Good evening and welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission are appointed by city council and the county board of commissioners to make recommendations to the elected officials. We emphasize [snorts] that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you are attending in person and wish to speak on a particular agenda item, please register on the signup sheets located on the table to my left.
You will be called upon to make your comments at the appropriate time. You may also call in during the meeting by dialing 1317158592. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the particular public hearing you are interested in starts. After all of the pre-registered speakers have shared their comments, I will ask if there is anyone else wishing to speak.
At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hands by pressing star9 on your phone. And when recognized, state your name and address before making your comments. The
applicant has a total of 10 minutes for their presentation. Each speaker after the applicant has two minutes to speak. Commissioners will be given five minutes for question and answer. Please keep your comments succinct.
Commissioners, as a reminder, after the public hearing is closed, you obtain the floor by being recognized by the chair. The time to make all public statements is before motions are made. All motions are stated in the affirmative. So, if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial.
After the case you are here for ends, please exit the chambers quietly and pursue further discussion in the lobby. As the commission continues its meeting, finally I ask everyone here and on the Zoom, the commission members, the staff, and 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 or asked to leave the council chambers. Until
such time as regain personal control. If decorum fails to be restored, the chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to act respectful and courteous is observed. Roll call. May we have the roll call, please.
>> Chair Chagaris >> here. Vice Chair Cameron, Commissioner Bailey, Commissioner Capers >> here, >> Commissioner Clemens >> here, >> Commissioner Chicowski, >> Commissioner Hunter >> here, >> Commissioner America E. Juarez Maldonado, >> Commissioner Macyver, >> Commissioner Montes >> here, >> Commissioner Nine Neunkirchner here. >> Commissioner Piontak, Commissioner Richie >> here,
>> Commissioner Woke >> here. >> A quorum has been established. >> Um item number three, adjustments to the agenda. >> We have one adjustment to the agenda.
Items 6 C and 7A will be heard as a joint um public hearing because those items are related to each other. You'll get a joint presentation. There will be a joint public hearing. However, we will need for those to be two different motions and two different votes uh when you do vote on the item.
>> Thank you. Item four on [clears throat] the agenda, approval of the minutes and consistency statements. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve the miss uh cons what is it? >> The minutes and consistences and consistency statements.
>> Second. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Richie and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to approve the minutes and consistency statements. All in favor favor please say I. >> I.
>> I. I. >> Any nays? No.
The eyes have it. Item number five, public hearings, initial zoning map changes, Leville storage 2, Z25, triple033A, BDG25, triple021. May we have the staff report, please? >> Good evening, Chair Chagaris and planning commissioners. My name is Javar Jones and I'm here tonight to present Z2500 33A Leville Storage 2. The request is for a direct translational zoning of Commercial
22 22 acres located at 2935 US Highway 70 East and 4615 as well as 4627 Leville Road to allow for access to city water and sewer for the construction of a storage facility. The existing zoning is commercial general and commercial general with a textual development plan. No change to the existing zoning would occur with the proposed annexation. As this is a direct translational zoning, the existing Durham County zoning is translated to the identical Durham city zoning district upon the annexation of the property into the city limits. Since there is no request for a change to the existing zoning attached to this petition, there is not a development plan under consideration and therefore no profered commitments. Any future
development may proceed according to what the zoning would allow. The site is surrounded by residential rural and commercial general to the west, planned development residential to the north and east, and residential rural and industrial light to the south across Leville Road. The aerial map shows the general location of the project along Leville Road and US Highway 70. The property is currently designated highway commercial on the place type map.
The proposed zoning was determined consistent with the designated place type. The applicant held neighborhood meetings on October 28th, 2025 and April 7th, 2026. One community member attended the first meeting and one community member attended the second meeting. There has
been one comment against this proposal received on the Dur Durham resoning explorer. The proposal is consistent with the designated place type of highway commercial and consistent with three of five applicable comprehensive plan policies, though two policies are to be determined. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please? Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.
Pam Porter with TMTLA Associates. We're landscape architecture and land planning firm in Durham. And with me tonight is Warren Mitchell with Leville Storage Partners LLC who is the property owner. Um, thank you Javar for the overview. Just to quickly recap, the property consists of three existing parcels and is approximately 25 acres in total. And the
adopted place type map for this is highway commercial. Two of the parcels are zoned CG with the development plan and then the other parcel is zoned CG and zoning for all three parcels will remain unchanged as part of this annexation request. Um we're only annexing we're not zoning. So there are again there are no conditions because they're already fully zoned properly for this.
Um the only difference being in the city and then all three parcels are in the FJB watershed overlay that will remain unchanged if approved. annexation would facilitate the development of self- storage and um connection to city of Durham water and sewer. And the proposed development is fully consistent with the current zoning as well as the previously approved development plan. And um that's it for my notes.
Thank you for your consideration and both Warren and I are here if you have any questions. >> If I may chair, I just want to announce that uh Commissioner Chicowski has arrived and was here in time for the public hearing. So he may vote on this
item. >> Are there any members, community members? Is anybody signed up in person? Any community members here in person want to speak on this?
Nope. Anybody on the Zoom? Please raise your hand using the star9 function. Nope.
All right. The public hearing is now closed. We are open for commissioner discussion. Are there any questions?
Commissioner W. >> Hey, I have a question for staff. I in the staff report, I didn't see the community meeting or the reszone explorer notes. [clears throat] that yeah that may that may have been an
error on our part. Um there weren't really any comments I don't believe on the resoning explore so you haven't missed anything but we'll make sure they're in there in the future. I have a question and Commissioner Nun Neunkirchner. >> Yes.
Um has there the this is a for storage compat storage building right? >> Self storage and what is being stored there? >> Can you tell me what's being stored in this building? >> Self storage.
Just >> self storage. >> Self storage. >> Self storage. So if you were to rent one and store furniture or something similar, it' be similar to that.
>> Self storage. >> Yes, correct. Self storage. >> Is there any um potential for environmental degradation due to waste product emanating from the project that would compromise the health and safety of the public?
>> There shouldn't be. >> There shouldn't be there's not going to be storage of hazardous waste. It's not >> storage. It's not that type of storage facility.
>> Storage. So just self storage. So just
whatever people put in there. So the need for connecting to the the water and sewer system is for fire. Is that is that the to if there was a fire there to put out a fire? Is that correct?
>> It's for fire. It's for if there is an office with a bathroom. There needs to be a water and sewer connection >> for an office and a bathroom. Correct.
No other no other waste product would be going except for human waste in a bathroom. Is that correct? >> To my knowledge, yes. Yeah.
Okay, that's just question. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Any other commissioner questions or comments?
>> Nope. [clears throat] Okay. May I have a motion to move case Z 2500 33A BDG250021 Leedsville storage two forward with a favorable recommendation
>> chair regarding case Z 25,033A and BDG 25,000 >> 21. Um, >> I move that we forward this case to city council and county commissioners with favorable recommendation for approval. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Richie and seconded by Commissioner Capers to move the case forward with a favorable recommendation. May we have electronic voting, please? Is it not working? [clears throat] This
You just stay for the record. It's not You got it. Yes. Uh, the motion passes 90. >> All right. Next item on the agenda, item 6A, public hearings, zoning map changes, courtyards at Leville Z250038.
May we have the staff report, please? >> Good afternoon, Chair Shagaris and planning commissioners. My name is Piontak Burgess and I am here tonight to present Z250038 courtyards at Leville. 5 acres and currently zoned residential rural.
739. 5 acres would be a direct translation of county residential rural to city residential rural. The request would allow for up to 111 dwelling units on the proposed PDR parcel and up to six units on the proposed residential rural parcel. Again, the existing zoning is residential rural. 739 with the smaller parcel on the left remaining residential rural. The site is surrounded by residential rural PDR and industrial
light with a development plan across the street. The aerial map shows the general location of the project along Leville Road just off Highway 70 um right by the the site that you guys just saw. The property is designated mixed residential neighborhood on the place type map. The proposal was found to be consistent with the designated place type.
For the PDR portion of the site, the applicant is profered a variety of text commitments. 5 acre parcel proposed to remain residential rural. The PDR text amendments include up to 111 units to be single family detached town houses with a minimum of 20% of each housing type. At least one uh one street with both housing types located on that street.
One bedroom, bathroom and kitchen on the first floor and on-grade entrances for all units. 20% open space with 20% of that open space to be adjacent to stream or wetland buffers. Imperous surface
limited to 50%. A publicly accessible EV charging station, native street trees, a $10,500 donation to Durham public schools, $100,000 donation to the Durham Dedicated Housing Fund, and a left turn lane on Leville Road. The applicant held neighborhood meetings on November 24th, 2025 and April 15th, 2026. Nine community members attended the first, six attended the second.
There have been two comments against this proposal received on the Durham Reszoning Explorer. The proposal is consistent with the designated place type of mixed residential neighborhood and with 20 of 25 applicable comprehensive plan policies, though it should be noted that three policies are to be determined. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please.
Uh, thank you, Miss Ritchie, for your presentation. And good evening, Chair Chagaris and members of the planning commission. I'm Neil Go, an attorney at the Morning Star Law Group, 700 West Main Street. I'm representing EPCON communities for this proposed annexation and reszoning and I have Jack Royal with me tonight who has been working on the land planning side for the project.
But for now, I want to turn the mic over to Mr. Jeffrey Havner to tell you a little bit more about his company, EPCON. >> Good evening. My name is Jeff Haber.
I'm with EPCON communities. Thank you for having us this evening. EPCON is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. We've had 12 years here in the Triangle and we've built a number of communities here in Durham.
We are actively building on Doc Nichols Road and we recently comm uh completed a neighborhood on Fington Road. For those of you that are not familiar with our product, uh our properties are primarily popular with the active adult community. Community in
the home is designed specifically for this demographic. Our buyers are largely empty nesters looking to downsize or looking to be close to their grandchildren. Our internal data states that half of our buyers come from a threem radius to our communities. So when they relocate into our neighborhoods, they vacate a home in the area for a new family to move into.
Our unique features include landscape maintenance covered by the HOA and a community building with pool and pickle ball for a gathering place for our homeowners. All of our homes are designed to age in place. Like most active a builder active adult builders, we have design features like primary living on the first floor, zero entry garage, zero entry uh front stoop. Unlike most active adult builders, we
include an interior courtyard as our signature feature. In fact, it is even copyrighted. This is kind of a unique picture, but it shows the interior courtyard that provides intimate private outdoor space while bringing light from the outside to the inside. Clustering our homes in this way encourages interaction and community living.
Our community design is based largely on TND principles with homes close together, front porches, and connectivity provided through the sidewalks. Unlike traditional builders, we line the rear facade up, which provides for an articulation on the front faces of the home, creating a visually appealing streetscape. available for any more questions. I'm gonna turn it over to Neil to go through the resoning details. Thank you.
>> And thank you, Jeff. Um, so I want to touch on the specifics of the project a bit. First of all, there are two parcels that are uh being proposed for annexation, but we only are requesting reszoning for one of those parcels. The other parcel is a neighbor who wanted to be annexed, so we obliged.
um annexing that parcel actually prevents it from becoming a donut hole as you can see on this uh uh this slide right here. Um and I know the staff report indicates that our annexation request creates a donut hole. I'll just say I'm not sure if that's correct. You know, I think we're actually making an existing jurisdictional gap smaller which I believe is consistent with policy 165 or at least partially consistent.
Uh at any rate, we are contemplating uh zoning that parcel, the 30 acre parcel in a way that would allow for 111 units on on about 30 acres of land. Uh we have put some robust zoning commitments together for this project responsive to the comprehensive plan and to neighbor concerns. First of all, as Jeff mentioned, uh EPCON generally caters to
a 55 plus demographic, although it's not an age restricted community. Uh but because of that we have a commitment to have main for living for every unit that including town home style units as well. Uh we've increased our open space to 20%. And we've committed to placing about 20% of that open space adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas to better protect those areas or better preserve them.
Um we have decreased our allowable impervious to 50%. And the amenities included by zoning commitment are pool, clubhouse, and pickle ball court. In addition to the 10- foot wide multi-use walking trail across the frontage, we've committed to providing publicly accessible EV charging space and using native plants and we have monetary contributions on uh to both DPS and the dedicated housing fund. Our project also includes a mix of housing. Uh we have one change to add here which has already been discussed with staff. Uh right now our zoning allows two housing types, town homes and uh single family detached
homes. And we're required to build some amount of both of those. What we want to do is add a third housing type which under the UDO is called a detached rowhouse. Um we still would be committing to providing at least two housing types in the community.
Um a detached rowhouse is perhaps a cross between a town home and a single family uh home. It's it's kind of like a detached town home, if that makes sense. Um, we also have one additional commitment which I have not told staff but I'm sure will be okay. Uh, which is that we are adding commitment to handle the hundredyear storm.
We know this is something that's been asked for on several projects in this area and now that we've had some time to look into it, we felt that we could make this commitment without compromising our other commitments as far as imperous limitations, open space, that type of thing. So, we want to go ahead and make that commitment. Now, um, our request before you tonight is really about the PDR resoning request. We do not really have anything to do with the other parcel that's being annexed.
Um, that's our neighbor. They want to be annexed and we're doing that. So, with respect
to our PDR request, we believe it is consistent with the place type map around us. There are plans for um many more town homes, some apartments, and even some industrial warehouses on the south side of Leville with the uh Durham Gateway project. And there also are uh a few more single family homes going up in this area in addition to those that already exist. So our request will actually continue the mixed residential neighborhood trend in this area potentially by even adding a new housing type altogether the detached row home.
Uh the comprehensive plan calls for and contemplates exactly that kind of growth in this exact location. So we are we are that is what our plan has been drawn up to do. Uh I also will just note that we have had including our direct neighbors uh on the east um have reached out and are you know I I would say supportive of the project primarily because this is an area that has obviously seen a lot of
development but some of these parcels are kind of locked out of that potential because they don't have access to water and sewer utilities and this project would bring those utilities closer to those properties. And so we have we have had several property owners in Siri express interest uh be in this project because it will extend utilities. Uh with that I want to just say we look forward to having your discussion and uh our team is available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Are there any community members in person that have signed up to speak on this? Nope. Okay.
Anybody on the Zoom, please raise your hand using the star9 function. Pam Williams. Pam Andrews. Who's first?
>> Good evening. This is Pam Andrews. Can
you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you.
Um, last Wednesday, May the 6, for the first time, the newly appointed EMS Chief Kamsky uh spoke at the JCCPC about putting together an analysis for these annexation cases like the fire department and police department do. Per policy 119 in the comprehensive plan, we are to ensure new developments within the urban growth boundary are within the established level of service for emergency services, including EMS. This has not been done until the recent uh requ until a recent request made uh Commissioner Jacobs bring this to our attention which led to the discussion at JCCCPC last week. Uh the new chief said it was challenging related to capacity.
We are a decade in the rear related to units available for EMS. There is no footprint on the east side for an EMS station. We know there's an ambulance at station 17, but that does not operate after 7:00. We are informed there is a desperate need for a station on the east side. The parcel
that led to this discussion is up for annexation Monday night. The chief also stated the two closest stations would take 14 minutes plus um for a fire station to get to the one on Monday night. Response times are based on the number of units available, not just uh how far away it is. Because EMS covers the whole county and city, it's but it's solely funded by the county.
This information could be part of the annexation documents starting in August possibly. One ambulance is about a half million dollars. It takes about three years to get one to receive one once you place the order. Personal increases uh personnel increased last year, but not the number of units.
The call volume has increased about 8% in the last year. City fire trucks, there's 41. Ambulances, there's 19. ambulance service countywide with far less resources than fire. It was also in the CBS 17 report today about hospitals. According to the study, Duke University
Hospital in Durham has the longest average ER wait time at 7 hours and 34 minutes. Our infrastructure is just not holding up. I ask you to please delay this. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Pam Williams. Good afternoon. My name is Pam Williams. I want to thank uh the developer for uh during the hundred years uh flood um for road control.
I just want to make sure it's for pre and post construction. It wasn't said if the 100 years storm was for both. Uh the additional thing I would like to ask is that since the stream only extends uh into the property halfway into the property from the west side we request that there is no stream or utility crossings across the uh the creek. Um, an additional we have on Leedsville Road, Fellow Farms, Dale Web,
uh, Everett, uh, they all have a good, uh, landscaping of about 25 to 30 feet of thick landscaping. We're asking that that be used here at this location. Also um uh uh a third thing is this property is over 27% uh with uh slopes greater than 10% and historically in this area uh there is blasting will be required. We request that the amount of dynamite be less than the normal.
I'm about 2,700 feet from the property of Courtyard at Oak Road and felt every blast and I'm about 2500 feet from this parcel. So, I'm wondering if they could uh uh maybe not use the same amount of blasting. Um this is just a note on the general developments. This property, as many other properties have uh been approved, do not meet a 10-minute walk to anything, especially a park. There's
over 13,000 acres between NC 98 and east of US70. And there are no public parks. There are no continuous sidewalks on Lisville Road, nor any greenway trails that uh people can uh use. This is another example of car centric development.
there's no benefits provided to the community and I ask that the roadway lands Oh, I already asked that. So, uh I just want to give my concerns about the parks. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Is there anybody else on the Zoom wishing to speak on this item? Please raise your hand using the star9 function. Nope, not seeing anybody. Would the applicant like to answer some of those concerns? >> Yeah, absolutely. I think some of the comments we heard were evidently related to a project that's going to be heard by
city council on Monday night. With respect to EMS and fire services, um I believe the city's newest fire station, fire station 17, I think is the newest one. It's on Leville Road, not very far from the site, and it's a joint fire and EMS facility. So, this site is very adequately covered by both fire and EMS.
Just want to state that on the record. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right.
The public hearing is now closed. We are open for commissioner discussion. Commissioner Woke. >> Hey.
Um, I have a a question of clarification. So Neil, in your presentation you mentioned there would be native plantings on the staff report. It said native street trees. Are we committing to all native plantings? >> Oh uh well I didn't intend to change what's there but if that is your question I think we
can ask uh EPCON if that's something that they would be uh willing to do. I think our commitment might currently say that we would all native all street trees would be native. I think the request here is to have native plantings for UDO required plantings. Um I don't know.
I mean it's not something that we've looked into, but I think we we can look into that. >> Okay. And then I just wanted to follow up on the 100red-year storm commitment. Is it pre- and post? >> Uh yeah, I mean that the standard language for that commitment uh would is that we would um it would require us to measure the the pre-construction runoff rate and design sites and the post construction runoff rate. uh doesn't exceed the hundred years for the so yes that's that is absolutely the intent again I didn't run it by staff but I I yeah okay >> um and then um about the stream crossings are you can you are you committing to no stream crossings >> oh let me I'm looking at Jack I don't
recall we don't have any stream crossings for utilities I think that was the other So, I'm getting an indication that no, we don't have any stream crossings. I'm going to just ask, are we ready to make that a commitment, which is fine? >> Okay, make that commitment. >> Awesome.
And my last one, sorry, is um asking about tree coverage beyond the requirement in the UDO. >> Yeah. So, we've looked at that and I just, you know, I this is something that I I tked Jack, sorry, and his group to to look into. What we're doing here is targeting 20% tree preservation.
Whether we can get additional tree coverage is a different question. The answer might be yes, but I want to be real clear that in that case, what we would be doing there is new plantings. Um, it's something that they're trying to figure out to see if that that's what we can do. But I can say that the commitment now is not simply 20% tree coverage. It's 20% tree coverage through preservation.
>> I've got a question. Um >> Okay, Commissioner Capers. >> Thank you. Uh I'm interested.
Uh can you speak to why there are no affordable units? uh is that I mean and I I'm assuming while it's not boxed in this this uh this piece of land property is not boxed in for solely uh folks 55 and older. Is that part of the reason? >> Actually what what the the main reason is so EPCON has been active in Durham for a while.
Uh if you've not been out to an EPCON community I I would encourage you to go look. It's kind of a different community and it caters to this demographic. As a result, the HOA handles a lot more than a regular HOA. So, the issue typically in this neighborhood from an affordability standpoint is not necessarily just the cost of the house. It is the increased HOA uh fees because they are higher than a typical neighborhood, but that is what people are buying in this neighborhood. It's the uh security and the uh
maintenance like landscaping. They don't just do the front entrance. They they do all the yards. No one has a mower.
They do all the yards. They do all of that. Uh and then they have regular programming through their HOA for the community. So that's really what makes it difficult for them to be able to get affordable units in here [clears throat] >> is that if someone were to get into one of these homes, they would probably have a lot of the money that they would end up paying on a monthly basis goes to HOA, which is not really what uh someone who is cost burdened on on >> Sure.
>> that's not where they want their money to be going, right? Sure. And that's the problem. >> Do you have a projection on what the average cost would be for HOA fees?
>> I don't know if do you do we have an average HOA like >> Oh, about $700 a month. Yeah, pretty significant. >> Okay, so that provides a little bit more clarity. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> I have a question. >> Commissioner Richie. >> Um, just following up on that, I think that the um, you know, donation to the affordable housing fund makes a lot of
sense. Can you walk me through the 100,000 number? You know, we sort of see 8% in a lot of cases right now. That would be nine units here.
Is there a specific calculation that you got to >> So, you know, the $100,000 is is we're always looking at ways to sharpen the pencil and see how that number moves. But also, uh, EPCON is trying to figure out other ways to contribute to housing affordability. right now. I mean, I think the only kind of um commitments we see in resonings are either to provide units or to provide money to the dedicated housing fund.
Ideally, not and we haven't come up with anything yet, but right, but ideally, there will be other ways to provide towards affordability. I suspect that um you know, as we as we work through this, perhaps we will find some other commitment to make. Uh I I I wouldn't say that there is a specific equation that was used to reach the $100,000 uh number here, but that is something that they felt they could afford on the site and I think maybe your question is whether it could increase and I think
we're I mean that's what we're always looking at that. >> Yeah, absolutely. Obviously we're looking for increase. I think that also as a model moving forward it's not a it's not a bad model but being able to compare it against other cases would be helpful for us.
not Germaine DevCon, so I don't want that to be their burden. But having a clear idea of how we're getting to these numbers when they're when they're donations. Um, >> sure. >> Would be helpful to compare across cases.
>> That makes sense. >> Uh, any other commissioner? Commissioner Montes. >> Yeah.
um appreciate the affordable housing profer and like Richie and um others are I'm very much looking to help or get developers to get more creative with affordable housing. 80% ami to me is is hurtful if anything and so I appreciate the donation. What I would advise is to see if we could add language to that commitment um which would entail if it could go to the dedicating housing fund or to the down payment assistance
program. Uh that way in the future if you know the down payment assistance program does pick up and is helped to distribute some of those funds that you know we could help. Now, it could be as set up as an option. You know, whether you guys choose whether it goes to the dedicated housing fund or down payment assistance.
Down payment assistance for me is by far more impactful. If I could just speak to that, um my last conversation with uh Sarah Chagaris, head of the housing and neighborhood services department, was that essentially the down payment assistance program is >> under is a subsection of the uh dedicated housing fund. And so a donation to the dedicated housing fund is actually more >> that's what I'm looking for uh more it allows them to use the funds where needed whether it be for down payment assistance or other or other needs. >> Sure.
Okay. So sorry Erin, can I just follow up a question for you? I'm sorry. >> Um
>> I think you now know how much I know about that. [laughter] >> I've I've seen commitments though that give the option. So, I mean, maybe it's evolved since then. And and my [clears throat] my question to staff in response to that would be if you know, if we do just simply give it to the dedicated housing fund, how is the dedicated housing fund, do we have any idea how they're distributing those funds?
>> I I don't I would need to direct you to the housing and neighborhood services department about that. the handle that my recollection of the conversation with Sarah about that on a previous case was um it can be made to down payment assistance program but the down payment assistance program is a subset of the Durham dedicated housing fund. >> Yep. >> Well, I guess it doesn't change anything now.
Appreciate it though. >> Thank you. >> Any other commissioner questions? Commissioner Nunner, >> I have a question.
This is virgin land, right? It's not developed. It's undeveloped property. So, um that 34 acres will seriously impact the existing
environment in that particular area. So, the um also the impervious surface increase from 20 to what 50 is lower than the 70% allowable. So, it's going to seriously impact the groundwater recharge and runoff when you take away that surface. Um, [snorts] just uh concerned about the impact that it will have on the community on the rural community around it.
>> Okay. I know that I know that also I know that you don't really have complete knowledge or you know how to predict what that impact will be but it is a concern and also the um because the the utility department is still in progress. I mean it's still the utility department is still considering all of this. It's not done yet. So I mean the full impact of water and sewer capacity is not yet
finalized. So it's hard to I mean to to say how how many units it will support because it's not there's no commitment. There's no plan to develop that. And there's other the donut hole and all that other stuff.
I mean and the lack of public benefit and availability because it's private. There's no public park. There's no uh walking. I mean, the sidewalks are not walkable.
I mean, it's not a walkable area either, but will you commit to increasing the walkability? >> So, so we do have a commitment to have uh the 10- foot wide walking trail across our front edge. And I think I might mis be misunderstanding what you're saying, but we've actually made a commitment that our that our max impervious is 50% as opposed to 70%. 70%
is allowed under the current zoning right now. 70% impervious regardless of the number of units. That's what's allowed right now. So, we're actually decreasing that.
Um, I also just want to make make clear that 34 acres is being proposed for annexation, but as I understand the planning commission is tasked with considering the impacts of reszoning. We're only reszoning 30 acres of this. The the four acres is not part of this project at all. It's just our neighbors property and they want it to be part of the annexation.
So on 30 acres we've reduced the impervious to 50% from 70% which is allowed currently. So you know I mean that's like 15 acres of of impervious um that would be allowed in theory. Um and and then you know with respect to the utility impacts uh it's correct that the utility extension application is still being under review or is still in review with the suds. However, this is an area that
has it's in the uh southeast regional lift station basin. That is a new facility. It is far far from capacity. It has in fact lots of excess capacity and it's right now it's really only planned um to serve the area uh I generally speaking west of of the lift station.
Although it is sized to serve the whole basin including all area east of the lift station. So, we we don't have any concern that there isn't utility capacity in this area. I think that was part of your >> question, but but some of it might have also been like how the utilities get there. >> We know that um actually if this slide is up, I don't know if you can see it or not.
We know that this property here is already been approved for development. Their plans show I believe the sewer line coming in this location. So that's where the sewer would be extended from uh through this property and I believe there's already a water line in Leville
Road. So that would tap directly we would tap directly into that water line. So there's not there's not like all this crossount uh extension happening in order to serve this property because the utilities are actually already there. Um I yeah I think that I I tried to be responsive to lots of things you said.
I hope that that captured it, but thank you. >> There any other commissioner questions or comments? >> I believe there was uh late arrival, sir. Did you have any comments?
The the chair will be reopening the public hearing. Yes, please state your name and address for the record. >> Yes, ma'am. I'm Alejandro Ree. I'm the owner of 5106 Lisb Road and 5104 Leisville Road and uh on on Lisbury
Road. Um one of the question that I have is um you know with a lot of housing being opening right now, you know, in the past probably year, uh what is Lisville Road and Highway 70? There has been way more accidents now because the road at the infrastructure is not built to you know to have a lot of traffic and apparently you know you're gonna add up another maybe 300 to 600 trips. So it has become a little more dangerous over there to dry in that area because the accidents and the other thing is um you know some there's some land around there that some of us we have animals like goats, chickens you know kind of like a farm land and uh also uh alpacas and things like that and uh I would like to know that you know it doesn't affect because uh um you know I love D but I don't like the city because there's a lot of crime and all and a lot of walls. We decided to move out in the county, so
there's going to be less crime. But now, you know, um so far, you know, the area is kind of good and all that, but later on there going to be another development next behind my house and some of my neighbors. And um you know, we have a big crime rate in the city that now is going to probably move into outside because now it's going to become kind of like part of the city of Durham. uh we cannot stop crime but we can control it. So what can the city and the county do to control the crime and the developers what they can do? what can they do to kind of make sure you know there's not a lot of impacts when people you know having accident because some of them they've been kind of like major accidents and uh and going back to you know affordable housing uh you know I heard a lot that people talk about building affordable housing
affordable housing affordable housing you know I'm uh somebody I came from another country and uh you know what oh we're seven days a weeks and all that I used to sleep in my car for like three day uh three years and um now I own my own house another property property on the lake and all that and if you work hard you don't have to think about affordable housing you have to think about the things that you you myself I can afford so I can live in and I think one of the things that we can do is kind of have some education for some of the people on you know how to manage their money and all that >> and I do thank you >> for listening to Thank you, sir. >> The chair is now reclosing the public hearing. Any more commissioner comments? No.
[clears throat] I have a question uh for the applicant. I know you mentioned the location of the fire station being closed. Um, this being a 55 plus community and
with the statistic that the county is 10 years behind in the EMS. Just because there's a fire station there doesn't mean there's an ambulance there. The lead time on an ambulance is 36 months. If they budgeted it for this year, it would be three years before they got an ambulance perhaps to be in that fire station.
So my and this being a 55 plus age targeted community, my question is what is the timeline do you think for this development if it gets reszoned and will it be three years before there's actual people there to match with the catching up of the ambulances? So, uh, let me just first respond by saying I don't know if again I don't know if this slide is up or not. This is
the location of the fire station right here. It's on this slide. It's this blue parcel right here. That's the location of the fire station.
That's a joint fire EMS facility. I'm not going to pretend to know what's in that facility. So, I don't know if there's an EMS, but there should be. It was paid for by both the county for EMS and the city for fire.
So, I don't know what's there. I'm not going to pretend to know, but I suspect it already has EMS coverage. Um, but as far your question was more so how long does it take to get this this thing built and have people live in there? Um, I think the best answer to that question is so obviously we're still in the resoning phase.
If this were to get approved actually you you guys are currently building on uh Oak uh Doc Nichols which is like right right there actually almost on this map I think. Uh which was zoned I believe in 2018, I think. You wouldn't know, would you? I I should
know. I did the zoning on it, but I believe it was 2018 2019 when that was zoned. So, it's like five years. I mean, there were people in there before five years, but yeah.
So, I think it's probably safe to assume that in three years you might have the first people living there. >> Okay. Thank you. questions anymore?
Nope. Everybody's good. I have a motion to move case Z25 triple038 courtyards at Leville forward with a favorable recommendation. >> Chair regarding Z250038.
I move that we forward this case to city council with a favorable recommendation for approval. >> Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Richie and seconded by Commissioner Capers to move this case forward with the fa favorable recommendation. Please open the electronic voting
Motion passes 63. The next item on the agenda, 6B, Andrews Chapel Road Townous, Z25 triple032. May we have the staff report, please? [clears throat] >> Um, before we start the staff uh begin the staff report, I'd like to announce that uh Commissioner McCyver has arrived.
So, he will be able to count for quorum and vote on the upcoming um items as well as I believe Commissioner Clemens, you're going to ask for a motion. Once you >> I'd like to ask for a motion for an excused absence. >> If granted, we will still have quorum. There will be eight on the sitting on the commission. >> Second. >> Do we second that motion?
>> It has been moved by Commissioner Clemens and seconded by Commissioner Richie that Commissioner Clemens be allowed and excused absence. Those in favor, please say I. >> I. Any nays?
The eyes have it. >> Okay. Andrews Chapel Road Town Houses staff report. >> Thank you, Chair Chagaris, and honorable commissioners.
My name is Andy Lester with the Planning and Development Department. It's good to be with uh all of you tonight. And before before I begin, staff would like to state for the record uh that all planning department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with the state and local law and affidavit of all notices are on file with the planning department. This uh proposal is of one parcel of land located at 323 Andrews Chapel Road.
Um approximately four and a half acres. Its current zoning is residential rural. 085 to allow up to 80 or 28 town houses. As stated previously, the existing zoning is residential rural.
085. The site is immediately surrounded by residential rural and PDR to the south. Now the aerial map shows the general location of the project. The site is situated southeast of Andrews Chapel Road.
It is immediately surrounded by single family to the south, agricultural uses to the east, and the school to the north. The property is currently designated designated mixed residential neighborhood on the place type map and was found was found consistent with that um place type. On the screen are a number of textual
commitments um the proposal makes. Uh, a few include um a permanent prohibition of connection to Andrews Chapel Road, a 10- foot shared path along Andrews Chapel Road, contributions to DPS and the dedicated housing fund, uh, native species for required tree plantings, no mass grading, additional tree coverage, um, impervious surface limits, an inclusion of first uh, floor bedroom and full bathroom for 10 units. Uh, neighborhood meetings were held in accordance with the neighborhood meeting guidelines on October 21st, 2025 and April 28th, 2026. Four comments have been received by staff in relation to the case on the Durham zoning explorer. All are against the proposal. As stated previously, the proposal is consistent with the place type map designation of mixed residential neighborhood as it introduces a new housing type immediately adjacent to single family residential and
non-residential uses. The proposal is consistent with 20 of 22 applicable comprehensive plan policies and staff the applicant are available for any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you.
The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please? Good evening. My name is Courtney McQueen.
I'm a landscape architect with Unity representing the applicant this evening. Um, our address is 16 Consultant Place Durham. Also with me this evening is Tim Czajkowski, the president of community, and we are both available for questions throughout the evening. The site is located at 323 Andrews Chapel Road. 59 acre parcel currently containing a single family home in a small farm pond. Existing access easement runs along the
western property line and allows driveway connections from the adjacent properties to the west to Andrews Chapel Road. Tonight, we are requesting a text resoning and annexation into the city of Durham for the development of 28 town homes, which aligns with the comprehensive plan, incorporates community feedback and needs, and provides community investments while supporting the missing middle housing. The site is currently zoned RR residential, shown in yellow on the map. The property adjacent to the RR zoning to the west, while the property to the north is zoned the same.
The use of civic, specifically the monastery school. The eastern and southern properties are zoned PDR planned development residential. 085 units per acre. This creates a natural extension to the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the nearby residential densities which range
2 to eight units per acre. The future place type map identifies the site as MRN mixed residential neighborhood. The MRN place type encourages diverse housing choices within connected walkable neighborhoods. This proposal supports the intent of the MRN place type map by introducing integrated townhouse housing within the existing single family area while supporting neighborhood connectivity with additional environmental commitments.
This proposal, according to staff, my what I originally had was 21 of 23 applicable, but according to staff tonight, the proposal is consistent with 20 of 22 applicable comprehensive plan policies, including neighborhood housing, transportation, environmental, and public space. The following four slides highlights how the proposed commitment supports an overall policy consistency of 91%. The goal of the neighborhood and housing
policy is to encourage more connected and walkable neighborhoods, expand housing choices with a variety of residents, and supports thoughtful growth that remains compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and existing infrastructure. Policy 33 discourages development patterns made up of only one housing type. The goal is to create a more connected, integrated neighborhood with a variety of housing choices. This proposal de this proposed development supports that goal by introducing town homes within an existing predominantly single family area rather than concentrating town home development in isolated locations elsewhere in the community.
The site directly connects to Andrews Chapel Highland subdivision through the future shady top lane roadway extension creating a natural continuation of the existing neighborhood pattern. On the screen is a onem study of the area showing the surrounding development pattern. Yellow represents single family
neighborhood. Town homes shown in magenta and green represents apartment communities. The proposed town homes are centered within the existing single family neighborhood pattern rather than separated out to the edges of the community like the others. This helps supports the comprehensive plan's goals of creating more balanced and connected housing choices throughout neighborhoods.
The proposal also includes a commitment for at least 10 homes to contain first four bedrooms and full bathrooms supporting aging in place, multigenerational living and residents with varying mobile needs. Concerning the policies that were not met, while the proposal does not include affordable housing units, a contribution to the Durham affordable housing fund is being provided. In addition, while there is no existing public parkland within 10-minute mile walk, the development will provide on-site recreational open space as required by the UDL. The transportation policies focus on creating a safer, more connected, and
more accessible community through walkable neighborhood design in coordination with existing infrastructure. The proposal supports this goal by through pedestrianoriented design including sidewalks, pedestrian connections, and a shared use path consistent with the mixed residential neighborhood vision. Commitments include pedestrian connections to Andrews Chapel Road and Shady Top Lane along with a 10-ft shared use path along Andrews Chapel Road frontage connecting to the existing sidewalk network. These improvements strengthen neighborhood connectivity between surrounding homes, streets, and future destinations.
The proposal also includes a single vehicular connection from Shady Top Lane extension. This approach helps limits cutthrough traffic from Andrew Chopper Road and keeps metal pond drive and Shady Top Lane functioning primarily for local neighborhood traffic. The environmental and public space policy focuses on protecting environmental resources, preserving
trees and open space, and reduces environmental impacts from development. This proposal includes the required landscape buffer along Andrew Chapel Road. While the ordinance does not require tree preservation on the site and there are limited existing trees to preserve, the proposal still includes a commitment to provide 2% native tree coverage across the site. Existing farm pond has a limited drainage area.
The US Army Corpse of Engineers and NCDOQ NCDEQ have confirmed that the pond is non-jurisdictional and they're not subject to any buffers. The property owner is currently pursuing the process to drain the pond independent of this resoning application through this. Though the site is not located in a watershed protection overlay and there is no imperous surface maximums this that are required by ordinance. The proposal voluntarily limits the impervious surface coverage to 60% of the site. Additional
commitments include prohibiting mass grading and limiting land disturbance to 4 acres. Two neighborhood meetings were held and tonight we would like to discuss the concerns that were shared and the additional commitments added since this original submittal. Residents expressed concerns relating to traffic along Andrew Chapel Road. Requests for direct vehicular access to Andrew Chapel Road, privacy for adjacent homes in compatibility with existing neighborhood character.
Because Andrew's Chapel Road is statemate maintained, NC DOT was contacted following our last neighborhood meeting to discuss possible vehicular connections. NC DOT stated that limiting additional roadway connections along Andrew Chapel Road created a safer transportation network by reducing vehicular conflict points and minimizing pedestrian cross risk. That correspondence has been provided to planning staff. In response to neighborhood feedback, additional commitments have been added, including a
temporary construction entrance from Andrew Chapel Road to hinder construction traffic through Meadow Pond Drive and Shady Top Lane. The proposal has also increased native tree replacement plantings from 2% to 3% of the site to provide additional buffering along the western and along the western access um eaves as well as the southern property boundary. Tonight, a conceptual plan has been provided to for illustrative purposes only to help visualize the text commitments associated with this request. The illustrations reflect the increased tree planting commitments and enhanced screening locations to the south and east. In addition to the site commitment, a proposal also includes a one-time community contribution of $5,000 to Durham public schools and $28,000 to Durham's affordable housing fund. Overall, this proposal represents the type of thoughtful smallcale infield development envisioned by the
comprehensive plan. It expands housing choices within existing residential area, supports neighborhood connectivity, and incorporates environmental commitments beyond the minimum standards, and provides compatible growth within the urban growth boundary. Thank you for your time this evening, and Tim and I are available for any questions. Thank you.
[clears throat] Are there any community members in person signed up to speak on this? Nope. Anybody on the Zoom, please raise your hand by pressing star9. Going once.
Oh, Susan Kzer, >> can you hear me? >> Yes. Please state your name and address for the record.
>> Susan Kzer, 207 Andrews Chapel Road. I would be on the east side according to the picture there um of the property that they're talking about. Um our driveway that comes off of Andrews Chapel Road goes down through there. It goes through three residents, 211, 207, and also down to 209.
Um, I know it shows some trees being planted, but in their last meeting, there's a small creek that runs underneath that driveway to that pond. And no one has addressed that creek of where that water is going to go if you destroy that pond. And I would like maybe if someone has an answer to that.
>> Thank you. Anyone else on the Zoom wishing to speak on this agenda item? Please raise your hand. Star nine.
Going once, going twice, gone. Would the applicant care to address the concerns about that creek and the pond being drained? Where would the I saw on the one drawing the pond's going to be relocated? >> Uh Tim Czajkowski with um 16 Consultant Place.
Um so, uh Miss Kinszer, I believe her name was pronounced. Um yes. So the intent is for the existing pond to be relocated um not technically relocated I guess um to be removed. It is in the process of being permitted to be drained. Um that is as uh Courtney mentioned is separate from this zoning application. Um it is non-jurisdictional so there's no buffers associated with
it. Um there is not um because it's non-jurisdictional which is what DEEQ verification um there's no stream running to it. There is a ditch um which was mentioned by Miss Neunkirchner. I think it's not a stream.
It's um it's not a verified stream, but it is a ditch. Um along in this um this image that I believe may still be on your screen, um along this eastern portion here, there is a 18 foot easement. Um it is a recorded easement on a plat. That easement will remain in place.
Um that easement provides access for that existing driveway um that accesses those. You can actually even see part of it right here where this driveway connects and runs up here. Um this driveway does the same up that 18 foot easement. That 18 foot easement will not be adjusted.
Hence why our screening will be on our side of that 18t adjustment. 18t easement. So their their driveways will have no impact. Everything will remain in place for them. Um, as for the pond itself, as I mentioned earlier, um, the image here
shows our location of the storm water control measure. Um, it is an existing farm pond, so I'm not really sure on the quality of the dam when it was constructed. Most likely was a a farmer out there with a tractor digging it and piling it up, right? Not compacting it properly.
Um, therefore, we're, you know, we wouldn't want to build houses downstream of it. We're unsure of how what the quality of that dam is. So, it is in the process of being removed. the storm water control measure will follow um the city requirements for construction.
Um so it's not at that point would not be a farm pond. It would be a true storm water control measure. >> I believe that answers her question and I believe the one that you had as well. >> Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> That public hearing is now closed there. We're open for commissioner questions and comments. Commissioner Woo.
>> Thank you. Um I have a question. So there's some specimen trees on that site or if there are plans to keep those, protect those.
>> Um during the site plan review process, we will identify they're right along the property line. So once we get into that and actually complete the tree survey, we will identify if it is able to keep them. Um Courtney and I are both landscape architects. Um if we can, we will.
Um but that is something we have to look at when they truly are surveyed during the site plan. Um okay my next question is um you're committing to native trees. Can we do all native plantings? >> Um that is it's a little difficult to do that.
Um and I I know the previous project did that. Um the only reason for that and why I typically only commit to native trees is because of the availability in the nurseries. Um they're the native shrubs aren't typically as available. So, I would hate to have to say to you, yeah, I'd love to do that and I would. We will as much as we can, but if the plants aren't available, which right now they're not locally, I don't feel like I can commit to that tonight simply for that reason. But if we can when we get to site plan, if those are available, we will do more.
But as a commitment, I would like to stick to the trees only. >> Commissioner Richie, >> I'm going to ask the same question I asked to nil, which is basically just how do we get to the 28 number? Is that a thousand per townhouse or? >> Yes.
Okay. >> Yes, simply thousand per unit. Yeah, we were we looked at previous um projects um and I looked at Niels earlier seeing we were close if you do the math right. Um so yes and um same answer for the student donation.
Uh me personally, I always put in a $5,000 minimum in here. We were only two students. Obviously, you know, typically those are $500 per unit or per student increase. I'm not going to lower, you know, to do a thousand.
We are committing to that. So, in this case, it's more of a 5,000 minimum. Um, and then the affordable is $1,000 per unit. Um, and you know, we're always, as a previous Neil mentioned earlier, we're also looking for new ways to do it. I'm glad to hear that the uh there's other ways, other funds that are sub affordable housing fund that potentially can have that. Um, you know,
I I look forward to new and inventive ways that we can make sure we're providing what we need for our citizens. and just give me the logic for with a with a development of this size I can understand but can you give me the logic for not having a a percentage and and going the fund route in this case? >> Sure. It's it's pretty simple.
Um small projects it doesn't pencil. Um it is very hard even for provide that one unit. Um so in this case we believe it's better to help provide units where somewhere else to make sure that can be provided. Um but it's simple 28 units.
Um typically most projects um you need close you need around that 100 unit range um maybe even more than that now with expenses increasing um to even um to have one unit pencil. Um so that's that's the main reason here is provide to make sure that we can actually build this project. >> Got it. Sounds like we should have tried to push nil up to 111 but [snorts] uh yeah thanks. >> Any other commissioner questions or comments?
No, I have the same question. um based on the lack of EMS and specifically the lack of ambulances and the lead time and I don't even know if this is addressable. Is there a way to make a commitment that the certificates of occupancy won't be issued for 36 months, three years to allow for even though this is a smaller project with less people, there's still a lot of people in that area. Half a million dollars in ambulance.
the county is looking at a a huge responsibility playing catch-up here. >> Yes. Um I I I understand the request um and with I I came back to this slide to kind of show the existing neighborhoods in the area um that we are directly in the middle. Um I I cannot commit to that this evening. Um I think that would put a a little bit of hold on this project knowing it is only 28 units. Um um I understand the concern and I, you know,
um want to make sure that our current and future residents are covered. Um but looking at this map, you can see that our project um would actually be a shorter distance from the current station 17 than current residents that are out there. Um so with that fact, I do feel like we would be covered. Um but uh but no, I would not be able to be able to make that commitment this evening.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. No more commissioner questions, comments.
All right. Um may I have a motion to move case Z25 triple032 Andrews Chapel Road Town Houses forward with a favorable recommendation. >> Chair, regarding case Z25032, um I move that we forward this case to city council with a favorable recommendation for approval. >> Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Richie and seconded by Commissioner Capers to move this case forward with the favorable recommendation. May we have
the electronic voting, please? Motion passes 6 to two. I I would like to just state for the record that the motion actually will pass 7 to two because Commissioner Chakowski did not ask for an excused absence before he left. So, he will be a yes vote on all future items this evening.
>> Thank you. Okay. The next item on the agenda is 6 C
and 7A together. Palmer Edge 2 and Armor Edge Light Industrial Park tier change. May we have the staff report, please? Good afternoon, chair, sharers, and planning commissioners.
My name is Payton Burgess, and I am here tonight to present cases Z2600 002 Palmer Edge 2 and A2600001 Palmer Edge Light Industrial Park. Although these are two separate cases that will require two separate motions, they do have some overlap. So, I'm going to present them together. I'm also going to be setting the record for the amount of times a planner says zero in 3 minutes. 17 acres from residential, rural, and industrial light to industrial light with the development plan. Case A26001
44 acres. This request would change the development tier designation from urban to suburban. The requests have four parcels that overlap and pending both requests, the entirety of the site would be in the suburban development tier and zone industrial light and industrial light with a textual development plan. The resoning request does not include the entirety of all parcels because the remaining parcels already have industrial light zoning.
This is the zoning context map for the Z260000002 reszoning application. You can see that the existing zoning for these parcels is residential, rural, and industrial light. Although the industrial light parcels included in this application already have the desired zoning, they were added to this application because the UDO requires resonings to be contiguous and they create a contiguous petition. The proposal would reszone this area to be industrial light with a
textural development plan and the development plan would only apply to the parcels identified in this map. This is the zoning context map for A2600001, the development tier amendment case. As you can see, this request follows the current industrial light zoning district. The portion of the resoning request that is currently zoned industrial light is also included in this development tier amendment request.
The aerial map shows the location of both projects. The resoning request is outlined in red. The tier boundary amendment is outlined in blue. You can see on this map the overlap between the two requests.
This is the place type map associated with the resoning. These parcels are currently designated as mixeduse neighborhood. The proposed resoning is generally inconsistent with this place type. So staff recommends a change to the place type map to designate these parcels as general industrial.
This is the place type map associated with the A260000001 tier boundary amendment request. The site is currently designated general industrial and mixeduse neighborhood. If the resoning is approved, the overlapping parcels to the south will become general industrial as well. This is the tier boundary map.
The blue represents the urban tier and the brown represents the suburban tier. If the A2600001 tier boundary amendment case is approved, the entirety of the area will be located in the suburban tier. This matches the existing development tier designation of the parcel's currently zoned residential rural included in the resoning request. The applicant has profered a restriction of uses.
This restriction would only apply to the parcels associated with the Z26000000002 resoning request. The development plan would prohibit the uses listed. The applicant held neighborhood meetings on March 12th, April 9th, and April
27th, 2026. Two community members attended the first, four attended the second, and three attended the third. There are no comments regarding either of these proposals on the Durham resoning explore. The reasonzoning proposal is consistent with eight of 13 applicable comprehensive plan policies, but is not consistent with the designated place type of mixed residential neighborhood.
So, if approved, staff recommends a change to the general industrial place type. In summary, the Z2600002 reszoning proposal would reszone seven parcels from residential, rural, and industrial light to industrial light with the development plan and change the place type map from mixeduse neighborhood to general industrial. The A260000001 development tier amendment proposal would change the development tier of 10 parcels and a portion of three additional parcels from the urban tier to the suburban tier to make the entirety of both sites in the suburban tier. These cases are separate and will
require separate votes, although they do have four parcels that are part of both applications. Thank you. Steph and the applicant are available to answer any questions. >> Thank you.
The chair is now opening the public hearing when we have the applicant. Okay. Good evening, Chair Chagaris, members of the planning commission. My name is Patrick Biker.
I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. Um, can you all see the PowerPoint that's up on your screens? Great. I'm an attorney with Morning Star Law Group and I'm here tonight representing Palmer Edge for this reasonzoning and comprehensive plan amendment that we're discussing tonight. First of all, I do want to thank uh Peyton and Aaron for outstanding work on the staff report. Uh this project we are
discussing tonight uh is called Palmer Edge 2 uh because the city council approved the annexation and the water sewer and the water and sewer for approximately 85 acres in the Palmer Edge assemblage back on October 7 of 2024. Since that was a straightforward annexation back then we could not alter any of the zoning or development tiers within Palmer Edge. And we need to do that tonight because the UDO suburban and urban tiers dictate widely different building standards. If we were close to adopting the new LDC, we would not need to change that that tier boundary because the new LDC gets rid of all the development tiers.
But uh be that as it may, it is important to note that Palmer Edge already has a proven track record in the Durham County section of Research Triangle Park. Mr. Scott Levitan, the CEO of RTP, recognized the importance of what Carlin has achieved in RTP. I remember very
well 25 or 30 years ago when Glaco was the major player, a major player in RTP. Uh, but those days are gone. And fortunately, Carlin Real Estate, the Palmer Edge parent company, stepped in to revitalize what was Durham County's number one taxpayer back in the mid 1990s. Now that Glaco campus is uh houses multiple companies and you can see what these business leaders u how they have praised Carlland's work to trans transform the old Glaco campus into a multi-tenant facility with great amenities that has strengthened Durham's economy.
Now in regard to this resoning here's an aerial showing 140 plus acres that's been zoned IL for actually for several decades. That's in the light purple along with about 50 acres that zone RR just north of Glover Road and that's at the bottom of this slide in yellow. In order to look at the entirety of the Palmer Edge assemblage that is in red on
the left hand side of this slide and again the 50 plus acres we're looking at tonight to be reszoned is on the right hand side of this slide. The bottom line is that Palmer Edge needs consistent zoning between the railroad tracks to the east and the Durham Freeway to the west. Again, because it was a straight annexation back in 2024, we could not make that zoning map change at that time. But we do want to emphasize that Palmer Edge has has removed 26 of the permitted uses in the industrial light zoning district to continue the outstanding track record in RTP that I mentioned earlier along with a comment from research triangle park CEO Scott Levitan. That's it for the zoning map change and so now we need to discuss changing from the urban tier to the suburban tier. Long story short, our goal is for Palmer Ed Palmer Edge to be more like RTP and less like downtown Durham, which means more green space, more trees, and more pvious surface and less asphalt, less
concrete, and less impervious surface. I won't go into this in great detail, but as you can see from this slide, in regards to street yard, sideyard, and rear yard setbacks, the suburban tiers allow allows for much more green space between buildings and rights of way. The same principle applies to minimum lot areas and minimum lot widths. Again, the goal is to create a more RTP- like campus development.
We envision Palmer Edge to be RTP North, but with more flexible zoning than the historic Science Research Park zoning that existed in RTP from around 1960 to 2025. Here's an excerpt from the 2005 future land use map that dictates the boundaries of the urban and suburban tier within Palmer Edge. And again, I want to thank Payton for her outstanding staff report on this topic. As you can see from the purple shading, all of the area north of Glover Road was designated for industrial use back then uh in 2005 when this was adopted. The urban tier
was essentially a threem radius around downtown. Unfortunately, the tier boundary split this assemblage so that what we need is shown on this slide and that is to bring all 185 or 190 acres into the suburban tier. This is very important because there is no watershed overlay and therefore no imperous surface limits for this section of Durham and therefore this proposed comprehensive plan amendment fosters more green space and pvious surface instead of asphalt buildings and imperous surface. In closing, I want to drill down a bit deeper on one point that is 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 six years ago. I have relied on this report many times since it was published in order to advise companies that want to increase and improve Durham's capacity for top quality economic development. I think it is also vital for the planning
commission to know that in this 2020 land use study, the planning department evaluated 179 sites across all of Durham County. Based on that analysis, Palmer Edge is one of the top five sites in all of Durham County out of 179 industrial areas that the plane department looked at. And this site is very important for Durham's economic development when we look at the new job opportunities for Durham residents that have been approved by the city council over the past five years. When I first started working in Durham in 1994 for the chamber of commerce, our only solid opportunities for economic development were RTP and Traburn Corporate Park back in the 1990s.
I realized that those good paying jobs were pretty far away from the vast majority of Durham residents. In order to remedy that problem over the past five years, it has been my privilege to work on developing job opportunities much closer to Durham residents. The first one I worked on was with Scanel Properties back in August of 2021 and that was for 200 acres and that
2 million square feet. That site also scored 14 out of 14 on the industrial land use study. Uh a few months later in February 2022, I also worked with Scanel Properties for an industrial park at NC55 and Hopson Road. 2 million square feet.
2 million square ft. Uh, that's close to the Bragtown neighborhood. The site we're talking about tonight, Palmer Edge, uh, was initially approved with 140 acres, and we're asking for your recommendation of approval to increase that to about 185 acres zoned IL. And again, it's zoned. um with that zoning, with that location, it scored 14 out of 14 uh with the industrial land use study. So, as you can see, Palmer Edge is the most centrallylo economic development site we have in Durham and it has outstanding access to Durham Tech so that job training is readily available
for good paying jobs that will be coming to Palmer Edge. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval for Palmer Edge 2, zoning map change and comprehensive plan amendment. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time tonight.
>> Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. Oh, I already did that. Never mind.
Uh, any community members in person? Nope. Anybody on the Zoom wishing to speak? Please raise your hand.
Trina Hines. >> Yes. Good evening. Can you hear me?
>> Yes. Please state your address for the record. >> Excellent. My name is Trina, One Spring Glenn Court, Durham, North Carolina, Grove Park homeowners subdivision. I represent the Grove Park community. here to address the critical role of the 750 foot ridge line in the oversight of Palmer Edge Z260000002
and the surrounding corridor. Um, this existence of this ridge line is the feature that prevents construction runoff from flooding our basin. So to confirm this ridge is not just a landscape feature. It's a functional natural infrastructure that is currently the only shield protecting our watershed from massive sediment failure.
I did submit an image. Uh do you happen to have that available? >> Yes, the city staff is working on providing it right now. I'll continue.
The uh environmental affairs board has already reviewed this corridor and formally noted significant concerns regarding the uniquely the sensitive Triacic basin soils and the cumulative impact on the Little Lick Creek wershed. Uh is my document? Yes. So, as you can see, Palmer edge is to the south. The 5502
Wake Forest site which is in technical review is to the north. Sharon Road project which has already started is to the east create a triangle of risk. These projects are not isolated. 1 million private investment in lake restoration could be buried in sediment.
The EAB's findings confirm that the standard UDO compliance is insuffic insufficient for this specific geography. So to ensure the integrity of this watershed, we're requesting that this board make three recommendations. The first is that the 750 ft ridge and all buffers must be physically staked by a licensed surveyor prior to the issu issuance of any land disturbing permits. And secondly, that the ridge line be
designated as non-disturbance area to maintain function of the drainage divide. And finally, consistent with the EAB findings, recommendations rather, require frequent independent water sampling with results made available to the downstream stakeholders. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Anyone else on the Zoom wishing to speak? >> Please raise your hand. Star9. >> Nope.
The applicant care to respond? >> Yeah. I certainly appreciate the speaker's concerns, but the site shown on this graphic is four or five miles away from the application we submitted for a comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning map change. It's completely irrelevant. It's a different site. I I honestly don't know how far away it is from the site I presented a minute ago, but I would guess five miles.
>> Okay. Thank you. Public hearing is now closed. Uh, Commissioner discussion, Commissioner Capers.
>> Um, with the recommendations that were just provided by our community member, uh, are with with those recommendations in mind, is are those commitments that you can make knowing that the distance is pretty far off, could you make those commitments, >> sir? This is completely irrelevant to Palmer Ridge. I I don't know why this was why the speaker brought up something that's 5 miles away. We have absolutely nothing to do with the Grove Park neighborhood.
I I think her concern is about the triangulation of all of the pollution that could potentially happen with what development may take place at the Palmer Edge. And so what I'm just asking is is there an opportunity for you to knowing that this might not be as relevant as you you claim, right? Is there a middle ground that we might be able to find to be able to uh prevent any of the uh development on Palmer Edge to ultimately get in the way of uh this
water? >> I I wouldn't I honestly don't understand what the speaker was asking us to do, Commissioner. And the point of this slide is that we are actually between a freeway and five railroad tracks. And so I'm not aware of how anything that's developed at Palmer Edge would have an impact on other properties given that the vast majority of right vast majority of the site is surrounded by freeways and multiple railroad tracks.
It's just an irrelevant consideration. >> Gotcha. Thanks, >> Commissioner Richie. >> Hey, Aaron.
Can we get a Can we get that image up again? I think I think I didn't close it. So, Vivian, are you able to pull up that uh image back up from the last speaker or do I need to open that again? >> Sorry. >> So, just to clarify this, what's
bordering Highway 70 right now is not I mean, this is a question for the applicant to clarify. This is not Palmer Edge >> as at least you're currently describing it. >> Palmer Edge is on the actually on the other side of NC70. >> Yeah.
>> And Rigsby Road and Sher and Sharon Road do not connect as shown here. >> My Google Maps has it about 6 and a half miles away. The point being that I think that the concerns raised are very legitimate for an industrial park that would have been built right there, but this industrial park is not being built right there. >> Right.
Any other questions? Commissioner Boop, >> thank you. So I have some questions. Um, so I the in the presentation you showed, oh my god, sorry, my phone. Um, saying that this is um an environmentally focused area and you mentioned having more green space, >> but there's comprehensive plan policies that aren't met. There's no tree coverage beyond the 10% required by the
UDO. there's no natives, there's no green infrastructure, and I know when we're thinking about RTP, we think about all those things. >> Um, and so those are um is there any are, you know, are you able to consider making any commitments to make this a, you know, in in reality a little greener than um than it currently seems? Well, that's why Yeah, I appreciate the concern, Commissioner, and that's why we've that's why we've put forward the much larger setbacks and spacing to create the green space in between the buildings and in between the buildings and the streets.
Um, the challenge with a site like this is it's 185 acres give or take. We don't know how it will be built out because it could be one company or it could be 20 companies as I showed on one of the slides. So Palmer is a a master developer and the the point that Tim Cyers made about nurseries not having certain
plants available at at at at a given time is is very important in the economic development realm. So I will take those concerns back to our team. We have a local team with Kimley Horn and the Palmer Edge folks. Uh but we can't commit to anything specifically because we don't know how the site's going to be built out at as of today.
Any other Commissioner Montes? >> This isn't a question, but uh we we talk a lot about we mainly see residential projects up here, and I couldn't be more excited to see a development [clears throat] like this, the potential investment that's going to come for uh potential college graduates here at Duke University State, Chapel Hill, uh NC uh Central. I mean, I couldn't be I I hope council looks at this and sees the opportunity that is here um to replicate or or put another potential RTP here um that really attracts talent and
investment and and makes Durham what Durham has the potential to be is something I'm super super excited about. I have no questions. I know the design of this is going to is a long ways out, but I appreciate you bringing this case forward and the developer bringing uh more potential to the city of Durham. So, um yeah, I just want to cl give those words.
Super excited about this. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments? So my understanding is the reason that the there's a lack of native plants inventory is because they're slower to grow than some of the other plants that grow.
>> Perhaps if this is going to be a science campus, >> they can do some studies on how to genetically modify the plants so they can remain native but grow faster. so we can all be happy and have enough native plants that are growing fast enough. >> Anyway, just >> I appreciate the concern. I'll certainly
take it back to our team. We'll do the best we can. I just can't commit to a specific percentage at this point in time. What what's funny is that I was in RTP a few weeks ago at one of the you know how you drive through RTP there's a lot of green houses.
They're working on seedless blackberries. Think about what a game changer that would be if we could have seedless blackberries. So, we'll see howative as long as they grow fast. >> Exactly.
Well, they do grow fast. >> Yep. So, we appreciate it. I'll take those concerns back to our team and we'll do the best we can.
>> Okay. Thank you. May I have a motion to move case Z26 quadruple0ero2 Palmer Edge 2 forward with a favorable recommendation? >> Are we motioning both right now?
>> Just one. Got it. Chair regarding case Z26 quadruple zero two. I move that we I that we forward this case to city council with the favorable recommendation for approval.
>> Second. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Richie and seconded by Commissioner Capers to move this case forward with a favorable recommendation. May we have the electronic voting, please? The motion passes 8 to1 with Commissioner Woke voting no.
May I have a motion to move case A 26 quadruple 01 Palmer Edge Light Industrial Park tier change forward with a favorable recommendation. Chair regarding case A26 quadruple01. I move that we forward this case to city council with a favorable recommendation for approval. >> Second. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Richie and seconded by Commissioner Capers to move this case forward with a favorable recommendation. May we have the
electronic voting, please? The motion passes 9 to zero. >> All right. Item eight on the agenda, committee updates.
Any committee updates? >> None that I'm aware of. And Vice Chair Cameron is not here to speak on behalf of the rules of procedure committee. So I think we would table that till next week unless somebody has something to say about.
>> Number nine, new business. Yes, I I would like to bring one uh issue before you. Um I have heard from several commissioners that they will not be available in July. It is quite possible we'd have one item on your agenda because of a deferral request for an
item that was to be heard in June. Um an opponent has requested a deferral and the UDO allows for that for 30 days. So we would need to bring that to you in July unless we are not going to have a quorum. Um, and in that case, we would want to notify the applicant and and and move that to August.
So, uh, I don't need your answers immediately, but I will be sending out, um, a a an email in the next day or so, please respond to that quickly. If you know, I know of at least three or four of you that have already said you're not going to be able to be here in July. So, I'd like to uh get a count so that we can plan accordingly in the next couple of weeks. >> Um, >> and there's currently nothing else on the July agenda.
So, it would just be like >> there would possibly be one other. I don't expect us to have more than two on a two cases on a July agenda. Um, that is if we can have one if we have quorum. But seeing as how we barely made quorum
tonight and this is May and a lot of people travel in July, um I would like to get a a headcount as soon as possible for July so we again we can plan accordingly and let our applicants know when they should be prepared to be here. >> Okay, thank you. Number 10, staff announcements. None.
Nope. >> None. >> Number 11, adjournment or adjourn 7:24.