meeting to order and I'm immediately calling a five uh recess until we uh re reach Corum this one no please don't now we have Corum yeah you're good you're in the right spot
[Music] good evening welcome to the Durham Planning Commission the members of the Durham Planning Commission are appointed by the city council and County Board of Commissioners to make recommendations to the elected officials we emphasize that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight while this meeting is being conducted in person it also is accessible using the zoom virtual platform the virtual meeting platform in the virtual meeting platform public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on video by default in order to maintain meeting decorum and a discernable record of the meeting the chat function has been
disabled for those attending in person if you plan to speak on an agenda item tonight please go to the left side to the left to that table and sign up to speak when speaking please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium please speak directly into the microphone if you are attending the meeting virtually you will be given the opportunity to speak at the appropriate time if you have pre-registered your name will be called so you can make your comments just like an in Person Public hearing you may also call in during the meeting tonight by dialing 1301 715 8592 if you bless you if you call in during the meeting you will need to wait until a particular public hearing you are interested in starts after all of the pre-registered speakers have shared their comments I will ask ask if there is anyone else wishing to speak at that point you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star9 on your
phone and when recognized please state your name and your address before making comments the applicant has a total of 10 minutes for a presentation each speaker after the applicant has two minutes to speak Commissioners I ask that you limit your comments for Q&A to 5 minutes and only be called called upon a second time to speak after all Commissioners have chosen to speak for the first time Commissioners as a reminder the public after the public hearing is closed you obtain the floor by being recognized by the chair commission members please remember you share this this time with your fellow Commissioners keep your comments and questions py and please don't repeat topics that have already been disc discussed or questioned the time to make public statements is before the motion is made once a motion is on the floor
and further discussion regarding that motion must come after a second all motions are stated in the affirmative so if a motion fails or ties the recommendation is for denial Commissioners if you are not ready to move forward with a case please indicate as such when questioned finally I ask that everyone here and on Zoom the commission me Members the staff the public to conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner if someone fails to act in that manner the chair will ask the offending person or persons to be muted on the zoom uh or leave the gleon until such time they regain personal control if the Corum fails to be restored the chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to act respect Y and courteous is observed thank you may we have the roll call please chair Cameron
here Vice chair sheras here commissioner graan here commissioner Gham here commissioner copac here commissioner CE here commissioner Valentine commissioner Williams here commissioner wel here young thank you and for the record uh Commissioners mver Johnson Johnson and cutright have all asked for excused absences thank you we do have an established Cor there are no adjustments to the agenda item number four on the agenda is the approval of the minutes and consistency statements do we have a
motion to approve from the May 14th meeting so moved second it's been moved by commissioner CE and seconded by commissioner copac to approve the minutes and the consistency statements from May 14th all in favor please say I I opposed the eyes have it we will now move into the public hearing text Amendment um TC 24 qu 01 Omnibus 19 may we have the staff report please yes before the staff report um eron Kane with the planning department I'd like to just State for the record that uh all planning department hearing items have been and advertis and noticed in accordance with state and local laws and all Affidavit of all notices are on file in the planning
department good evening Commissioners my name is Robin Schulz uh I am a senior planner arborist within the planning department uh I am here tonight to present ontc 24001 Omnibus 19 this so uh as a reminder an Omnibus consists of minor technical changes to the ordinance uh these should not include large policy initiatives um So within Omnibus 19 uh the changes can be divided into roughly three categories uh the first of which being changes related to the passage of new state legislation uh the second being corrections to incongruencies within the ordinance after the passage of scad uh and lastly Corrections of other minor inconsistencies within the text so first up just to briefly mention some of the scad corrections uh there were parts of the ordinance that mentioned required parking uh we removed those uh we corrected the density requirement and C in uh it scad created uh a situation
in which you had to have exactly eight units per acre um so we we changed that um we clarified that exceeding 20 adus requires a site plan and clarified the scad did not remove the required project boundary buffers when Mass grading sites so some of the state legislation uh notification requirements uh in accordance with State Statute essentially uh doing all the public notifications for street renamings that we do for um everything else which is say they're published posted and mailed um we also have uh remove design regulations for anything included within the Residential Building Code um state law also changed the building Cod building code to include Tri and quad plexes uh and also we removed uh any ordinance standard which conflicted with ncdeq specifically they uh are the only ones who can permit off-site Wastewater
systems um some other changes that we made there were two definitions of lot width uh we corrected that to just one uh the annual reporting period for the comprehensive plan was changed from one year to two years which was what was originally agreed on uh the flood plane administrator switched to the planning director as Sarah Young is the one who has been administering it through the minor engineering work group uh and then we updated some of the flag and signage standards I did want to add that we had two clarifying additions within the definition of affordable housing which were added as a request uh by The JCC PC after a staff present presentation uh two other small additions uh staff met with Habitat for Humanity who proposed two additional setbacks two additional changes to the grading setbacks uh one of which is that for sites which are not being Mass graded which is to say grading less than four acres um the grading setback does
not apply along the street Frontage but it does apply for the other boundaries of the development um additionally there is allowance uh for two feet uh encroachment into the grading setback in order to accommodate positive drainage away from the foundation of any structure um this concludes staff presentation and staff is available for any questions thank you do we have anyone in the any that would like to speak on this do we have anybody sign up to speak Aon no anyone on the zoom wishing to speak yes uh Mimi Kesler go ahead uh you muted yourself you were unmuted all right go ahead can you hear me yes okay um my
name is Mimi Kesler um as some of you know I I refer to these uh Omnibus things as the ominous um text amendments and I sent you an email today with some pictures um because I am very concerned about the whole issue of storm water runoff and the unintended consequences of um of it being um that storm that the that the downspouts are directed to um perious surfaces and I I get that except that then it runs off to other places and I sent you some pictures of a specific incident of that and that was with EHC so that in combination with um the uh change for the uh number of adus um that that um you have to have 21 adus
in order to have a site or require a site plan that's concerning to me because that's like a whole little subdivision and again I don't know that that there is sufficient attention being paid to how development impacts surrounding properties with respect to um storm water um and one of the paragraphs uh in the um in it uh had to do with down spouts and I request that you ask for a change in that um such that it is then restated as being um storm water from any new dwelling constructed must be directed to perious surfaces and contained on the lot where the unit is built or to Stone water handling construction to address the com
combined stor water from a complex of homes or Adu if this is not done proactively and causes harm the developer slash uh Builder will quick quickly remedy the problem to uh at his or her expense miss castler your time is up thank you do staff want to respond to that sure um I guess first so scad is where the the uh 2080 use came from um so it's it was listed as 20 in one part of the ordinance and 10 and the other uh so our thinking is that we are not trying to alter scad uh through this process this is supposed to be a minor Amendment which makes technical changes so that was already allowed through scad we're just making sure that it's consistent um and just as one clarifying point they do
still have to be associated with the Civic use um they can't just be a private Adu subdivision uh built without a site like without a site plan excuse me um as far as the downspouts go that is a larger question to be handled I think during the Udo rewrite since it's shifting how storm water is handled within infill development um this is going to be a larger policy shift which needs you know formal engagement uh coordination with storm water um things of that nature so that's that is how staff would respond to those claims if I if I didn't miss one thank you is there anyone else wishing to speak on this in the public seeing none and hearing none I'm going to close the public hearing now and we are now open for commissioner discussion and questions commissioner CE thank you uh just a question about some of the
changes um and and I guess I may be confused by things that are in green and things that are in red and things that are in green struck out things that are in red struck out so the track changes I'm a little confused about can you just clarify what's represented yeah so I think that when that was uh sort of created it's it's not supposed to be multiple colors I don't I don't know what happened with that but essentially anything that's being struck out uh is being removed anything that is uh in a different color than black is being added okay um there is no differentiation between green and red okay uh question on adus there in the existing ordinance is a consideration of an Adu located in the I guess in the sidey as long as it doesn't project forward more than 25% of the depth of the primary structure that image is being removed according to the text I didn't hear any discussion about things like setbacks or other than the grading which which
2 B maybe another way of saying it is are there changes being adopted through this that alter the dimensional flexibility that was introduced for adus through the original approval of Scat so no this should not affect anything that was approved through scad um do you remember why so some of these were proposed by DSC staff who work with this um I don't know off the top of my head for this specific but let me look into it and I can get back with you okay that's all that's it any other questions from
Commissioners commissioner copac yeah I'll just comment and just give appreciation for the community comment uh we've heard on multiple occasions concerns uh around storm water runoff and it seems something worth um uh keeping in mind as we enter into the Udo rewrite thank you anyone else are we ready to move this forward yes I I'll just say that I'm not but I'm happy to vote no on it but I don't think we should be voting on something that is unclear so okay what was that well I mean there's changes that are proposed here and I'm I'm not following either the origin or the change or I didn't hear any discussion of how Adu positioning on the lot is impacted by these changes but that's marked up in colors there's a graphic that's in our ordinance and um I mean I seems pretty
unclear staff give a shed some more light or no um B brinsky planning department um the intent of the change was to coincide with the intent of how scad was adopted I think that what the error was
and what I would have to go back um and look at two different versions of the ordinance um was there there was an inconsistency between the side yard setback or or the allowable location of an Adu that's an excess structure or an exess structure without an Adu and uh the intent is to um clarify and make that consistent um and the the way that we are proposing it is the way it was consistent with the intent of scad rather than uh sort of having that inconsistency and it's more of a uh clarifying how it's already been enforced situation one more question go ahead so is that mean that adus are allowed in the position that's indicated on that graphic yeah is being removed yeah cuz the
ground yes they are that's all I have okay all right are we ready to move this case forward with a motion Gary's not here so somebody has to make the motion what's the number mam ch what's the case number yeah case number is tc4001 hadam chair as it relates oh you
got it as it relates to tc24 0000001 Omnibus 19 would like to forward this to city council and the County Board of Commissioners with a favorable recommendation may we have the roll call vote oh oh a second second all right it's been moved and uh second it's been moved by commissioner sharis and seconded by or vice chair sheras and seconded by commissioner copac to move TC 2401 omnius 194 with a favorable recommendation may I have the roll call vote please CH Cameron yes Vice chair sheras yes commiss Comm Graves mans yes commissioner Gham yes commissioner copc yes commissioner CE
089 Acres of right of way located
089 Acres of right of way into the primary corporate limits there's an Associated annexation petition with this case uh it is case bdg 23030 this is a direct translational zoning uh this case has been spurred uh by a previous case on the Eastern parcel adjacent to the right of white area the Legacy case was called Wesley downs and was a Consolidated annexation approved in March 2023 to rezone to plan development residential 4166 to facilitate the construction of up to 229 dwelling units consisting of a
maximum of a maximum of 115 single family units and a minimum of 100 townhouse units the bristlewood right of-way case night is a way to bring adjacent R ofo into City Limits uh so more specifically I just go back one thank you uh more specifically for the bristlewood road Culvert to be City maintained um this area of bristlewood Road would need to be annexed so this will be an access road for the previously approved Wesley Downs case uh moving on to the next Slide the existing zoning is plan development residential 4166 and residential Suburban 20 the site is surrounded by residential Suburban 20 and residential rural the aerial map shows the general location of the project in eastern Durham and moving on the annexation map
089 Acres of RightWay into primary corporate limits annexation of RightWay into Durham city limits does not automatically trigger the city taking over maintenance of the roadway so a separate petition by the applicant for the city to take over maintenance of that right of-way segment can occur after the area is annexed into City Limits the applicant will will be required to bring the right of way up to City standards before it can be accepted for maintenance by the city The Proposal is consistent with the applicable policies of the new comprehensive plan thank you staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions thank you at this time the STA oh the chair
thank you the chair is opening the public hearing may we have the applicant come forward please good evening chair Cameron uh Vice chair saris and 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 in Durham um I want to thank Miss rer for the presentation about this RightWay annexation it's a little bit of an unusual case but I think the best way to describe this is this came up at site plan I wouldn't even necessarily say this was missed at the time of rezoning by the time of site plan it became clear that in order to uh let's say bridge this gap on bristlewood there would be a uh a culvert required for that that Culvert is not something that ncdot wants to maintain um and it is something that is otherwise required by the city so that is what uh necessitated the need for annexation in this case um and we're it's essentially a cleanup item uh to uh
get that City required infrastructure the Culvert into the city uh happy to answer any questions you may have thank you thank you do we have anyone present that will like to speak on this case is there anyone on the zoom that would like to speak on this case one more time anyone present or anyone on the that would like to speak all right I am now closing the uh public hearing and we're now open to commissioner discussion and questions any questions no questions are we ready to move this case forward if so may I have a motion uh Madam chair I would like to
move case z23 47 a bristle would write off a to city council with a favorable recommendation thank you second it's been moved by commissioner gorm and seconded by commissioner Williams to move case z230 47a bristlewood RightWay forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation may I have the roll call vote please chair Cameron yes Vice chair sheras yes commissioner Graves mans yes commissioner Gham yes commissioner copac yes commissioner CE yes commissioner Williams yes commissioner wal yes the motion passes 8 to zero thank you next up we have case 23 Z2
239 Acres of RightWay into the primary corporate limits there's an Associated annexation petition associated with this case and that case number is bdg 23031 so in order for Yates Road which is an access point for the previously
app approved micro Ridge Development to be maintained by the city the entirety of the road connecting of south Mineral Springs Road needs to be in the city as you can see here in the red hash the existing zoning is residential Suburban 20 count County jurisdiction and the site is surrounded by residential 20 and PDR zoning and the aerial map shows the general location of the project and Southeast Durham the area to be annexed is continuous to the primary corporate limits and finally this proposal would change the zoning designation from County to city and bring 0239 Acres of RightWay into the primary corporate limits the annexation of the RightWay into the city of durm limits does not automatically trigger the city taking over maintenance of the roadway so a separate petition by the applicant for the city to take over the maintenance of the RightWay can occur after the area is annexed into the city
limits the applicant will be required to bring the RightWay up to City standards before it can be accepted for maintenance by the city this proposal is consistent with the application polic applicable policies of the new comprehens of plan thank you and staff is available for questions thank you at this time the chair is opening the public hearing uh may we have the applicant I'm back um so this item is very similar to the previous case um this is simply uh annexing right of way uh to be honest with you I don't really understand what how this one was missed at all I mean the the last one I think is a little bit more um explainable if that makes sense but this one was shown on the development plan and I guess the legal description didn't cover it so we're just back to uh fix that annexation but really same same type of deal happy to
answer any questions you may have all right thank you is there anyone uh present that would like to speak on this case is there anyone on the zoom that would like to speak on this case anyone present or on the zoom that would like to speak on this case all right hearing nothing I will close the public hearing now and we are now open up for commissioner discussion of questions anything from anyone nope uh may I have a motion to move this case forward training ground tonight love it I recommend case number [Music] z2300 48a hyphen BD D g2300 031 to city council with a favorable
recommendation second it's been moved by commissioner Graves Manon and second it by commissioner Williams to move case z23 48a dbdg 2331 Yates right away forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation may I have roll call vote please chair Cameron yes Vice chair sheras yes commissioner Graves man commissioner Gham yes commissioner copac yes commissioner CE yes commissioner Williams yes commissioner wel yes the motion passes 8 to zero thank you we are now moving on to case z23 27A dbdg
237 Palmer Edge may we have the staff report please good evening Brook roer City County Planning Department as Jamar is pulling up the slides I'm moving on to the second slide uh Kelsey Westwood of kimley horn proposes to to change the zoning designation of 16 Parcels of land totaling 1831 169 acres and generally bounded by Ander Avenue Glover Road and the Durham freeway and Ellis Road the current zoning is industrial Light in residential rur rural County jurisdiction and would not change if annexed the properties are currently designated General industrial and mixed use neighborhood on the place type map there is an Associated annexation ition with this case uh bg23 quadruple 0 uh sorry trip 07 as this is a direct translational
zoning no commitments may be proferred through a development plan to further consistency with the place type designations the existing zoning is industrial Light and residential rural the site is surrounded by residential Suburban 20 residential Rural and Commercial General and industrial Light zoning the aerial map shows the general location of the project just southeast of downtown Durham the properties moving on to the next slide are currently designated General industrial and mixed use neighborhood on the place type map the industrial Light zoning on the Northern portion of the site is consistent with the general Industrial Place type the residential Rural and industrial Light zoning on the southern portion of the site is generally consistent with the designated Place type of mixed use neighborhood as both of these districts combined would allow for a mix of uses in this
area the area to be annexed is contiguous to the primary corporate limits and finally The Proposal would allow access to city services including Water and Sewer uh utilities to facilitate the development of light industri and uh single family residential units on vacant property as permitted in the unified development ordinance this area is located in in an area of high suitability score for the Industrial Development based on the 2020 industrial land use study the proposal is consistent with all of the policies of the new comprehensive plan that apply to direct translational zonings as found in attachment e comprehensive plan consistency the industrial light and residential rural zoning designations are as I said before generally consistent with the designated Place type of General industrial and mixed use neighborhood though future development may not be consistent with specific
Place type policies uh thank you staff and the applicant are available for any questions thank you at this time the chair is opening the public hearing may we have the applicant come forward please be with you in just a sec sorry I'm taking a minute to boot up there we go right good evening Vice chair Cameron I'm sorry chair Cameron Vice chair sheras members of the Planning Commission my name is Patrick biker I love at 2614 Stewart Drive uh thank you Brooke for a fine staff report on this item I'm an attorney with Morning Star Law Group and I'm here tonight representing Parmer Edge for this
annexation Parmer Edge already has a proven track record in the Durham County section of resource Triangle Park I remember very well 25 or 30 years ago when glao was a major player in RTP and uh unfortunately those days are gone but fortunately Carin real estate came along to revitalize what was once Durham County's number one taxpayer back in the mid 1990s and Scott Levitan the CEO of Research Triangle Foundation has recognized the importance of what Carlin accomplished in RTP furthermore other RTP Business Leaders have given similar praise and now I'd like to introduce Parmer Edge vice president Elliot Brewer who is here to share with the Planning Commission the ambitious strategy his team implement mented to revitalize the former Glo campus in RTP Elliot good evening members of the Planning Commission uh as Patrick mentioned my name is Elliot Brewer I'm a vice president with Carlin real estate in Parmer Edge and just wanted to touch
4 million square feet of properties in over 700 Acres um and as part of that we brought in additional investments from those companies that came into the project and um created thousands of jobs along the way including recruiting a advanced pH pharmaceutical manufacturing company to develop 750,000 ft nrtp and we're excited about the opportunity to continue making a positive economic impact in Durham thank you thank you thank you Elliot thank you Elliot for sharing what Parmer Edge has already accomplished in Durham in regards to this annexation
we're discussing tonight here's an aerial showing the 140 Acres that has been zoned iil for several decades along with 43 Acres zoned RR just north of Glover Road which is at the bottom of this slide I want to highlight from for members of the Planning Commission who may not have driven down rsby Road lately that the RR section is primarily to the west of a large 5 to 10 Acre Auto Junkyard you see at the bottom right hand corner of this slide now I know with an annexation some planning Commissioners may be nervous about there being no proffers for bike and pedestrian infrastructure to address that concern the future development within this 183 Acres will have to construct the pedig Street Extension as shown on this Slide the cross-section that is required by our comprehensive Transportation plan adopted in 2017 will include bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of pedigree Street in fact for this section of Durham between the Durham freeway and the railroad tracks the pedig Street Extension will be a vital piece of multimodal infrastructure next I want to drill down
a little bit deeper on one point in your staff report on page seven of the staff report I appreciated the reference to the 2020 industrial land use study our planning department published about 4 years ago I relied on this report many times when it since it has been published in order to advise companies that want to increase and improve Durham County's capacity for top quality Economic Development it is important to review the nine criteria that the plane Department employed to evaluate industrial areas across all of Durham County and you can see those nine criteria at the top of this slide I also think it is vital for the Planning Commission to know that this 2020 industrial land use study evaluated 179 sites located in Durham County this site for this annexation is one of the top five sites in Durham County out of the 179 industrial areas that the plane Department evaluated and this site is very important for Durham's Economic Development when we look at new job opportunities for Durham residents that
have been approved by the city council over the past 3 years when I first started working in Durham in 1994 our only solid opportunities for economic development were RTP and tror Corporate Park while I worked hard for industrial recruitment to RTP and tror back in the 1990s I realized that those good paying jobs were going to were pretty far away from the vast majority of Durham residents to help remedy that problem over the past three years it's been my privilege to work on developing job opportunities much closer to Durham residents the first one uh was working with scel properties for around 200 Acres uh at the Junction and F at Junction Road and feral road that was about 200 Acres uh and that was approved in August of 2021 after that uh we worked with scel properties for an industrial park at uh Highway 55 in Hopson Road about 235 acres and that was approved in February of 2022 more recently welcome Venture Park
uh up in North Durham near the bragtown neighborhood was 160 Acres uh and that was approved in 2023 and now to fill in uh the Gap that's here in the middle of Durham the Parmer Edge is 140 acres and again it's scored 14 out of 14 14 out of 15 on the industrial land use uh study but 14 out of 14 uh representing the highest score any site uh obtained within that study and so you can see that we're bringing jobs closer to where people live in Durham and so in conclusion uh the math is simple you have a great developer Parmer Edge I'm sorry when I did this PowerPoint in my office was perfect you have a great developer Parmer Edge you have a great site one of the top five out of 179 and you put that together and you have a great annexation our team will be happy to try to answer any questions you may have we respectfully ask for your support thank you thank you at this time the chair is now opening the public oh I was already sorry I said that already uh any
community members present that would like to speak we have Elliot already spoken Patrick anyone else that has not signed up is there anyone on the zoom anyone in the galley that would like to speak anyone on the zoom hearing none the uh chair is closing the public hearing and now we are open for commissioner discussion and questions go ahead I have a question for the applicant um the it's the welcome Venture Park project is going to require blasting welcome it was presented to us like I don't know a year ago or so or whenever and at that time it wasn't but there was a commissioner Valentine who
actually is on this board uh and lives close to there found out after the fact that it's going to negatively perhaps impact his his home with the blasting that's required that nothing was mentioned is this particular project going to require anything like that that you know of we don't know at this point in time at this point in time it's hard to say okay any other questions commissioner question for the applicant yes sir you describe more of what um what type of mixed use is going to be on the property when it comes down to the residential mix well there's a there's 43 Acres at Zone RR um Palmer Edge is not a residential developer so it's hard to say how that would be developed it would probably be reson at a future date for higher density since RR uh my understanding is requires single family homes on one acre lots um but Parmer Edge develops um life sciences research and development uh
those type light manufacturing those types of facilities uh and so we're looking to to develop the 140 Acres uh the RR had to be uh annexed in uh to provide access to uh Clever Road in accordance with the comprehensive Transportation plan so that that'll maybe Elli will go into residential development but we'll probably partner with somebody else at a at a future date it's very difficult but again that's the tail waging the dog um Elliott wants to build again as he mentioned um the success they've had in RTP but bring it closer to downtown Durham commissioner CE my I guess my question is similar to the question commissioner Graves man raised and that is about the RR M and you you answered it in part with regards to the necessity of including that in the resoning to allow the construction of the
connection um there's still something a little odd about it don't you think to include a 43 Acres zoned RR annexed into the city it was all owned by the Rand family uh commissioner C so we Elliot had no choice except to buy all the acreage that the Rand family owned most of it was owned I this portion was owned RR well that's that the way it's just the way that per that part is perfectly understandable but the decision to just completely defer that um is is is also understand able perhaps strategically but I think it would be um you know not unanticipated to also have some additional kind of clarity or thought or explanation around what uh May unfold there there are existing residences to the west of that stub and it's hard to even call it a stub since it's 43 Acres uh you know so it's a sizable chunk of land and I don't I don't know of any other annexations that
have been brought into the City Limits and left as RR maybe that has been done I don't know could you elaborate on any of the thought process there I don't if you have anything to add the primary purpose for the annexation at this time is for us to have access to the city utilities and to tap into those we've been working through the infrastructure plans for the site as Patrick mentioned it has been a farm for since it's existence as a property here in Durham so really until we can know that we have access to city city utilities and get the infrastructure plan in place we're not able to really put together a full development plan but we will certainly address uh the different zonings on the site once we're able to feel more comfortable to do so yeah appreciate it thank you any other question commissioner copac just to make sure I understand then uh based on commissioner ce's uh
questions the the the 43 Acres of R will be annexed in it as well but that will not be able to be developed as our R in the future and will have to come back for resoning before development occurs there no that's not correct it could be developed as RR and in the city they could have access to Water and Sewer at the RR densities if they chose to do so in order to do anything more dense than what RR allows they wouldn't need to rezone in the FI future in terms of the access I mean we saw two requests uh this evening applications this evening about uh rights of way and so just so I understand could it have been possible to come forward with a uh annexation request for the the iil uh along with a right of way that did not include the 43 Acres or was it required uh to also include the 43 Acres of RR in order to make this application feasible at all
it was certainly my perspective that it was uh appropriate to Annex the entirety of it so that we demonstrated how the access would connect to Glover and in addition to the road connection we also have to figure out the sewer uh connections if we're fortunate enough to be annexed uh and that's going to be flowing towards Glover Road so in terms of the sewer access uh and the and the street access um it both crosses the RR property there any other questions nope no are we ready to move this case forward with a motion may I have a motion please
whose turn is it my turn on training night in the absence of commissioner cut right uh chair as it relates to case z230 uh 27A um Parmer Edge um I move that we send this case forward with a favorable recommendation second it's been moved by commissioner copac and seconded by commissioner gorm to move case z23 27A dbdg 2307 Palmer Edge forward with a favorable recommendation may I have the roll call vote please chair Cameron yes Vice chair sheras no commissioner Grace mans yes commissioner Gham yes commissioner
copac no commissioner CE no commissioner Williams no commissioner wal no the motion fails 3 to five thank [Music] you we now are moving into the public hearings for zoning map changes um we have case 23 z232 Sunrock Camden may we have the staff report please good evening Sarah long with City County Planning I'm presenting on case z2300 12 Sunrock Camden Greg Bower of Safeway LLC
8 Acres the parcel is located at 1503 Camden Avenue on the north side of Camden Avenue and Light Street please note an amendment to the staff report the existing parcel has a split zoning of both Industrial and industrial Light the staff report only mentions the industrial Light Zone portion and I can explain that a bit more on the next map The Proposal is to rezone the industrial Light portion of the parcel to Industrial zoning in order to match with the other portion of the parcel the purpose of resoning to Industrial is to allow the construction of a new concrete plant the property is currently designated General industrial and recreational open space on the place type map though very little of the parcel that is proposed to change the zoning designation is within the residential and Open Space Place type the proposed
industrial zoning is consistent with a designated Place type so as I mentioned before the existing zoning is both industrial Light and Industrial so you can see the industrial Light is the light pink and the industrial is the dark I'm sorry is the dark purple so the site is Ed by industrial Light and Industrial zoning and you can see that the proposal is calling for changing the entire site to Industrial the aerial map shows the general location of the project which is just Northeast of downtown Durham the property is currently designated um under the general industrial and Recreation open space on the place type map the designation is generally consistent with the Des the designated Place type as you can see the recre creation open space it's just a small portion on the Northern portion of the parcel so this proposal would allow all
uses permitted in the industrial zoning District as shown in the Udo use table the applicant has indicated the reason for the zoning map change request is for development of a concrete plant um of up to 15,000 square fet on an undeveloped section of the parcel as this is a general zoning request neither a textual nor graphic development plan is provided this proposal is consistent with five of the six applicable policies of the comprehensive plan thank you staff and the applicant are available for any of your questions thank you at this time the chair is opening the public hearing may we have the applicant come forward and good evening once again I am Neil ghost attorney at the morning our Law Group 00 West Main Street um uh here representing the applicant for uh this resoning request um as has been mentioned by staff and thank you Miss long for the presentation um as has been
mentioned by staff the intent here is to change the zoning of this parcel which is currently split zoned it it currently is zoned both industrial and light industrial and so the intent here is to change the light industrial portion to Industrial um and as has been mentioned by staff the intent here is to build a concrete plant on the portion of the property that is currently Zone light industrial it's important to note that this piece of property has been used for years for asphalt and concrete production there is an existing concrete plant on the site in the portion Zone industrial uh what the uh owner hopes to do is to build a new plant a more modern one and take the existing one offline um so you know it's a it's a upgrading their current plant so to speak um so they by building it in a new location on the site they're able to maintain the current production while uh
producing a new plant to um for the ability to produce more and then they can take the other one offline um we have looked at this site I think when we originally submitted it we submitted as a w with a development plan however there are some difficulties associated with that this use is going to require ultimately I believe a major special use permit so we're going to have to come back in front of the city council to get a major special use permit to implement the concrete plant that was causing complications with respect to the development plan so we decide to switch to a general use resoning without a development plan I didn't think that having a not having a development plan here would um be that much of a detriment given that I'm telling you that the use is going to be concrete plant what could you possibly want us to um eliminate or prohibit from the property through development plan given that we're going for probably the most
or one of the most intense uses in the indust in in the Udo um but that kind of tells you what's going on with this specific resoning request um I this is a very Industrial Area uh not just cross this train track so this is adjacent train track or railroad right away just on the other side of it is another concrete or aggregate production facility active this whole Corridor is full of industrial uses including Fleet Management for the city of Durham um for some of their heavy equipment so this is an appropriate location for industrial in my mind happy to answer any questions you may have thank you for your time thank you do we have any uh uh community members in person that would like to speak do we have anyone on the zoom that would like to speak hearing none the chair is going to close the public hearing we are now open
for commissioner discussion and questions hearing go ahead yes for the applicant can you address um the section the or the request by the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee about the Roxboro rail trail that's adjacent to this partiel and would there be any chance of you all profing to help build this shared use path well to be honest with you we do have concerns about um that rail trail in this location again this is an industrial area um and what is being suggested is that this is active industrial site I want be real clear about that um so what is being suggested that there's going to be a rail trail built next uh within that railroad Corridor there and they would like to see some sort of pedestrian or bicycle fixing facility uh
essentially on this property that's right at the driveway for this property it's not a no but it's not a yes either I mean there there may be some um in congruent uses I mean this is an active industrial site they don't necessarily want to invite the general public to be close to or on this property um it's it's not safe I mean I don't know how else to put it it's it's a active industrial site that is fenced in and that type of thing the idea of just allowing the general public on here or inviting them to come to the site is kind of the opposite of what this site has been used for historically so that's something that we would have to look into at time a site plan which again the site plan for the concrete plant would have to come in front of the city council as part of the major special use permit for approval so we're a long way from there but it is something that we're aware of we do have concerns if just to be perfectly clear about that yes the um I don't know about this
bike fixing station but the part of the trail if they're going to construct it could perhaps be an alternative way for the employees of this site to commute to work which would be part of you know supporting the comprehensive plan there are many benefits to Greenways and and rail Trails I I don't dispute that um it I think it is tricky to figure out how to get those things to be incorporated with a you know pretty heavy industrial use um and again that's something that that we can look at or will be looking at with you know in conjunction with the site plan if we go if we are rezoned there any other question commissioner KAC thank you so I you know I see that it is all industrial industrial Light um I'm curious if there's been interactions with the the residents that live on Light Street that are right next to and have always been next to a concrete plant right and so this will necessarily be a significant change but the new
plant would be right up against their property versus at a little bit of a distance and so I'm curious like um one I was surprised to see residents there and what is actually a an active industrial site um but you know I see that there was attempt to host a meeting but got no feedback like were those residents solicited for their input uh about this proposal so I this isn't the first project I've worked on in this area um and we did have two neighborhood meetings where we sent out notices obviously to them um but just gener and no one came to either neighborhood meeting um I will say there are residentially zoned properties in that area some of them are not used residentially but there are definitely some that are used residentially um I I have not consulted with them directly not for lack of trying they would have received notices right yeah okay they've just not been responsive but I mean I think they're generally should be aware of the plans that are that Sunrock has for this site um and I think they
probably are aware well no and they're also aware of the other plant that I was mentioning on the other side of the train tracks that's another project that I worked on um so yeah I mean we're aware of those residents but they've not been terribly responsive or active uh with respect to this application or previous projects that I've worked on there any other questions no are you ready to move this case forward if so may I have a motion to move this case forward turn I'd like to motion to move case number is that right I'd like to move this I'd like to move this case forward to like to move case
z I'd like to move case Z2 30012 Sunrock Camden Ford with a favorable recommendation thank you second it's moved by commissioner Williams and seconded by commissioner cobac to move copac sorry to move case z23 tri12 Sunrock Camden forward with a favorable recommendation may I have the roll call vote please chair Cameron yes Vice chair sheras yes commissioner Graves mans yes commissioner Gham yes commissioner copac yes commissioner CE yes commissioner Williams yes commissioner W
yes the motion passes 8 to Zer thank you thank you at this time we will have committee updates uh commissioner CE thank you um so I we we do have the committee that was formed for purposes of reviewing um the changes that are underway the proposed changes that are underway to the Udo I I wanted to ask chair Cameron if I could also make some comments just in general about our uh the composition of our commission maybe the membership um because there's been a lot of rollover there's been a lot of change in the uh few years that I've been on the commission I've been here a while but several I think have been here longer and um I'm reflecting on the work that we've done in adopting the comprehensive plan and I say we we're just a part of it staff has carried the the bulk of um the effort around adopting the comprehensive plan and elected officials
and community members all participated extensively in in um creating that document and I guess there two things that kind of intersected here that I wanted to touch on one is um a vote that uh our city council took um approving a project that our commission had voted unanimously to recommendation to recommend denial um and I believe the vote was was 10 to nothing and it was not a small project it was 200 acre project off of Virgil Road um and there was there was a lot of discussion about the positive benefits with regards to Green elements or sustainability elements of native landscaping and things of that sort I believe the initial um profer for DPS was was $5,000 for that 200 acre project with 531 Town Homes um I've asked staff just to confirm what changes may have been made um on the fly at the council meeting but one thing that wasn't changed was that
it was still just 200 Acres of um single family homes and both attached and detached the relevance of that to the comp plan is that that was a a site that was designated for um both a mixed use residential and a mixed use neighborhood and so a change had to be adopted to the place types map to allow what was requested um to be approved U one thing that was also changed as they increased the DPS Public School contribution from 5,000 to 59,000 so that's $100 a unit anyway we voted unanimously to recommend denial and I think it was not so much about the details of 3% or 2% or 5% of affordable housing it was about the fundamental um difference between that proposal and what the comp plan calls for through the place type map and not only through the place type map but through the policies and so a lot of work went on that on underway
went into um developing that comp plan and I feel like there may be clearly people leave volunteer boards for a lot of reasons um that may or may not pertain to the work of the group um but people are also discouraged from serving on volunteer boards when they're um potential contributions are uh not recognized or not influential or not um having kind of an impact on the community uh beyond that I I've noticed I don't I by no means do I watch all the county um the City Council meetings but I do tune in on occasion or when someone identifies a set of discussion points that elected officials may be raising in discussion the case and there's been a bit of a tendency um for the work of this commission um to be uh diminished in my view and not only that but to be just flat out called into question and really kind of attacked at an individual level and I'll give you just two examples that
I think are relevant um there was a discussion about our status as volunteers which we all are no one up here is compensated even though you know other elected officials are they receive some some modest compensation um and that's that's not the point uh but the point was saying that well the council elected officials have to have to you know have to be the experts that the Commissioners are not experts um everyone on this commission is an expert at something and there's 's a heck of a lot of expertise on this commission that aligns with the material the topic that we're tasked with addressing each meeting and that's evidenced in our applications where either the County Commissioners or the city elected officials have decided to appoint this respective set of individuals to the commission and I'm just going to say that you know there's there's expertise on this commission um commissioner Williams is real estate developer long I'm sorry real estate U uh expert longtime
expert of Durham having grown up here commissioner Valentine is um expert at putting his ear to the ground and meeting with community members and understanding what the needs of this broader Community are um commissioner Gham is a expert he's a civil engineer that manages millions of dollars of construction and development uh highly complex physical changes Investments public private Partnerships and communities commissioner copac has corporate sustainability expertise and also is deeply intertwined with this community and understanding and seeking out input from the community members to understand what our community needs are uh commissioner MC Iver and myself both have civil engineering background I can tell you I've generated the initial engineering site plans for thousands and thousands of units in about a dozen states um and hundreds of units of affordable housing in North Carolina I don't know if that makes me an expert but I have some sense of the type types of challenges and discussions just as
the others that I've referenced here have uh in terms of the conversations that come before us commissioner Graves man just was um named an aspen Institute fellow recognized for his expertise in developing not not just theoretical expertise but in developing Pathways for ownership of communities color in real estate and um it's just a really notable accomplishment people struggling with challenging issues that Durham and lots of other cities are are tasked with representing and our chair manages hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate assets for one of our public institutions and um it's completed two different uh development Bond financing complex projects um so folks on this commiss commissioner cut right not here this evening commercial um I'm sorry commercial real estate broker developer Corporate Finance expertise there is expertise on this commission that is Germain to the topic that we're
tasked with addressing it's perfectly fine if the council opts not to adhere to our recommendations and I suspect fully that there will be a lot of cases where they shouldn't that things change before they get to the final vote and that's perfectly understandable but there is no need whatsoever to um characterize the volunteer effort that's represented on this commission and another another comment that was made is all the comments are the same that come from planning Commissioners it's like they don't even look at the cases and I think all that is is an indication that they don't read the comments because there is an incredible amount of work and depth that goes into the comments that folks on this committee make both in these meetings and uh in the written comments so I'm I'm just appreciate the opportunity to make these comments because I think it is important for members of our community particularly folks who have been invested in creating the comprehensive plan to recognize that it takes um leadership and courage and
and and a real um willingness to dig into details to understand ways in which we as a community can actually achieve the aspirations that are identified in that comprehensive plan so if this isn't the venue this is going to be my last meeting um but before I I I will submit comments on tonight's cases but I also want to point out two staff members who have been um just extraordinary assets throughout the time that I've been on this commission and that's um erene Thomas and and Grace Smith Grace is not here tonight um but Erlene and grace through the comprehensive planning process through the daily minutia of our emails back and forth um and the putting you on the spot here with questions uh and managing um with I would say with with Grace and a smile always on your respective faces the challenging questions that come not just from us but
also from members of the community your real uh gift to the community and your service is um is much appreciated that's all I have thank you thank you any other Commissioners would like to speak on this topic I don't nothing I would just like to say to you know the most valuable commod anybody has is time and when we volunteer we give our time as the chair you have to serve on the jccp meeting and I look around that room and I realized I'm the only one not paid everybody else is paid there so to demish anyone's uh participation is um I would just say undur likee and we need to do better on to new business any new business any staff
announcements um yes two staff announcements uh first and uh not because of the fine comments you made commissioner ceas but uh we are making a switch in Personnel that are attending uh Grace Smith will no longer be attending meetings uh we're doing some some shifting of Duties within the department and Bo de brenky uh will be taking her spot here but I think she's she's watching I'm sure she appreciated the the comments very much um second we do have a new member of the commission I believe he's been sworn in Malcolm Gregory uh he could not be here this Mo uh month but is planning on being here next month so uh please welcome him when he gets here and we'll be working with him to get it oriented before next month's meeting tell welcome to the Thunderdome all right uh anything else nothing else again thank you commissioner CE for your comments and your courage um nothing else comes before us we are jour