um presentation from staff. So it is one inconsistent with the place type and it's too inconsistent with the urban growth boundary by my understanding. So we were hoping to see that slide again. >> Yes.
So yeah, I mean the the I'll try to be be more clear about that. Yes. Um it is inconsistent with uh the urban growth boundary. It is inconsistent with the place type of rural and agricultural reserve because that is intended to be outside the urban growth boundary.
So it's in we would change it and because they can do multiple place types within a conservation subdivision which they indicated they intend to do. the mixed residential neighborhood seems to make more sense to allow for those additional housing types. And then also,
as we mentioned, it is consistent with three of seven annexation policies found in the Durham comprehensive plan, which on the flip side means it's inconsistent with four of My name is Kimberly Warren. I live at 826 Hartman Drive. Um, I've lived there since 1993. It's part of the Oxford Hamlin neighborhood. Um, I came today to
support the urban grow. I've been aware of all the work and thought and care that went into setting that boundary where it is, and I'd like to see it respected. chipping away at it, especially so soon, seems to me to risk making it meaningless in our neighborhood and elsewhere. Um, I did go to the May Zoom meeting where other neighbors met with the owners and the developer and it seemed to me that the main argument was that the current owners of the land had been made to understand that it would be simple to get city water and sewer services to support the 80 homes proposed and that it's been an unhappy surprise that it's not simple. And sadly in our neighborhood, I've seen
much of that disappointment, expectations about water and sewer. It's not simple. People are upset and disappointed. And I'm sorry that that's the owner's situation.
Um that the expectations were incorrect, but that didn't seem to me a good reason to change the urban growth boundary and annex the property into this. Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak that's in person that did not sign up? Please come up to the podium. State your name and address. My name is Ivonne Sanchez and I am a property owner on Hamlin Road 1724 and
1726. So I'm probably the nearest one to all of this. Um, this is all new to me, but thanks to Natalie, she's been informing the owners, and it just takes a little bit of our time to come and express our thoughts. So, um, I've seen all the traffic going on on Hamlin Road, especially with Venture Park being nearby, and it's a two-way road.
is just coming and going. And I have little pets that I try to walk and it's hard because if I cross over to the industrial park area, um police are there thinking that I'm trying to break in. That's the word. They had breakins.
So I'm very like um secluded into my property because the roads are kind of dangerous with all this traffic, especially Carver Road that opened up. So I love the rural area. I love that um Hamlin Road is um has all these residential homes. Um but now it's
starting to become like subdivision and it's starting to look like the city, which we are not the city, we're the county. So I am just trying to be here to support um the Oxford Hamlin community and start being a part of it and just being behind scenes and just letting them do everything. So, I'm just supporting them and trying to see that, you know, we keep it as rural as we can and um have, you know, at least bus routes if we're going to do it go this way or bike lanes. I don't see any of that happening or wanting to happen.
It's just adding more and more to stress to our streets. So, um thank you for hearing me and hopefully I'll get more informed and be on top of things. Thank you and have a nice evening. >> Thank you.
Is there anyone else that would like to speak here before I move on to the Zoom? >> You're the applicant. Let me let me finish with all the community comment and then I'll come back to the
applicant. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh on the Zoom we have Mimi Kesler.
>> Hi. Can you hear me? >> We can hear you. >> Thank you.
Um, my name is Mimi Kesler. I live on Woodland Drive in Durham. Um, I also want to speak in favor of keeping the UGB as being sacred. I I think that there is sufficient um, uh, concern about the city just encroaching with bit by bit on the rural areas of the county.
And I feel very strongly that we need to keep those um as the the UGB undisturbed. Um I also want to say that that the graphic that the applicant put up with the border of the um of the property being the mature trees that plan to be saved. But I also want to make sure that
if this goes through that the um root systems of the trees on the edge are not compromised. So that it needs to be a buffer um that is not right next to the trees. And I also agree with uh Robin Barefoot that uh the conservation subdivision um requirements have been um diluted and so it's not it's not as much of a positive as it used to be. I think that's all I have to say.
Thank you. >> Thank you. If there is anyone else on the Zoom that would like to speak, please use raise your hand feature. Thank you.
We have Ken Pew. No, that's not Ken Pew. We have Kaitlyn
Kimky. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes.
>> Go ahead. >> Okay. Hi. My name is Caitlyn Kamsky and I currently live at 1620 Magnolia Oak Place which is within city limits, but I also own 22 acres at 220 Riley Drive which is off Hamlin Road near the intersection with Oxford and within the Oxford Hamlin community.
As Natalie mentioned, conversations have not been productive. During the first official meeting, we were presented with a false binary choice. approve this or get something worse and a narrative that the Kates were owed this while they are not. Billy challenged this narrative near the 37 minute mark and pointed out that it is not the choice before us. We have been repeatedly told of the straw poll to include the property in the UGB, but the later actual votes did not include it. While this was stated, we are never told why it was ultimately not included
in the UGB and surely there were reasons. I brought this in the written questions which were read by Natalie during the meeting near the 31 minute mark, but we never got answers. Near the 53 minute mark, uh he said that he'd reach out after the meeting to follow up with us, um provide documents, address our questions, and we gave him our email addresses, but I was never contacted. As for what was said today about it being profitable for Durham around 2033, I think is the year he mentioned, um, what will it cost for the roads and schools before then?
How crowded are the affected schools already? Hamlin Road is already narrow, busy, and dangerous. How would this be fixed without negatively affecting the homes along it that do not have huge front yards where space could easily be taken? This property is head of the UGB and we
should not be moving that boundary to increase suburban sprawl in the rural areas. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Malora McCall.
>> Go ahead. >> Thank you. McCall address on file. This annexation request is outside the UGB and it's in the interest of the single property owner and does not meet the standard of being reasonable or in the public interest.
Residents are acutely aware that the exceptions made to the UGB set a lasting precedent impacting rural communities, the critical watershed and drinking water sources, natural heritage areas, and the surrounding voluntary agricultural districts. Such a precedent would weaken the integrity of our comprehensive plan and the values it represents. values intended to guide land use planning in a thoughtful, consistent, and equitable way. Staff have indicated that the applicant has not demonstrated a clear community benefit as required by policy.
Instead, we've heard generalized statements. At neighborhood meetings, the applicant suggested that annexation would quote unquote allow them to preserve hardwood trees along the use property line, framing preservation as a condition of approval rather than a baseline expectation. This tactic, implying that ecological resources might be lost if the proposal is not approved, is a troubling but familiar strategy to quiet legitimate community concerns. The implications of this annexation go far beyond one property owner's financial benefit when selling land to a developer, and the applicants have elected to take forward an application that disregards alignment with Durham's long-term growth strategy.
Durham County agriculture is already facing intense development pressure and upholding policy 168, which clearly outlines three specific criteria an applicant must meet is one way the city can balance competing county and city growth needs. The proposal does not meet those criteria. It's not exceptional and it's not deserving of exceptions to policies such as 165, which planning staff much
must recommend against when it serves primarily in the interest of a single property owner. I urge you to protect the integrity of our policies, the health of our natural resources, and the long-term vision for Durham's growth by voting against this annexation request. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Next, we have Nicole Owens. >> Can you hear me? >> We can hear you now. >> Hi. Uh, my name is Nicole Owens. I actually live at 100 H Road like Kitty Corner from this property as that suggested when we first heard about what was happening what was being discussed was a few homes not 81 units the fact that 81 units in this area I I can't even imagine the impact that 81 units and the people that belongs to those 81 units would have in an already
overcrowded area. The It's just a two-way street, which we now have so much more traffic on. We had a huge development a couple of hundred yards away that took away 30 acres worth of trees. Everything in the area has changed and instead of seeing the wildlife that we should be seeing, all we can hear is street noise now.
And now we want to add 81 more units right next to Eno the Eno River in between the Eno River and Elevate Creek for no reason except the financial benefit of one resident. There's no ex they're not anything to the community. Nothing to the residents that already live here. They're not talking about sidewalks.
They're not talking about, you know, a park for the kids. They're not talking about any of that. It's purely 81 units connected to the sewer. There's no reason to do that.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker is Jonathan Martin.
>> I believe you're muted. >> Hi committee members. Can you hear me now? We can hear you now.
>> Um, hello. My name is Shanty Martin. I live at 1133 Thompson Road. Uh, I've been a resident of the Hampton Road community area for the last 29 years.
And in that time, I've seen our community grow, adapt, and evolve in many different ways. I'm not opposed to change, but one is thoughtful, responsible, and truly benefit the people and the environment that we share with this place. With that being said, I I want to voice some concerns I had with the decision to annex the Hland Reserve uh community to the city. The urban good boundary were put in place for a reason to balance development with our preservation spraw to ensure the infrastructure and resources are kept pace with growth. When we move those lines for the sake of one project, we
risk undermining decades of careful planning. Boundaries are not lines on the map. They are safeguards against overgrowth that can overwhelm the roads, schools, and public services. And this land would also cause us to bring serious environmental consequences.
The area is home to wildlife whose habitats have already began to shrink. Increased development here will further disrupt their environment, leaving less space for animals that have always been part of our county's natural heritage. The Hamlin Reserve area is also part of the Falls and Jordan district 8 uh which is a critical wershed that provides clean water for residents and support decades of ecoss. The more we pave over those areas and build upon the land we greater risk water quality and the health of the river. Now beyond those environmental impacts there are safety and quality of life concerns. development would inevitably increase traffic on the roads that currently lack
sidewalks or bike lanes, creating real danger for children walking to school, cyclists and pedestrians. As someone who values safe and connected neighborhoods, I'm concerned that the proposal prioritizes new housing over essential safety infrastructure. >> Thank you. >> Growth is okay.
Thank you. >> Time. Thank you, Mr. Martin.
>> Next speaker is Katie Ross. Please unmute yourself. You should be able to talk now. >> Hello.
Hello. >> We can hear you. Go ahead. Miss Ross. Let's move on to uh Donna Stain. Come back to Miss Ross.
>> Hello. >> We can hear you. >> I'm Donna Stain. I live at 4825 Jimmy Rogers Road in Durham, North Carolina.
And I um I do not support this project. I support the current UGB. We work very I think hard as a team to define that and this project is not a good example of why to extend it. Um I support the input of several of the folks um that have spoke tonight about not extending the UGB.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Is Katie Ross ready to go? >> Can you hear me now?
>> We can hear you. >> Oh, thank you. I I have a new computer. So, I'm getting used to the different
input. So, people have made really great points here about why we need to honor the urban uh growth boundary. I would like to say that I sat through many many hearings uh regarding the comprehensive plan adoption and the setting of the urban growth boundary. The elected both county and city heard all of these arguments and so did the planning department.
These applicants along with others in their similar situation testified. They gave their reasons. Those were considered along with what all of the rest of the people living especially out in the county but all over Durham uh said. And the final decision was to set the urban growth boundary where it is. This is not the first opportunity that these applicants
or anyone else in their position has had to state their case. They stated it and the urban growth boundary remained where where it is. To allow these incursions outside of the urban growth boundary for the benefits of one one or two families is a betrayal to all the rest of the uh people in the county that depended on our elected officials and the planning department to set this boundary. And I have asked you to please hold the boundary.
And also I wanted to say if to the planning commission I have noticed many of your comments going through the city council. A lot of times uh there'll be a yes vote but then all of the you know um reservations. Let me just tell you that the elected voting, they only see the yes or the no. If you vote yes on something, but you
really want a lot of other things to be done, it's >> Thank you. Your time is up. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have Ken Pew.
>> Can you hear me? >> We can hear you. Hi, I am Ken Pew, resident of Durham County, address on file. This request is not consistent with Durham's adopted growth strategy and should be denied.
On Monday, February 3rd, 2025, the Durham City Council heard the first case in which annexation outside the UTB had been proposed since the adoption of the comprehensive plan in October 23. The council unanimously denied the annexation of Mariah Ridge parcels. In that hearing, residents cited the very same policy complex with before you tonight. And the mayor and every city council member agreed to
keep the UGB in place to preserve the integrity of the comprehensive plan. This proposal conflicts with a clear direction set by city council just months ago. It also violates the criteria for an expansion of the UGB as stated in the comprehensive plan. It extends the UGB into a critical watershed, the falls of the news and Jordan Lake critical area.
Second, there is no community need for this expansion. As the city council and residents have clearly understated, have stated, keep the urban growth boundary where it is, deny this proposal, uphold the comprehensive plan and protect Durham's long-term vision. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else on the Zoom that has not used the raise your hand feature or if you are on the phone and you need to uh dial star9 to be able to uh call
in and speak? I don't see anyone else on the Zoom and everyone in the audience in person has spoken. So, I'm going to uh allow the applicant to come back up. I believe they had five minutes and 10 21 seconds or something like that left to address any community concerns that they heard.
Good evening. Mike Celli with Underfoot Engineering. Uh, I wanted to make sure I was making myself available to answer any questions you may all have. Um, we heard a lot of unsubstantiated comments regarding traffic safety and the environment.
Uh, I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of North Carolina. Uh, and I'm licensed because I hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public. And I do that every day. Uh, in
multiple meetings in coordination with the city of Durham and with NC DOT, there has not been one concern with safety, with traffic or the environment. And a traffic impact analysis is not even required for this project. Uh the applicant has even obtained a city summary utility and development statement with the city saying exactly what we need to do um to provide utilities to the site. There's a water line on the frontage and the sewers down the street.
This is a very clear-cut case of an annexation to utilize the utilities that are available to the best that they can be utilized. Um because taxpayer dollars are are maintaining those facilities. Um, and this is right here. This is a this is a slam dunk um to add very much needed housing in the city of Durham.
So, I'm here to answer any other questions you may have. Thanks. >> Thank you.
>> Mr. Mills, did you have any you wanted to address? No. All right.
Um um we have one more Zoom person. I'll allow it. Nicole Owens and then we're closing the public hearing. >> Go ahead >> again.
Good evening. Uh this is Nicole Owens and I live on H Road. Unsubstantiated claims of traffic. That's an insane statement.
Anyone who lives on Hamlin Road can tell you about the increase in traffic and the increase of speeding on Hamlin since Carver has been opened. Anyone who lives on Hamlin can definitely substantiate the increase in traffic and all of the other traffic concerns that we have. and as a development that is not providing I don't know sidewalks or anything of that sort to the community or any other
benefit to substantiate changing the boundary for 81 houses in the middle of a watershed in between the Eno River and Ellerby Creek that is just absolutely unacceptable. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. At this time, um, the chair is closing the public hearing.
We are now open for commissioner discussion and questions. Are there any questions? The applicant. Uh, Commissioner Kurchin, >> I have a question regarding the access to water. You said uh the city provides water to the site but it does not provide septic. So does the city charge for their supply of water or do they not
because they don't have the septic? That's the question. Uh please come up to the podium, state your name and address and then answer the question. Ricky Case, owner of the property you talking.
So what was your question? >> My question is, do you pay for the water that the city provides to you? >> So I own about 1,700 for the road. >> When I purchased the land, the road finish is paid for by the owners.
We have a house there. Yes. So, we have a word. >> Any other questions? Commissioner Copek.
>> Thank you, Chair Cameron. Uh, I just wanted to clarify a couple points. I had questions about uh so first uh I feel like I've heard messages about the conservation subdivision allowing for the introduction of mixeduse housing types into the subdivision and I feel like staff referenced it but I also feel like I saw comments in the application and the applicant state that it would be a single family development and I just wanted to clarify that point first of all. >> Sure.
So um conservation subdivisions allow single family and town houses to be built but it does not require either or um the under a conservation subdivision, if the applicant chose to do all single family, they can certainly do so. >> I was just going to add that's the intent of the annexation is to subdivide for single family detached homes only. There are no town homes that are planned to to be developed here. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh and then I saw kind
of debate in the community comments from some of the meetings about the statement um I think by the applicant that if this doesn't go through that the that the current property can be developed um by right for 40 single family homes. And so my question is is that right or would it also require an annexation in order to be able to go forward with that? So under the RR zoning at a 1 acre minimum lot size they could subdivide theoretically into 40 lots uh to develop those. Whether they could get 40 lots would depend on how well the land perks and whether or not they can get septic permits and we simply don't have that information at this time. I I could add some color to that um discussion that we had at our neighborhood meetings. It was it was truly to compare the two development styles, whether this property is
annexed, in which case that would allow for a more compact development and allow for significantly more uh open space preservation and tree conservation. If the site is developed uh under county zoning and under county regulations, the size of the lots would have to significantly increase in order for each lot to be able to uh you know hold its own septic tank. So, the ability to access utilities creates a more compact development than what could otherwise be developed under its current county jurisdiction. >> Good.
All right. Any other questions, comments? Are we ready to move this case forward? If so, may I have a motion?
Chair, as it relates to case number Z24046A-BG24020, [Music] Hamlin Reserve, I move that we send this case forward with a favorable recommendation. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Commissioner Copac and seconded by Commissioner Williams to move case Z240 46A-BG24020 Hamlin Reserve forward with the favorable recommendation. May I have the roll call vote, please?
>> Chair Cameron, >> no. >> Vice Chair Shagaras, >> no. >> Commissioner Bailey, >> no. >> Commissioner Capers, >> no.
>> Commissioner Chakowski, >> no. >> Commissioner Copek, >> no. >> Commissioner Ninker, >> no. >> Commissioner Pontac, >> no.
>> Commissioner Richie, >> no. Commissioner Williams, >> no. >> Commissioner Woke,
>> no. >> The motion fails. 110. >> Thank you.
>> We are moving on to public hearing, zoning map changes. The first case is Z240 Hartland Park subdivision. May we have the staff report, please? We need a pause or we're good.
We're good to go. >> Good evening, Chair Cameron, members of the commission. Erin Kane with the planning department. This case is Z2400000010 H Heartland Park Subdivision.
This case is located at 1021 11:05 and 1213 Doc Nichols Road. 001. The existing place type is apartment and townhouse neighborhood and the proposal is for up to 117 townhouse dwelling
units. There it goes. Uh the zoning in this area is primarily and the uses in this area are primarily residential and the proposed zoning would add to that additional residential density. The aerial shows that this is an in an area of um addition of recent residential development.
There is a recently approved development to the east as well as single family dwellings that have been recently developed to the west on the other side of Doc Nichols Road. The place type map designation for this site is apartment and townhouse neighborhood. It is adjacent to a mixed residential neighborhood area and additional apartment and townhouse uh neighborhoods to the north. The applicant has included several commitments to their zoning application, including uh post-development runoff to not exceed the 100-year storm event, a
10-ft shared use path along Doc Nichols Road, uh 5% of the units to meet Durham affordability standards, a donation to Durham public schools, and all required plantings to be of native species. Neighborhood meetings were held in accordance with neighborhood meeting guidelines on November 28th, 2023 and July 9th, 2025. No comments have been received to date on the Durham Reszoning Explorer. The proposal is consistent with the place type map designation of apartment and townhouse neighborhood and is also consistent with 15 of 22 Durham comprehensive plan policies.
Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. Thank you. I do need the signin sheet. The signup sheet.
At this time, the chair is opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant come forward. Good evening, Chair Cameron and Vice Chair Shagaras, members of the planning commission. My name is Neil Go.
I'm an attorney at the Morning Star Law Group at 700 West Main Street here in Durham. I'm representing the applicant for this project and I want to thank Mr. Kaine uh for his presentation. Um at base, I think what's most important to understand that this is a small project.
I know 117 town homes probably doesn't sound small, but it is on 13 acres. So this is really approaching the densification within the urban growth boundary that the comp plan envisions. Uh that having been said, this story here actually starts about June of 2023. Initially, my client here envisioned uh I think it was 78 single family homes on this acreage with the notion that they were aiming for a lower price point on four units in kind of what I would describe as a no frill sub. Uh we
actually submitted that project in February last year. They had a specific product type in mind, but as we worked through the process, it became evident that it wasn't going to be possible. Mostly this came down to design issues that we found as we, you know, went went through the review process. So, we're going to have trouble meeting setbacks, um, link node ratios, things like that.
Moreover, a single family community on this land would be inconsistent with placeite map. So um you know in short I would say there were too many challenges that needed to be overcome in order for that vision to pan out. So at some point we switched from a single family project to a town home project. Well the one that's in front of you tonight.
Town home project is consistent with the placeite map. Um, it also will result in more housing units as it is a denser prototype and perhaps most importantly, we believe it's actually one that at least from an initial design takeoff can be built per the code. Um, and not just to code, but we are exceeding the code
in certain instances. For example, uh, we have committed to handling the 100red-year storm on this project. We also will be using native plant species and we have a 10 foot wide share path across or along doc nichols. Additionally, per the recommendation from the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, we've included a commitment to keep the sidewalk flush across the driveway at Doc Nichols, uh, which will result in a better pedestrian experience.
I will say that specific design element will be subject to approval by NC DOT or the city. So, as long as they will allow it, we will build it. We have we've made the commitment um and we also have committed to providing 5% of the homes as affordable units um for a period of 30 years. Now you I'm not going to tell you that this is the best project you've ever seen, but this is a good project and it is sensible. It addresses the need for housing and it does so in a responsible way relative to a small piece of what we're proposing here is PDR9. I think what's interesting is that
9. 2 which is uh pretty good, but also a few in the twos and threes. The reality is that those lower densities simply are not going to help the city uh take advantage or help the city keep up with the growing uh housing demand. I think the city has a responsibility to take advantage of the parcels where it actually is possible to build at these higher levels of density and this project does just that.
So, I want to thank you all for your time uh and consideration tonight and our team is available to Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, we have uh Tammy, Tom. Are y'all going to have your presentation? You just want to line up and
ready. >> It's not showing presentation. >> There it is. >> Control L.
>> So, just um I won't call on you all when your two minutes is up. Just next person go up and say your name. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Hi, I'm Wanda Allen. My address is on record. Um I want you to look at this slide here. 8 mile road.
All the developments on this road has been considered high density and minimum minimum UDO requirements. All the property that you see on here with the yellow triangles on this one point uh eight mile road is um town houses. And you can see we have been blessed with town houses along this road. The site proposed that is coming through today is minimum buffers, minimum tree preservation, minimum storm
water design, and the maximum allow of 20 of 70% in purposes. We're asking this developer to do better than the minimum. We want them to maintain and to enhance the water uh storm water management to commit to dewatering from the temporary construction retention pond and construct erosion control basins at at least 100 foot 100year storm water. Commit to undisturbed buffers for the streams, wetlands and boundary.
8 capacity, commit to less than 50% in purpose, and commit to by detention protection and no mass graded. Commit to pedestrian single. You you know how you have single don't walk. We want that at
this location. And commit to constructing the complete gap along the highway of 98. Commit to no blasting. Commit to no blasting.
Slide two. You can see this is high density on this road. Does not meet the UDO now or the proposed. Thank you.
Hello, I'm Rebecca Freeman and uh my address is on file. Um this we want to um ask the developer to commit to sample dewatering water from construction bases for quality for water quality. Long-term turbidity runoff and resulting sediment pollution produce scoopable material ultimately kills an entire aquatic ecosystem. developers do not go beyond the minimum minimum standards when eyes can clearly see the devastation that results from those minimum standards.
Additionally, there are usually approved developments with high density, high impervious surface percents, increased runoffs, flooding, heat island effects, and car dependent sprawl. That is the news usual norm along this area. Southeast Durham is in a crisis. We want our developer to commit to no blasting, commitment of 100 a year storm water retention ponds for construction and commitment of less than 50% impervious 30% less than a more we want 30% tree preservation and 8 opacity for boundary buffers.
provide innovative storm management practices to preserve to enhance water quality and reduce runoff quantity. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Thomas Freeman.
I live at 1818 South Road, Durham, North Carolina. I'm a lifelong resident of Durham. Uh the degradation of Lit Creek has already been has already been covered in the previous slide. I would point out to you that this is a view of Lit Creek looking upstream.
Thank you. At NC98 at the Wake Forest Highway. Please, I invite you at your leisure to travel NC98. Look upstream or downstream.
It'll look the same. Talking about the way things look, things never change out in my home. This is a view of Lit Creek uh from from the 12th. Uh we've seen a lot of changes.
We've seen uh control measures gone from uh single siltation fences to double ca siltation fences. Uh fauulence nothing changes. This is what we live with. This is what our environment lives with. I'd like to point out a particular word
I'd like you to focus on. Scoopable. Scoopable. Make a mental note of that.
This is a sediment pollution that you see in in Lick Creek. And what you see uh dispersed throughout the site is the cumulative impacts. Another important word, the cumulative impacts of all of the development, the masqueraded high density development that has followed. This is what we have.
Next slide. In conclusion, uh, I'll talk to you just briefly about the Camp Road Bridge, which used to run free and clear, pretty clean water, full of aquatic life. This is what we're left with now. This is a somewhat new development, and this is about three miles from the NC98 uh, bridge crossing at uh, at Lick Creek. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Pam Williams. I live uh right at the end of Doc Nichols.
I've been there 37 years. I saw Doc Nichols turn from a dirt road to a paved road. I was very happy about that because my daughter lives at the other end of Doc Nichols. Uh this proposed plan continues to a pattern of development of ignoring established plans and policies designed to help Durham grow sustainably and equitably.
Anything more is violating core planning principles and underlies framework that protects Durham's neighborhoods. More housing and more affordability require thoughtful long-term planning and focus on building uh what has already been zoned. Simply approving more reszoning, especially one that doesn't meet or exceeds all adopted plans and policies will not solve affordability. Although the uh president has been set, doesn't mean we cannot undo approving all these
or reszoning all these highdensity homes in this area. We ask that you act now to protect Durham's plan values uh for the environment and the communities. This annexation and reszoning uh request does not serve the public interest as it increase green space and access to public resources since it is car centric and no p public park only the interest of a single developer. 7 PDR.
1. 1 is over four times more uh dwellings than zone than zone already with minimum environmental policies met and producing four times more impact on the infrastructure and environment that uh um than what is now. The traffic on Doc Nichols increase 118% in two years. That's 2021 to 203. What is it going to increase with all
this development that you see and have seen uh in this area? There is um 32 sites that's under construction just in Lick Creek right now that uh is not added to the um traffic that you see out there and it's already congested. Thank you. Good evening, commission.
Uh, my name is Pam Andrews, 6108 Wake Forest Highway. Our first responders are in a crisis. First responders, first thing I want to say is in a fire response, time is our enemy. The latest audit conducted in October 2022 addressed the need to meet the response time standards, which was one of the two recommendations made and challenged with our fire department.
Next, the fire station was promised to us beginning November 2023, a new one. The comprehensive plan policy 122 also identified Southeast as a site needing a new fire service. Yet we still keep
building. Notice on this emergency there was a threetory town home. D fire departments had two ladder trucks, 26 firemen. Remember that.
Next, there are five stations around this city that have ladder trucks. Only five. Where did the fi second ladder truck come from in that above example? It didn't come from Southeast Durham because we have one ladder truck in Southeast Durham which impacts response times and people's lives.
This is a fire schedule that we got from August 7th this past weekend from a firefighter. Notice five ladder trucks were uh which were out there needed for apartments, schools, and tall town homes around this city. Look carefully at this fire assignment sheet. Almost every station only has three firefighters when they're supposed to have four recommended by the fire code 1710. Next, the fire emergency on July 5th, a mile from this proposed site that
we're talking about tonight. 52 Durham firefighters, yes, 52 Durham firefighters had to attend to this fire. Plus Raleigh Fire Department, Redwood Volunteer Fire Department, and Durham Highway. 52.
Six came from station 17. Three came from station eight. That's only nine firefighters. Where did the other ones come from?
The rest of the county to put this out. We are in serious times out there, folks. Please help us get some infrastructure before we do more. Thank you.
>> Tammy Sa Baptist Road. I want to keep talking about the fire here and I want to point make another point. when she showed you all the schedules. We have five ladder trucks.
We have three that are out of service. Okay? So, keep that in mind. And so, here's another example of a family, two families at the same time.
Um 52 pe 52 fire people that had to respond here. Um it's beyond the fire. We have 911 in crisis. The um in
August, the Durham Director of of Emergency Services says that we haven't added more EMS. Um, you're going to need this. Um, here's an example of EMS in crisis. Just recently, uh, Durham's units.
Wake is is called for assistance, but maybe they can't come. We have police that's in crisis. We know we have vacancy, right? Uh, there is seven miles to this annexation.
Medical, we know that there's going to be uh a children's hospital, but that's going to be an apex in Wake County. Our population is growing. Um I did a chat GBT right now uh the today 367,000 uh for Durham. I mean we just don't have enough to cover the medical needs.
Um schools I want to make sure you understand that in the zoning map, you know, they they talk about the current capacity, but there's a cumulative capacity. You've got to add on what's been approved but not built. When you add that on, then you're over capacity
in all schools. Please keep that in mind. Our schools are over uh populated. We're in crisis in this area.
And again, I want you to think about the fire. The fire in the emergency is what is the most passionate. It will impact every one of you. What if it's your family?
What if it's your mom? What is your kid calling 911? My kid did have a seizure trying to get through to 911. Just think about it.
Think about what we're adding on to Durham. We got to slow down. We don't have the infrastructure now. We don't need this.
Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next, we have uh Chris.
Chris, I'm sorry I can't read your last name. Youth Oven. Excuse my >> Good evening. My name is Chris Youth Oven. I live at 1010 Quiver Lane in Durham, North Carolina. Uh my husband and I moved uh into our current home a
year ago. We moved here from Leewa, Kansas. And um I'll be very honest, if I had any idea the um condition of the development in that area, we would have looked elsewhere. We probably would have moved into Raleigh.
Um we were not put off by the developing the developing that we saw coming. We were actually rather excited about it because we want to live in a vibrant community. We said to each other, "Surely they're going to address the infrastructure, right? 8 mile two-way road with um little to no shoulders.
Um sidewalks that I say go to nowhere. There's a section of sidewalk that's been built probably by a developer, non-ontiguous, doesn't connect to anything. It is an incredibly dangerous road for pedestrians or cyclists. Um, I looked forward to the idea of getting a bike and being able to explore that area. I would take my life into my hands riding out of our community in Sagewood
to get on to Doc Nichols. Um, all of these individual projects have been approved. Uh, we've been participating via Zoom on city council meetings to hear what's going on in our community because I believe if we're going to live someplace, I want to know about the community we're a part of. And it disturbs me that first of all, they're being approved oneoffs and not understanding the cumulative effect.
You've heard all about that in terms of how it's impacting fire and emergency services and our environment. So, you're going to add another 17, 117, 170 town homes. There are town homes there right now. Uh when we moved in, there's a development at the corner of Leville and Doc Nichols.
Uh, it's been there since we moved in. So, a year that's still empty. There's still nobody living in it. >> Please think about that. Thank you. >> Donnie Nichols.
>> Hi, I'm Don Nichols. I live at uh 2028 Joshua Lane and I wrote mine. So, uh, good evening planning commission commissioners, planning commission members. Thank you for what you do and thank you for uh the chance to make my voice as a resident known heard here.
Thank you for the public hearing notice that I received in a timely manner truly because for instance um apparently there was announcement set out for a meeting on July 8th. We did not get that. Also, my experience with other communications about any resoning in this area have been within a few days of the meeting or after they've occurred. So, um, we moved to Sagewood, uh, right off Doc Nichols Road across the street from from this, uh, development about four years ago, precisely because it was such a beautiful area, including the family farm that would be reszoned by this, um, 117 town houses, and we believe that others who would want to move here should enjoy a similar experience. We had no indication that the coming high density resoning uh, would be without
increased infrastructure. Uh, as they said, they would not have moved here if they had known uh another neighbor here with us. Uh, her yard has serious drainage issues. It's been regraded four times and still won't drain because of runoff from Doc Nichols Road.
Again, directly across from this new development. Her next door neighbor has a permanent ditch in his yard because of the same, and that will only increase with again this development. If there's even more blasting in the area, what will you consider as alternatives? because of cumulative damage.
Cumulative, what is the cumulative impact of traffic on Doc Nichols Road from the existing and planned developments? There are uh you've already heard how many there are. Doc Nichols is rated at a capacity of 13,600 vehicles per day. Yet, the expected more than 600% increase in traffic, 850 vehicles per day just from this uh H Heartland Park alone, plus any cutthroughs and and things like that would exceed that. So, it's not this individual, it is a cumulative. We are asking you to please consider the new
traffic light. There is an offering but not a solution. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak that did not sign up?
Is there anyone on the Zoom that would like to speak? Please use the raise your hand feature. All right, seeing none, um, with the Oh, sorry, Donna Stanach. >> Hello.
Um, I'm Donna Stain at 4825 Jimmy Rogers Road in Dur, North Carolina. Um, I nearly hit a deer crossing between developments on Dot Nichols, but not fairly recently. The wildlife still remaining has little space to go. Now I have been to the pasture.
This development will take more trees and more grass away and trade it for pavement and buildings that we may not even need desperately for the housing. Um, even with the small acres, the project's dense dwelling, it will leave a large footprint in the environment. And, um, another on another note, um, will the town homes have garages and bedrooms on the first floor? Now, over 50% of the homeowners are over 56.
And how and you know I have special interest in the disabled you know will they uh have special allocation. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else on the Zoom that would like
to speak? Please use your the raise your hand feature. I'd like the applicant like to come up and address any community concerns. >> Sure.
Thank you. Um just want to touch on a couple things. Uh I think it was mentioned that you know they the some of the neighbors wanted us to do more than what is required in the EDO for storm water management. We are we've committed to doing the hundred year on this site.
Um but one thing that came up they mentioned that they would also like to see the 100redyear being designed for in the temporary control measures and technically the way that we have written our condition it only applies to the permanent measures. So I I we would be willing to um adjust that language so that it's clear that it would apply to both the temporary and the permanent measures that they would be designed for the 100 year. >> Thank you. We can take that. We would
want to run that by our storm water >> division to make sure as to exactly the the wording that would be used, but that's certainly something we can look at. >> Yeah, I I think that's a a reasonable request and I think that uh it's something we can accommodate on this site. So, we'll be happy to make that commitment. Um there was a lot of compelling information that was given here about maybe the lack of infrastructure in the city.
And you know I I would I just would want to make the point that there isn't a single developer that's really in charge of hiring police or fire or anything like that. This project does add to infrastructure. We are adding segments of sidewalk, segments of bike lane. We are adding road improvements.
Uh one of the uh speakers mentioned that in this area there are sidewalks that go to nowhere probably built by developers. Yeah, that's correct. That's how infrastructure gets built in this area. The city does not often take a uh you know take on a project to build sidewalk down an existing street. Instead peace meal by
developers and that's exactly what this project continues to do. So I think it's fair it's a fair statement to say that there are sidewalks in this area that go to nowhere. The alternative is there could be no sidewalks at all if there were no development at all. And and maybe that's what some folks want.
But this project does add to the infrastructure and it adds its fair share. Um actually I think that's really all I'm going to touch on at this point. Um and uh our team is available to answer any questions that you may have. I appreciate your consideration of this request tonight.
Thank you. >> Thank you. At this time, the public hearing is closed. We are now open for commissioner discussion and questions.
Commissioners, >> I have a question about your um max unit is 17. What is your minimum? I mean,
" >> Well, actually, there's there's a specific requirement. 001 uh with a maximum of 117 units under the UDO. >> Uh we would be required at a minimum to hit that 117 number within 80%. I can't do that math in my head, but that's the number.
>> It's 94 units. >> 94. minimum they could build >> at at minimum would be required. >> Yeah.
So, uh but on but I think your question so that's that's the legal answer. What's the minimum number of units? I think your question was more so for the developer. What is the minimum number of units taken in?
So, we've we've taken a look at that. One of the things that we looked at was uh tree save. Um, so we're at the we are at the uh we're at the UDO required amount of tree save and we looked at our ability to add
more tree safe. So one of the best things about this site is that it's actually free of environmental features. There's no wetlands, there's no riparian buffer, there's no steep slopes, nothing like that. Um, and so what that means is that you know additional features like additional tree shave would come out of otherwise developed land.
And the issue with that is that on this small site, we've planned it quite densely. So literally 1% more tree safe, which is about 5200 square feet, because of the dimensional requirements for tree safe, that would end up, you know, you'd be you'd be losing three to five units. Um, and that is something that the developer felt like they really couldn't uh stomach on this. And that's that's those are 5200 square feet is 1% more trees, right? uh the lot loss is kind of a theoretical based off the shape of shape dimensional requirements for tree save and but all of this is coming before we actually get to the site plan stage. Um as long as I've been doing this I've never worked on a project where you didn't lose some
units at the site plan stage because that's just what happens. hadn't planned for this slope or that, you know. So there, you know, if if we committed to additional tree s 1% more, it would be five units off off the table in addition to whatever we were going to lose off the table on the site. >> Thank you.
>> Anyone else? >> Uh could >> uh could the percentage of affordable housing uh be increased from that 5% that you currently have it at? Well, um, it's something that I could talk to my clients about. I don't know that we're prepared to make that commitment tonight, but I I understand and recognize that that's your request is for us to look at that and that's something I can commit to doing that.
Um, and I, you know, I think they're pretty motivated to get the project approved. You know, they this is this is a pretty good project and you know, as I mentioned the story earlier, they had a different project in mind, so they've had to kind of shift gears. Um, and
they've been at it for a while on this. So, you know, I think that to the extent we're able, you know, I I'll ask them to take a good hard look at that to see if we can increase that. >> I'm just curious about the flexibility. >> Yeah.
I appreciate. >> Yeah. Commissioner, >> thank you, Chair. Uh, is the applicant willing to make any additional commitments to address the community concerns raised this evening?
Well, I think we just did um with within uh improving that uh stormwater commitment to include the temporary control measures, which um you know, I think it's like I said, that's a fair point that they brought up. the way we wrote the commitment. I think the spirit is there, but it only applied to the permanent measure, which is something that I think um in particular some of these speakers who I'm familiar with um have have, you know, asked that type of commitment for. And I think they made a a fair statement pointing out that that commitment really only applies to the permanent storm water device which is
correct and that really you know they would like their their concern extends to also the temporary measure. We're going to make that we're going to do that on this side. >> Are there any additional beyond that? >> Do you have any in mind?
I mean I don't I >> Yeah, I think the there were some really valid concerns raised about response times. I recognize that as a developer there there are limited things that y'all are able to do, but you know this is uh you you shown great creativity and I wonder if there are things that can be done to alleviate those concerns. >> Well, so it is correct that the comprehensive plan has called out an area in eastern Durham County for uh for additional fire safety um coverage, but this is not in that area. Now, I that doesn't discount, you know, maybe some of the hiring shortages that are there. Uh I can tell you that I'm working on projects that are in that area where we are trying to find find ways to uh get that fire
station on board, but but that didn't come up in the staff review of this because this is outside of that that specific area where that need is called out. Um so, it's not really something we looked at. Like, you know, on on some of those other projects, they're much larger and they're further out and that's why there's a fire coverage need. And what we're talking about is trying to find a site for fire station on a 13acre site.
I mean that's the project that you know we can't really accommodate a fire fire station or something like that on this side. >> Thank you vice chair. >> Yeah, this might be for the it might be for city staff. It's concerning the one of the comments on the BPAC uh connectivity to the neighbor adjacent developments. >> And it says there's a gap to the one south of the property and then the staff says connection to the east and the plan roadway to that development will be required at the site plan. Which which exactly which connection is that?
>> You can see it on the parcel map. There's a new subdivision that's going into our east that has a road stubbed to our property line. >> We will absolutely connect to that. That same subdivision, there's a road that kind of comes south of our property.
That's the one we can't connect to because we don't actually touch that right away. There's a gap between our southern >> gap that's in the middle of your project is the one you will connect to >> uh on our east side. >> Yes. And they'll be required to per the UDO.
Yep. Which is why I assume the the BPAC comment was referring to the connection to the south is not one we can make. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Commissioner Richie, >> forgive my construction ignorance here, but can you tell me what a commitment to no blasting would look like? >> Well, it's not a commitment we're ready to make. And the reason we're not ready to make it is because we haven't done any subservice evaluation. Last thing is
um for any developer I've worked with the last ditch effort, right? So it's very costly and um risky frankly. Uh so you know generally it what you hope is that you don't hit rock at all. If you do hit rock, you try to rip it first.
If you can't rip it, you may try to um jackhammer it depending on what the amount of rock and if that doesn't work then you blast. Um we don't have any subsurface evaluation to really understand if if there is a likelihood that we'll hit rock there has been blasting in other developments in this area. Right. So there's there's no there's no question that there we could hit rock but without doing any kind of subsurface evaluation which generally isn't done till later um it's we wouldn't even know if if there's a likelihood for these 13 acres that we would hit rock which is why we're reluctant to make that type of commitment. Blasting is if you made a commitment to not blast and then you hit rock that can't be ripped, that can't be jackhammered out.
Well, then what do you do with the rock? >> Is there a community centric sort of conversation that you've seen around blasting where you've been able to incorporate community voices into a blasting process so that it's more responsive to community concerns, less dangerous for community members? Um, I I would say I don't h I don't have a lot of personal experience in how the blasting process works. The way it's supposed to work is that people within a certain area are supposed to get notification.
They're supposed to get the opportunity for pre-blast inspection. You're supposed to get the opportunity for a postb blast inspection. Whether those things happen, I can't tell you, right? But that's how that's how the process is set up.
That's what's supposed to happen. Any additional questions? >> Commissioner Cop. >> Thank you, Chair Cameron. Um, so thank you for the additional commitment around storm water. I did hear a request also
around retention pond. Um, >> that's the temporary. >> So that's that's the temporary one that you >> address. So our our current commitment that's written in in the uh agenda packet addresses the permanent storm water control measure.
>> Okay. the uh temporary would be called the sedimentation erosion control measure or retention bond for that. Right? So we what we had discussed earlier was um we've already committed to doing the 100red-year storm permanent.
Right? So we're going to adjust the language so that that addresses also the temporary uh SNC measures. Um the uh >> well I think that answers your question. >> That's that's what I heard question.
Thanks for the help with the lexicon. Um, so when it comes to imperous surface, you know, there's already runoff issues folks are facing. Um, you know, you've talked about the difficulty with tree with what you're trying to put on this site, but talk to me a bit about impervious surface and if there are opportunities there to to do better than
just being at the maximum. >> Well, I mean, I don't I don't think there's uh any way for me to put it. This site, this zoning, all right, this site does not have environmental features, which allows us to develop a lot more densely than maybe some other sites. The fact that there aren't environmental features on the site is kind of an anomaly.
I think you guys have seen plenty of developments in eastern Durham. Generally, they're going to have steep slopes, wetlands, or streams on. This has none of those things. Um, so there's no two ways about it.
We've designed it at the 70% level with uh the increased storm water measures to handle those things. Um we're not really in a position to decrease the impervious because that's going to that will change the number of units right there. It's it's in other words we were talking about a max buildout of this site which might not be the case for other projects that that you hear but this one is it's PDR9. It's the densest one that you've seen in this area, which in my opinion is a good
thing. If if we can move density in that direction, that'll help address the housing needs in city dur. >> Um, I'm hoping that staff or my colleagues can help me when it comes to school commitments and what the expectations uh are or the standard has been around contributions to Durham public schools. So, we do not have a standard.
All donations to Durham public schools are voluntary from the applicant and we cannot require them. Um, generally we see about $500 to $1,000 per projected net student as a donation when those donations are made. And for what it's worth, the staff report suggests that there would be six additional students and the commitment here was $6,000 of DPS. The number in the staff report related to the cost per student is one that I've seen referenced by the planning commission recently, the
5,374 per pupil estimated annual operating cost. It's important to understand that that cost comes from the tax base from the project. So the $6,000 is in addition to those costs. This doesn't suggest that the project doesn't cover the cost of students.
It It's just telling you what the number is, but that number is coming from >> I was trying to get at the the volunteer commitment level. >> Yeah. >> Um yeah, I just want to thank and elevate the community concerns. you know, we are seeing uh significant cumulative impact and that's always a difficult thing to weigh in these cases where we see the the overarching pressure that's happening and have to weigh that against the individual cases that that come before.
Um but yeah, that's that's all I have. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you. Any additional questions?
>> Are you ready to move this case forward? >> Thank you. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I need to close the Yeah, the public hear. Are you ready to move this case for a hospital?
May I have a motion? >> Chair, I'd like to move this case board with a favorable recommendation. Uh, case number Z2400 010 H Heartland Park Subdivision forward with a favorable recommendation. >> Second.
It's been moved by Commissioner Williams and seconded by Vice Chair Shagaras to move case Z24 triple010 H Heartland Park Subdivision forward with a favorable recommendation. May I have the roll call vote, please? >> Chair Cameron. >> Yes.
Vice Chair Shagaras, >> no. >> Commissioner Bailey, >> no. >> Commissioner Capers, >> no.
>> Commissioner Chakowski, >> no. >> Commissioner Copek, >> yes. >> Commissioner Ninekner, >> no. >> Commissioner Pian, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Richie, >> yes. Commissioner Williams. >> No. >> Commissioner Woke.
>> No. >> The motion fails. 7 to 4. >> All right.
Thank you. Next case, we have Z24036607 East Cor. >> No, let's take a break. Right.
>> That's what I was about to say. time to do that >> until uh 7:35. Let's come back at 7:35. >> The AC is out.
Two minutes left in the recess. One minute left in the recess.
You got to do what you do here. You got to sit here and listen. >> Good evening everyone. We're going to call the meeting back to order.
Yes. >> We have case Z24 triple036607 East Corn Wallace Road. May we have the staff report, please? >> Hello.
Hello. Good evening again, Chair Cameron, Vice Chair Garis, and planning commissioners. I am back up tonight to present Z24036607 East Cornwallis Road. 54 acres located along East Cornwallis Road from commercial neighborhood with a graphic development plan to commercial neighborhood with a textual development plan and would allow for most uses
within the CN district. The current zoning is commercial neighborhood with a graphic development plan that allows up to 12,800 square feet of banking facility, sunundry store, laundromat, dry cleaning, pickup station, real estate, rental office, barber shop, beauty shop, andor gift shop. The applicant proposes to change this designation to commercial neighborhood with a textual development plan to allow for any use within the district except for educational facilities, medical facilities, indoor recreation, outdoor recreation, drive-through facilities, convenience store with gasoline sales, payday lenders, and vehicle service. The site is immediately surrounded by plan development residential, residential suburban M, and residential suburban 20 zoning districts.
The aerial map shows the general location of the project. The site is located on the southeastern side of East Cornwallis Road and Century Oaks Drive. The site is immediately surrounded by the Amber Oaks, Emory Wood, and Triangle
Place apartment communities. The property is currently designated neighborhood services on the place map and is generally consistent with this designation as it allows for a range of commercial, residential, and civic uses. The applicant has profered textual commitments, including use limitations, limiting potential non-residential square footage to a maximum of 12,000 square feet, native species for all required plantings, a $2,000 contribution to Durham public schools, and a 70% maximum impervious surface area. Neighborhood meetings were held in accordance with the neighborhood meeting guidelines on October 24th, 2024 and June 24th, 2025.
Each meeting had five and three attendees respect uh respectively. No comments have been received by staff in relation to this case in the Durham reszoning explorer. The proposal is consistent with 11 of 16 applicable comprehensive plan policies and is generally consistent with the neighborhood services place type map designation. Thank you. Staff and the
applicant are available to answer any questions. >> Thank you. At this time, the chair is opening the public hearing. May the applicant please come forward.
>> Uh, good evening once again and thank you Payton for your presentation. I'm Neil Go, an attorney with the Morning Star Law Group, 700 West Main Street, and I'm representing the applicant on this project. So, uh, during my career, I've come across a few parcels where the zoning was so restrictive, it makes you question the logic. Uh, in fact, the first, uh, resoning I worked on as an attorney was in Wake Forest.
the parcel was zoned with a single zoning condition that said the site could be used for a plumbing supply store. That's it. Um there locally there was one the old ride aid near 751 had a very similar zoning condition until we reszoned it and that condition basically said it could only be used for writing and uh that's kind of the story here right so under the current zoning the property can be used for only a handful of uses and I just have to read this list of uses to you
because it's it's just one of my favorites. The property can be used for banking, a sunundry store, laundromat, dry cleaning, real estate office, barber shop, beauty shop, or gift shop, and that's it. Uh, nothing wrong with any of those uses. Um, but the property has been zoned that way since 1981, and the property has been vacant since 1981.
Uh, so clearly the market has decided those uses are not viable at this location. We are proposing a to reszone the property basically to add more uses to the list of possibilities. The base zoning uh would remain the same commercial neighborhood, but this time rather than restrict the use of the parcel to only a handful of uses, we're going to allow it to be used for anything in the CN district except for schools, medical facilities, indoor outdoor recreation, uh drive-through facilities, gas station, payday lenders, and vehicle service. Um what that leaves uh are things like residential like single family or town homes or even a group home for old folks. Community service would be allowed, daycare, potentially a place of worship, a
restaurant would be allowed but not with a drive-thru. Um smallcale retail would be allowed like a sunundry shop uh or services like barber shop or nail salon or perhaps small office. And that's really about it. Uh we've also added some additional commitments that are not exactly related to use.
We have limited non-residential square footage to 12,000 square feet. We'll be using native plantings where possible. We have limited the impervious area to no more than 70%. And we're also making a contribution to DPS and that's regardless of whether uh the site is built for residential.
Um, oh, and we added a commitment related to access because u in our discussions with the city and NCDOT is pretty important to them. Um, and I guess that condition basically says that we'll be adding southbound left turn lanes to the site where there's access points. Um, and that's kind of all there is to it. It's it's a strange reasoning for sure, but it's not terribly, you know, complex or complicated. I'm happy to answer any questions you have, but basically we're just trying to open up the possibilities
for this part. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, see here, we don't have anyone signed up.
Do we have any I already have it. There's no one else signed up. Anyone in here that would like to speak that's not signed up? Is there anyone on the Zoom that would like to speak speak?
Please use the raise your hand feature. Going once, going twice. All righty. Um, the public hearing is now closed and we are now open for commissioner discussion and questions.
>> Vice Chair Shagaras. >> Yes. What is the size of the site?
91 acres on what we got. And then Payton said something about like 12 acres. What? Which one's correct?
>> All right, you got me there. I'm not sure the exact vice chair Shagaras, I think you might be referring to the 12,000 square foot limit on non-residential uses. Is that what you're referring to? 91 acres.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah. All right. Cool.
>> Cool. All right. Thank you. >> Commissioner Copac.
>> Yeah. A question for the applicant. There was some discussion about um you know given the proximity to transit uh which is also a benefit requests around
um like a parking pad or some investments there uh but concerns about the space available. Do I have that right? >> Yeah sure. So yeah, what are the limitations and you know is there something that you could do there to to make that investment because we've seen other projects that have been able to make that sort of >> uh there are uh bus stops if I recall correctly along Cornwallis both to the north and south of this site already.
They're existing. Um we were asked to look at the possibility of committing to putting another bus stop in this location. Um and on on other projects that I've worked on, we we have, you know, oftentimes made that commitment. Um obviously it would be subject to uh the desire for at time of site plan by go triangle or go Durham, whoever is running the bus.
But in this instance, the site is very small. A bus pad is going to impact the developable area on the site. So we we didn't make the
commitment because there's already the two bus stops that you can walk to them. They're right there. Um but there, you know, if if Go Durham or or Go Triangle wanted the bus pad here, it would be very detrimental uh to the development area on the site. It's it's a small site.
It's less than two acres. So that's why we didn't make the commitment. >> Any additional questions? If not, if we're ready to move this case forward, may I have a motion, please?
All right, chair. As it relates Chair, as it relates to case uh Z24036007 East Cornwallis Road, I move that we send this case forward with a favorable recommendation. >> Second.
It's been moved by Commissioner Copac and seconded by Vice Chair Shagaras to move case Z24036607 East Cornwallis Road forward with the favorable recommendation. May I have the roll call vote, please? >> Chair Cameron, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Shagaras, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Bailey, >> yes. >> Commissioner Capers, >> yes. >> Commissioner Chicowski, >> yes. Commissioner Copac.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Ninkirkner. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Pian, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Richie, >> yes. >> Commissioner Williams, >> yes. >> Commissioner Woke, >> yes. >> The motion passes 11 to zero. >> Thank you.
Next on the agenda, uh, zoning map changes. Case number three, uh, Z24038, Wake Olive. May we have the staff report, please? >> Good evening.
My turn again. Um this case Z24000038 Wake Olive is located at 5247 and 5255 Wake Forest Highway. 270. The existing place type is mixeduse neighborhood and the staff recommends no change based on this uh application and the proposal is for up to 210 dwelling units with up to 10,000 square ft of non-residential uses. As stated earlier, the existing zoning is residential rural and residential
suburban 20. 270. The site is immediately surrounded by other RR and RS20 zoning districts with some commercial center zoning to the south. The aerial map shows the general location for the project.
It is located north of the terminus of Olive Branch Road at Wake Forest Highway. Immediately to the east is Neil Middle School. The site is generally surrounded by undeveloped and large lot residential to the north and west. Further west is the commercial node of Wake Forest Highway and Patterson Road/Sharon Road.
To the south in between Olive Branch Road and Hill View Drive is the State Employees Credit Union. This property is currently mix designated mixeduse neighborhood on the place type map. As noted, this proposal is considered consistent with that designation. The applicant has included several
textual commitments to this pro project, including a $33,000 contribution to Durham Public Schools, 6% of the units to be income restricted, limiting trip generation to no more than 149 vehicle trips at peak hour, an additional height and storm water standards. 5%. Neighborhood meetings were held in accordance with the neighborhood meeting guidelines on November 14th, 2024 and June 30th, 2025. One chem comment has been received by the staff in relation to this on Durham Reszoning Explorer and it is against the proposal.
The proposal is consistent with the place type map designation of mixeduse neighborhood as it allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses. The proposal is consistent with 24 of 27 applicable comprehensive plan policies. Staff and the applicant are available
for any questions. >> Thank you. >> Need a signup sheet. At this time, the chair is opening the public hearing.
Uh, may the applicant please come forward. >> Good evening, uh, Chair Cameron, members of the planning commission. My name is Toby Coleman uh with the Smith Anderson Law Firm. Uh I live here in Durham at 2702 Stewart Drive.
I'm here on behalf of uh the applicant Redeeming Development Group. Uh with me tonight is David Blandon with uh Redeeming Development Group. Um as some background, this is actually a case that
that uh the plan commission heard about 18 months ago. Um and uh it went to council uh and count at that time it was a apartment only project 217 apartments and uh council uh denied the uh annexation and therefore the reasonzoning by a 5 to2 vote and at least two of the members said that their concern was is that it didn't meet the mixeduse neighborhood place type because it didn't have any commercial uses in it. Um so we've we've endeavored to correct that. If I could throw up the uh we have a couple slides.
Um, as uh as Aaron mentioned, um, the um, wait for I won't wait for this to come up. I'll just talk through it. But, um, as Aaron mentioned, we've tried to make this sort of a new and improved zoning proposal. Um, so, you know, what we've done is made sure that the, um, is is we have a 6% affordable, that's 3% at 60% AMI, and 3% at 80% AMI. Um we're
addressing the traffic by by just capping the budget uh or the uh traffic allowance at 149 peak trips. Um we reduce the residential density slightly from 217 down to 210. And then we've added a number of environmental protections. Uh the northern about 200 feet of the property about 12% of the property will be open space that can't touch. Um we've also uh obviously uh committed to increased tree conservation and uh reduced impervious. Um we uh one of the other things I wanted to note um and we're happy to answer any questions but one of the other things we wanted to note is that there was a comment u that from the prior case that sort of carried over from the bike and pedestrian committee uh because this property is adjacent to Neil Middle School uh bike and pedestrian committee asked us to look at potentially creating a a multi-use path connection uh to Neil
Middle School. Um, and again, if I could put this slide up, I would love to, but um, basically the There we go. So, what you can see there is the shared property line. The problem with that shared property line is it's in the back of Neil Middle School in the woods.
And I don't know what you guys were like in middle school. I may be judging this based on what I was like in middle school, but I didn't think, you know, I don't know that anybody really wants middle to give middle schoolers access to a path through the woods in the back of school. Um I we and it wasn't just me that I I went and I we've talked with Kristen Brookshshire who's with uh school the Durham public schools facilities uh and we talked through how could we get a path that works. We determined that a multi-use path from one property to the other off of the frontage didn't really make any sense for security reasons, etc. We did look at trying to build a uh to extend the committed 10- foot wide multi-use path over to Neil Middle School, but we ran into a problem, which is that
all of the property outside of So, this property is just north of where the the uh city boundary ends. And so all Neil Middle School and all and a couple of the smaller adjacent parcels are all in the county. And so when we went to say, can we commit to building a sidewalk that extends out into the county? " The city said, "No, we can't.
" So, we were ready to provide something like that and we just ran into this jurisdictional issue of um you know, the city and the county, I think, are are looking at ways to work better together, but they haven't figured that out yet. It's a it's a known issue and uh something tried to address. So, um with that, we're available for questions.
Thank you. We have the group. All right. Know the rules of engagement. and they're asking everyone to please speak directly into the microphone so it can be picked up on the broadcast. These are new microphones so just make sure it's you play with it so you're speaking directly into the microphone.
Good evening. My name is Rebecca Freeman and I live at 1818 South View Road in Southeast Durham. Um, let me first state that Preserve Ral Durham is not opposed to this site being developed. Um, we're often in the no zone, but we're hoping to get a better development.
Uh, Wake Olive proposed development is inconsistent with the place type map in zoning reference policy 171 is not fully met. There's no mix of housing types and sizes. There's no continuous walks, sidewalks along 98. We request that this site be lower density with the new UDO proposed zone RB to due to the environmental sensitive area that it is and the existing traffic congestion and crashes in the area. UDO zoning the proposed is RB two units per acre as of the UDO um discussion that has happened February 5th 2025.
The present zoning is RR which is one unit per three acres. 270 the highest in the area. At four stories high this structure is out of character for the area and it will stick out like a sore thumb. The comprehensive plan is not being met.
Three out of 27 policies are not met. Seven out of 27 policies are met at the state plan. So they're automatically given credit for not what not is not even on paper yet. Does Awake Olive have a site plan?
I probably I would think not because H Heartland did not have a site plan. A site plan is not usually required at this this level. It's not within a 15inut safe walkable distance of stores, jobs, and businesses. No parks, no continuous sidewalks, no or bike lanes, not existing not existing community character and so forth that's listed. Side six, ex amenities accessible only by car, no pedestrian crosswalks, no pedestrian signals at
intersections, and refer to the amenities at the upper right hand corner. Thank you. >> Hi, I'm Wanda Allen. U my address is on record.
I want you to note this slide here. Note the pink along this highway. Note the pink lines. There is not consistent uh sidewalks.
The uh this slide also shows a number of safety issues with residents walking and biking along Highway 98. The intersection does not meet ADA requirements. There's no crosswalks or pedestrian signals or proposed crosswalks with a five lane traffic. Please note that we've already had one bicycle killed. That's someone's
love one. We're asking the developer to commit to providing continuous sidewalks on 98 in the county up to Sharon Road. Slide two, please. Okay, this is very important too.
safety and lack of infrastructure. We've got over 18,277 new dwellings that have been approved. 42,000 people. That's the size of Wake Forest.
Okay, that's not the end of it. We are going to have a new school opening up. Over,50 kids coming. They're going to come.
It's a Durham Charter School. and uh 2025. This area has been blasted. We have been saturated and we do not have the infrastructure. Safety concerns continue to be
addressed. We continue to have crashes on Highway 98. 7 miles. 54 developments under construction will double the the traffic on Highway 98.
We need infrastructure. We don't need people to continue to die. Thank you. >> Um good afternoon.
My name is Pam Williams. Uh I'm just going to do an overview of this map. This map, what's in light color is uh the Lick Creek basin and the Little Lick Creek is on the north side. But I want to bring to your attention that in Lick Creek and Little Lick Creek, we have 54 dense developments under construction.
Now, that means most of those have been reszone from rural residential to high density. Uh 20 more have been approved and are pending construction. 42% are
approved are town houses. 42% of all the developments is town houses. 21% are apartments and then 37% approved are single family homes. And but as you can see we have quite a few uh town houses in the little green and then we already have apartments around there.
Uh Sharon Road Apartments is just it's less than a half a mile away from this uh apartment complex. This I just want to show you the area. The square is Wake Olive. The red uh area that we talked about earlier is Heartland and you can see all the developments that are going on in this area. Uh we request our Durham leaders to push for improvements on NC98 and Wake Forest Highway. We desperately need a four-lane facility through this area somewhere to help get the traffic around and all those developments right here are under construction and more uh traffic cone congestion uh from NC DO uh
I got an email from them that said that uh NC 98 is 13,800 vehicles per day planning level daily uh capacity for a general two-lane major third affair with center left turn lanes with 45 miles per hour speeds for Pedmont area terrain. Um and that is what 13,800 not the 17,000 as shown in zoning map report because that number comes from a Florida table. Why are we using Florida table for living in North Carolina? Uh oh my word.
And here is a gridlock 98. or we're going to add 2,000 more cars at that intersection with the gridlock on NC98. Thank you, Pamela Andrews. I'm back with more emergency stuff.
Okay, if you don't live in Sou East, you just really don't understand is all I can say. But on July 3rd, a person was experiencing convulsions. Yet, EMS was
stuck in the traffic that you see on the left. Calls for emergency services such as this fatality which was June the 16th on Highway 98 are often met with a similar response. No EMS units available to respond. They asked Wake County, they asked Orange County, they asked Person County for help daily, but no response.
They they out of units. Update Wake County sends back no units available. Next slide. On June the 5th of 2025, this article was shared um that says 911 is in a crisis.
Durham Director of Emergency Services Mark Larkhart stated, "We have not added any staffed transport units to the Durham County EMS since 2018. Our call volume is the same time has increased over 24%. Thus, this puts a strain on our EMS workers. The county is on track to have a record-breaking 60,000 calls of 911 help without any new positions, and emergency vehicle service staff will be stretching them extremely thin. One day there were 35 calls on
hold. Not my word, theirs. Next. Um, Daily Durham asked Wake person in Orange counties for help with 911 calls.
As I said earlier, many days all three counties have no units alone to help Durham. This is frequent, y'all. Next, the fire department is also in a crisis. I told you earlier, this fire happened not a mile from where this proposed development is tonight.
The emergency went there. 52 firefighters later, they put this thing out in 35 minutes, but two families were displaced. It burnt completely up. Okay, this is in a town home.
Tall town homes, apartments, and schools, they must have a ladder truck. We don't have but one ladder truck in this whole southeast Durham. Next, as I showed you before, here's your ladder trucks. We don't have the infrastructure, y'all.
It's like a ticking time bomb out there. It's serious. Thank you. Tammy Sua Baptist Road. I'm going to
continue on the um fire. Uh and you've seen this before uh about the people being displaced, but I want to bring you attention to station 8. When you said we don't have the ladder truck, a four-story build, apartment building is 70 feet high. Most of the ladder trucks are 75 foot high.
you by geog geometry, you can't get a fire uh people close to an apartment. It's going to put the fire people in danger. So, I want you to think about we don't have what we need to service the apartment. And then I want to touch on blasting, especially on this.
We've had two recent issues of blasting. Um in July 1st, Salona, which is a developing site, um they were uh had a blast, their first blast for a permit renewal, but there was no DB le DB decel reading. 3 miles away, felt it in the ground. Okay, this is Tric Basin soil. You feel the blasting. I was on Baptist Road, a mile
and a half from Falls Village. I felt the blasting. It happens. It can impact whales.
Wells can cost you $10,000 if they're not, you know, or more if they're not lined. So blasting is an issue. And I also want to bring you to the point that you've got a church across from this area that's on a well. So you're putting not only people with wells u in danger, you're putting that church in danger.
And then blasting also. We've had so many people turn in issues on blasting. They've never had any remedy. The people on Junction Road, I know three years going three or four years now, they still don't have water.
And you know how much it would cost they to to get to city water and to to get those 10 homes like $600,000. They can't afford it. Blasting is an issue and blasting may not happen initially, but it can happen gradually. Preservable drum, we are trying to change the blasting, but it's not happening. It's not there yet. So, Traic Basin Soil, if you approve this, you're you're putting
blasting at risk. >> Good evening. Thomas Freeman, volunteer preserver Durham. I'm going to break uh from my script just a bit.
Uh sorry, Pam. Uh let me ask you, I see a lot of new faces out there. SRLs sur if you don't know what it is if you don't know what it where it is that is absolutely central to every conversation we have had here tonight sur uh I'd like to move directly into commitments the commitment that I would like to make is no disturbance on environmentally sensitive areas these uh disturbance would include stream buffers no disturbances in the ESA to include the location of storm water devices, tree removal, ground disturbing activities, retaining walls, drainage utilities, uh, and the like. Next slide.
We're going to talk a little, uh, about sediment pollution in Lit Creek. I've mentioned that before. You'll see from the picture, August 5, 11, and 10. Nothing changes.
The Durham Solar Erosion Department states that there uh is an immediate an immediate fine with scoopable sediment. What you see here, folks, is scoopable sediment, but no one is responsible because of the proximity, the distance away. And this is Lit Creek at Southw Road because these construction sites are miles and miles away. Next slide.
And this is how it works. The muck, the tomato soup uh comes into the steel and basin. It sits there seven days. Then this muck is and tomato soup is pumped off into what we refer to as the drainage ditches of Durham, which was uh natural biotic living creeks in Durham. There are the
storm dam water drainage ditches of Durham. Next slide. And and in conclusion, we stress this time and time again, to the right of the screen, you see Lit Creek and that settlement flowing into Falls Lake water supply for the city of Raleigh. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the audience in person that would like to speak on this case? on the Zoom. We have Donna Stainback.
>> Yeah. Um I'm Donna Stain. I live at 4825 Jimmy Rogers Road. I'd like to speak on the um concerns and requests kind of summarizing due to the damage by blasting to the neighbors and the proximity to the schools. We'd like a commitment for no blasting. The tomato
soup is in our creeks. We'd like the commitment to sampling of the water and eolment. The tree forest deforestation creates heat island. We'd like increase the tree coverage to 30% to reduce storm water and settle runoff and this will also help with the pollution.
All buffers should be undisturbed wetland streams boundary buffers. the boundary buffer to be8 opacity in lie of the minimum 6. 52 acres provide maximum of 50% imper um the site is not contiguous and they make and we ask it to maintain the existing zoning or proposed zoning of RB per the UDO the highest density in the area with minimum design and environmental
uh commitments. Um uh the character of the neighborhood will drastically change with the reszoning to allow for a height of 70 foot. We like to follow the existing place type. 25%.
More than 4% means there is more housing supply than demand. Why is this density needed? No continuous sidewalks have are planned for the pedestrian or continuous bike lanes. The um pedestrian crossing signals are are not proposed and would like to provide pedestrian crossing and signals on NC98.
I'd also like to say the neighborhood. >> Thank you. Your time is up. Is there anyone else on the Zoom that would like to speak?
Is there anyone else on the Zoom that would like to speak? hearing none. Um the applicant wants to come forward and address any community concerns very quickly. >> Yes.
Uh again, Toby Coleman uh here on behalf of uh Development Group. Um so uh a couple things. First off, I know you guys know this. I just want to clarify since there was some statements about how many uh how many of the comp plan policies we've met.
We met 23 out of 27. So we we've worked very hard and I think redeeming has worked very hard to try to really listen to the neighbors and try to find find ways to address some of these issues. Some of these issues obviously we can't address. As I noted, we can't build sidewalks on other people's property. And in fact, even when we've tried to build sidewalks to
get to, for instance, Neil Middle School, we've run into um issues uh with basically jurisdictional issues that really we don't have any control over. Um we do we have heard, you know, we have been discussing the crosswalks and the signals for a while. Um we are happy to and will make a a profer to provide those uh provided that DOT approves of them. What we've been saying the entire time is we expect that they will be required but it is a DOT right of way.
Um I see Aaron getting up. >> Can you be specific about the crosswalks you're referring to? >> So we're referring to the crosswalks across 98 at the uh at the um at the intersection there. Um so I think it's on both sides of uh the street on This would be across N. Okay. >> So, south from the property on 98 onto and then uh it would be on either side
of Olive Branch Road. So, the Olive Branch 98 intersection. >> Okay. >> So, happy happy to do that.
I believe that there's uh they're not there's not signalization, but I've I've actually crossed that road a couple times, so I I can appreciate the need for it. Um in addition um we are willing to you know we have made the commitment um to not disturb um you know the northern portion of the property um and um we will we will go ahead and provide that um you know currently we have a few exceptions. Um we can we will modify that um such that um utilities temporary sedimentation erosion control devices uh and storm water management facilities are not allowed within that area. Um that would leave only greenway trails and storm water conveyances as being permitted within that protected area.
Um the the only thing I would note um is that um is that I believe that there was some discussion about the roadway capacity. I believe that that may have confused class one versus class 2 98 does have a accordion staff report and I think this is consistent uh that has a capacity of about 17,000 cars and again we're trying to control that by basically limiting the number of cars that this project can generate. So whatever the you know the the uh traffic engineer society has a has a book that basically estimates how many cars a apartments will generate or you know otherwise many of you know that um and basically whatever that cap is uh you know we cannot exceed 149 peak hour trips. So if that means we can only build you know 190 apartment units and 10,000 retail square feet that's what we'll have to do. So >> can you clarify? We didn't quite follow what you were saying about the the I
think you it seemed like you're trying to maybe edit one of the profers. >> That's right. So there there was >> Could you be Yeah. Could you be more clear?
We didn't quite catch. >> So there was a concern about the profer that starts uh no new construction improvements or new development >> and it go relates to the u the northern portion of the property. There's some exceptions there. And so basically what we're profering is is that we would delete the exceptions after between greenway trails and storm water conveyances.
So we would delete utilities as an exception that could be built in that area, temporary sediment erosion control devices and storm water management facilities. >> Those would no longer be exemptions from that property. >> Okay. Thank you very much. and we are available for questions. >> Thank you.
>> Do we need clarification? No. All right. All righty.
So um at this time the public hearing is now closed and we are now open for com commissioner discussion and questions. >> Commissioner ZZ. >> Thank you chair. Uh question for for the applicant.
Uh greatly appreciate the inclusion of of uh non-residential square footage. Would you be willing to commit to a minimum required amount in addition to the the maximum amount? Um we've been uh so uh we are we are looking at that. So I don't know that we're ready to do that today but that is something that we are we are looking at.
We do expect that that is we expected that would be a question. So don't have an answer for you yet but expect to have going forward. Thank you. >> Um are these units rentals or are they for sale units?
Are they rentals? The apartments. We would expect that the apartments would be rentals. >> Gotcha.
Thank you, >> Commissioner Richie. >> For Neil Middle School, um is there the capacity to create a or to commit to the possibility of a trail? basically making it so that the way that the the lots are built out, >> someone might be able to create a trail even if it's just a a single path between the middle school because also knowing middle schoolers, they're going to build that themselves anyway. >> Yeah, that's a good point. Um, honestly, so this is something where we worked, you know, basically worked handinhand with the schools and so the schools were the ones that said we don't want we don't want that. " But, you know, that's I at this point that's sort of where our
conversation ended was, um, we talked about, you know, what can we do to try to address this thing because we were committed to trying to do it, too. and the schools were pretty adamant that they didn't want anything coming in the back that they viewed it as a security threat and some other issues. >> If if I can also weigh in. So, we've been having a conversation with the applicant about a potential for extending that sidewalk and they've been open along um Wake Forest Highway to Neil Middle School and they are they are open to that idea.
Um, but we're still trying to work through some issues regarding jurisdiction, regarding maintenance, and there's also some, as as Deputy City Attorney Aaron Miles stated, there's some some weirdness regarding state law and the ability for the city to annex that state right ofway not adjacent to the property. So, we're still working through that. We're uh the applicant is committed to to still
trying to figure out a solution to that and we're going to work on that between now and the city council. >> Uh Vice Chair and then Commissioner W. >> Yes. I have two questions.
Um first off, C can you make a commitment to no blasting? I'm concerned about the effect it would have on the school. Durham public schools are run by the county and funded by the county. So any damage to that school would fall on the county.
Can you make a commitment to no blasting? >> We cannot make a commitment to no blasting. I will say, however, that based on preliminary uh studies of the site and the way the topography works, um the expectation is it will be what is known as a fill site. In other words, they will be bringing dirt in rather than taking dirt out, which makes it far less likely that they will do blasting. They haven't done any of the again
somewhat repeating what Mr. Go said in the prior case because they have not done geotech testing yet. And even if they did, it's of limited use without knowing exactly where you're putting homes. Um, they're not in a position to to offer that.
>> Okay. And my second question is, how can you limit trip generation to 149 trips? >> Peak trips. Peak hour trips.
>> Peak hour trips. >> Yeah. So, the distinction being there's a total daily and then there's a peak hour trip. And we focused in on on limiting the peak hour trips.
>> How would you do that? I mean, if there's 210 apartments and 10,000 retail, >> the the way that you do that, >> so >> you can like tell people you can't drive here. >> No. So, the way that it's done is is that there is a um again there's a there's a basically a a book that's put out by uh the society of traffic
engineers and I may be mangling their names so my apologies to all traffic engineers out there but they uh what it does is it says you know for a mid-rise apartment every unit generates x amount per day and x amount peak hour. Similarly for a restaurant or a retail store per square foot this is what's what's generated or per seat or whatever. And so basically what you do is and this is is is that when you go in for a site plan you have to do that calculation as part of the site plan as part of the site planning process. And basically what this condition or what this text commitment does is to say whatever you put on there, you cannot exceed that 149 peak hour trips based on those on the you know nationally accepted estimates of of traffic generation.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner W. >> Hey, I think my question might be for transportation. So I noticed on um the
numbers are different but on the same road and in the same general area. Um so capacity for this project says 17,700 for 98 and on the next project the capacity is 15,900. >> Hi Erlene Thomas. Um so with a capacity there are reductions that are assumed for you know if if that section is not signalized.
So in this case that intersection um is signalized and it has a little higher capacity versus down the road which is not um that also may not have turn lanes. So there would also be a reduction for that. You're welcome. Commissioner Copac. >> Thank you, Chair. Yeah, one of the clear requests I heard as well from community was around the the tree cover uh and
what's the potential to increase that on the site. Um um you know, given what you have uh you know what you're planning. >> Um well, we've we've increased it to 21% tree cover. We'll certainly take a look to see see what we can do.
Um but uh We run different scenarios, right? Uh I'm sure on this and I know you want to reserve maximum flexibility uh for yourself. Um but what would it take to commit to doing 30% um tree cover for the site? >> I don't know.
I'm not sure. I would have to ask I'd have to talk to my client. I don't know that we're prepared. We've run this scenario at this point for 30%.
That was We've not received that specific request or I've not seen that specific request until tonight. >> What's the highest scenario you've run it for? I'll ask I'm uh David. I work with the development team. Um we haven't run it like through 21 22 23 kind of bumping up
against but you start talking about 30% it's like a 9% increase on a 12 acre sites. It's a fairly would be a fairly big dent in um potential yield especially with trying to fit in the commercial stuff on the front. Um, so the stuff just like the units just got pushed back into like sort of the nooks and crannies of the site. Um, so yeah, I don't think we could commit to 30% tree cover.
We I think there are in our plans have allowed for like impervious space on the site. Um, some of that like you know just sort of naturally happens between units but also like sort of common space for the people and the departments to use. So, um, and I think that's reflected in our impervious commitment to be below the, um, maximum threshold. That's helpful.
>> Thank you. And I also just want to second the comments made by, uh, my fellow commissioner about the trail as well as to encourage the further work about the sidewalk. You know, those sound like both good opportunities to
create more connectivity with this site uh, and the surrounding area. And I understand and respect that the schools have a position on it, but I think in terms of our mandate and what the comprehensive plan calls for that those are great projects to continue to pursue as part of this if it moves forward. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Nerchie.
>> I have a question about the watershed. Lake Creek is endangered. It's it's already federally um designated as an endangered watershed area. How will your um how will your construction protect that creek?
How will the run how will you protect it from being polluted by runoff and discharge of polluted water? Well, the first thing that we will do um is uh comply with uh the city's standards. I mean, so the city and the
county have already adopted standards well above the state minimum requirements. So, the the you know, in response to concerns from a lot of these neighbors, this planning commission and ultimately the council and the and the county board went to the state and got approval for for increased sedimentation and erosion control uh rules, which which are sub everybody's subject to that includes fauulants which are things you put in the water to get the sedimentation down. It includes larger >> um uh ponds and um and so and we've committed to 100 years storm water. We'll take we can take a look at at other things.
One of the things that happened here just to give you a sense on on how hard we've been trying to address the neighborhood's concerns. " You know, like how can we >> how what what is it that you guys want us to do? How can we try to address this issue on? And they they sent us uh they
" So we went and talked to Sound Rivers. " Um and they they had some other concerns and they said the what we really want is monitoring of turbidity. We said what in the heck is turbidity? Um turbidity is basically how like how much suspended solids are in the water.
I see commissioner nodding. You probably know all about this. So please forgive me if I mangle any of the science. But um so we've we've spent a long time trying to figure out well what can we do?
What can be enforceable? and talking with the county storm water because one of the issues here is is that unlike a lot of typical text commitments um sedimentation and erosion control requirements by state law have to be approved by the sedimentation control board >> before they're approved. And so it's not
clear that we could commit to any standard that would be enforceable without going through the sedimentation control board. Um, we've talked with uh County Stormwater about what else we do, but there's no, you know, what basically what County Stormwater said is we regulate scoopable scoopable sediment is what they say. We don't regulate turbidity. It's not, it's just not something that they do.
And so they don't have a standard that they would suggest. Um, there's other other states that have standards, but it's not clear that those would apply. And so one of the difficulties we've had, frankly, is just figuring out, you know, what more can we do? Um, and so, um, again, we'll we'll take a look at at at increasing the size of the sediment erosion control basins, but and trying to find those sort of more creative, um, solutions.
>> It's been a challenge. >> I imagine so. I imagine so. Would you consider doing a baseline data
collection? Because there's no there's no provision in your proposal to collect any data of a baseline to see if your project or to monitor your project as it progresses whether or not it's impacting Lick Creek and its fragile very fragile environment. >> Well, again the the question is what does that mean? Right? So baseline data collection mean a lot of things, right? And so that's where and that's where we were suggested like can we do turbidity and we and so we've been looking seriously at it and in fact I talked with Ryan Eaves with County Stormwater this afternoon about that and basically what Ryan said is look if you're going to do it like never done it before >> right >> um and if you're gonna do if you're going to do the data collection you know I had questions on well how's that work you know what is the enforcement mechanism hit certain numbers, you know, all these questions that like just they're not
written anywhere, so how would you even figure it out? >> And so we're sort of stumbling through the dark here on on what it would be. But basically, he said, "Look, if you're going to think about it, you need to figure out where you're going to collect it, you know, timeline, things like that. " and and you know frankly I the reason part of the reason among other reasons that we don't have a even a proposal there is I don't want to get well I I don't want to I don't want to commit to something that staff says they can't enforce and so what we've been trying to do is say what can be done right what can be enforcable and so it looks like it you know it so that's what we're trying to figure out >> okay enforceable then is your is your criteria can it be enforced.
Is that the criteria with which you would proceed? >> Well, can it be enforced? And what what is it is it feasible? Um, right.
So, is it, you know, is it doable? Right. >> Is it doable? Yeah. And so, that's what
we're trying to do. And, you know, I'm a lawyer. I'm not I'm not I'm not anyway an environmental engineer. I couldn't say, you know, where you should put it and how.
>> Have you consulted with environmental engineers regarding this? >> Are there any We need to move on. Um, any any other commissioners that have questions? >> Yes, Commissioner Rich.
>> This should be quick. I think it's a question for staff. Is there any precedent behind providing funding or sort of a set aside for a nonprofit to do that does testing that's regularly sort of investing in places like >> no precedent that I'm aware of. >> Great.
>> Just a question. Is that something that the developer would be willing to make a one time investment in? Um, if I understood right, you're kind of asking like a fee and loo type process. >> Sort of like giving to Durham public schools, but you're giving to a nonprofit that's doing the testing. >> Yeah, I think we would just need to run some costs on that. Like, you know, is it $400,000 to you know, plow through uh, you know, a mile of trees, like maybe not, but if it's um, something you
know, less than that, maybe more reasonable, something that we'd be willing to look at for sure. >> Great. Thank you. Any additional commissioner questions, concerns?
Are we ready to move this case forward? So, may I have a motion? Chair, as it relates to case Z24038 Wake Olive, I move that we send this case forward with a favorable recommendation. >> Second.
It's been moved by Commissioner Copac and seconded by Vice Chair Shares to move case Z24038 Wake Olive forward with a favorable recommendation. May I have the roll call vote, please? Chair Cameron, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Shagaras, >> no.
>> Commissioner Bailey, >> yes. >> Commissioner Capers, >> no. >> Commissioner Chicowski, >> yes. >> Commissioner Copac, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Nine Kirker, >> no. Commissioner Pontek. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Richie.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Williams. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Woke.
>> The motion passes 7 to 4. >> Thank you everyone. Last case of the evening, zoning map change, case Z25, quadruple0ero2, Ravenstone commercial. May we have the staff report, please. >> Okay.
Chair Cameron, Vice Chair Shagaras, and planning commissioners, I am once again up here to present Z25002 Ravenstone Commercial. 42 acre parcel located at 5204 Wake Forest Highway requesting to reszone from commercial general from commercial center with a graphic development plan to commercial general with a textual development plan. The proposal would allow most uses in the commercial general district with the exclusion of those prohibited on the development plan. Again, the current zoning is commercial center with a graphic development plan that allows for retail sales and services. The applicant proposes to change this designation to commercial general with a textual development plan that will allow for all uses within the commercial general except agricultural uses, educational facilities, passenger terminals, minor or major utilities, wireless or unipole communication facilities, electronic gaming, nightclub or bar, drive-in theater, golf course,
country swim or tennis clubs, paintball and payday lenders. The site is adjacent to an existing commercial zoned shopping center and backs up to residential rural residential suburban 10 and PDR zoning. The aerial map better shows the site's adjacency to the existing shopping center. The property is currently designated suburban commercial on the place type map.
The proposed zoning is generally consistent with this designation. The development plan profers to limit the uses that I mentioned earlier. Neighborhood meetings were held in accordance with the neighborhood meeting guidelines on February 18th, 2025 and June 24th, 2025. Each meeting had four and five attendees, respectively. No comments have been received by staff in relation to this case on the Durham Reszoning Explorer. The proposal is generally consistent with the place type map designation of suburban commercial and two and two out of two of those place type policies and
is consistent with 11 of 20 comprehensive plan policies. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions. >> Thank you.
At this time, the chair is opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant come forward, please? pull that screen off, but it's still L Creek screen on my my screen here, but um good evening. Um Chair Cameron, Vice Chair Chagaras, board members.
Um happy to be with you this evening. Um my name is Jeremy Anderson. I'm a landscape architect and principal with Thomasson Hutton here in Durham. Um thank you staff um for your presentation.
As was outlined ear by by staff, this is a fairly straightforward request. Um we are zoning reszoning from commercial to commercial um from commercial center that did restrict the use to only retail to commercial general. Basically opens
up um a larger list of uses uh for potential development. 4 4 acres within the Ravenstone Commercial Shopping Center that you saw on the map earlier. It's kind of unique. It's a landlocked parcel.
It is um locked behind or located behind the Goodwill that's along Highway 98. There's a Dollar General. It's located behind that. It's also located behind the shopping center itself.
So, it's kind of isolated and it's kind of um hidden from view, which makes it very difficult to develop as retail. So, uh it was zoned uh to that CC with retail only in 2006. and needless to say has not been uh developed in those nearly 10 years. So the owner is looking to reszone this to commercial general just to open up the the allowable uses um to to see if they can generate some interest to develop the property.
It's sitting there vacant. It's uh adjacent to commercial adjacent to residential and there's an opportunity there to develop it. Just hasn't moved forward with the retail to date.
Um I do want to touch on just the 11 out of 12 comp plan policies. it's kind of a lower score. So, I wanted to kind of touch on those and and the nine that we weren't hitting just to to highlight those. Um, five of those are five of the nine that we did not hit are directly related to residential.
So, although residential is an allowed use now, it's probably unlikely it will be residential. 4 acre site. You know, do some town homes there, but that may be 16 20 town homes at most. Um, apartments, that's going to be a small apartment site.
30 40 units probably not something that someone would do. So, uh, those five policies that are residential that kind of are we don't meet residential developments unlikely, but we didn't want to take it off the table. We wanted to leave it there. If somebody came and presented a a proposal to the the owner, uh, we'd be willing to to look at that.
Uh, one of the policy we didn't meet was relating to autodependency. That's basically what's there today. I mean, it's it's a commercial center. It says it's it's autodependent.
It's going to commercial zoning. So, it's the same thing. So, it's kind of a a wash on that one. Um
4 four acres. So, if we even did anything above the normal, it would be pretty nominal. So, we didn't offer anything additional given the the size of the site. Um, native plants, I'll just be honest, we didn't just cover that one.
We'd be happy to make a profer small site. We'll have some VUA plantings. We'll have some buffer plantings. We're not sure what the development is, but we'd be happy to make a profer this evening to do trees and shrubs, all those data plants.
So, I'll put that one up there right now. Uh, and then green infrastructure was the last one we didn't hit, and it's just too early. We do not know what the development plan will be. It could be uh commercial, it could be office, it could be residential.
So we don't have anything to offer at this time for green infrastructure. So we'll leave that one there. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions um that you may have. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak that has not signed up? Please go up to the podium and address. Good evening.
Good evening. I'm Rebecca Freeman and I am My address is on file. Um I wanted to speak tonight to this very briefly. This seems unusual to ask for a blank approval for either um commercial or residential when a commercial versus residential would seem to be more definitive in relation to surroundings. In this case, when considering the needs of the community, there has been little to no additional commercial property development, no amenities developed, while 50 plus 20 74 developments have been approved for about 15,000 develop dwelling units
approved in the Lick and Little Creek area. there's there's just not the the the development of anything commercial. No amenities, no amenities to walk to, no amenities to go to in this area. Also, considering the site, expanding the current shopping center to improve um additional amenities would be preferable to adding more housing.
Furthermore, the site is snuggled in, as he would describe, between existing commercial and not a favorable site for residential. How would you like to be looking at the back of a store when you're a residential, the grocery store, whatever, when you're in an apartment? So, I would really encourage you to consider this only commercial. We needed more amenities out there and um and less of the apartments and and dwelling units because we've got plenty of those coming now and coming online.
Uh thank you for your com. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? audience. Is there anyone on the Zoom that would like to speak? Please use the raise your
hand feature. We have Keith Davis. >> Please go ahead. >> Excuse me.
>> Hello. My name is Keith Davis. I live at 108 Court. Um I used to be the HOA president for Raven Stone Community.
Um, we're not opposed to the commercial or amenities there like the woman that we just spoke before. Um, residential would totally be not well. Uh, that property also backs up with our storm. We have an agreement with Pathmark.
I mean, excuse me, Pathmark. Um, we have an agreement with Food Line because we share our storm water. So, they help us maintain our wet pond and our wet land that we have on Ronda and also weather Weather Ve road. Um we would like to know if they're going to connect to our storm drain which we would like to also be compensated for as food line is also compensating. Um also the fact that um that area is
very dense. It is snuggled in between apartment um we need to be a little bit more tighter with what they're going to build there. um apartments, letting it be able to be apartments or commercial uh living structures would not be satisfactory. Um that has to be zoned to strictly commercial.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. We have Mimi Kesler. Hi, I'm here.
Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> My name is Mimi Kesler. I have a question. Um because of concerns with the um the the really dangerous situation on Highway 98. I'm wondering if the um develop if this development will connect with the ones um near it so that
it can use uh the already established um entrance and exits on 98 into um Sharon Road. >> Thank you. We'll get those answered. Is there anyone else on the Zoom that would like to speak?
Please use the raise your hand feature. All right. Would the applicant please uh come back up and address those I think three or four concerns we heard at the >> Yeah. Jeremy Anderson, Thomas, and Hutton.
Uh let me start with the traffic one that Mimi just asked. Um yeah, this parcel is landlocked. It has no frontage actually on a public road. So it would use the existing driveway. I think that the dollar uh excuse me, the Goodwill has that's where the drive the access would be. So it would share the driveway
to the shopping center and then directly to the Goodwill. Um I may have spoke too much about the residential. Again, I I I agree with some of the comments. There's a lot of residential development.
We've heard it this evening. It's commercial. We think it's going to be commercial. We just want to leave the um options open should someone come and think there's a residential option there.
4 acres parcel. I've been doing this long enough to know that there's very few developers at especially in this location looking at the back of a shopping center that would look at this as a viable residential option, but I'm just being honest. Commercial general is does allow for it. So, um but it's not something that uh we've got actively looking at.
So, >> storm drain question. Um you could repeat what that question was. >> Uh so it was the H former HOA Reviving Stone um president wanted to know if that would you have to connect to their storm drain as Food Lion does and compensate them. >> I'll be honest, I would have to look further into that and see. Um I do know
that drains down through the south of our site down through the neighborhood. I we we would connect or drain that way, but I don't know what pipe is connecting to. So, we can look into that and talk to the shopping center and see where that drainage is going and what we connect to. We'll talk to the HOA about that.
>> Okay. Um, I think that is all I heard. All right. Um, at this time, we'll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner discussion and questions.
vice shears >> for the applicant. Do you already have permission from the Goodwill to connect and use their driveway to connect to the what I'm >> Yes, there's an existing access easement there. >> Yeah. >> So, you've already talked to the Goodwill. >> It's Yeah, it's platted. There's a
platted access ement. I think it's even the driveways cut in towards it. So, yes. >> Okay.
Thank you. Yep. Anyone else? >> If not, um, if we're ready to move this case forward, I would like to >> Before we do that, really quick, um, just confirm, was that a formal proper for native species and required plantings?
>> Thank you. >> All right. If we are ready to move this case forward, may I um have a motion? If not, we'll continue with the questions. Um >> in the case >> in the case of case number in the case of Z2500 00002 Ravenstone commercial I'd like to move this forward with a favorable recommendation.
It's been moved by Commissioner Williams and seconded by Vice Chair Shagaris to move case Z25 quadruple0ero2 Ravenstone commercial forward with a favorable recommendation. May I have the roll call vote please? >> Chair Cameron, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Shagaras, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Bailey, >> yes. >> Commissioner Capers, >> yes. >> Commissioner Chicowski, >> yes. Commissioner Copac.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Nineer, >> yes. >> Commissioner Pian, >> yes. >> Commissioner Richie, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Williams, >> yes. >> Commissioner Woke, >> yes. >> The motion passes 11 to zero. >> Thank you.
>> Old business committee updates. Don't think we have any. When the when uh Erin, when the uh UDO
is ready, I think we're going to have to appoint the new committee. Correct. >> I'm sorry. Say that again.
>> Are we still going to have a need a committee for any when the um UDO is ready for review? >> Um that's a good question. I might >> because we previously had one and I think that uh Gary was Commissioner Cutright was the chair. He's gone.
Commissioner CE was on there, he's gone. So if we we probably that's might be something we need to do at the September meeting. >> We can certainly uh put that on the agenda under new business about constituting a new committee to review the new DDO. Yes.
>> Okay. New business upcoming officer elections. You want me to you're going to say or you want me to say? >> Yes.
So per your rules of procedure it is time to uh run for election again for chair and vice chair. So we only have two offices on this uh commission. Uh Chair Cameron is term limited. She cannot be uh appointed as uh she cannot
be elected as chair. So the the rules of procedure state that um once a city appointee appointee as chair Cameron is has been the chair and you're going to be electing a new officer that new pres that new chair needs to come from a count be a county appointee and the count the chair and the vice chair cannot come be appointed by the same jurisdiction. So the new chair needs to be county and the new vice chair needs to be city. So that means that for chair your choices are vice chair shagaras and commissioners capers copac nine kirkner williams and woke you all are eligible to become chair for a vice chair you only have four choices current chair Cameron and commissioners Bailey Chicowski and Richie since commissioner has resigned.
So those are your choices. Um we will do elections at the end of next meeting. So, Chair Cameron, you will be the chair next month and then we
will move the gavl over to your successor next month at the end of the meeting. Don't dance too much. >> So, I just want to make you aware >> retreat is the retreat before that's the next one. It'll be after.
>> So, you we have not scheduled a retreat yet. That was one something I wanted to bring to your attention. It is about that time. Um you've been this would you've run retreats the last two years.
uh but they are not required by your rules of procedure and it's completely up to you. Um there have been two different formats. One format in 2023 you all came in for about five hours to the uh basically a half day came into the planning department. We did a series of discussions, a series of presentations.
Last year we did a more scaled down version. We had a shorter um we had a shorter agenda at the end of the October meeting and then um had a a series of presentations that lasted about two hours. We were able to feed you at that meeting so you did get dinner, don't worry. And we did try to
shorten the agenda uh for that meeting so we weren't here too long and we didn't keep you too long. Um you're not required to have a retreat. We don't have a huge number of um topics to bring to you at this time. We could potentially bring you a legislative update.
Uh Bo Deansky could do a UDO update like he did last year. Um but it's really up to the pleasure of the commission as to whether or not you want to have a retreat. And if you do want to have a retreat, we would be more than happy to entertain what those topics might be. Um the timing could be um uh a bit difficult.
It would be tough for us to you know get some topics and get them ready for your September planning commission where the agenda is not too long. October though right now is looking at seven items on your agenda. So we would not want to be doing an an a retreat after that. So we might be looking at November >> uh for a retreat if we choose to have
one. Why am I raising my hand on the chair? Um, so I really think because we have so many new commissioners >> um that we need to probably take time out, find a day or half a day that works for everyone and um re go over some topics that we did in 2023. I think hearing from the um city attorney was helpful >> about what how do you ask your questions uh carefully how do you word your comments um how do you you know so so we're not getting in trouble with suggesting propers or things like that I think that that was very helpful for folks that were previously on the commission and just um I probably will think of a couple of other things but I know that was very helpful. Um, and uh, so anyway, that that's that's my my vote to if we're going to do it in
November, if we roll that further back, um, maybe find something that works. >> We if we're if you all are willing to come in either on an off night or during the day, we could do it sooner. I was just trying to not add a retreat onto an already pretty packed October agenda. Um, so what we can do is we can set out send out a doodle poll, see some dates that work for as many pe some dates and times that work for as many people as possible and uh look to schedule something sooner.
It would be nice to do it sooner than November. I'd like to do it in late September to October if possible. Um, but we we will make those accommodations and and find a date that works for as many people as possible. >> Okay.
And if anyone else has any other topics of suggestions, it would be good to hear from everyone. >> Mr. Shakowski. >> Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think more is more here and and if we can if we can find that extra time and I know it's a it's a sacrifice from everybody, but I
think certainly I I would greatly appreciate that and I think it'd be a valuable use of time. So, I just want to plus one what the chair said. >> Okay, sounds good. Then that that's what we'll look to do.
And uh if you do have any topics that you would like us to cover, uh please feel free to email them to myself, to Payton, to Andy. Uh all three of us would be great and um we can do our best to accommodate those topics. Absolutely. >> And the sooner the better so we can make sure that we have speakers lined up there.
>> Any staff announcements? >> That though those were Yep. That's what I've got. We are journ