Raleigh, Durham annexation discussion hints at interesting development perspectives

Durhamites are fierce when it comes to development issues; even a fairly non-controversial zoning matter, like Monday night's industrial-to-Office/Institutional rezoning within an existing business park can be expected to draw out citizens concerned about stream buffers and run-off and density and impervious surface.

Which is a good thing for Durham: engaged, active citizens keep developers and elected officials on their toes.

We all have a pretty good notion that development is more restrictive in Orange County -- particularly Chapel Hill -- than in the Bull City. But how do we compare with our eastern neighbor?

This morning's H-S gives an interesting perspective on that, in looking at a proposed Wake County development that would actually fall within Durham's annexation boundaries, providing a need for discussion between the two governments over differences in zoning and development rules between the jurisdictions:

The requested zoning change could most likely clear the way for a mixed-use project of some sort, but in theory could accommodate up to 1,664 dwellings, said Mitchell Silver, Raleigh's planning director....
 
[City/County planning chief Steve] Medlin warned his counterpart that Durham's plan for the area doesn't call for as much development as the rezoning would allow....
 
Traffic-wise, instead of asking for an impact study during zoning reviews, Raleigh waits until developers file a site plan before asking for one, Silver said. "At that time, we determine what [transportation] improvements are warranted," he added. "If they can't meet those and there's a significant traffic impact, we ask them to scale down the project."  

I'm sure one of my more faithful Raleigh readers will note here that this is not an exhaustive look at differences in development policies between the two cities, and they'd be right.

Still, I do think it's instructive to see an example of two different philosophies of growth and development -- one already made obvious by the difference in Raleigh's eager development and growth in the Brier Creek area, versus Durham residents' vocal opposition to more development in the much less built-out US 70 corridor through Durham County.

Silver notes in the article that while the proposed development is more intense in its use than Durham's own comprehensive plan would allow, it "fits Raleigh's long-range plans for the area," despite its possible addition of almost 500 new students to local schools, and the addition of 200,000 gallons/day of water consumption.

In Durham, that kind of growth would trigger a rather long fight at City Hall. Heck, smaller rezonings than that one do it all the time.

Not, mind you, that Raleigh is necessarily wrong about growth in that area. One can make a compelling argument that proximity to I-540, the airport, and RTP make this exactly the place to add density and development. With energy prices rising, it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to live in Wendell or Clayton come a decade from now -- unless they happen to work there, of course, which few people do.

Still, you make that argument in Durham -- even in an urbanized city that professes the benefits of density -- at your peril.

Comments

[GreenLantern]

I really wish everyone would stop characterizing a tiny minority of east Durham county residents as representative of the majority, just because they, along with some outside agitators from urban Durham neighborhoods who don't live here have expressed vocal opposition to development along the 70 corridor. These are a bunch of newly-arrived yuppies that want to preserve county living so close to RTP, with dreams of quaint organic farms and 10-acre lawns. Unfortunately that's not realistic given the closeness to RTP, especially for all of you who claim to be for high-density and living where you work. Most of the area's residents want MORE retail development of the kind that attracts businesses like Lowes, Home Depot, and Kroger, so that we don't have to travel across town or to Brier Creek to do our shopping--and have our sales tax dollars go to help the county to the east. We want to see the N. Durham Parkway completed to spur more development, and new private school choices to escape the two most underperforming public schools in the county.

Long-term landowners in the Hwy 98, Cheek Road, and Sherron Road corridors WANT to sell parcels to housing developers, and the entire east side needs more quality development to attract those high-income commuters away from Wake County, and drive up the sagging values of our existing homes.

[GreenLantern]

The big reason Raleigh has been so successful with residential and retail development in the Brier Creek and Leesville areas, is because of better schools and higher test scores. Like it or not, that is one of the top reasons people want to live there, rather than east Durham county.

With one exception, the new elementary school being built inside Brightleaf, Durham County commissioners have be reluctant to build more schools in the area because of the relatively low population. If they would just stop pandering to groups like the DCABP who want to maintain the status quo, and either approve private middle- and high-school choices or drastically redraw districts, east Durham county would begin to draw the kind of middle- to upper-class professionals with kids that inhabit NW Wake County.

[Frank Hyman]

Not saying that putting houses near 540, RTP, etc. is a bad idea, but for county government, residential development costs more in services--schools especially--than it pays in tax revenue. Interestingly, despite all the uninformed horror stories about how Durham's tax rates will keep businesses from relocating here, 43% of Durham County's tax base comes from businesses (and utilities, which are counted separately). The figure for Wake County?......Only 28%. Years ago, I asked a Chamber of Commerce leader why the Durham side of RTP was filling up so much faster than the Wake side, given the big difference in county tax rates. His answer was that Duke Power's utility rates in Durham County were so much cheaper than Progress Energy's rates in Wake that businesses actually saved money by locating in Durham. Utilities and quality of life, transportation and other issues are repeatedly shown in studies to matter more in location decisions than tax rates.

Frank Hyman

[Khalid]

I still think that there are people who refuse to believe that RTP is a major employment center in the Triangle. Development around this area is NOT sprawl. We are stuck on the notion that cities consist of one downtown or employment center. Durham as well as Raleigh is multi-nodal like most major cities.

I thought that Triangle J came up with a development plan for this area years ago. We might need to revisit an area plan with Raleigh soon.

[Tar Heelz]

@Frank,

As you'll recall, a much more important factor in which parts of RTP developed first related to RTF's marketing, utilities services available to the northern portion, and the higher quality of sites (read: topography) in the Durham portion.

It was true that Duke Power's incentive rates for industry were at one time more aggressively priced for economic development projects for business. (Say from 1993-1996.) By the late-90s, CP&L/Progress had caught up.

@Kevin,

Believe you me. Development in Raleigh and Wake County is not necessarily easier than Durham and Durham County. They are very different but the Raleigh of today is not necessarily more developer-friendly.

[Shannon]

I live in East Durham, husband and I both have college degrees, drive my children to North Durham for school, spend all my money in Raleigh at Briercreek, LOVE the location, HATE having to drive so far for basic things. CAN DURHAM PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO US OVER HERE! This area would be a goldmine if they would improve schools/options and retail.