new comprehensive plan it's kind of like we're offering insurance against those policies while we're developing those policies and i'm i'm just not comfortable with that um Durham does support affordable housing initiatives absolutely um and we've heard calls from your other speakers using this device for the purpose of seeking affordable housing but there's nothing written into this text amendment despite multiple statements uh by not only members of the community but also by your planning submission are many people have asked you know why isn't this just being reserved for affordable housing we still do not have any specific definition as to what other uses this could be used for the lack of scope the lack of specificity of scope is a problem um your public doesn't know how you intend to use this going forward beyond the one case where it is being used for affordable housing and there's been no offer to rein it in so i would really appreciate for you all if you could to please narrow that down for your public and tell us exactly how these powers are going to be used beyond affordable housing in Durham um i'm sorry for my lack of not my lack of organization here beyond that i would just ask that you please understand the expertise uh that was put forward by your planning commissioners they are experts and expert opinion is not misinformation commissioners Baker Busby Morgan Miller Santiago Alturk Johnson Williams Landfried and amondolia all voted against this they determined that it was neither responsible nor in the public interest and that it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan please council join them and vote against this inappropriate and underformed text amendment or try to restrict it solely for the purposes of seeking affordable housing and capturing that thank you very much thank you miss plus and i would say your remarks are never disorganized you always present um highly organized and uh and uh important argument so thank you for being here uh we'll now hear from katie rose levin and madam clerk if you could make miss levin available to speak uh miss levin welcome and you also have a little more than four minutes thank you very much i appreciate it i'm actually sort of an opponent and also a proponent at the same time um in the same way i am proponent for led lights but an opponent in the way that they were implemented so development agreements are a very powerful tool that could do really good things for Durham and the fairington road uh zoning is a great example of it however they've been rushed through fairly quickly and the expert people you've nominated onto the planning commission but anonymously uh sorry not anonymously unanimously against them because they did not contain the type of public outreach and the type of guardrails that Durham needs to ensure an equitable process one of the things that the planning commission and you all are hearing on a regular basis is that some of our less well connected less well resource neighborhoods really have a hard time getting their voices heard during development um development agreements and the way it's written hasn't addressed this at all in fact it aggravates it a bit because uh the development agreements can be worked out completely with the planning department and to a pretty finished form prior to public notification the other thing is as we're doing a comprehensive plan and these development agreements move forward they would supersede what the public is saying that they want in the comprehensive plan earlier jillian uh i'm sorry commissioner johnson was referring to the idea that we're not quite sure what we're doing in one area of the city well if there's a development agreement worked out there it wouldn't matter what you want to do because it's already there um so the reason why i'm an opponent is because the way it's written excludes public input doesn't list and um does not incorporate the expert advice from planning commission for limiting of scope or addressing the very real problem of our particularly communities of color not having authentic buy-in to the process but the reason i'm a proponent is if this is delayed and sent back to the planning department to put in those guardrails we really could use it as a very effective tool not only for affordable housing and environmental amenities but to create a vision for Durham where we hold developers accountable so i would uh i would request that taking lessons from everything we've heard of tonight with the led lights of a good idea but needs to be more thought out and questioned in the execution and some of the rezoning requests very pro trees Durham very pro conservation subdivision make sure it's appropriate here in the same way development agreements can be a really powerful tool as long as it's made more appropriate for Durham based on the expert advice of your citizen advisory boards and also the people who've written in who honestly are pretty confused because the process itself of putting together a development agreement has been pretty confusing and that doesn't bode really well for the plans that would come out from using the development agreements so i know that that is a little more nuanced than just opponent or proponent but my final request is to send it back to planning to put in those guardrails at the planning commission requested and then do vote it forward so we can have this really effective tool that is both engaging of all of our communities and promotes environmental sustainability and equitable development thank you you thank you very much thank you very much miss levin all right is there anyone else here who would like to be heard on this issue okay i don't see anyone else all right colleagues is are there questions at this point for members of the staff council member reese thank you mr mayor we heard from a couple of opponents about the planning commission vote on this item i just want to clarify the report that we have uh from the attachment d in our agenda item agenda materials it's number five um indicates the vote was four to ten so four planning commissioners um voted uh would have recommended approving the ordinance and i believe commissioner baker was one of those four staff could confirm that for me that would be great i miss plus mentioned uh that commissioner baker voted against the ordinance and his levin indicated that the vote was unanimous against the ordinance i just want to make sure that we have that the staff report is correct uh so if someone would let me know that that'd be great it was a vote four to ten and uh do you not do i think that cal's member reese is also asking if you know who the four were i would have to look that back up i don't know off hand okay thanks all right uh i have some questions um um a couple of planning commissioners have written that elected officials will help form the development agreements and then vote on them what will the role of elected officials be in this process mr stock the role of elected officials would be the same as roles that they play in any of the zoning or text amendments uh role of elected officials would be to hold their legislative hearing and also be able to ask questions of staff as they see fit prior to the hearings and then vote vote on it accordingly just as with any zoning or text amendment it would again it would be legislative and it would be up to council or board of commissioners if it was their jurisdiction to vote it up or down so council members would not be participating in any negotiations prior to the uh you know negotiated development agreement prior to it coming to us that sort of thing that i believe they could if they so chose um again the processor we're implementing would be exactly the same as um the zoning cases uh that go before you if if there is a change in the proposed change in the udo standards or it's associated with the rezoning they would have an opportunity to discuss their issues with the applicants and make staff aware of the concerns that they have prior to any public hearing which is the process now correct but uh let me just say this um when i'm trying to get at us staff in in having that discussion with the developer would not be bringing elected officials in not at the current process in terms of the early proposals um if they if um council so choose we could work that into the process no i don't i don't think we so choose okay no mr. mayor i would like to have talked to council staff about that i that's the first i've heard of even that being a suggestion yeah the reason it's a suggestion is it's been suggested by the planning commission that we would be doing that i mean i i'm just saying clearly we would not be doing that we have no desire to be in on that and and uh uh you know that's not our role um i i agree that you know mr. stock that that we we all of us meet with developers and we meet with neighborhoods and we meet with all kinds of people around these developments development plans that we get now i would anticipate as you said that we might do that same thing but we're not going to be asking to any negotiations between staff and and uh and developers uh and i just want to say i think that's appropriate and and i and that was a major concern that i saw expressed at least by one of the planning commissions i just they'll really feel the need to put that to rest um how is the public input process proposal for development agreements different from what exists now for development plans and how will public notification to neighbors be the same or different any differences as proposed as proposed no differences um we actually with in reference to the the case that will be coming before you in october once it was uh understood that in order that that the development agreement process was was the the best process to use for this particular proposal we had asked the developer to go ahead and do a neighborhood meeting even though they already had the rezoning in and they went ahead and did that but the same notification has gone out to to all property owners using the same notification that was used for zonings and going forward the notification process would be the same the public meeting requirement would be the same as with development plans is that is that right correct how will the role of planning commission vary with development agreements from what happens with development plans um as proposed it wouldn't be any different um again um if there is any if the development agreement touches any modification of the udo or is associated with rezoning then it will go through the planning commission uh public hearing process prior to going to any elected body and and and the the concern that miss plus raised about expedited hearings um would there be any difference but in expedited hearing or procedures with development plans and development agreements not that i'm aware of uh those are completely uh at the that they are only a request made to a governing body and there's specific uh criteria to even granting uh for the governing body to even consider uh granting an expedited hearing and is and um it's the governing body's choice whether to uh require the planning commission uh to not continue the case beyond its its first uh hearing date it also does not require the governing body to um make a decision at its first public hearing case the governing body can so choose just because it's an expedited hearing uh they can so choose to continue it as long as they felt necessary so the for an expedited hearing the council would have to again approve it as we did with the current with the recent case is that correct and you also did that i believe with the police station rezoning site too the um how is the way staff will relate to developers different or the same from what happens now with development um i don't see it any different um beyond the fact that there's a lot more um and maybe don can go into it a little bit more um a lot more legal work involved um because it is a contract a binding contract uh with a with an entity to start off with but does run with the land zoning runs with the land too um we shouldn't make any uh uh questions about that um and both can be changed through a legislative process um but i don't know if don wants to talk a little bit more about the city attorney's role in development agreements over their experience with development plans sure uh may or should to answer your question and again don a tool from the city attorney's office there is no doubt that a development agreement is more complicated to put together than development plan text commitments or graphical commitments the development agreement associated with the fairington road affordable housing project that's a 40 page contract um and i i don't i don't drive policy for the city but i i don't really see development agreements being used that frequently because it is sort of a complicated thing to put together um in this particular case we used we we propose using a development agreement because it's the logical best legal tool to effectuate this project and um it was community development's opinion planning's opinion i i worked with those departments we worked in consultation with the manager's office um we believe that this project because of the affordable housing that was being offered that it fit within the policy that has been expressed by council and that's why that extra effort of putting together the development agreement um that's why we went through that effort with respect to this project thank you mr otul um and you've already answered my next question uh regarding um development agreements will not be able to weaken existing environmental rules that means among other things not being able to weaken tree planting regulations and so forth is that correct mr stop that's correct the language before you would prevent that from happening can you wonder some other um there there's been concern expressed about that uh they're more um that this agreement allows different kinds of things to happen as part of a development agreement beyond affordable housing that the other things could be um part of the development agreements uh could you talk about that mr stock and what your thoughts are about that i i think it it's it's going to be hard to pinpoint it um the best way i could answer that is that there's going to be a range of community benefits that uh governing body council or even board of commissioners is going to uh make a parent um and that a development agreement may be able to add not just affordable housing but maybe workforce development maybe there's uh some uh uh benefits on both sides of the city and when whoever part entity they're going into agreement with that that can create some uh benefits that aren't can't be realized through rezoning um through those um there's also other jurisdictions have done capital improvement projects um and how they are uh built and proposed and paid for through development agreements um so there's a wide range of things um that could be done through a development agreement affordable housing we've seen as one of them and seen as a a viable tool for that and i assume the planning commission would then take its guidance from the council as you have with this priority that is uh i assume that that the planning department would be working with council's priorities in terms of any any uh anything that was anything they were negotiating with developer in terms of in terms of the development agreement is that true yeah absolutely um and we would be working it wouldn't just be the planning department we would be working with other partner departments too as we had with the current one community development city attorney's office and consultation with the manager's office so these could have other community benefits could a community benefit be a park possibly sure yes um could a community benefit be you mentioned uh some sort of workforce development um and and when you say capital projects in in other cities um um did you have anything particular in mind mr stock um i know the one i referenced in the staff report was carries and they were uh theirs was their development agreement was also part of rezoning um and theirs was a focus on capital improvements the schedule for when they were going to be done who is going to pay for them that that kind of that kind of thing there was a number of other items in their development agreement too but that was one of the things that they focused on but what kind of capital improvements were uh infrastructure uh i see the connection that kind of stuff i see thank you and so that was okay i understand okay um i believe those are my questions any other questions colleagues council member freeman thank you i really appreciate um the speed at which uh our staff has been working to try and incorporate some of the feedback from the community and from our planning commissioners and i had a question regarding who can initiate these developer agreements just like a rezone not just like a rezoning but most likely with most rezonings uh any entity or person so the community would be able to request a developer agreement and say walltown with the neighboring apartment complex being or being proposed um i think at at a basic level yes i think it gets more complicated because it is a contract where there needs to be a legal advice on all sides of the contract and just noting so i hear the the conversation around why you wouldn't restrict it to affordable housing acknowledging that there's a workforce aspect and there's a you know open space aspects is there any reason why a time limit hasn't been considered for this land use developer agreement the time limits are built into the development agreement itself there's an actual schedule that's built in and that's required by state statute can you say more about that time limit well it depends upon the development agreement um but the one that's going to be coming forward before you um in october uh sets the provision of construction guarantees for the affordable housing units to jen uh june of 2024 um and in which case if that is not actualized then the city can um and done correctly if i'm wrong um the city can exercise this option to purchase the land for ten dollars uh you said there's a city option built into this agreement the one that's going to come forward for you in october yes yes part of the development agreement yes and then just acknowledging uh there are many instances where developers kind of call meetings with council members that could be seen as um non-transparent and acknowledging that they're involved in a development conversation with planning staff and that might be what communities talk about when they say that maybe councils the point that they should direct to um to have public engagement because this does not provide them a public engagement access point until the prop to the agreement is fully put together and so um i just want to note that and then there's also just that comment um that miss plus made about it being separate and unequal that strikes me as appalling um acknowledging that the udo was set up and these piecemeal approach to adjusting it with text commitments has always caused me a little bit of angst and i acknowledge that this um these this developer agreement tool is the the only tool or the tool that we're talking about right now but there needs to be a lot more handles or rails as um miss uh rosen levin gave me some language around uh that would be helpful that could actually like spur on shared economic prosperity so to speak and so acknowledging that that is not included in this developer agreement conversation um it concerns me that we've turned the word affordable housing into a keyword that is thrown out by developers and folks uh think that that's enough so just acknowledging that this this issue around affordable housing is not just about the house it's actually about the affordability and for communities like walltown or um bragged town and many others that are experiencing a huge increase of developer presence and developer um attention they're not sure what their um kind of access points are in these conversations and it would be great if that could be spelled out a little bit more clearly so that people in the community can feel like they're a part of the conversation at at and what points they should be offering input to make sure that we're all on the same page because uh as you mentioned the legal ability of folks in the community to to address a 40 page contract might be cumbersome and so if we're not creating a level playing field it feels like this becomes another tool for developers and not so much for community and I just want to make sure that's um clarified I would also add that they there was a so the expedited hearing aspect I'm I'm trying to to kind of wreck to kind of part or piece it together or parse it together parse it out because I acknowledge that the developer agreement aspect was removed or the language was changed to remove it and so it appeared like it was like it was prohibited and so we're trying to rectify that issue but I feel like we're going to create an unintended consequence of locking some folks out of the conversations that they're currently in and I want to give them some assurances like we're giving developers assurances that there will be ways for them to to give input and um other than that I think that was all I had so far but thank you thank you council member council member freeline thank you mr mayor um wow it's late um I just had a couple questions uh so am I correct in hearing that there's something is going to come before us in October that this development agreement was thrown together to allow and that there's this kind of specific project we have in mind that this would be that we're implementing this for is that correct mr on tool council member freeline so the there are currently development agreement statutes under north carolina law and there is a proposal that is going to come to council at its october 19th meeting that's the farrington road affordable housing project so that that does include a developer agreement that agreement could come to council before council without this proposed text change but I hope it wasn't lost on council one of the slides that Mike presented was that the development agreement text change that's before council tonight that actually imposes additional restrictions on development agreements here in Durham so development agreements are legal in the state of north carolina durham could enter into a development agreement without this text change the proposed text change before council tonight includes additional guardrails addition uh environmental regulations cannot be lowered um it's got to go before the planning commission and adhere to the planning commission procedures um that's what this text commitment does it includes additional restrictions on how durham uses development agreements and and these restrictions wouldn't only pertain to the october uh farrington project but it would just be that's correct these text changes will be incorporated into the udo and any other future development agreement would need to follow the procedures in the proposed text language and would be subject to these limitations okay uh okay yeah that was my question thank you thank you councilmember that's one of the dangers of being appointed as things happen before you got here and so I understand there's a learning curve councilmember middleton thank you mr marron i want to thank the staff for the work they've done on this issue um you know I can pick up a knife and use it as a murderer i can use it with the precision of a surgeon that's the nature of tools um there isn't a tool that's been invented that cannot be or not not be abused um any tool in the government arsenal uh is subject to abuse or or brilliant employment for the good of people just run down a list you can do it alphabetically and and we can come up with an abuse or a good employment of it there's nothing uh at least in my assessment that's been inherently moral or beyond corruption particularly in the hands of a government um and and elections have consequences one of the things we've been most frustrated about in Durham is having our values frustrated by federal structure and state structure we we even invented a phrase to Durham work around how can we get around things that block us from demonstrating and concretizing our values gun laws keep us from acting um we can't force developers to do affordable housing because the state won't let us this is a tool that already exists in state statute this is one of those things where Durham could take it in Durham's way and actually use it to do some of the things that we've been frustrated in doing in other areas this is one of those moments where there's there's there's a crack of light if you would in that dark facade that that the state legislature oftentimes puts up in front of us um so so with that said you know one of my heroes is is is Maynard Jackson former mayor of Atlanta uh who's in league with the current mayor that I'm on with tonight uh one of my heroes is Maynard Jackson um who one of the reasons why Atlanta was able to build this incredible uh black not only middle class but wealthy class is because there uh mayor Jackson could use um they didn't call them development agreements but they were de facto the same type of things to to secure uh uh contracts uh and benefits and set asides for the black community uh in Durham that airport that bears his name is one of the examples of being able to leverage government power uh for the good um the when I was uh my days with Durham can our sister organization in Baltimore um when Under Armour was looking to build uh their campus uh in Baltimore uh they were able to to our sister organization in Baltimore was able in working with the city to secure I've it was a ridiculous amount of money uh millions and millions and millions of dollars in in community development and other things uh in order to allow Under Armour to build that water facility that that water facility uh in Baltimore so this tool um is something that I think we can do a lot of good with um beyond affordable housing I mean there are a there are a number of things we can do and and if you Durham elect uh uh elected officials who you trust with power and access and influence if you elect people who are going to be cutting deals with uh developers and and using that access to kind of short circuit our values and shame on us uh elections have consequences so so I'm not going to pretend that any tool we have could not be abused but but this is one of those tools where alas we have an opportunity to because listen the the truth of the matter is our affordable housing density bonus it don't work nobody uses it uh it has not worked and it's been on the books for a minute um here we have uh an opportunity a tool that we can use a la Jackson made our Jackson to to to forward our values uh and I take very seriously every concern every critique every criticism that the opponent's raised tonight it's the kind of stuff that that I entered politics to fight against um but I do want to point out that that that July 21st 2020 meeting where that vote was taken some other things have been added and I heard the term guardrails used and there are some language that speaks specifically to those guardrails um and finally with respect to to council members getting involved in negotiations and I want to associate myself with the mayor's admonition that we shouldn't be doing that here's how we do insert ourselves in negotiation the staff listens to us it's our job as elected to to clearly articulate the vision and values of the city and our staff is the number one group of people in the country that it's certified they're award-winning uh in taking the values of the elected uh representatives of the people of this city and integrating them and concretizing them in their negotiation and what they bring back to us our staff knows the heart if you will of this council and the values of this city and time and time again they have been trusted to go and do their due diligence and bring us back proposals and recommendations that align with our values sometimes we adopt them wholesale sometimes we have to tell them to go back and work on it so we you know if this thing runs the way it's supposed to run we don't really need to insert ourselves into the nuts and bolts of negotiation because we've already clearly articulated through our comprehensive plan to our strategic uh vision um um uh through our values to our value statements what it is we expect uh as a council and what we'll ultimately vote for the staff is not interested in wasting their time and bringing us back something that they know is totally contrary to what we've articulated uh police headquarters is one of the examples the the the 505 West Chapel Hill Street one of those examples so I with that said I hear every critique I am satisfied that the staff has has done their due diligence and crossed the threshold where we can finally take something uh a tool that the state makes available to us and operationalize an a la Durham uh uh according to our values and and have people in place that will insulate us from abuse of this tool surgeon or serial killer tools neutral it's who's employing it and who picks it up uh that makes the difference um so with that I'm prepared uh to adopt this text amendment thank you Mr. Mayor thank you colleagues thank you staff and thank you to the residents and citizens who came out tonight and are holding us accountable and keeping us focused on who we need to be thank you Mr. Mayor thank you councilmember Middleton colleagues I'm going to close this public hearing and um now uh and we I'd like to hear from other colleagues but I think I'll go ahead and make my remarks because I'm tired and if I go another five minutes I probably won't remember my remarks um I just want to say everything that councilmember Middleton said uh is absolutely spot on absolutely spot on um and I am you know when I think about the the the critical the number one priority in our community is affordable housing the concerns that ever so much is associated with that and you know our our recent community survey again shows that this is as councilmember Middleton said a tool that we have never been able to use and now will be able to assertively use our staff to try to help us get some more affordable housing and you saw you heard two and we've already heard from CASA through email and then we heard from DHIC and Laurel Street tonight those are our preeminent affordable housing developers who say this will be a useful tool for them what we get now is the problem what we get now is development plans where we have no ability to get any community benefits and here we are with a real opportunity now and and and mark Anthony said this to be able for our staff to be able to interpret the the priorities of the council and and Mike Stock said this as well to work with developers to try to negotiate for some of these important community benefits that we have been wanting and not been able to get this is important this is a an important positive change this has the same protections in it as the as our development plans do and in terms of special treatment my sense of where the special treatment will be special treatment there won't be special treatment what there will be is the developer that comes in and says I want to include affordable housing in my development which we have been trying to get someone to do we'll get the attention of the staff and as Mr. O'Toole said it takes you know it takes time and energy to work these things out it's not special treatment that's the treatment anybody ought to get who's doing something good and bringing us some community benefits right now we exist in a system of special treatment where the developer comes to us and and there's no way we get any community benefits from them we can ring almost nothing from it that's special treatment worried I'll just be honest with you about what I see is the planning commission's disinterest in housing affordability whether it be through their actions on this or their actions on expanding housing choices and I am really concerned that that is not an important part of their perspective that they don't give it the priority that it deserves and I don't think that's representing our community's values I do think that there's something important that we need to continue to do and we need to really be pushing forward in our planning with our planning department and that is we've got to be doing more small area planning I'm going to continue to bang this drum and we've as young as talked about that with us recently and I think when we talk about the Searle's area we can talk about that more but I do I am concerned as planning commissioners are as Ms. Laban is about community input but I don't think that that is in any way lessened by this by these development agreements I think that in fact our community's values get much more assertively activated in this so I think it's really important and it's it's it's I'm very grateful to our staff for bringing it to us okay other comments council mayor pro tem there we go thank you mr mayor I also wanted to thank our staff for all the work that has been done on this proposal I think that reading through the emails of residents who have concerns about the proposal I feel like our planning staff has been able to respond constructively to the majority of those concerns around this being a tool that could be used to that there would be less public input that it could be a tool that could be used to reduce environmental restrictions all of those pieces I think the the one piece that is just difficult to address broadly because I think it's inherent in any kind of um it it's exist in any sort of zoning conversation that we're already having is the is this idea of um of what what you said mayor shill about developers getting special treatment or council members cutting backroom deals with developers and that there's this sort of untransparent um conversation that's happening in between between council members and developers or between our staff and developers and that that's somehow creating um it's it's kind it's like this sort of a a conspiracy that there's a conspiracy going on to to make these things happen and I just wanted to speak directly to that conversation because I think that it's being deployed at this specific instance when in reality this is just another tool for zoning and if we're if if what we're concerned about is the power that developers have um to to shape the city and that we're concerned that residents don't have that same power that already exists in in what we have in our zoning code um a lot of which is beyond our control and is dictated by um by the state what this tool I think allows us to do is to actually is to actually go beyond some of the restrictions that we face and create agreements that that benefit our city and that illustrate the vision that we have as a community um this gives it doesn't just give developers flexibility it also gives us as a community flexibility to create the kind of developments um that we want and yeah there there's a certain amount of there's a certain amount of distrust that I think is inherent in um just you know the attitude toward government all government all the time and that's you know it's not unreasonable governments have done a lot of bad things we've made a lot of mistakes um but I think in this case we as a council have made our intentions extremely clear that our goal with regarding like as regards these zoning cases and planning cases um that one of our highest goals is to provide more affordable housing for the community and through this we are we are following that vision and we are applying um we are applying ourselves to that goal there there really isn't any other agenda it's it's this is what we want to use the tool for this is what it's for um I think that there may be other circumstances in which this tool would be useful for things like you know like providing more open space trails parks all these things that we have trouble getting now from developers because of the restrictions that we're under and also in those cases I think it would be very clear to our residents what our priorities are what our vision is and how we're using this tool to um to enact that vision much like any other zoning conversation you know there we do have power in this community we are you know we are elected to um to hold a certain amount of power over over how these decisions get made but that isn't going to change um because of a new tool that's that is um that is just inherent in the system that we have and so what I would invite residents to do is is to you know is to watch what we do and to hold us accountable to our stated values and goals we are saying our priority is to create affordable housing um and we are voted in based on that priority and if we aren't serving those goals and we aren't serving our our stated values and priorities then we should be held accountable for that um but I I believe very much that this is a tool that will allow us to further the vision that we have all expressed of the kind of community that we want to build um and that our voters are perfectly capable of um our residents are perfectly capable of you know expressing when when we fail and holding us accountable for um for making wrong decisions if we if we were to use that tool for you know for for any purpose other than moving our community forward so I I appreciate the opportunity to um to implement something that might actually help us build more affordable housing in our community and greatly appreciate our staff for all the work that they've done um to bring this proposal this is going to change a lot of people's lives and we we need we need more housing for for folks in Durham and it's just it's got to be top priority for all of us thanks thank you councilmember would anyone else like to be heard at this time anyone else councilmember reese thank you mr mayor um are you guys able to hear me okay okay great um I want to I intend to support this ordinance tonight and I just want to call out something that councilmember middleton mentioned about the fact that um we are elected to um achieve good for the people of this city um and this measure adds another tool I think it could be a powerful tool our friends in the affordable housing development community tell us it's a really powerful tool but I think it's another tool we can use to achieve good for the people of this city and it's not just about affordable housing there's lots of other ways it can be used um and we uh many of us most of us maybe all of us uh ran for office uh with the promise that we would get more um out of the things that developers want to do in this city I know I did um now our staff has uh heard us and heard the people of this city and they have come to us with this tool um not only is it a powerful tool for doing good it's also got the same in fact more transparency and engagement uh than is required by law um and is nearly identical in form and content to the existing zoning process that we have now and there's lots of problems with the current zoning process uh I'll be the first to admit that but it's no worse than that um and the final thing I will say is that I've heard a lot of folks we got a good number of emails on this uh unfortunately most of them were the same text cut and pasted and one of the sentences in that um in that email says I think we can build more housing in Durham without casting aside the principles of equity and good government as this amendment would do there's nothing in this ordinance that would do that nothing um and let me just make this pledge today that I'm a member of this city council that's going to vote for this ordinance and this council has the ability to change this ordinance in a month or a year if we see it being used that way um I'm certainly not going to vote to approve um a development agreement that casts aside principles of equity and good government that that proposes or it supposes to tell the people of a community what's good for them instead of engaging with them about what they think they need in order to live lives that are successful uh and and have value um that's not why any of us are here um and so all that is to say that my pledge is to not have this be a situation where we vote for an ordinance and then forget about it um because I don't think that's going to happen we're going to have developers that use it uh especially that our friends in the affordable housing community um and so we're going to see these come through it'll be a great opportunity for us to see if it works um if we think uh after we see some of these that uh the the community engagement is lacking that the developers aren't taking it seriously we have the power to change that we can make it harder um but I'm willing to give it a try because I told the voters of the city that I would do that um and so I intend to vote for the measure again thanks thankful to staff for coming up with this and also thankful to members of the planning commission I don't sometimes I disagree with some of the things that some of those members say but the truth is their involvement and desire to improve this ordinance has given us a better product past tonight so I'm grateful to them and hope we can continue to engage with them um on how uh how we can translate our values into actual good for the people of the city thank you Mr Mayor thank you council member other comments council member freeman and then council member cabillero thank you I I um I just wanted to make sure that I clarified the point I was concerned about the misconception around affordable housing there's a big difference between affordability and affordable housing and I want to be clear that the the focus that I have is not on affordable housing it is about affordability and making that sustainable and just making sure that it's clear that the this I agree um with what council member middleton and mayor pro tem johnson and um council member reese I have already stated and I can imagine that council member cabillero will as well but um I just wanted to just make sure that we're clear that the the guard rails will need to be um aligned as well around shared prosperity because the I think the affordable housing conversation continues to be a drum that is not getting us to affordable housing and I am concerned about the communities that I mentioned because there is an angst about the way in which planning and zoning has been conducted since the inception of planning and zoning um and how it's had impact on communities of color so just noting that this this conversation around affordable housing doesn't get to the crux of what actually is um an angst that people have had around being displaced in communities that are experiencing gentrification and why that's happening so these disinvestments like it has to be a deeper conversation around what um the affordability of housing means because otherwise we're going to continue to get cases where um there's no site plan and we can't see what's happening to develop any anyway I just want to make sure that this is not missed in this conversation because I completely understand why we would support the development agreement tool but I just know that that's not enough and so as a progressive community it's going to be be holding to us as a council to make sure that we're putting the guard rails in place um as we move forward so thank you thank you councilmember councilmember cabillera thank you I plan on supporting um this this evening and I just want to thank staff for all their diligent work the memo is excellent I think that we you know as um Mr. O'Toole said earlier this could have gone without all of these extra uh guard rails that have been put into place we were allowed to do this through state statute and the fact that staff acknowledged that it wasn't to the standard that we need in Durham specifically around environmental concerns community engagement that it needed to be more robust is why we're here tonight and so I just want to think again that we caught this we were able to make something stronger better um we will also be able to update it if needed if if developers for for whatever reason abuse this tool and I am really really excited and what I also heard really loud and clear is that our affordable housing partners are also really really excited and uh that is tremendously important I know that folks in laurels folks like laurel street have done really good things around this in charlotte and in other communities and so I'm excited to see what we can do here in Durham thank you thank you councilmember one councilmember reese thank you mr mayor I I misspoke earlier uh when we were talking about the vote at the planning commission on this particular ordinance uh it was 4 to 10 uh recommending denial but the four were commissioners kenshin durkin low and mackyver I misspoke earlier not apologize thank you councilmember all right colleagues um if there are no other comments um we can proceed to action on this the first motion will be to adopt the appropriate consistency statement so moved second moved by councilmember reese second by councilmember milton madam clerk we please call the roll mayor shul uh mayor pro tem johnson hi councilmember caballero hi councilmember freelon hi councilmember freeman hi councilmember middleton hi vote aye councilmember reese hi thank you I'm sorry madam clerk what was the vote I missed it was it um seven seven to zero seven to zero thank you my mind is wandering at this hour the motion passes seven to zero the second motion will be to adopt an ordinance amending the udo so moved second moved by councilmember reese seconded by councilmember freelon I think councilmember milton sorry we we all look alike oh my god oh that woke me up it's late but it's not that late lord of mercy I agree that you and councilmember reese look it's okay oh dear oh dear yeah council moved by councilmember reese seconded by councilmember middleton that we adopt the ordinance amending the udo madam clerk will you please call the roll mayor shul hi mayor pro tem johnson hi councilmember caballero hi councilmember freelon hi councilmember freeman I so want to vote nay but yay councilmember middleton I vote aye councilmember reese I so want to vote yeah and I'm voting yeah thank you councilman thank you colleagues the the eyes have it in the motion passes seven to zero uh don uh mike and everybody on staff uh who brought this to us thank you very much we appreciate you thank you uh mr manager um I think this is the last minute of your last meeting do you want to well mr mayor I just wanted to say thank you uh all again for a wonderful wonderful evening uh but I want you to know I'm terribly disappointed that you didn't make it midnight because I wanted to add another I wanted to add another full hour to my uh my clock you know we could sit here for 18 minutes no we can't um no we have a work session on Thursday you're more than welcome it is now we're getting closer to my full year thank you all again we'll see you Thursday Tom thank you colleagues I'm gonna turn this yeah thank you I'm going to adjourn this meeting at 1141 p.m thank you colleagues for hanging in there good night great work tonight