Good evening, everyone.

Happy meeting here.

And welcome to Chapel Hill Town Council January 7, 2026.

Work session.

This is our first work session for our new council, and we are very pleased to have you join us.

Our agenda for this evening, we have two items.

First, council will step out to room C for a brief closed session and then return to continue the work session.

We typically hold these after our meetings, but have some unusual logistics for tonight, so we appreciate everyone's patience.

Secondly, we'll be discussing the LUMO omnibus bill that is scheduled for a January 21st vote.

Before we get started, we want to remind our audience that the format of a work session is different than our regular business meetings.

Work sessions provide an opportunity for the council to dive more deeply into specific topics, and these meetings are more conversational and less formal.

Finally, we value public input and do want to hear from you on these topics.com.

It's town of Chapel Hill.org still.

Or I mean Gov.

No, no, it's it's still.org.org.

We will be making public announcements for next month's transition to Chapel Hill and C.gov.

That's coming.

Fancy.

Okay, still.org.

Great.

Um with all that said, are we ready to move on to our first agenda item, which is this first closed session, short closed session.

And Mayor Pro Tem Gary, can I have a motion?

Certainly.

I move that we enter into closed session pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 14318.11A6 and 14318 dot 11A3 for the purpose of discussing the settlement proposal in Valentine's B Town of Chapel Hill 21.

CVS 1314 670.

Second.

Move by uh move by Premier Pro Temberry, seconded by uh Councilmember Noller.

See, look look at me.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous.

We'll head to room C.

Okay, folks.

Uh thanks for bearing with us.

Um this evening, council will be discussing a number of proposed updates to the town's land use management ordinance, often called the LUMO.

Um for members of the public who may not have been following closely.

Um here's some helpful background.

Um tonight's discussion continues work that came before council on November 19th.

Uh the proposals are part of what's known as an omnibus ordinance, which looks at potential changes through 12 different areas in the LUMO.

Many of these changes focused on expanding middle housing options such as duplexes, accessory dwelling units, and cottages in our community.

Um these proposed changes are part of a broader ongoing effort by council and staff to modernize and rewrite the LUMO.

Um this work is guided by a joint housing study conducted with university as well as the town's complete community vision and framework, which council adopted unanimously in 2021.

Um during our November 19th discussion, council took no action and no decisions were made.

Um at the time, the former council expressed strong support for most of the proposed changes, while others appeared to need more discussion or more information.

Um our goal tonight is to provide clear policy direction to staff in preparation for formal council action scheduled for our January 21st council meeting.

Um council members, uh, I want to be mindful and respectful that we have two new members on the board who were not part of our earlier discussions.

Um at the same time, I'd like to make sure we use our time as effectively and efficiently as possible.

So with that in mind, it's my sense that there are several topics where there's already strong agreement and that don't require any additional conversation.

Um we can then focus on our time on the remaining topics.

Uh, does that approach work for everybody?

Okay.

Great.

So as a starting point, my understanding is that the following items, those shown in regular font.

Oh those shown in regular font on the list in front of us do not need further discussion.

I am driving on SuperFed.

Okay.

So the orange is for potential discussion, and the purple is okay.

So special use permits, subdivisions, lot layout standards, infrastructure, manufactured homes, and signs.

Does that align with everyone's thinking?

Any additional changes or does anybody need additional reminders or clarification on what those are?

Thumbs up, thumbs down.

Okay.

That would leave the following items for further discussion.

Which was streamlined in the NCDs.

I actually believe that we did agree on a change to that, but since it's not the staff's original proposal, let's just reaffirm it quickly.

So that one I think is going to be real quick, hopefully, we'll see.

Concept plan review, conditional zoning process, specifically regarding the showing of stormwater structures on the site plan, two family housing options and parking regulations.

Sound good?

Okay.

To help guide through the conversation, I'll be walking us through a series of slides, but obviously Brittany and Taz are here as our experts to answer our questions.

Also, if time is permitting, we can set aside a little bit of time at the end of the meeting for people to just share specific interests, topics or questions you have for the bigger LUMO rewrite.

And we'll have a LUMO rewrite discussion on January 28th.

So this input would be a good start for that conversation.

So with that, let's tackle our first topic.

So for site plan review, under the original proposal, there are two recommended changes.

Removing planning commission site plan review for most development projects, and then streamlined site plan review requirements in North Side and Pinals where the process is required by neighborhood conservation district rules.

My understanding is that the previous council supported treating all concept plan, sorry, the site plan reviews the same way, including the ones in the NCDs.

But given that it's diff that we were doing something different than the staff proposal, I wanted to make sure that that is still to the direction the council would like to go.

Sure, once up.

Please, of course.

Why is staff recommend?

Why did why does staff make their recommendation of why are we going to differ?

Just in the background.

The implicit kind of understanding through most Luma re-wrating process has been that we would not make substantive changes to the NCD rules.

And so the kind of arrangement that we had proposed was an opportunity to adjust the site plan review process as widely as possible while still sticking to that kind of implicit you know agreement.

I think we from a policy perspective of no kind of problems about the council choosing to expand the scope of that.

In this case, addressing the NCU rules and wonder why certainly feels appropriate on any other questions, thoughts?

Okay, so I think that one we're we're maintaining our position from last time.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

For concept plans, um, the original proposal was to remove remove concept plan review.

Um there was a proposed amendment on the 19th, which was to make concept plan review voluntary, um, and that action failed four to four.

So we came up with some options, but there is always going to be a last option, which is others, so it's not meant to preclude other ideas if people want to raise them, but it's just hopefully helpful in terms of giving you things to think about and ways to ask staff questions in a structured way.

So A is to eliminate concept plan review.

Yes, Amy.

Yeah, I'm I would be voluntary.

And I know that some folks are worried that there might be a stigma attached to it.

I think I think odds of that are low.

But I know that I've spoken to people who investing a lot of money in the town in the process putting in an application would really like a chance to test the waters with council first.

So I support being Melissa, can we come here?

Yeah, I'm one of the people who worried about it becoming de facto required.

And Todd tell me if I'm wrong, but if we eliminate having to have it, then it will still the concepts would still come to you all in those early discussions that you have with the developer.

And if they wanted to talk to us, it could be put on the agenda.

So in fact, putting it in the putting it in the um lummo saying this is voluntary, isn't really necessary for it to be voluntary.

Is that true?

Um I can speak with certainty about the first part about um the extent to which they would still talk to staff.

Um the the expectation is absolutely that the applicants would continue the current practice of really meaningfully engaging with staff, um planning department staff, affordable housing, harbor designer, a lot of different disciplines.

Um as far as the the further, um if it's not in LUMO, could an applicant still come before the body of council as a whole.

Um I'd maybe defer to some higher aid rates on that question.

Um they could certainly speak to individual council members independently.

Um I don't think anyone would preclude you then necessarily from coming before council as a whole.

Um it may just raise some interesting questions that um that others may be better quite answered.

Okay, I don't think I'd just add responsive to comment.

Um I think that you know management will be reluctant to put a space on the agenda for um applicants without some reference in our process to a voluntary process.

Um you wouldn't have any standing in comparison to anyone else who just said, oh, I want a spot on the agenda to run my idea by by the council about anything.

So you certainly could come under public comment, but that doesn't really give you a good place to have a discussion because that's not that's a one-way uh conversation usually.

Um I think absent some structure that allows for a concept plan, you you you default back to individual conversations.

That's I mean that that would be my sort of professional opinion about it.

Camille and Elizabeth, I'm sorry, are you done?

Sorry, no, please continue.

Um I mean I've watched I've kind of watched this process from the CDC iliaison and the planning commission and the council now, and um maybe you won't feel comfortable answering this.

Um but sometimes in the in the concept plan review when it goes to all these different places, that you get sort of random ideas.

Um I'm wondering if we've heard from developers the difference between the quality and the and the value of what they hear from council given that it's not official versus what they get from staff during the similar process, and and what value added are we aboard the planning commission?

I will say I think we have heard legitimately mixed results.

Um that they believe that their time in front of council is well spent.

We hear from others that they would much rather spend the time just working with staff.

We also hear from folks that I think this is kind of the tricky quandary for a lot of the things we discuss.

There's people that we're not hearing from, right?

Folks that just generally speaking stay away from Chapel Hill versus the perception of our development review processes.

Um I think that's kind of a third bucket of folks that we we have some interactions with.

Um we're kind of court developers, um, and it's just it's difficult.

It's a difficult kind of view of Chapel Hill to fight against.

But in terms of the the actual kind of the reviews that we're we're all getting, both as council and the staff, um, we're hearing um a lot of different opinions kind of across the board.

Quick follow-up.

I thought we had do we change things now so that it's either the planning commission or the council that sees council plans, not multiple boards anymore.

Correct, yeah.

A really good improvement we made um in the last few years was that it's either board.

Um, followed by Lee.

Thank you.

I was one who was in support of eliminating the concept plan review as recommended by the staff because we are since joining in 21, or really more meaningfully in 22, there was a serious look at streamlining this process and and uh being very clear with our expectations using objectivity as opposed to subjectivity in the um the proposal of reviews, and I want to stay that course when it goes through the concept plan review for us, there's a lot of subjectivity that is thrown in there, and um I want to further empower our staff to act on what we have deemed uh important, what we have deemed the direction that we'd like for this town to go.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks on yeah, um I am in favor of B making concept plan review voluntary.

Um I think it will become abundantly clear if we keep it voluntary and it becomes a de facto necessary, and we can certainly change it then.

I think once we take it away altogether, putting it back, it's probably not ever gonna happen.

Um and I just want to reiterate my comment the last time we discussed this that um we are all being cautioned not to make decisions based on fear about what might happen on a lot of these different issues, and the idea of stripping away concept plan review that our own staff's telling us some of the developers find um a really helpful part of the process because we're afraid it might then become de facto feels counter to that um bane of thought, particularly when there's nothing stopping us from taking away all together later if it becomes again.

I think it'll be abundantly clear if it has turned into a de facto you must do this.

Um so yeah, this one is pretty non-negotiable for me in terms of the entire thing.

Um I just think it I to me makes absolutely no sense to take this away when we're not even requiring it, and things could be as streamlined as anybody desire them to be.

Louie got a two-part is are these documents?

So when developers come and talk to staff, are those public records, are those like public documents that are not or how's that what's the status of those documents?

Yeah, as soon as it hits our emails, it's it's public record.

So but you don't publish minutes of your meetings with developers.

I mean, when you have when you have staff cases with a new developer, I I I've never seen anything.

No, no, no, not at all.

No, no, no, there's no minutes in meetings, but the the actual concept plans and subs developer emails as a sketch of their potential project.

Um that is public record.

Yeah, I I think part of it is I'm less concerned about council and town people seeing it, and I'm more concerned about people in the public seeing these documents.

So I think if there's a way to have like an in-between where this seems like a question of communication, is like if these documents come up and like we have a website where people would easily get access to them, I think that would be a good middle place.

So, like I don't know if that's a possibility to have more because I think there's people in the public who still want to see what's going on.

Do you guys want to I thought it would be a kind?

I apologize.

I think it's a um it's certainly something that we could work on.

Nothing prohibits us from publishing those sorts of documents publicly.

Um, and especially if there's you know very clear expectations from uh from everybody involved that if you send us something like that, um it's it's gonna be public.

Um it's part of I think one of the things when it comes to concept plans and getting rid of them as an official process.

Um I think one of the things that we we want to be very mindful of as staff is that the same interests are still being met, right?

The um developers are still hearing um for the relevant experts.

Um, because you mentioned there's there's this other interests, um, and those are all things that would be uh formalized outside of Lumo.

Um we can have policies that uh that make very clear what those expectations would look like.

Um very rough question, ball part.

If council were to request uh a public facing inventory of such plans with no binding nature to whatever answer you give.

Do you have any sense of how long such a project might take and how many staff members would be needed to work on it?

Um I I don't and I you know I never want to fall apart password stuff, but um I think generally speaking, um we have the the kind of the tools in place to make that sort of information available.

Um so I think it would be a matter of just optimizing what we've already got available to us.

Would it would it be fair to characterize that um request from council as a comparatively light lift among the types of tasks aside, or like a medium or a heavy?

Is that in the grand scheme of all the things that you all ask for, it wouldn't be uh too bad at all.

Thank you.

Okay, everything's relevant down with light praise there, um Amy.

Um so I I have a question.

So the concept plan phase, I know sometimes people are thinking about optioning the property or well, probably they've optioned it.

I just don't know if they might want to keep some of the information confidential.

Yeah, that was my thought as Taz gave away that maybe we do that right.

That would be my concern as we um streamline our new website.

There are things that we are trying to reduce redundancies and reduce pages, and so the idea of creating a new storehouse for that type of document without having some kind of clear parameters around what threshold it is, because we get calls who come in our office all the time with meetings, there are just the ideas, it it isn't necessarily a site plan.

So at what point would we consider something at the point where we would share it publicly?

And and as Andy mentioned, there are some tax sensitivities around the business trying to come into town and things are doing it.

That might not be the route they want to go.

So we'd have to give some thought to a model like that and how that would work if it's just to be a public storehouse for anything that comes into our office.

So there is more of a heavy lift in TASMA alluded to, so we would have to um give it a thoughtfully.

But thank you for the suggestion.

Um I had I guess a different kind of question.

I transparently I wanted to have them be um optional the last time we talked about this, but I guess I'm wondering if there is a way, again, without being really onerous to kind of see what happens between you know now and the end of the loom or you know, whatever, like a little amount of time to see if um like I guess the questions I have would be number one do people feel like it's required even though it's not, you know, that they just feel like well the council's gonna give me a hard time if I don't, you know, whatever.

Like, do we see everybody feeling like they have to do it even though people are saying I'd rather not?

And then I guess the next question would be um could we kind of do a like a little bit of a look to see um are the projects better, or do they get more support from council with concept plan, or is it the same without like I guess looking at outcomes as opposed to process?

Like, I want the projects to be better and I want them to have an easier time.

Like we are the body that approves them.

So people who want to come talk to us, it feels like rational to let them do so if it makes the projects better.

But if it's just them kind of like coming and telling us how smart we are and like what great ideas we have, and just being like, Yep, I'll be back, love you guys, like then you know, then it feels like obvious that it's just process without a purpose.

But I guess you know, like is there a way again without creating like a huge list to kind of take a look at that and see if it's actually getting us better projects?

I want to make sure I understand what you're asking of them.

Sure.

Are you proposing that we go with route A in the short term between now and when we do the full rewrite?

Or are you proposing B?

Well, it would have to be B if we were going to evaluate it.

No, we could evaluate it and see how things are just as they've requested, right?

And we talked about not fearing, let's not fear the proposal that was made, which was to meet the objective that we set of streamline.

How about the test that well?

I don't yeah, you don't have a well, you also wouldn't know if people feel like they have to do it or not, but I guess also I'm um I may be like operating on different criteria, like I think streamlining is important, but only in terms of outcomes.

Like, I don't want to streamline just a streamline, like I don't think that in itself is a valuable thing to do if it doesn't make things better, which that's the point of streamlining, right?

Right, but that's also goes back to my questioning if that were the testing you'd like to do.

Okay, Melissa.

Yeah, um one of the difficulties in this conversation is that we're trying to evaluate the the delta in the value of a of a process towards getting us better um outcomes of developments that we get, when in fact, our biggest problem in the past seems to have been the fact that we've driven away all of the developers except the big money ones, and nobody small and nobody who can't afford to spend years on concept plans and site plans and redoing plans and bringing your lawyer and bringing your landscaper.

Um and my real question, and these guys don't have an answer to it, is how many people would come forward once that process is really streamlined, and and um for that reason I I would rather go with A and use where what we have now as a baseline to compare going forward, whereas if we go to make a concept plan voluntary, that's a whole different study of what the baseline was versus what we're doing, and then I think that the former would get a better evaluation of who's not coming forward to to try to develop here yet, what incremental developments or small development or local developers might come forward once they have a process that they can actually foresee as being doable and affordable.

Harris and then Theo?

Yeah, I just want to build off of what council member Mary's been saying, stating um earlier for the last four years, we've really had our foot on the gas in terms of how we do our work as a town, and I think what you brought to us in these amendments is in line with us continuing to build on that our complete communities work is also part of that work, and so I see these two things really working together, um, making clear through our complete communities uh what it is we want uh speaks to what comes.

So I'm staying with A.

A hypothesis that I have having talked to only maybe one person who was in favor of uh making it voluntary.

So I know that I think there are more than that, but I've only spoken to one.

One of my hypotheses is that that interest comes from the one overdue nature of our Lumino update, that there's a lot of clarity they're hoping will be produced by that document in terms of like new new types of zones that would have a more capacious buildable envelope that we could where the negotiation becomes much more on the town side deciding where we want to apply what kind of zone at what time, but we already have the zone in the LUMO instead of needing to constantly write a completely tailored conditional zone for every single project.

We would develop one that we could have ready where they would know if I have come to a parcel where the town wants to see something, that zone that's sitting there is what will they do a sort of like map update for it.

I don't know if I'm correct about this.

But if the issue is indeed that lack of clarity and we are on track to make LUMO updates, then the concept plan would shortly become vestigial anyway, because the clarity would be produced by the LUMO, which is part of what inclines me to see pretty low risk in eliminating it in the short term.

Elizabeth?

I think I think in that sense it might make sense to make it voluntary in the short term and then re-evaluate with the full rewrite to make sure that the full rewrite meets all of those needs.

Times I've been at A, and times I've been at B.

It was it was a surprise to me to learn that there are developers who see value in this process because I kept hearing how it was always a drag, cost a lot of money, it was a little bit not a good use of time.

Um I'm now leaning towards making it voluntary in the fact that I don't see an understanding to lose in the sense that Councilmember Rivers was talking about this, what I think he was talking about was a community engagement piece where you know we want to build, we have good projects, we want to make sure the community is engaged.

So if the concept plan isn't available publicly, where is it available publicly?

Um, so that we would get some sort of feedback from the community so that it's in a community-centered um development.

And I think Councilmember Sharp is also raising how uh what I've what I feel is we're kind of in a unique opportunity between now and our LUMO up the full rewrite where we could see what we're kind of making hypotheticals on what build won't happen.

We have a unique window here where we could evaluate like the mayor was saying and see um is it is it working or not working?

And then council member Noller's bringing up the staff issue, and in my mind is kind of like we want to build good projects, we want to work with our developer partners, and uh we're kind of in essence providing a service at that point.

If someone comes to us and voluntarily wants a concept plan review, um but it's all in the spirit of the outcome of making sure that our projects are good, um, get the outcomes we want, and engage the community in a way that um uh it's it's successful all around.

So I feel like with us being in a position where we're doing this and then there will be another LUMO rewrite, that making it voluntary doesn't cause harm and creates an opportunity for us to learn.

What's that?

I'm trying to remember if it's too second event.

Lots of maybe the moment's gone.

Um, I think I agree.

I agree with Les, and I I hear everybody's concerns about it, um, but I think that if it's actually I don't I don't think that people are gonna feel forced to do it.

I don't think I think staff will be clear with that that there's no harm to foul.

And then folks who listen to your point is excellent, right?

We really do want folks to be in the internal development, and already if you're a small developer, they don't have to come, right?

And although a certain results it's called conditional.

It's currently all conditional.

Okay, okay.

It's all conditional zonings, um, the differences smaller conditional zonings currently go to anything by right which will increase with this won't even be eligible at that point.

Um, and anybody who thinks it would be a problem, don't have data to do it.

So I I would just again, so somebody pointed out that it's kind of a service issue, I think, to offer it for people who want to do it.

Yeah, after all, when we look at a conditional rezoning, we make a legislative decision.

We have to weigh it's not simply it's not administrative check off the boxes, it's like does this meet our goals?

And you know, so we aren't the deciders.

There is a little bit of, there's always a little bit of that decision because it's not a checked box.

So I mean, it's not I I won't not sleep tonight if we eliminate it, but I think just as a service we offer, and I think because people find it valuable before making essence like them do it.

Um so it sounds like we have a pretty terrible reputation with developers in terms of being an onerous process and people not wanting to come here.

How in tune do you think the development community is with the type of development?

I mean, do they just does everybody just know Chapel Hooks don't go build in Chapel Hill or are they in tune enough with what we're doing in Chapel Hill that they know that our um what the the types of development we want to get have changed dramatically and we're working to try to get make that happen, etc.

And the reason I ask that is that you know, if if the thing we're trying to avoid is discouraging smaller developers of smaller projects um from coming forward, but the concept plan review is voluntary, it would seem to me, and and the developers are in tune with what we're doing here and why that they would understand like if they're like, Oh, I we can't go development chapel hill because we're too small to look for concept plan review, and they won't approve it unless we do the voluntary concept plan review.

But if they happen to know that we are really trying to encourage small development to get where I'm going, like the point of getting rid of it is to encourage certain types of development, and so I would think that developers developing those types of development would be like we don't want to pay for the concept plan review, but we know we are like slammed up doing what Chapel Hill wants us to do, so let's skip it and just go in there.

That makes okay.

Do you think so?

I guess my question is do they know that?

Are they into like do or is it just a broad assumption that it's bad to build in Chapel Hill?

We can't speak in the absolute, you know, a concept plan or keeping developments out of chapel heel because we know that that's not actually that's the strength case is actually not true.

But we have um communication and we collected data with developers, and we're actually working through uh with economic development right now, some exercises with developers who are not developing in Chapel Hill to figure out and to hold them and survey and figure out why they're not here, and a lot of the things you guys are talking about are things that we're hearing, so as I'm nodding, I'm not just being snatched like I've heard I hear these comments from developers as to reasons why they may stay away from Chapel Hill, and it and there are market conditions and land prices and other things, of course, that slow development here, but our there isn't a perception um outside of Chapel Hill that we are that our is the unpredictability that is part of it, the fact and I think you'll talk about it well when you saying that you know the notion that they have to come and get a tailored plan for each parcel because we there is no predictability in our process.

So, and that is something that in the new Luma, we hope to help remedy by providing some more structure, and that would help with the predictability.

So that that need to come to council and talk to you individually about a project might not be there as much.

So you're right, it could phase itself out.

Um but to your point um about the perception, the perception is out there.

No one knows various elements and not just concept plan, but we are also working as a staff to find ways to socialize the changes that we've made because I've been here three years, and we are drastically different in our policy than we were when I got here.

So I know those changes have already been made, but I'll have conversations with people and they'll still tell me those same stories that they heard five years ago or 10 years ago from working in Chapel Hill.

So it is really hard to get rid of that reputation, but it is something the staff is conscious of, and as we are working on our engagement and our communications, that is something, especially with economic development as we're looking to recruit people and businesses and uh employment in Chapel Hill, how we're changing that narrative.

So that is something that is top of mind for us, and I think the work that we're doing in Lumo is just a step in that direction, and once we have that in place, we can go show folks these are the new processes, these are the things that we're doing.

This is how it's different than it might have been 10 years ago when you try to do a chapel heel.

So that is out of mind and it's something that we're working on.

Okay, and I think to that point it would make sense that um you know this one point in this one omnibus text amendment is probably not going to be the thing that changes our reputation by whether or not you should come building Chapel Hill, unless you guys like get a bat like that says we've eliminated concept plan reviews that we should run over Chapel Hill at all times, would also um encourage you to change our reputation for not having parking downtown while you're at it.

Amazing.

Yeah, it's to that point the deaf by a thousand cuts.

That is one way to describe building a chapel.

Yeah, because there are so many elements in our profits and our timing and fees, is a myriad of things that over time it it can destroy a project.

Okay.

So it sounds like either way, in good hopefully six months, we're not gonna be worrying about it one way or the other.

So that's the good news, right?

So I um am curious with the proposal that you submitted to us, eliminating the concept plan review.

How do you envision the community engagement?

So I think it would have to be kind of contextual.

Um I think that's that's one of the things that uh not having a process formalized in remote is be context driven.

Um projects made by the the nature of the location, the neighbors merit a lot of really intense and early community engagement with vulnerable neighbors, with neighbors that stand to be impacted very heavily.

Um we've already started doing some of that kind of context driven um equity driven engagement on development projects, um, thanks to our community or communications and engagement team.

Um, and so we would would continue to do that sort of work.

Um there would also be you know opportunities to uh once we once we have outside of the concept plan review process, you know, once an application for conditional zoning is formally in the door, uh we continue with our public information meetings and improve those processes as well.

Um but uh again, I think it is a little bit of a testing ground to to see um if we get kind of the this this opportunity to test some different um engagement methods and practices.

Um we would definitely take it and run with it to see what works best.

Second question.

Um use the implementation of a concept plan now, and if we were to make it voluntary, does that lead, does that lend to tailoring the projects?

Would you would you mind verifying?

So we have a concept plan review, right?

We keep that voluntarily.

There was a comment about tailoring for each project.

Does the concept plan review lend to the does it lend to tailoring?

You mean community engagement tailoring?

No, I'm talking about tailoring a project.

When does it not subject each project to becoming tailored?

Yeah, I think it does reinforce the notion that each development project is has a potential to reinforce this notion that each development project is something that requires a lot of public discussion again on that project by project basis.

Um I think that was one of our um staff level, one of our motivations to propose removing concept plan review was again we know that the complete community strategy challenges us to move away from project by project decision making.

Um and so one of the ways to potentially do that is to just back off the number of public meetings in front of a public body uh that a project is subject to.

Okay.

So I asked those two questions in touch with because one I was curious about what my colleagues were raising, and two to say that I do want to support that we have community engagement and that the community understands when and where they can find the information, right?

And then two, I would like for this town, this council, this um this government to get away from tailoring, project by project, and so there's tension here because we do want the public to be informed, but we also don't want to develop those or fall back on those habits that we have been doing.

So my challenge to you all is to help us understand how one way or another will help us to achieve that that beautiful tension.

Um in the interest of time in Paris I feed you, um, but uh I'm thinking we want to move up on after this if folks feel ready.

Um, Paris, you want to be the last?

Yeah, so I mean, I think what is bubbling up, and I think um Camille, you're like really hitting on it, is there is an interest to make sure that our in communicating to our community we eliminate concept plan review that there are opportunities for community to still be engaged, be informed about what's going to be built in their community, and there seems to be uh a little bit of anxiety, you know, based upon the emails we've received that that would be somehow diminished in some sort of way.

So I think it's important that we continue to educate our community on those opportunities.

Um that this is not something it feels like something's being taken away from them, and part of what's being taken away from them is the control of what's being built in their communities, and the whole process of our complete community strategy and the rewrite, this is where we take full control, and it's not a project by project, and we are putting up front and making clear to developers what we want, and we expect them to bring that to us, and you all are experts in ensuring that that happens.

Am I understanding that like this is how our processing it?

Am I missing anything?

No, I think that's all the mark.

Um I'm hearing obvious, I don't hear interest in C, D, or E.

Is that fair?

Um I I don't view concept plans as a tailoring.

I view it as making sure that people are doing complete community and that it is tailored for the site to do complete community, and there are things that we can't require that we want to ask sometimes, but I don't see it.

I guess I just don't see it that way.

But um also if we don't have the structures in place for community engagement in the way you're talking about, then why are we then I guess I'm confused?

Like if they don't exist yet, then how does it happen?

Um I think we again we kind of have an opportunity to test some different methods and practices.

Um I think we're we're hearing or I'm hearing of a very strong interest in uh even folks that are in favor of removing concept plans, um, that there's still this really critical element of community engagement.

Um, likely when we talk about the spectrum of engagement at that phase, we're probably talking about informing and educating people about hey, this this thing is happening.

Um, and here are the ways in which you can be involved in the process going forward.

Um, and so I think those are goals that we can we can definitely build um some strong methods and practices around um if if we're in a world where we're we're getting rid of concept plans.

Um, and it's probably something that we can do even even if we're not getting rid of concept plans.

Well, yeah, that seems reasonable.

I mean, I guess to me, then I would want to see those things and then get rid of the thing we have.

Like I don't want to take something away with nothing there yet.

That's but anyway, um, Hansel, can I have a show of a thumbs up for A?

Yeah, oh sorry.

I think one, two, three, four, five.

Okay.

So I'm hearing that that should come back with full elimination on the 28th.

Yes?

The version of my boss that is at you, but I wanted just the clarity for tonight.

I know tonight's discussion is for you guys to do consensus amongst yourselves in preparation for the vote on the 21st, but just wanted to be clear the staff is not changing the materials that you will receive in your packet on the understood.

So even if you tell us clearly that you want a eight will be there because that is staff's recommendation.

Every version you get in your packet will be staff's original version, you'll have for context the amended version that you also voted on in the last meeting on the 19th of November.

But if you want to make a change in a subsequent section, if you get consensus on a change alternate of what staff recommended, you would need to still bring that amendment on the 21st.

Staff is not going to go ahead and change in advance.

Just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Is that a good idea?

But you're gonna sorry?

Does that include the one that was A controversial?

It doesn't get everything.

Right.

If it was if it was if tonight, if you're typing about the if there was consensus on it, it would be that maybe you were in line with what staff said anyway.

But you see, for example, he's saying, like for the site plan review, we wanted to take the NCDs out of it.

So what he's asking is they all agree, and I'm assuming we still need to make an amendment to that.

Yes, yeah, we're gonna have to.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I and if that's the way we're gonna do it, then can I ask that we if say there's agreement on the site plan as it was tonight, that that language also be presented to us so that we have alternate language ready and we're not trying to do that from the day as so we can just say we've altered a day or however however you want to do it.

But um Yeah, we could we we will refer to the attorneys to how um it will play out in the meeting.

We can of course take note of what's it here tonight and where consensus is and in advance of that with the language that you can do.

Yeah, that's whatever is super.

But the document you get your first vote will be for the original document, and then you would have to amend or as long as we have something to amend with it, we're not trying to do that on the fly.

Because that's uh that's obviously okay.

Okay, next.

Um so the next one with um conditional zoning district specific plan.

Um this was um uh the original proposal was to reduce the amount of detail required in a district specific plan.

Um the proposed amendment was maintain the proposed reduction in detail, but required that above ground stormwater management areas be shown.

Um and it passed five three.

Um are people okay with that?

Where are we?

Uh thumbs up if you are I'm sorry, uh are we um thumbs up if you're okay with the amendment.

Yes, okay.

With the amendment.

Which is the above ground stormwater management areas be shown.

Is that already do that?

Five things we're changing.

But it's changing to the district.

Yeah.

Okay, so I see support for an amendment.

So if we can just have the language ready and we know that the original will be the thing we're voting on, and it needs to be amended, but if we can have that language, that would be helpful.

Okay.

Um the next one was the two family dwellings, the floor area.

The original proposal was increasing from 3,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet.

Um there was a proposed amendment um to increase the maximum size to 3600 square feet, and that failed four four.

So options for discussion.

Um the staff proposal of 5,000 square feet, um, the amended 3600 square feet, the original of 3,000 square feet, or another apartment.

I want to reintroduce the notion that um people think of this in tandem with the parking.

Um, because while I think it's really big, but our staff has recommended that we go with 5,000 square feet.

Um I'm less concerned about the square footage than I am about the usage, and to me it's pairing of the square footage with lots of um lots of cars that is so conducive to the students' numbers, and so I am happy to go up to 5,000 if we then amend the parking changes, the changes to the parking.

So I just want to repropose that um as a possible compromise for everyone.

Okay, so that's the D, which is other Amy.

Yeah, so I I went back and looked at a bunch of our uh the early community um complete community documents, kind of the foundational work there, just to remind myself of you know, that's kind of my load star for being here, and I know a lot of y'all have run for council on that, and it really, you know, it had its genesis in that housing report that just said we're not we're not getting that the smaller missing middle kind of stuff that we want.

And I've been reading other articles that are talking about how in today's current development environment, especially in a high land price environment where we find ourselves, it's attractive for people to come in and build bigger, more expensive things.

Like that's that the market, the market incentives for that are very high.

So for me, it's really important to say remember the goals that we're looking at and making sure that with the small tools that we have and not getting and not being unreasonable for what the market can provide for us.

That my goal is I would like more smaller units.

So if something if somebody's gonna come in and want to put 5,000 square feet on a lot, I would like that to be a clockplex.

The idea is these two, I mean, it's basically two generous size single family houses next to each other.

We haven't we haven't improved the housing market in Chapel Hill with that proposed.

It's just not so so for me, I would really like to say for duplexes, let's say smaller.

If you want to put something bigger on that, sure, but you need to, but it has to be more units.

That's the thing that I really want, some more units or more smaller.

So that would be that would be my reason.

I'm okay at going up for 3,000, but 5,000 to me feels like a product that isn't meeting the goals that we've set for ourselves.

Um by Melissa.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And I want to start by saying that I uh I think if we're going to allow things up to 5,000, I do think we should legalize triplex or the quadplexes as the original 2023 amendment proposed.

I think that we council straight at that time from the spirit of all the public discussion about what we were going to do.

So to me, this isn't a new topic, this is returning to an old one.

Um tabling that for a moment, um, because I would like to discuss with you all authorizing staff to go ahead and consider that in a future round.

What the attorney has told me is that we couldn't consider that in this round of amendments, just to confirm that that's yes, that's correct.

Yeah, so um it would need to go through the process of going to the planning commission and then coming to us.

But um I would like to table that for future, since that's in the description of the purpose of this meeting is to discuss future text amendments.

That's when I want to discuss pertinent to what my colleague has just said.

Well, to clarify, it wasn't to do future tax amendments, it's to it's to give guidance on things for the larger LUMO rewrite.

The text of the meeting description says future text amendments, so that was my interpretation.

Um to the the more short-term point, um what I heard my colleagues say is that getting more smaller units is what's important, and I think I heard you say, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Um I think I heard you say that getting more units is what's important.

Um so when I'm thinking about whether this is improving the housing market, that was a phrase that I heard.

Um in my head, an improvement to the housing market is getting more for sale homes in neighborhoods at all.

So if we're going from a default of you can do anything on a lot as long as it's a single family home, that isn't true currently for two household units.

And if this is making it easier to get on a single zoning lot, two four sale properties as opposed to just one.

I think that is a base improvement.

I agree with you that it would be a much superior improvement at a lower price point if we were to say you can do four households on one lot.

Um that's my strong preference.

Um, but I think that it is a step up to legalize it to 5,000 square foot.

And I think the philosophical difference that we've discussed before is that I I um I'm not opposed to purpose-built homes that are gonna be rented to students.

Um I want to see a lot more for sale product.

I think a lot of that will need to come as town homes, and I think the subplotting process that's been proposed is going to help with that.

Um, but I do view this as a net improvement in the housing market, and I think it would be an even greater improvement if we were to also go ahead and start legalizing tries and quads ahead of the full room over, right?

Yeah, I think that to answer your question, um, somebody told me that duplexes are generally rented properties, that it's a rental product for some, and I don't remember what the explanation for that was, but the general is considered a rental product.

So they probably I think because otherwise you'd have to subdive, if you're gonna subdivide the land, you'd be making town homes, right?

Because the duplexes are on the same, and I know there's sublots and can't even, but so there's but because they're on the same lot, they don't get subdivided for sale that way.

Could we just refer for adjudication if this is yeah, yeah, just to how how how would it impact the for sale market if we were to go through with these changes?

Um our goal is very much to make it as easy as possible for a duplex to be a foresale problem.

Um, and um Councilman Ryan voted right with the the ability to subdivide the land is one of the big barriers that is traditionally prevented duplexes from being for sale.

Um the the sub-lot mechanism um is kind of laser focused on breaking that log jam that it enables um you two on on one lot create these two sub-lots where each side of the duplex um can be sold separate ownership.

Completely separate ownership, no need for an HOA or a condominium agreement, anything like that.

Um there are truly two feasible lots.

Um there are some communities that even go so far, I think to really drive home that point that they're separate, they call them attached single family, um, just to really drive on the point that they are they are as legally separate entities as possible.

Well, we don't require them to be attached anymore.

Correct, yeah.

So thank you for that clarification.

Thank you for thank you for that.

Um I would go tell my helper friend on some.

I just worry just saying, sorry, one more second.

I just worry that if we go that if we go to the 5,000 square feet, it's a very, very degree thing for people to do.

And they're going to come in like when somebody had that idea in your side that it was they were going to be able to make a lot of money by scraping a building big.

I was telling uh real estate personal order that we were thinking about doing this, and he's like, wow, somebody's gonna make a lot of money for that.

And so I'm I would prefer to be a little bit cautious.

Go to the 3600 square feet now, talk about the triplexes and the duplexes go bigger, triplexes and quads go bigger with those, so that we're getting that product work.

That that would be my approach to me.

Um Melissa, followed by Elizabeth.

Okay.

Um I agree with Theo about a lot of these things.

And um is it not on anymore?

Oh, it's there, it's not close enough.

Um I always feel like I do karaoke here.

Um so I think that there's a there's a number of thoughts that I have about this.

First of all, I would vote to do this as triplex up to quads.

Exact same with no hesitation.

Um I think there's the issue of of whether or not 3600 um or 3,000 or 4,000 will still pencil out because if it won't pencil out, nobody's gonna do it.

Um I think that as far as student stuffers go, location, location will be somewhat um defining in that um and the problems that we saw with Northside with uh with the um predatory purchase and buying up those things has been somewhat depressurized by the um purpose built student housing that has been built and the neighborhood conservation district.

So hopefully we've got protection for Northside, which is where that was seen as being so problematic.

Um I think that um the idea of duplexes as as missing middle housing and as only being um purchasing one side purchasing the other is a rather limiting way of uh thinking about it.

I I really liked Eric Valera's story when he was running about how he was able to become a homeowner because they could buy a duplex and rent one side and help them with their um and help them with their mortgage, and I see that as one of the huge opportunities that these duplexes allow.

The other one is multi-generational habitation.

My grandmother lived on the other side of the duplex from my aunt who took care of her.

Um and so that's another way that that this kind of housing choice benefits our our population.

It's a good opportunity for people who want it downsize so that they can leave open their big house for a family to move into.

So I don't I and the other point about that is that it doesn't have to be two 2500 square foot units, it could be a 3,000 square foot unit and a one and a 2,000 square foot unit according to need, according to purpose, according to who's gonna be building them, because I'm hoping that a lot of these things are gonna be built by regular old people and small builders and not developers per se.

Um I see it as a good opportunity for the incremental development.

Um but the last thing I want to say is that um we are debating a lot of details about this, and while we're debating details with the impression that some people want to, and maybe I'm wrong, but the but the impression I get that some people are willing to fall on their swords about some of these things, and I'm willing to negotiate about some of these things.

Um, because there are a lot of things in this omnibus that we need to get done.

Um speeding up subdivision, manufactured home protection, shared driveway, serious frontiers and flag lots, all these things we want to get them through.

We want to get them through as soon as possible.

I want to get them past the next meeting.

Um, and I hope that as we go through this, we think about that when we're falling on our sword about one of these random numbers.

That that's what we want to get done.

That's what I hope that we get done because I think that's important, and that's helping us to eliminate some of those deaths by a thousand cuts.

Elizabeth, followed by Camille, followed by Perry.

Melissa, I know you've talked about duplex personally, and I will chime in that I also have lived in at least one duplex.

One is a very fond one, I had my former husband and I moved to Edgeworth, Pennsylvania.

That's out of in Swickley, which is outside of Pittsburgh, and a lovely home.

It was quite large.

Our home was on the top.

Three bedrooms, one bath.

We had a living room, a dining room, kitchen, someone below us, and then we had a shared basement, right?

And it was within walking distance of school.

It works.

And we rented, and we were very happy to rent Wlex.

And I've always been a renter as an adult.

I grew up in a home that was bought, that was purchased, but as an adult, I have enjoyed the privilege of being a renter with landlords that honored me as a tenant.

And I I want to say that there is something not bad.

There's actually a lot of good in rental opportunities.

As a single person now, as a single woman, I'm very happy to be a tenant.

I'm very happy to rent.

And so I don't see 3600 increasing to that as meaningful.

And I agree with you, not even to 4,000.

I think that 5,000, given where some of those units are that we do that.

And so I am in support of staff's recommendation.

My support for A is still centered on ensuring that we are moving in a direction that is going to allow for multiple housing types that are that we need.

Sometimes you need that little room to be able to navigate just the complexity of what it means to build.

And so that's why I'm landing at the 5,000 square feet as well.

I want to make sure that we're maximizing the kind of housing types that you need, that we are not part of the barriers that are being created for what we are looking for.

And I think the 5,000 square feet does that.

Louie.

So the average age of first-time home buyers up there 38.

So a lot of people are coming in to buy homes.

They're not looking the concept of starter home, which I kind of grew up with, that's doesn't really exist anymore for a lot of people, especially in Chapel Hill.

So, you know, talk at this and like friends.

Also we have problems giving families that we live in Northside.

Because our houses are so small.

So if you make a choice to live in 60 times house poor kid with two kids.

With two kids.

A lot of people want for each kid.

They want a space for them.

I think that leads to like one in a house that's a little bit bigger.

And then in terms of the students, I think it's location.

I think it's also transportation.

So we've done a great job of making a lot of our community very bus-friendly.

And like we see students, you know, living way out almost to 40.

It's because they're right on a bus line.

There's bus transportation.

So I think it may be less than square footage, but they're drawing students.

Because students live in tiny houses in North Size.

So I think they'll live in any size house as long as it's location works and there's access to transportation.

Nice.

Elizabeth.

I think I want to clarify my concerns to with people coming in to build students dumpers.

Um and so it's less about where will students live because there are students living in a single family home on my street, which is fine.

I actually like that.

I like that it diversifies our neighborhood, um, and more about um opportunities being lost to provide workforce housing in favor of um better resourced uh non-local builders who just see us as an investment opportunity to turn a profit on better resource student housing.

Lily Yeah, I agree with you, Elizabeth.

Um I want more opportunities for developers, but like we keep saying developers, but also who's selling them the land.

It's like people in our community, it's not like just these rapacious developers coming in and turn a profit on us.

There's like our neighbors are part of this process.

So, like, you know, that's I also think about that equation.

And then in terms of students, it's one thing to have one student on your street, it's another thing to have 10 students on your street.

So, like, you know, again, we have to think about culture, and like this is maybe where you bring in university, like if the university is not gonna see itself as a place that houses the students, they need to think about how they create a culture where their students have better responsibilities within them.

I would hate to think that we are doing a policy to prevent students and also preventing people who want single family homes and travel bill.

So I hope I hope what you've heard is that what I mean is the exact opposite of that.

I hope that's what you heard.

Is that I'm not trying to prevent students.

I'm trying to prevent predatory development.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, I heard that, and I don't even I think it's easy to look at the developers as an issue or even the students.

I look at the university as an issue.

So one of the things that occurred to me when I was reading rereading through this is um I do think also that by creating an environment in which we make it um almost, and again, for me, the the common it's a combination of parking and space is really critical.

Um so I'm not even necessarily arguing against the 5,000 square feet.

Um but I think that one of the things that we're you know, in general, just like everybody in an urban design landscape has sort of come to accept, like if you don't want to talk about multimodal transportation, one of the things you need to do is make it easier and more convenient to bike and walk than to drive.

Um, and if we make it easier and more profitable to build student purpose-built student housing in our family neighborhoods than to do anything else, particularly in an environment where we actually have a university administration that has shown a smidgen of willingness to work on their housing problem that um we're in fact doing the opposite, and we're just saying we will continue to take the burden of your housing problem, and we will continue to do whatever it takes to make to take on that burden, and you will never have to do anything about it because we will just continue to be the scapegoat there.

Um I think that we're missing an opportunity to work with an administration that that understands the way that that might be a long-term harm to our overall community and therefore actually to the university as well.

I I think I agree with you.

And the parking part, I like nodded my head when you put I think that has to be carried with this.

I think park is going to be critical to how we think about these houses.

And not even just eliminate students, but again, it goes back to culture.

You come to USC as a freshman without a car.

100%.

Like, great, put students in them and have them bike and walk.

Yeah.

Um I wanted to say how much I appreciate the point about trying to avoid predatory development.

I think I think that's a concern that everyone in every community is feeling right now whenever we hear this discourse that's across so many communities.

And the way that I'm seeing this play out here, because I appreciate the concern as well about we don't want to do something that means only the well resourced gets served.

I really hear that interest and appreciate it.

And I think what we're doing right now ensures that only the well resource gets served.

As near as I can tell, the issue we're running into is if if the town, I always mix my metaphors, so bear with me.

The town is a pot and we're pouring water into it, and some of that water is heavier than the rest of the water, which I know is.

It's not how water works.

That's all.

Yeah, it's gonna get there.

It's gonna get there.

Um the heavier water is the people with the most resources.

So they fill the pot first, and the ones with less resources overflow and they get pushed out onto the countertop, which is Alamance or Chatham or Dorothy or whatever.

So the the wealthy people that we're thinking about getting access to housing, whether they be students or not, are the ones who definitely can't.

Because the if there's a scarcity, they're the ones who go, damn, I want to be in Chapel so bad, I will pay that 2,000 or whatever.

And so I think the way in which this actually is meeting your interests, I think, is or I hope is that um whatever we can do to bring those units in is meeting a desperate need, and I completely agree with what I hear you and Louie saying about it.

Isn't just our responsibility.

The university is a huge contributor.

I think you're right that they've acknowledged this, and I think the scale and scope of their employees and professors and students' desire and need is so great that no change we can make can fully meet it.

And I think we still have that not just leverage with them, but the sort of like recognition, which is also shared across the school district and the town and the county, like the the major employers in this area, I think every single one of them has published documents saying we are worried about how far employees are commuting, what they're paying for where they're trying to live, and their inability to be close to where they work.

So I don't think we're gonna give up that that urgency all of these partners are feeling with a with a change like this, which is which is good, but cannot on its own meet the full scale of the of the need.

So I don't I don't I don't think we should let up on that urgency with any of those partners about needing to be convening together and saying there's land in this area that we have to all talk about putting money into and figuring out how to make that employee housing for these different partners because that also meets all of our desires about vehicle miles, travel, about ridership on the transit system.

It helps to make the community more robust and more diverse.

So I think there's a lot of actually like all of this is pushing in the same direction with a lot of positive momentum around these these shared goals and opportunities.

You have me jump in first?

Please, go ahead.

Um, you know, I I ran and wanted to work with you people to work together.

And I I really do want to work together.

And um a part of this is you know, I live in 1600 square feet, and my mind, 1800 square feet is a this would be a perfect size.

But I'm I'm a person who likes a smaller home.

Um, you know, we talk about the demand pressure of developers and students, but there is also a real demand pressure of families who are looking for a place to live.

And that hits my listserv all the time.

Does anyone know the place that's available for my relative?

And we live in a school walk zone.

So I think part of my thinking in this is no matter what the demand is for a student, I hate that I'm not gonna say the word housing for students in our neighborhood, there's even a potentially greater demand for families who live in a walk zone that are in a neighborhood that has the has the nation they have.

Now, my concern initially with 5,000 was I really want to be transit-oriented.

I don't want to replicate, we've got this connected roads issues too, and I don't want to replicate like a mini suburban car-based situation.

Um but in the in the sense of believing in you all in this.

Um I'm willing to go to 5,000, but I do, like Council Member Sharp was I want to get to the parking piece, because that that kind of concerns me more than the size of the home.

Because I I think that a 2500 square floor, how do you want to do it?

Three in one, two, three, creates options for people.

And again, as much as I was like with the concept plan, uh, we do a lot of hypotheticals, but we we can see how it goes.

But I I consider and honestly say the demand for families is also great.

And these neighborhoods are gonna be a place where kids can walk to school.

That's something I care about.

I am concerned about uh being transit oriented and getting to the parking piece.

Um but I hear you, and I I want us to move forward on this.

I want to get to the full minimal package, so um I'm I'm willing to go A.

Um there's been so many things that come up that I'm gonna try and be sustained and not be talking as badly as I feel.

Um, I think the university is engaging in really serious conversations with us about housing on Carolina North.

I mean, that's happening, right?

And that's I I think that it's right, we're never gonna meet the demand.

I mean, there's this is the desirable place.

Like we're not gonna ever have enough, but I do think that this is the first time in a long time where I've heard the university really being serious about building housing.

I don't, I mean, maybe it will be, I don't know.

We don't know what it'll be, but they seem to be open to talking about all different types of housing because they also know that their junior faculty and their staff and their contractors, like no, they can't live here.

So I don't think I guess that's just to say that I don't want us to kind of talk about this as if the university should do something when I think they are in good faith starting those, you know, having those conversations with us about a place that they seem to imminently be developing.

So that's just number one.

Um I don't I think students should live everywhere.

Like we it's a university town, the town was built, the town is here because of the university, and so I don't think that we should expect that students not live places, like that just to me feels and I don't think anyone's saying that.

I just think it's it can get a little I I I know because I have students who say it feels like the town wants us to be here for the university, but they don't want us to live here, and we don't know where to live, and so I think it's important to be clear that like we really want our students here, and um that is not the reason that I think 5,000 is maybe a little big a little soon.

Um, like I want quads and and triplexes to come in the like I'll say that right now like I want that to be as part of the big LUMO rewrite.

Like, I think that's a great use for this town.

I think when it makes sense with all the rest of the other LUMO changes, and we can have really great places that have good standards and make sense, like that's obviously something that makes sense for this community and targets what our housing study and what we keep finding is, which is we're missing middle housing, middle income housing and missing middle typology housing.

Um I think I the thing that I feel the most is just that I don't want us to do something just because it'll get more housing, like I do feel compelled to target family housing, like middle people who can't afford to be here, and I don't think that 5,000 square foot duplexes is targeting that enough, I guess.

And I'm not convinced because we don't have data that people won't build something smaller, or that people don't want to live here badly enough that they will live in a smaller duplex than 2500 square feet or 3,000 square feet.

That's huge.

I grew up in a duplex and it was 1700 square feet, and if that was a family and it was in a single family neighborhood, like we don't I just feel like we're missing an opportunity to target something that we say is the thing we're missing the most.

So and if that doesn't work and we get more data and the market can't bring what we want, which is something smaller, then we should go bigger.

And we should allow for more units, because I think that's right.

But I just think if we're gonna get a lumo to vote in on in June, June, June.

Um, the library is closing in 10 minutes at 8 o'clock.

Please wrap up your work and make your final collection if you need a fifth and staff number.

Again, it's 750.

The library closes in 10 minutes at 8 o'clock.

Thank you.

We set up a raven here and then we just go to like 2 a.m.

and then I've got my disco bow.

Yeah.

I was awesome for the audience.

It just means right.

Obviously.

Um so I guess to me, like I don't see this as I actually like if if the majority goes, I I'm not supportive of 5,000, but if that's the majority will, that is not gonna keep me up at night because I just don't think it's gonna be none of this will be here for that long.

Like we're doing a big LUMO rewrite, and I just don't, I feel like I want smaller units for families and for people who can't afford huge units.

That's what I would like to target.

But um, I also understand that we want to get more and we want to give flexibility.

I also I'm personally not worried about the developing community.

Like, I want to bring them in as partners and and tell them we want you to work with us and we want good things, and we want you to do the things that we see as gaps.

Um, I don't think they're being predatory.

And so if we allow 5,000 square feet and they come and build 5,000 square feet, then we can't complain that they came in and did what we said.

So I think it's up to us.

Like we get to decide what we think is missing.

And it's not anybody else's fault.

What if they come do it, then let's not complain about it.

But I guess that's all to say like I'm I'm comfortable with 3600, I'm comfortable with 4,000.

I think 5,000 is too big to start.

And I and I would go there in six months if we had some evidence that it was the size that was preventing people from doing what we want.

But I just don't think we have evidence either way.

So yeah.

Do we think it's likely that uh an amendment including the 5,000 square feet?

There's there's sort of two scenarios I have questions about.

Um if you're willing to venture opinions about them, how likely it is that um we would imagine every development post would be at that 5,000 mark, and separately, do we think it's likely that there are parcels that the subplotting would open up to development for for sale products whose dimensions would not permit building something that's 5,000 square feet or um and so and so that there would be sort of like site-based dimensional limitations that would mean that even if we approve this 5,000, there would be plenty of places around town where that just isn't feasible, but something new would be feasible.

So we would be sort of allowing this in some places where the site permits it and where there's demand for say a family with three kids, which given how empty our school district is, that would be great.

Um and then in other places there are sites where it would be like the most I can put on here is 3600 or something like that.

Yeah, absolutely.

I think what we typically find is that um A, there's stratification in the types of homes people want to live in.

There's stratification in the types of homes home builders want to live in.

Um different home builders are trying to target different sectors of the market, um, and then there's stratification in what individual sites can support.

Um I think especially in chapel middle or full topography.

Um or a lot of home sites, a lot of lots for the buildable areas a lot smaller than what the kind of 2D view of the lot would suggest.

So I think we have a lot of factors at play that would um risk a wall, but a lot of factors at play that um make it more likely that more likely than not that there would be some diversity in the size of it.

Would it be fair to say that approving the 5,000 square feet would would maximize the possibility of diverse housing types?

Uh it just creates the biggest the biggest pool, right?

The most options, thanks.

I could do 10,000 again.

Well, you can do 10,000 if it's a single family home.

I'm just saying that that locking it is from your family, definitely.

But Louis, I think you can already do that also.

And I think we talk a lot about the miss in middle chapel hill, but I'm not sure what that is.

So, like, you know, a house in our neighborhood just sold a 1,300 square foot house, and it's just sold for 498.

So that's a smaller house.

But I don't think I couldn't afford that.

So, like, you know, the question is that like I'm all for the missive middle, but maybe considering our market conditions and so forth, maybe we can't get it that traditional visit middle, and like they go after something like House of Menor alluded to.

Ruins and families.

So like if that means that we're building houses for unfortunately more fluid families because there's like not enough for them.

I think we just have to be realistic about what we say because we keep talking about missing middle, we keep talking about horrible housing, but like they're not making any more land in Chapel Hill.

So it kind of is what it is.

But like, am I wrong in thinking that our miss in the middle is like really expensive?

Well, yeah, our average home price is over half a million dollars.

Yeah, and I don't think I think people confuse the missing middle sometimes with the affordability strategy.

Which it's not housing type, and it's a diversity of housing type.

I mean, I do believe that if you're gonna that the oddplex apartment is less expensive, probably in a single family house.

Right.

You know, if you're building smaller units in general, that will be less expensive but not affordable.

So you get a good term for it's like small A affordability or accessibility.

Yeah, I just say small A affordable or big A affordable, so accessible versus I mean missing middle is a term of art in the development community.

It was coined by off the coast um uh design firm that it basically means anything between single family and small apartment buildings because those are the housing choices that were eliminated by single family only zoning.

Um so it yeah, I mean that what we're what we're hoping for is not is is this more you know attainable sort um kind of housing that we don't have because we don't have enough choices and types and sizes.

And I think that is the issue is that people are expecting that something a middle income home in Chapel Hill is gonna be what it was 10 years ago, and it's not.

I mean it's not, it's just not it's expensive.

We're you know, the middle here is expensive here.

Yeah, grandma's house.

My son is right being raised in his great grandmother's house, and it is maybe 900 square feet.

So the numbers that you all wrote out are amazing.

Um but I just want to piggyback off what you were saying, Louise, about culture and about families, like living in the Northside community because the houses are so small, we're not attracting the families to a very beautiful community that's by a school, by a park, by downtown.

Like we've got it's a complete community, full stock, it's access to everything.

Um but if I was, you know, if I had the means, I wouldn't move to North Side because the houses are really, really small.

Um, but having also said that I'm grateful to be there.

But if I were to try to purchase grandma's house today, I still wouldn't be able to afford to do it.

So we have the housing market itself and the housing types and the sizes and square footage, we are really um we are really grappling with a housing crisis in this country that's got us fighting this grass.

That's really where we're at.

We've got students who are struggling, wanting to get an education and can't find a place that's affordable for them to live.

And the same for people who work two, three jobs, still struggling to find a place to live.

And so I think what we're trying to do tonight in terms of our policy, we'll rewrite, um, is to try to ensure that um we're not creating barriers.

I don't think we, you know, five thousand thirty-six hundred, like you said it last time, Melissa, like when we were having this discussion, it's like we are trying to predict outcomes, and we have to say we don't know.

And be okay with that and be clear about it and honest about it.

Um I'm not landing at A because I don't want barriers.

I want to be able to afford the kind of housing types that you say that you want in our community.

Um I don't know if 3600 or 5,000 is the better land, but I'm leaving at A because I don't know.

Good evening, the library is now closed.

We are opening tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Happy night.

I'm so sorry, could you make that last statement again before you said I'm ready to go home?

I didn't hear that.

Yeah, um I don't know.

She's saying she's landing at A.

Yeah, yeah, I don't want land.

But not for barriers for opportunities, right?

Not for barriers, but for opportunities and you know, yeah.

So are we ready to thumbs up?

Um I didn't hear I didn't hear a um large number of people interested in C or D.

Is there anybody who wants to keep those on the tables?

Okay.

Um can I have a thumbs up for A.

Okay.

So we are going as is, no um alternate language needed on two family dwellings.

Um next, the fun one.

Um two family dwellings parking.

Um the original proposal was to eliminate the four-vehicle parking max.

Um there was a proposed amendment to maintain the four vehicle parking max, and that action on amendment failed for.

So the options and anything else you want to throw out there is to eliminate to maintain to establish a new parking maxim maximum or other, which I don't know what that could be if you're establishing a new one that seems like the same things, but here we are.

Parking for unicycle or like yeah, right.

Let's get creative.

Uh Amy.

Okay.

Um so this one, I actually think that I would support maintaining the parking maximum.

I think it gets back to the issues we heard at some were saying that parking and housing size are going to be tied together, and I would consider them as well.

So the big house that doesn't have 10 cars is okay, and they can house with fewer.

Um I think having the parking maximum is in line with our 10 policy of avoiding as much parking as we can.

I think that we have tons of impervious service as we were very eloquent about the benefits of on-street parking for the community and traffic coming and safety and all kinds of and using existing infrastructure.

So I'm fine with our I think I would prefer to keep that four vehicle parking maximum and let the um let them park on the street.

It's not limiting the number of cars people can have, but I think it's meeting our impervious goals, it's gonna help discourage extra cars, help us with our transportation policies and environmental policies.

Melissa um this is not one I'm gonna follow my short on, but I wanted to point out a couple of things.

Um the main one is that there's a difference between we want people to get out of their cars, we have rate transit so that people can get out of our cars.

We're making everywhere to everywhere greenways.

There's more people riding e-bikes and all sorts of micro transit kinds of micro-mobility kinds of things.

Um so the opportunities are there, but there is a difference between people getting out of their cars and people absolutely giving up their cars.

Um, and when they have to have a car that that has to go in the in the um it has to be stored somewhere, and hopefully they're leaving them at home and taking the bus or another way to get it to places.

Um the other issue is that um not every place has parking available that you don't already have to have parking permits or um narrow streets.

Um I don't know if it's possible to link it to is there is there adequate storage this adequate space in the street for for um street parking?

Um but that being said, that this isn't something I'm gonna follow up my sword about.

Can I there was actually something I forgot, which I was hoping we could just as a point of order, um and this is a question for our party, I think.

Um so last time the way this came to us was that it was a whole package, and we had talked about voting one by one versus having them all, and I'm just wondering is that up to up or is it like how I guess what I'm asking is I even if I don't support something, I don't want to vote the like I want us to get stuff done regardless, and I don't want anyone to fall on their sword, like I want people to be able to vote for or against each one individually, and then we still make sure we get everything done.

So I guess what I'm asking is can we make sure we do that?

And council, are you amenable to approaching it that way so that we make sure that we're not tying them together so that if you don't support one, you're voting against the whole thing.

So that would be possible.

There'll be a lot of motions right now.

The item is returning to council as the signal ombuds item.

Um to break it into smaller actions.

You could do one at a time and say I move that we adopt this.

However, I would caution that the habit of ombus is a single.

Um certainly there can be amendments proposed throughout, but um however you want to do it if there are motions on the floor that are seconded and then adopted by the group.

Um so I certainly understand and appreciate your concern.

So we done, but it would be up to the motion.

Isn't that what happened at the November meeting?

November meeting there were individual amendments or not.

There were there were amendments to the OM bus.

But if you're talking about adopting item number one and item number two and dividing the larger package into five or six that would be possible, but we would need to change all of the resolutions and do some work for that.

Um I mean a lot of them could stay together, right?

It would be pulling out the ones we're talking about tonight for more discussion, I guess.

Certainly at the next regular meeting, someone could make a motion to remove something from the package.

Um however they would have to be supported by the group.

I'm sorry, I'm not giving you the clearest answer here.

Um the best practice for Ombuds amendment is you adopt it or you pull out the things that you don't want in the package and then should adopt it as a whole.

And so if only a majority, but not there's complete consensus, but a majority is in favor of it, it would be the recommendation of move forward and vote on that as a package.

Um I mean, under Robert's rules, you can it's a it's in our delegated authority from the state to make motions on text amendments like this.

Yes when we're in session, isn't it?

That's right, and in making those motions, I would just caution that in pulling anything out, um, you're making a motion to pull it out to be voted on separately, not that it's being pulled out and being removed from this envs process if in fact the majority of the body intends to work that night.

Right.

No, it's meant to vote on it that night.

Okay.

But do we understand?

I want to make sure that we we pay attention to the attorney has said, which is that will cause a lot of work to be undone and be redone in order to accommodate our going one by one.

Can we not achieve um looking at this and pulling out what we absolutely must because I don't hear anything where we're where we're in a demo?

I think we can proceed as we're going and not put our staff through that.

I'm I'm certainly open to that.

I would like a little more clarity on what the work is.

I mean, so if the resolutions had to be rewritten, can we get a part of part of my interest here is that we have this delegated authority to make motions and make text amendments that we as a council culturally underutilized in my opinion.

And so I want to understand the precedent of utilizing more of that authority on a more regular basis when the council says we want to be nimble and make a text amendment.

I'd like to understand the ramifications for staff work if we say we want to put something on the agenda for two sessions out, three sessions out.

Um what I'm concerned about is the is establishing a cultural precedent which does not exist in the law.

The council does not make amendments to our own ordinances unless it has been through a sort of choreograph preparation process.

But is that what we're talking about here tonight?

Uh it's my current question.

Prompted by what we're discussing tonight.

Council member, then to try to answer that question.

My recommendation would be to as the clean staff proposed package comes before the body, the body will make those amendments that it seeks to adopt based on the consensus reached here today.

And then I think the cleanest path forward would be for individual council members to say, I move that we adopt, and then it could be a section at a time, and we just adopt a section at a time of the envs moving forward going through.

Um but once we go down that path, we can't leave a section out that's not voted on.

Right.

Yes.

That's what I yeah, it it's we'll just do it as a section at a time instead of creating like five different amendments, five different ordinances.

And so that's not actually more.

That's not more staff work because you wouldn't be writing separate ordinances, right?

The resolution.

Yeah, what makes it what he's doing rapid is you you vote separately because that's what you see.

It occurs to me as one person who said that there was something that would be a um sort I might fall on.

Um that if we were to do what we're talking about and pull things out one by one, the majority were still in favor of passing that sort I might fall on.

And this seems like a lot of, and I would want to pass all of the things around that sword.

And so this seems like a lot of work if the majority is still gonna pass the thing that we pull out, just so that I cannot vote on removing concept plans.

And so my interest is in keeping concept plans, it's not in it's not in making a show of what I vote for or don't vote for.

And if you want to lose concept plans either way, and me getting to vote against removing concept plans creates hours of motions and resolutions, then that's dumb.

And I would just I mean I fully agree with you.

I don't think it would be if there's a huge amount of work.

It would just be can we somewhat easily vote section by section, and then I get then it gives people the opportunity to support the things they want and we still know how the vote I I we still know how the vote is going to go.

It's not to do a show, it's so that you can be clear about the things you support versus the things you don't.

Yeah.

And I think we should be honestly, like I think it's good to be accountable to the public on like this is what I voted for and this is why, and this makes that easier, I think.

It makes it more transparent about what we're doing.

I get that.

I I get that.

And I've got to do that.

But no, it's not aware of me.

Well, and I'm sure.

I just am also aware that if we end up with the same result that um yeah, I mean I might as well just think if we can agree to have no or minimal discussion.

Totally.

No, I don't this is the discussion now.

Yeah, so that's what I'm saying.

Like it's not meant to be a lot of work, it's not meant to be a lot of extra time.

It's just voting on them one by one instead of as a large package.

Yeah, and I I would agree with the mayor that I think that it's important for the public to be able to see who's supporting the blood and what how their council is looking at things.

So there's something, you know, everybody should be addressed on this.

This was closely divided.

I think that's just really important for me.

You know, whether whoever ends up winning the vote, then you know that's just a matter of the blind table.

But I think I think being accountable of the community is kind of stuff is important.

I want to say that our public is much more voracious in their reading sometimes.

Um they're paying attention.

So I think they're paying attention to the discussion.

And if they didn't pay attention to the discussion and they're curious about why you voted for something, they said you were against it, they can refer back to, and believe me, people do refer back to these recorded uh pieces.

I really want to make sure that we are not wasting time just to make us ourselves feel good about something, you know.

Um this I'm not sure why we deviated from where we were going because this process was going well.

It might it seemed like it might be an option to to bring yeah, to to get stuff that might otherwise get lost if we didn't pass the whole thing.

Did we have anything that's getting lost now?

When we when we paused, we were not nothing was getting lost.

Right.

I think it's worth having the option.

Okay, so why don't we I just want to applaud everyone for just really thoughtful comments and and greatly working together, I'm very excited about the prospects of this getting adopted.

I just want to offer this one comment.

While I think this smallish package could be done either way, you know, you could divide the the vote on each item, or you could vote it as a whole.

I do want us to be mindful of when the full LUMO comes in, the logistical challenge to divide that.

No, no, no.

And so you know that we just need to be mindful of that.

That that one I think there may be some things that get perhaps get amended out, but it's sort of amend out, and that's the end of it.

And then you really gotta vote on the whole package when we get to it.

We're gonna be talking about the logistics of that because I'm I'm not expecting to drop a giant document on you and say you've got four days and we're gonna vote on it.

But when you do get it, we are gonna have to get to a place where we vote the whole thing up or down pretty much uh you know, with you understand there may be some things eliminated or slight you know the adjustments.

Um I just wanted to offer that comment as you this is sort of a pilot for thinking about how we might do that.

Scary scary money.

And can I add to Jim's point and to um to his point?

Part of that is the reason why and to also the deal's point about having an authority that you guys don't feel like you're using, but the intent of an omnibus is to have that large package and voted through.

And if you have any issue, any kind of issue with anything in it, you put it and you walk away.

It is not, you know, I I don't I hate for us to feel like we're making it hard on it, so we are not making it.

So it's like it is and but it doesn't necessarily fall to the wayside, especially in our situation because we do have the rewrite happening.

So if some people's board and there is an interest to have that happen eventually, it can.

It'll just come in the rewrite.

So I don't want us to feel like things are getting lost.

I don't want you to get frustrated, but I I see we're kind of getting there.

I don't I don't want to pull labor point either.

I don't want to, I think maybe I've been misunderstood, and that my interest isn't to sort of pull things and leave them on the table somewhere.

My interest is that I think we have the statutory authority to proactively amend things when we are in session, and I think that we aren't using that authority.

The the division of the things and this is like tabling them or something is not among my interest.

My interest is if we were to say, well, we're here tonight of a bunch of steam has gathered behind an idea, and there are five people willing to vote for it.

We have the legal authority to do that, and we don't use it.

Um I don't want to devote any more time to that because it's as several colleagues have pointed out.

It's not the best use of our time right now, but I don't want to, I don't want to be on the record misconstrued about what I'm talking about.

Understood.

Okay.

So we have options for parking.

Uh we can eliminate, we can maintain um establish a new parking maximum.

Do you want to still help and see where we are or something?

Do you all want to okay?

So can I see um thumbs up for the original proposal of a limiting for a vehicle park parking maximum?

Okay, so we're at four.

Um I'm assuming we want to have some conversation about that one to understand then what we're trying to do.

Yeah, I would appreciate some more discussion around this one.

Because like what I what I don't think we need more parking, like I think it's just even a bad legacy in infrastructure for our kids.

Like every parking space you create is like a use of space as they go for well past our lifetime.

So like I just if there's a way to have less parking, I want less parking.

But I want but maybe I'm missing like the other side.

Um I've been watching, but go ahead.

Um for me, when we're dealing with two family dwellings and it's dealing with parking, um, there is a culture of treating other housing types differently than we do single-family housing, and one, that's not something that I want to continue to perpetuate.

Um I'm not interested in creating a car culture.

Um but when I'm thinking about a two-family dwelling, we're talking about families and households, and the reality is, you know, a lot of our folks can't afford to live here and work here.

We've got people who aren't doing those two things together, and for me, the elimination really assumes that it is that everybody has access to be able to live their lives um in a way that we are trying to you know cultivate for them.

And that's just not the reality, and I feel it's a it's another barrier.

Um for vehicle parking maximum, um for two families, is um to me doesn't really meet those needs of what families may need at this juncture.

Um I know my family a lot, like looking at my in-laws house, where it's a multi-generational home, where you had grandparents and parents, and um children that they were raising.

We had five, sometimes six cars in that house because we needed to, not because we wanted to, but we needed to.

And so um, and I know and I don't want to use anecdotes to just sort of uh verify the policy choices that I'm making.

I know that that is true for other households as well.

I see this with single family homes as well.

People who have like five kids, and you know, you get one who's off to college, they can drop the kid off to soccer practice, and mom and dad are working a job here and a job there.

They um the reality is that we we still have um a level of car dependency.

Um I don't want families and family dwellings to be um just stronghold in that way.

And lastly, a lot of the opposition that I've heard from my colleagues has centered on um students and student housing, and I don't want that to always be the premise as to why we go against something because we don't want students and we don't want student stuffers, and we don't want more parking and more students parking, and blah blah blah.

Because we don't want students and we don't want student stoppers, and we don't want more parking, more student parking at level.

Like I get that.

I live in a neighborhood where we are surrounded by multiple cars, like students driving.

I I get that argument.

I get it.

I understand it, I hear it.

I am really thinking about not just students and what it means, but the weird reality of families and what their needs are.

And that's why I'm so nice.

Um that was great, because I wasn't taken that way.

I'm going to be kind of hypocritical for me.

The environment is the most important part here.

So I'm willing to discount the reality of families for like future environmental concerns.

And like how to say that bluntly.

I don't want to create an infrastructure at 20 years from now, we may not need, but it'll still be there.

And it's hard to get rid of impervious servers once you create it.

And also parking areas are particularly tough because they're kind of unofficial ground ground lands.

Like, you know, gas stations are so nasty because you have to do a lot of remediation once they're gone.

So like these parking spaces, let's say someone does want to get rid of them 20 years from now where we're less car dependent, which was, you know, who knows.

But like once we create stuff like this, it's hard to get rid of, and we do get rid of it, the land that's left behind is kind of nasty.

So like I see like a real big future cost to this current action.

Okay.

Do I have a simple plan next?

I would if I could, but we can't.

Well, I think, hold on.

Uh the Melissa Amy Elizabeth.

Thank you.

Um the X so I'm very uncertain about what to do here because I'm pretty much in your camp, Louie, being pretty anti-parking.

I think we need a sort of regulatory incentive to reduce car use where possible.

And the explanation I was given that has tentatively shifted me into the original staff proposal of eliminating the maximum.

The argument I was given was that in order to incentivize the infill development, which is the primary reduction in vehicle miles traveled, is that they live here.

Um in the short term, in the next 10 years, um behaviorally, people are going to have cars, and what will motivate them to downsize is realize is not using it because they can walk bike or bus once they're in here, and then they realize, damn, this car is expensive as hell.

Like it's $13,000 on average per car.

Sorry, but sorry, don't want to say that.

But um it's very expensive to own a vehicle.

Each vehicle is extremely expensive.

The insurance for each user is extremely expensive.

There's all these costs, so they'll quickly realize, wow, I can save a lot of money, and I don't need this car.

My question that you're bringing up about the parking spots is one for staff, which is about how does this rule relate to paved parking on sites versus unpaved?

Because I think the examples we talked about originally was sort of like being able, so we we're legalizing these weird, like some of the flag lots, some of the zero frontage lots where we where we think people need to be able to store a vehicle, and of course, we have limited street, we already run into some complaints with people saying like I can't park anywhere near my house on my own street.

Um, so we know that street parking isn't a sort of endless infinite solution to the need to store vehicle.

How does this relate to whether these parking spaces are necessarily paved or likely to be paved?

So we we don't require, we currently don't require under the duplex rules for the parking spaces to be paved, but they they can't just be dirt.

They do it at the very least, it has to be gravel or some sort of improved surface that's going to prevent erosion and sediment runoff.

Those are the two big concerns about having some sort of say a dirt parking lot.

Um ruts and all that really is an environmental issue that we want to avoid at all costs.

So the four parking spaces, it's uh I think languages you know as defined by the surface and some other kind of delineating features.

Um surface is important.

Um it doesn't have to be full-on pavement, it can be um pervious pavement, it can be gravel, um, it can be a whole number of different things.

It just can't be curb or grass.

And and does the market research you have access to in the conversations you had indicate.

Am I correct in recalling that one of the primary movers for the staff recommendation on this is uh that it's incentivizing the type of infill form that we're attempting to legalize here, or is there a what is what is the original justification case for lifting this maximum here?

What and what makes that a valuable thing to do?

I mean the the goal um between the the two changes to the two family rules, the the square footage and the parking is to remove the barriers um to the maximum extent possible.

Um parking is is one of those barriers.

Um we don't have necessarily good sense as to like where it ranks um in terms of the uh the detriment it causes um to lack of duplex construction, but we know it it it's among the ones that that we have control over.

Um obviously there's a whole lot out there that we have no control over, but this is one of those barriers that we do have control over, and it's been identified as a barrier.

Thank you.

Um I'll just close by saying I I don't like I don't like supporting pro parking policies.

I I don't want to be realistic about what families are doing, so I my mind's not made up on where to be on this, and I'm looking forward to listening to my colleagues' comments.

Well that's that um so I have a real quick question before I launch into my opinion, um, which is they they're still gonna have to meet the 40% or whatever it is uh canopy coverage, right?

Because the duplexes single family only houses don't have to do that, but the duplexes will have to make what 40% correct, so it'll be a 40% pre-canopy minimum um and a fifty percent impervious surface maximum.

Okay.

Um I think it's important for us to remember that that's the backstop.

Um I am I am definitely with you on I hate I hate the cars.

Love everybody to give up the car.

Um but right now 43,000 people a day commute into Chapel Hill and those are a lot of vehicle miles traveled.

And that's why the that's why transportation is the biggest source right now.

So that is the one bit of of control that local governments can do to try to bring people to live where the jobs are, and and I approach it as purely in terms of whatever we can do to bring down the barriers, um to getting more people living downtown so that they can store their car at their home and and take a bus to work.

I had a long conversation with Hogbin about why I supported parking decks at Aura, but I did not support the downtown parking deck.

And the differences between the behavior that those two types of parking um engendered.

Um that I am um uh uh supported in my thought about eliminating barriers by understanding that the backstop is that we still have the 50% impervious and the 40% canopy coverage as the backstops for these.

Um past a few different families have very vastly different car needs, and I don't think we're trying to tell anybody how many cars they have.

I think we just um I mean I have lived in I lived in Hoboka, New Jersey, and and the parking space was a very, very valuable thing, and we sometimes had to park far away from our house, but that was there were a lot of people there amongst the cars, and that was just that was the way we lived.

Um it also segue into like what the elevator I'm sorry, it turns out I actually look at the dialogue.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean it really also segues into you know what Theo was saying as you know, I'm thinking about the uh the trickiness of um when we're trying to do these flagship thoughts and what it requires and how we want to have like the cottage courts and all of those types of things and um again I don't want barriers and I'm just every eliminating it for me for a two-family um dwelling with the parking helps to um decrease the barriers.

Um and I also want to make sure like there's a lot of our land use policy that you know really helps single family homes in a different way, and I would really like it to get to a point where we're viewing all housing types the same way, but it's fine that hope for the removing rate will happen too.

And I think we need to use our tools like I appreciate that because 40.

I appreciate that we have a 40% canopy regulation for duplexes, but the idea that we only regulate canopy and duplexes is not okay.

I mean, and I think if you want to build a single family house, you have a 50% requirement.

If you want to build a one, you have a 25%.

I think you mentioned earlier we had kind of pitiful little tools to fight against this.

So I think we should be using, I think we should be using the tools that we have.

So for me, um, I think Elizabeth, you brought up earlier that the parking and the size were very together for you.

So I'm thinking, what are we incentive?

So I heard that in general, student purpose-built student only housing tends to be one bedroom to one bathroom to one parking space.

That that's that that's the desirable product that there is.

I don't object to students living in town.

I want students to live here.

I've moved here because it was a university town.

But I don't like housing that only sits, that only means one lifestyle, or you know, or one age group.

Right?

I want housing where everybody can live.

So for me, taking off that four vehicle maximum is basically saying, yes, you can come in, and it's going to be even more desirable for you to come in and build a single use investment property here.

I think we've got plenty of room on the roads.

I really appreciate Louie's argument again, not only about impervious, and even if you put gravel down, right, even if it's not paved, that's still impervious service the way it needs to be.

Yeah, and you know, and you know, sitting in, and you know, it's and it's a mess.

So I thank you for for raising that issue because it's one I hadn't really thought about.

So I think that we were not, I I don't feel like having a reasonable maximum creates barriers to anybody doing it.

I I think it's still, I think it will be fine.

I think it's better for our environment.

Um people can still have as many cars as they want, but they just need to park them on the road.

So Elizabeth and it can be sorry.

Thanks.

Um I just want to say I really appreciate a couple of you have made comments tonight that helps us sort of zoom back and look at each one of these things in the context of all of the other things that are 40% canopy and the units and the airline, like, oh, right, these aren't like standalone things, and I keep it's really easy to go down the topple of each one, so thank you for that.

I appreciate that.

Um I want to keep the maximum, and um I think ultimately, as much as I go back and forth, and I I really do get what you're saying, Paris, because I have two driving teenagers and aging parents who live around the corner, and a student um nephew who can't keep his car on campus.

So we have like a freaking fleet at my house.

Most of them are parked in the street.

And I'm just waiting for the neighbors to start complaining about like how many cars we have parked on the street, and I'm actually robot traffic home.

Um well, you just outed yourself.

They're pretty easy to see.

Um so I fully get that because we are ridiculous in our house.

Um I don't see approving infrastructure that's the opposite of the goal that we're trying to get to.

I think very much with where we is landing that I'm just like just I mean, I drove in San Francisco and wanted to leave my car on the sidewalk at nights and just hope it got code and never had to deal with it again because I got home at one in the morning when all the parking places were taken, not that they ever weren't.

So I mean, like I'm very familiar with with how tough that is, and um for that reason we only have one car, and my husband walked to and from work every day, blah blah blah.

But so like those are I just think we have to keep pushing the the behaviors and the end goal that we want.

Yeah, so that's why I'm winding there.

I like to keep the maximum.

Yep.

Yeah, this is very tough, and it's one of them I often follow on the other side of um of those who are just saying we're involved.

I follow on the side of opportunity to live together and to have access to the vehicle that you need.

This goes back to the apartments, as we talk about having fewer parking spaces than units, and forcing those people to live, you know.

I live in apartment.

Okay, um so um this is a tough one, and I'm gonna have to have conversations with you, Louie, because you're a new your new fuck partner here.

I want us when you speak up.

Yeah, um but yes, there are intergenerational families that are living together, right?

And my kids are held off on them getting their driver's licenses until they were 18 or above because of insurance.

But then they got their cars, and they were inexpensive cars that were preuses, right?

The unofficial official car behind Subaru.

Um here.

But they needed to get to where they were going, and then to tell a family you can only have space for two, and then you gotta take your chances on the road, and then you're gonna is it right for us to force that onto the road.

We have to be considerate of that.

One of the things that we heard from the public that I personally heard from the public was you are endangering us by parking having people park on the street.

And yes, we do have enforcement, but do we have the staff to enforce because we you know it's all intentional.

So this is a tough one, and I land on opportunity and present.

I'm willing to talk, I'm willing to hear other, but that is where I am.

I mean, my thoughts go to the new two family dwellings that we're doing this for.

And the biggest barrier to that, of course, is gonna be the cost of the dwelling to begin with.

So to me, that's the biggest barrier to creating opportunities for a wider people is just the sheer cost of living in Chapel Hill.

I like parking maximums in the standpoint that one of the things I think we're doing here is trying to set the vision for our town, and I really believe in a Chapel Hill that um is dense and is connected by transit greenways, and that's that's where that's where we want to go, and a part of but again, I'm thinking about the future.

And if we're talking about people who want to come to town, who want to live in our neighborhoods and walk to school, and I more than likely work from home or work in town, that the vision of our community is something they agree with.

It's something that they want to buy into.

Um, I didn't look at this as close during the planning commission conversation we had when this came up.

Um, but we we've been really harping on reducing uh parking across town.

But I just feel like um you know, two cars per, you know, again, just thinking about it right now is if you had two units, two cars per unit.

Um in my neighborhood, I can park six cars in front of my house.

There's there's tons of off street parking, which I know is anecdotal, and not all neighborhoods are the same.

Um but I I feel like I want to see a parking maximum so that we can start moving us to see the vision of this town that I want to see, which is dense connected by transit agreement.

Louis, yeah, I really appreciate the discussion, but I guess this is something I'm just gonna die on.

Um yeah, like a single voter.

So like I don't want to create new infrastructure that's gonna encourage a deterioration and completely climate change.

I understand this point about current behaviors, but like those current behaviors are gonna keep happening if everyone keeps created infrastructure to support those current behaviors.

So yeah, it's unfair.

And like I realize that.

Like Camille, I'm I just want I hear what everyone's saying, and I think you're probably right, but I'm just kind of a hard miner on this.

What am I right about?

I I think you're right.

If if we didn't do what I want and we maintain the four vehicle maximum, it's gonna be a hard ship on families.

It's gonna be a hard ship on the type of families I want to chapel.

Multi-generational families.

I like that idea.

But this will be a hardship on them.

Because it's not fun to walk somewhere else to do your parking.

This will be a hardship on them.

I don't want to put a hardship on families, but I'm okay putting a hardship on families if it's their needs versus the client.

And like that's I realize that's not for everyone, but that's kind of where I land on this.

Can I just speak to that?

Um so like the behaviors for me is um, yes, that's one thing.

And I just want to say that I think what I'm hearing from everyone who are speaking like I agree with you more than you think I do.

I think where I'm landing though is as we're thinking about creating the kinds of affordable housing types and what is gonna be required in um accommodating that need with the the division of lots and two family dwellings and how like the parking um is gonna be like an issue.

And I'm leaning into trying to lean into um the thought process of what um planning staff were thinking when they brought um this option before us.

And I don't think it's in contradiction to our environment, environmental commitments, especially when we are seeking to bring more housing types.

And so that's more where I'm leaning in terms of my rationale, less the behaviors, because I too would like to see as hatch prophecies that help to create a different culture and behavior.

And so I'm leaning into that as well.

But I also see that they're trying to eliminate barriers for us if you're bringing forward kinds of housing types that also speak to our environmental commitments.

I'll be brief.

Elizabeth and then Alyssa.

The point about the climate really is pretty compelling for me, and I and the point about the vision of a dense greenway and transit connected and pedestrian Channel Hill.

A couple other things are compelling to me.

One is four cars is a lot of cars.

I mean, I I was sitting here thinking about four cars in my current front yard.

I'm I'm about to move at the end of the month, which is uh everybody takes moving.

Um but uh thinking about how much space that takes up, even in my enormous yard in the house that I'm renting right now, it's a lot of space, it's a lot of people that you can four individuals, it's a lot.

Um the other point that's sticking with me is that when we when we asked about what the original staff justification behind the thinking is, there is that uncertainty about how important this is.

And so my sympathy to the point about the climate, my sympathy to the point about the other investments we're making and how to make sure that we're channeling people into those investments.

Um and given the fact that uh there are there are other trade-offs about housing types, particularly might hope that we can authorize consideration of quick legalization of triplexes and quadplexes, which is a much bigger affordability boon than than anything to do with vehicles is um I I'm comfortable uh maintaining the parking maximum in you know, in part out of recognition that the council is making some bold moves right now, um and I I appreciate the boldness of the of the council, and I'd like I think this is something that we can balance with our climate rules.

Um Elizabeth, it's okay.

I think we'll probably Melissa given my background and priorities and climate being my first priority.

I just have to explain myself a little bit because it's odd for me to be um defending parking, and as I said, this is not a sort I'm willing to fall on, but I'm I I just want to understand explain the fact that that my viewpoint is bigger than just Chapel Hill.

Um sprawl means that that we're eating up the farms or the forests that are outside of the city limits, and every home that we have here, you can bet that the home that they would have out in the rural buffer is gonna have eight parking spaces or whatever.

Absolutely, and they're driving into town.

Um so I tend to take a holistic view of things in terms of um what we're trading off and how we're trying to pull them in to live downtown and to get rid of barriers.

But as I said, this is not something I'm gonna follow my story on.

Um but I just wanted to explain that so that you understand why I would defend that.

Sorry.

No, I didn't forget to have a big one because they did their own little climate cage match that I wanted to see here, right?

Um I um if you think about the single family homes and the things are still being built in terms in like a suburban because I that really was my initial question, which which has which is a better climate priority, keeping people driving from driving in or minimizing car dependency in this area and um impervious service.

The the homes that people are moving into in like the Disney neighborhood that are being built, those are being built with eight parking spaces.

They remember space for eight cars lined up on a driveway, and then in some of those big wide suburban streets where there's plenty of room, but they're not building a parking lot in front of them.

And so I think that we can granted, yes, some streets are busier and you have less on street parking, but I don't think that we are keeping us from keeping ourselves from building something that people could then access outside of town by keeping the parking maximum.

I don't think I don't just you know so not making sense.

No.

So if you're like people or people will then go out of town.

She's saying we're competing with like people moving in town or out of town, and out of town, they don't have a parking lot in front of their house.

So we're not they're moving, they're they're like they're we need to make dense walkable greenway urban living more attractive than suburban, basically.

Um I don't I don't I don't think it's like an apples to apples.

Your metaphor was a mess.

I don't know.

I don't even know what the metaphor is.

Um anyway, I just I don't I don't think that that we are like keeping the parking mass in town.

I don't think that we are like, oh, but I can access that product 10 miles away.

Because that product 10 miles away is Disney's they're not doing that in a prior chapel.

Right.

That's what I'm saying.

They're not building houses with like eight parking spaces in Friday Chapel.

They're building house, two-car garage and a driveway and street parking.

Yeah, which is yeah, anyway.

Um so I um swordly I um I feel like this one and the next one for whatever reason feel like to me the ones I think are most important.

Like I think parking is I think um we have a vision, and our job is to look forward to a vision.

And so if we want to be a dense, walkable, bikeable place.

I I agree.

We just we need to start making policy that aligns with that.

I still don't think that parking on the street along with spaces on your property is really that bad.

Um again, like I grew up in a duplex and we didn't have parking on our property at all.

We parked on the street, like that's what we did.

And I've lived in cities where you park in all sorts of different places, and that's what I think like I want us to start becoming a place that has really good placemaking and that deprioritizes cars.

Now I still think people have a lot of options for parking with four cars in a duplex.

Like I think that's that is not restrictive.

I just think I want to support our greenway network, I want to support our future vision, and I really do understand that we don't want to burden families more than other people, and I actually think I would like in our overall Luma rewrite for us to um make that problem not a problem anymore where we're asking more of duplexes and multi-family than we are of single family, but I think that's a that's a different problem that we can solve.

Like we can make it so that our incentives are always leading us more towards multi-family, so I agree.

I would rather have um I would rather have um a sliding scale of other requirements for single family being the hardest to do.

So I know that that's probably not going to no one thing will make the market work for the type of thing we want, but I want to drive all our policies and all of our um standards towards what we want.

And so even if it doesn't actually get us all the way there, like I want to point people towards the type of housing and the type of place we want it.

So I'm in in favor of keeping the parking maximum, but not because I want to not encourage families.

I just want us to help people live differently as we do these different things for the future.

Um so I think I have a count because everybody has shared their preference, but if we can just make sure with a thumbs up for um for eliminating for vehicle parking, if you can give a thumbs up.

Okay.

Um so that one, if we can have the alternate language.

And if I could just offer um if I could just given that the it seems like the um the consensus among the group is to maintain the four parking space maximum.

Um if I could just offer a um a suggestion for an improvement um that I think we just go a long way to make the ordinance um line up where our our legal scope for our legal authority likely is anyway.

That the four-pehable parking maximum refer to four outdoor vehicle parking spaces.

Because we can't do a couple of things with duplexes.

We can't regulate the interior configuration or use of rooms, and we can't regulate doors and windows.

So it's likely the case anyway that we can't stop somebody from having the a garage and then also having some outdoor spaces.

But if we just clarify that by saying that this four parking space maximum is referring to outdoor parking spaces, I think that would go a long way to just again maintaining the current rule and just very explicitly aligning it with our authority over duplexes.

That helps that helps a lot.

Thank you.

Yeah, helps me too.

Again, I don't want to be like I'm this is a vote for more housing types and not for cars for me.

That's the posture that I'm taking.

Even though my argument is I think you're right.

Do you um does anybody have any other questions or thoughts on that?

A minute.

No.

No, no.

Everybody's good.

Great.

Let's do it.

Alright.

I think we're down to our last one.

And I am hoping this would be easy.

Um clarifying question.

Yeah, when you're done.

Okay.

Um so this is front yard parking.

The original proposal was allow up to two parking spaces in the front yard, even if doing so exceeds 40% of the front yard area.

The proposed amendment was to allow a maximum of two parking spaces in the front yard and remove the existing 40% maximum for parking and driveways.

Um this one was tabled.

I think we did not end up voting because people wanted more information and more conversation.

Um options with obviously throw something else in the mix if you want, but um, maintaining the 40% parking and driveway area limit and adopt the exception for up to two vehicles.

Um remove the 40% parking and driveway area limit and adopt a two vehicle maximum, and adjust the 40% parking and driveway area limit or other, and there are some pictures of R2 and R3 and the percentages of how much the front yard parking would take up based on lot size.

I believe, if I'm doing staff job, which is never a good idea.

Yeah, and I think I can briefly explain the diagrams.

So the the two diagrams, um, I think the next diagram, um they they illustrate different uh concerns with uh with the rules.

Do you want the first one again?

No, this one, this one's a is a good place to start.

Um so these are uh two identical proposed R2 zoning lots, um with the this the reduced lot size lot width, the new the new dimensions.

Um in the example of the left, the the home is built right up to the front setback, the street setback.

So the the front yard is essentially as small as it could theoretically get.

Um and in that case, um sufficient parking for two cars very conveniently ends up being about 40% of the parking uh of the front yard parking space, uh or excuse me, of the front yard.

In the example on the right, the the home is further back from the street than it technically needs to be, but that's a condition that because of our topography, because of individual design choices, um, is likely to be seen in a lot of cases, that the home isn't built right up to the front setback.

Um in this case, you have uh you know a driveway that is still just 40% of the front yard of the front yard.

Um, but technically, right, you could fit probably twice as many cars, right?

You could fit four cars there.

Um what the 40% rule does is it relieves us from the dis from having to distinguish that example on the right, what part of that driveway are parking spaces versus what part of that driveway is just the driveway.

By having a numera percentage-based limit, what we're doing is controlling the built form in a way that can be verified when you first come in with your plans for what you're going to build, and it can be verified on an ongoing basis without having to routinely monitor, right?

Are you parking four cars on that driveway?

Or what are you?

What are you doing?

That is a concern that exists with the four four vehicle max for duplexes as well.

It's easier to mitigate because of kind of how we talk about it, but it's it's still a concern across the board whenever you're going to limit vehicular maximums based on just the number of cars rather than on the built space.

So this is an illustration of that difficulty, and why I think it's important to maintain a percentage of the front yard as part of these regulations.

The earlier slide is an example of where that lets at least have two cars, even if it pushes you past 40%, can come into play.

So in the two examples, left or right, uh the we now have that R2 lot on the left is the same as in the previous slide.

In this case, if you were to have these parking areas in the two examples are the same width in both cases, the option on the right, um, if it were limited to just 40%, uh you likely wouldn't be able to fit your two cars up front.

Um, and so that's where uh the the justification behind the the specific change that staff was proposing is is really designed to address this sort of situation where on a more tightly packed lot just being able to have the same kind of two cars.

What we've what we've established is a minimum that would be available to what we've established generally is a reasonable allowance for for somebody to be able to have on their property.

Um the 40% rule prohibit or prevents that in the case of these smaller lots.

Um so that's this is kind of why we've we've suggested having that two-car minimum, even if you exceed 40%.

Can I ask a clarifying question?

Um is it that, and I think I remember this from last time, maybe in whenever this came before.

Um is it that on the smaller parcel there's not room on the side to run a narrow driveway to the back?

Like is that yeah?

So there's a couple of concerns here for driveways to the back.

Um in both of these examples, the homes are not just built all the way up to the street setback, they're also built as wide as they possibly can be, um, all the way to the side setbacks.

Um, it's an eight-foot side setback in the R2 example, and it's a six-foot side setback in the R3 example.

Um, under our current rules, driveways are allowed in setbacks, um, so the changes and what we propose to setbacks doesn't change where you can build a driveway.

Um in this you know, R3 example, if somebody were to build a uh you know, an eight to ten foot wide driveway, which is kind of the minimum you need to be able to safely, unless you're driving something you know really small, um, safely traverse, you need about eight to ten feet.

Um for safety reasons.

We typically say that unless you're doing a shared driveway, your driveway has to be about two and a half feet from the property line, you need some separation.

So you can imagine in the R3 scenario, if you were to include a driveway to the back of the lot, you're really squeezing and taking away on that kind of smaller lot, you're really taking away some buildable area.

Um that really increases impervious surface.

Um, it also, and I I won't belabor you with a bunch of other sketch up models that I made to kind of think about some of this stuff.

Again, unless you're driving something crazy doesn't work, you would have to have a detached garage if your goal was being to be able to like pull into a garage.

Have to have a detached garage, which is a lot more expensive, again, kind of adds to the impervious surface.

And so all of that means that the only way you could really do it is if you have a shared driveway, which is a great scenario if there's either an existing driveway that's set up in a way that's amenable to be shared, or if when you're creating this new R3 lot, you're creating multiple R3 lots, and you're kind of starting from scratch.

But given that we're in more of an infill context, again to that notion of reducing barriers, we want to be open to somebody with a kind of a large enough lot in an R3 zoning district or an R2 zoning district to just create one new lot off of their existing site.

We don't know in that scenario, is there going to be room for, or you know, is there that existing driveway?

Um is there an opportunity for a shared driveway?

We really have to think about it in the context of just a single lot.

Um then I really struggle with this because I think I really struggle with this one because I know I've been to some of our townhome communities, and you know, a walkable, interesting community if you're not walking by CO bumpers, right?

And if you walk in a lot of our townhouse community, that's what it is.

It's car, car, car, car, car, hard car, car, car, right?

So it's so we've got you know community use the word tension before, right?

We've got a couple things in tension here.

So how do we I don't know, I don't know that I have the answer for this.

Um, I understand your issues about regulation and enforcement, and you know, trying to find something that's a sensible alternative for this, and I'm just um I'm really struggling with what that is.

You know, do you is it you can have two cars on the lot and that's and then or 40%, which is you know, whichever is greater, and then um I I don't know.

I kept looking at things like do you have a do you have a driveway?

Are you allowed to have from the street to the house?

You're allowed to have that much as a drive.

You can do it.

Like I don't have the answer for you.

I just again I have the interest, which is in making sure that we are not creating just Cs of cars in a place we're trying to make walkable and make comfortable for people to be.

So yeah, I don't have an answer for you.

I hear you, Amy, about the aesthetic of the thing and the bumper, like car par like that is exactly what it is, but again, for me, in terms of like a design, um, I don't want barriers.

I'm not advocating for cars, I'm advocating for our ability to afford the opportunity to subdivide and provide um you know the type of housing that we need, and um the reality is that someone's gonna need to be able to you know park their car having looked at and also walked around far.

Um we have a lot of unique um housing types in the north side community.

And so when I look at the PB homes, for instance, in that weird lot on a day and how it had to be configured to make sure that it was in the RCD, uh, and it was you know hard to shape it this way, and ultimately I think the car takes up a hundred percent of the front yard um in order to accommodate that.

And so again, like travel hill is unique, our topography is unique.

If we are trying to maximize the the kind of housing types, I don't want our um regulations to be prohibitive of being able to do that.

And I think it's so um helpful when you all provide us the examples like you just did to help explain how you landed or you did.

I mean, to visualize that and see that it really helps to reinforce uh when I'm also seeing within the neighborhoods and the communities.

Uh seeing, for instance, my next door neighborhood, which is a duplex, um, they are probably parking in more than 40% of their front yard.

But it's a duplex and it's housing, you know, two families.

And so I see why A makes sense, and you just further um you just further the make clear why supporting A still.

Just in response to that, I and I I hear you, and again, for me that the tension that's going on, and maybe the thing that I don't want to have happen is that somewhere that's got a nice wide frontage, deciding the 40% parking there is a great thing.

Right.

So maybe it depends how wide your frontage is, how much you get.

I don't know.

Just a suggestion, but I I can see a big house like parking everywhere.

So maybe there's a way to factor that in.

I'm similarly torn because I think that front air parking is bad design, and again, it's like with counter to our goals of walkability, but I think ultimately I'm waiting on A because I don't I don't want us to create more problems that we're trying to solve, and I can absolutely see how there are I take your point tasks that were in an infill environment where each lot is gonna be really kooky.

Um thinking about the sign part of this on the bus text amendment for like changing the signage, which was just so arcane and absurd, and you like basically couldn't put words on your sign.

Um and I'm afraid that we would end up creating situations in individual circumstances with this if we got overly restrictive because we don't get to start from scratch.

Um so while I would like to just do away with the front yard parking altogether, I don't I don't want to box ourselves in, so I'm going with A.

I'm good with A.

Okay.

Anyone else?

I'll do with A.

Okay.

All right.

And thanks to Taz for the for the um Yeah, that really is.

Because that A is the original, correct?

Yeah, yeah.

That was that was so helpful to me.

I agree.

Especially with you walking through it.

I understood it better after you walked through it than when I just saw it on my own.

Yeah, yeah, that was a lot.

And then you're an Elizabeth.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um thank you very much, Steph, for helping us to understand why you brought before us these proposals.

Each time you you um helped us to understand your thinking, it made me feel better about the decision either I made or we made, right?

So there was a decision that I didn't support made, but I feel much better about it now because of what you shared.

I feel good about the decision I reached here.

So thank you.

Please continue.

Yeah.

So I would uh I'm not exactly sure what to do, so I'm gonna ask you all.

Um we had said if time permit any topics or questions about the bigger lumo in advance of the work session.

Um I'm kind of losing steam, I get the sense everybody is, but um we could do like uh a lightning round, or we can get out of here.

Yeah, I'm gonna probably do lightning one.

All right, is everybody okay if we do a lightning round?

All right, let's do it.

I'm gonna stick here with you.

Let's go.

Um can we just go around the table to not make things so this is on the low mode that's coming?

Yes, not this in that.

Got it.

So again, for me, and going back to that complete community vision.

I know this is dealt mostly with housing.

I want to make sure that we're looking at the other complete community things as well.

We've got environmental issues, we've got a bunch of stuff going on that I don't think I've really been addressed yet.

I want to make sure that we're incentivizing the things that we want.

So again, for me, that's more units, smaller units.

Let's let's look at the single family ranks, right?

I don't want, I don't want it to be easier for somebody to build an admansion than it is for them to have a duplex work on that side.

I want I want them to hurt, but you know, I want I want that.

I want that to be the harder decision.

The market is the market will want that, and I want whatever little tools we have to help us get what we want to use that.

So um, and in terms of process, Ted, I hear you, and I it's just I always struggle with approving one big thing in a big chunk because there will be times when there are as there was with this where I support 90% of it, and I just are certain things that I didn't feel needing like community issues.

So figuring out a way we can we can find where those points are, like council work them out as I move forward, I think it's going to be a really important process issue.

Yeah, I I agree with Amy in terms of the process issue.

I I think I would like to see a plan for like when we're gonna see different parts of the LUMO, and also how the public will have a chance to engage with those different parts of the LUMO.

So I think if we just saw that plan, and we're not necessarily making decisions, but at least we can read parts of it, and the public can have parts of it because there's a good chance we're gonna be stuck with this document for another 20 years.

No, no, no, sir.

No, no, no, no, no.

I hope you're right.

We're gonna update it so regularly, right?

Every five years so regularly.

Okay.

Uh you can't mention it down every five years.

We're not like this is a living document if we are approaching it in that way, and so I'm really excited about that.

Um it is a daunting task to get a whole rate with auditing like tasks.

This task is gonna walk me through every single aspect so I can understand like he just um like some of the stuff is just gonna go go completely over my head, and I'm just gonna be very transparent.

I don't know.

And so I'm really leaning on you all to um help guide us through the lies.

Um that's really important.

And so our uh focus on um not how we get there, but what I want to see in our local rewrite.

I really want our right to um eliminate the barriers to housing types.

I want our rewrite to move us towards housing justice.

Um there's repair that needs to be done as we come as it pertains to housing and how we viewed it and treated it in uh our land use space for ordinance, and so I want housing justice in there.

Um, and I want it to be uh reflective of the kind of economic development that we want.

I want it to be reflected with the values that we have for um environmental justice that we want.

Um and I want it to be the kind of vibrant document that really holds people from Radio to grave as we continue to tweak it every five years.

Um so that includes making sure that it speaks to Greenways and all the biddings that we say in the many of the um amenities that we say that will help uh better people's lives.

So I know that's very high level, um, but that's really what I see going to our thank you.

Yeah, I didn't know we have one.

Okay, we were just doing blank and have to use it.

He was out of the rooms.

No, I was out of the room.

The larger one, the later one, the big one, the big one coming our way.

Do you like how that's I don't know?

That's the kind of thing.

I'm gonna ask that council you know, move to initiate the process to put an amendment legalizing triplex and quadplexes, but bigger lumbo.

I don't I don't want to talk about that tonight.

Okay, okay.

Um we agree, agree.

Um I would like um I would like a terms of process for us to be able to discuss things so that we don't end up in a situation like November 19th.

Um because that's frustrating for us and and confusing for the public.

Um I want to look at more RCD protection and how do we incorporate natural areas map into what we want to do.

I want to break barriers to the missing middle.

Um I know this isn't in the LUMO plan, but I want to consider how we can incorporate pre-approved plans and other ways to facilitate and catalyze getting more of the missing middle.

And um I want to see up to up to quads, but I I would like to see us incorporate into the holistic thing where we can put everything from micro units through the duplex to quadplex and then up to like small apartment buildings, like up to eight apartments in a building, as well as cottage courts, because talk about shared parking, cottage courts are ideal for that kind of thing.

So yeah.

Um echo a lot of what's been said here.

I'll just say process-wise, um, I know we've been talking about it'll be ready when it's ready.

Um I would like us to set up a timeline.

I would like to have I would like to have a date agreed upon date of when this would be rolled out, evaluated so that we can all hold ourselves accountable to meeting those timelines.

I feel like it gets done when it gets done, leaves us open to not getting anywhere.

So it's important for me to have an established timeline that works for both of us.

Um I want to I want to resurrect or re-incorporate or highlight our shaping our future, our TOD plan.

I want I want to make sure that we have a real transit focus to this.

Um looking at our corridors as centering pieces as much as our neighborhoods.

Uh stormwater, I know we need when I look at this parking items too.

I don't know how it impacts the lunar, but I think we have to have a lens or a filter or some sort of like okay, when we're analyzing these things, what are the main buckets here for me?

It's like transit, it's stormwater, equity, you know, what you know, but making sure the stormwater is in there, so if we're looking at impervious surface in some of these decisions, um that's factored in there.

So timeline, transit, and stormwater.

Um yeah, and when the consultant asked what of our like strategic goals I thought would be the most important thing for the retreat, um, I sort of surprised myself by coming up with um our sustainability initiatives and and climate and stuff just because it seems like the thing that is the most fragile and the easiest to get lost to the urgency of other strategic things like economic development and housing, um, and it is easy in the short term to sacrifice that long-term health for short-term gains, and I think we we're not an outdoorsy person, but it just seems it's pretty critical.

Um, and so I really want us to keep an eye on the LUMO rewrite to to you know, stormwater, you know, um heat islands, multimodal transportation, all the different things that we can do to incentivize healthy development, um also I think that we did really this was really helpful work session, and we landed in some places that I um we may not have otherwise, and I I really get a lot from hearing what you all say, and very often change my mind based on the things that you say, um, you know, in conjunction with all of the other things I've been thinking, but um yeah, I I just think that work sessions before things come before us are going to be pretty critical with the larger remote sessions.

So um I'm not sure what can you include in the limo what what is really relevant to the limo, so please extend some grace here.

For me, let me just bring this closer.

Um three things that I ran on, and three things that I stand on is us with our economic development, our housing, and our green space.

How do we hold those intention, right?

And if we want there to be more viable economic development, then we have to have good transit around.

There has to be a way for people to get to these places and to sometimes park their vehicles so they can become patrons of those places.

And um Iliot Road lost a business there, but others have popped up.

One of the places I go to that parking is not as I'm just that is how do we think about getting people to and fro in through?

Um is very critical for me, and then help us to understand where different types of development again.

I don't know if this is where different types of development will yield different types of products.

And this goes to the housing issue for me.

If we're looking at housing and affordable housing, um, in one boat that came before us, one project that really uh I struggled with, and I voted against it, but I really like the project, is who gets to live in the affordable housing.

And if if families can't live in that affordable housing that's there that is in a great spot, where else do we get to see families live in affordable housing?

So helping us to understand where other opportunities are.

Thank you.

Um I think in terms of process, I agree that work sessions are really helpful.

I know you have a lot to get us through, and so I'm also hoping that we can kind of you know, on a larger scale, kind of do what we did tonight, which is be like, we don't need to talk about that, or like let's like knock that out, you know, or that is not that's just not something we need to talk about, and I'm hoping that that way we can make it more manageable for all of us.

Um I think identifying what we don't need to talk about would be really helpful too as we go so that we're not spending time on things that we don't, you know, that people feel okay about or that seem like real no-brainers.

Um I think for me, again, like having this really be a document that fits into complete community, and it's not the only place that happens, right?

But having it really reflect those goals and and kind of the ownership of complete community and how that plays out.

Um I do want to use our LUMO to target the things we want.

Um, I I think I I want denser more walkable neighborhoods with fun things to do and ways to get to things you need to do and um without getting in a car, and I do think that um I'm less of the mind that I want to just liberalize everything, I want to target the things we want.

Like I want the LUMO to do as much as it can to get us um smaller units more affordability.

I want I also want it to figure out how we're getting that development along the greenways since I haven't really seen that yet, but that's a really core component of why the greenways matter is because they're part of our housing strategy.

Um I also would really like to see neighborhood commercial addressed again um proactively, like I don't want to just hope it happens.

I want to be zoning for places that we know that it that it makes sense and that it will work, and I don't want to force people to do things that don't depend on, like I don't want to force people to have like vacant retail big block on every page.

I don't want that.

I want, but I do want to be really concrete about where we know things are needed and where they can work.

Um I would also I think the natural areas map and how it actually gets institutionalized in code is really important to me.

Like I don't want it to just be an educational tool, like I want it to actually do something for us that tells us where we build and where we don't.

I think that's really important.

Um our capacity analysis showed us that we can do we don't need to pave over every inch of this town, like we can do the housing we need with what we have.

Um I also think tracking um against complete community and seeing so that we can be doing updates when we need to, because there's no way that we can expect you guys to do a perfect document and it will never be perfect, but I just want to have it be that living document so that I think the tracking of our goals will help us know not right away, but will help us know if it's doing what we want it to do, and um I think feedback loops around um just what's working and what's not.

I also I think understanding where you're anticipating certain things go on the map is really important to understand how this all works and what we're designing zones for.

So, like understanding how where we're doing what I think will make a big difference in helping me understand if the zone makes sense and having those two things work together would be really helpful.

Um questions for us?

Um the process is really important to me, like making sure the council's engaged throughout it, but also I think this could be a chance to educate our town, and I think there is a trust deficit in town, I think this could be a chance to bring people along.

Like I want to get to like equity, better housing, all these things, but like I think we have to bring people along with us, or at least give them the opportunity, and if they don't want to take it, that's on them.

But Lisa's give people the opportunity to come along with us.

Yeah, um, what what is what would be required for us to initiate the process to consider legalizing triplexes and quadplexes like from the 2023 amendment?

I know it was a process required to initiate this discussion.

I'm just happy I can't happen to like no, we can vote on it, but but I think I was I was told that I would have to initiate it at this meeting to get things going.

Yeah, so so to the extent that right now we're on the cusp of getting a draft middle and what you can.

So just as we weren't on the table and suggested ideas that we wanted to see in that process, um now would be a time to suggest things that you'd like to see in that rewrite since we are so close.

Uh in answer to your broader question, um if you as council member had spoken speak with other council members and you think there's an interest and sort of a new amendment prior to building our rewrite, that is a possibility.

You would you would want to have buy-in from council members and you go to the manager because to a certain extent you're trying to modify the plan as it's being built because there is the rewrite coming.

So if there were amendments that you wanted to see before the rewrite, certainly you could bring folks on board, and then that would go through the process of planning commission and then the two meetings.

Um or you could propose things as you've all been doing right now that hey, this these are the specific items that I really want to see, and is there consensus maybe around the table, or are we just sharing our ideas?

Can I ask a question?

Just I know that the staff in the past has wanted to manage workload and not wanted too many different things going on at the time.

Is that given that we're so close?

Is it better?

I mean, is it better to do that kind of thing now or wait?

Wait for it to be incorporated, you know, to express the interest and it's incorporated in the final documents.

How close are we?

There is an update that we're working on with our consultants to give you a timeline by the end of the month.

We'll we'll have that information to the manager that we share with you.

So we will hopefully have a timeline you've been speaking of and requesting so you'll know um a little bit more of what was sketched out and how that will play out for um your question.

I'm sorry.

Just is it if if if you know we have this, if you know we have this, if you know we have this interest, I know the path staff has said we'd rather not do things in two big pieces.

Yes.

Is that still an interest or is that always in my interest um that new amendments while we're doing the draft, but the draft has the the process is lasted longer than we all originally hoped.

So the omnibus was a piece of brain that the whole that we wouldn't be still doing this now, it would have been approved in the fall, but it is now in January.

If you start the process for a new amendment, um likely after at your next meeting, you'd have to vote, or we have to initiate that this new text amendment is coming along.

As Jim mentioned, it would have to go to the planning commission, there'd be two public hearings, which is at least two months.

We're likely in March or April.

Um, and so it is that is that much closer to us having the consideration of the rewrite um of the doc the draft being ready for for review by staff.

So it just makes it less.

We're very close to you guys considering larger document, it would be easier if it was incorporated into it.

But of course, if you have consensus and would like for us to bring the text amendment, it would be like can we get a read from staff?

Is it our tries and quads gonna be in the draft?

Do we know that?

Yes, it was it was already on the list, and yes, and things that we heard from council in the spring.

So it is something that is being worked on in the larger rewrite, but it could be brought for sooner as all these um items have been brought for sooner.

So it's an option, of course.

So we're we would be only gaining 30, 60, 90 days conceptually if we're on track to approve the whole rewrite before the summer break.

So I mean that that's just to take under advisory.

I I will I will trust that this time there will be no delays.

Well, and you'll agree back there are you're right.

Right, but then it'll be pretty much all the map meeting.

So uh but okay.

Um thank you, staff.

I think this is really helpful.

I agree, I think work sessions are gonna be really critical for us because you see how much we get done is um council.

Thank you.

I think um healthy disagreement is like what we're here to do.

So I think that is um the goal, and that's what we did, and I'm glad we have a path forward because I think we all really wanted to pass this, and um that is the goal to make progress and to pass something, even if it's not exactly how each of us individually want it to be.

That's like why there's nine of us.

So um, thank you very much for all your hard work.

Um thanks for hanging in there with a longer work session and meeting is adjourned.