[Music] Mission chair Miller is absent and excused today so I'll be leading our meeting Commissioners man and McMan are also absent and excused We Begin each meeting with an opportunity for the public to comment on items not on the agenda do we have any members of the public who wish to comment this morning on an item not on the agenda seeing none we'll move on I'm going to um turn it over to um attorney York he has an announcement sorry no I just want to introduce Carolyn bacle she's uh morning with city attorney's office she's been with the city for 13 years she's going to be my interim replacement until um a new Deputy is hired so I wanted to formally introduce you to Carolyn and uh for having me I've been with the city for about 13 years and mostly supporting Raleigh water but I'm looking looking forward to this new gig welcome happy to have you we have one item on our consent agenda resoning Z 722 which is recommended for deferral does staff have anything to add about this agenda item yes um Hannah reca Planning and Development um I wanted to add the agenda has the recommended action as deferral to the February 11th your next meeting um that um the applicant has indicated that they would like a more time to work on the case and would prefer the February 25th meeting thank you Hannah um do the Commissioners have any questions or comments if not then I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda motion approve do I have a second need to um change just a minute the consent right yeah yeah are we good make sure you're not approving the consent agenda you're approving the amended date approving the amended date of the consent agenda do I have a motion yes commissioner Haver has moved to approve the amended date of the consent agenda do I have a second second commissioner Reigns has second it all in favor that's unanimous thank you very much we have two items under old business first is z 3124 91 nowl road which we heard at our January 14th meeting the case was deferred so the applicant could consider conditions related to height number of units and affordability we'll hear from staff with an update to this case good morning Vice chair Bennett Matthew Burns with PL and ellent good morning Planning Commission um so you last heard about this case at the last Planning Commission meeting and uh the applicant is elected not to make changes to the resoning request um just as a reminder uh this site is in West Raleigh uh near nc54 it's off n Road there is a single proposed zoning condition that limits residential density to eight units and the request represents uh a mod moderate increase in entitlement from 2 to eight estimated units um and the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan inconsistent with the future land use map and consistent with the urban form map consistent policies are related to Compact and infill development as well as a couple policies specific to the arena blidge small area plan and inconsistent policies are related to feature land use and response time standards for fire uh and approval of this resoning request would result in a feature land use map Amendment from low scale residential to moderate scale residential like so there are no outstanding issues and your deadline for Action is March 15th please let me know if you have any questions thank you we heard from the applicant and the public at our last meeting um are there members of the public here today who wish to speak on this item in that case um I will allow two minutes for each side for additional comment [Music] thank [Music] you and I'm sorry could you indicate that you're speaking in support or opposition to uh I'm in opposition to the case as it stands um chair Benet um Mr giri could you state your name for the record please it's Bob giri uh 6332 now Point Drive um I'll be brief the last meeting the applicant uh said that he would reduce the height the allowable height of the project from 50 ft to 40 ft to be consistent with the neighboring houses um and he didn't do it so there was discussion about whether he would offer affordable units in this project and I think that's an interesting topic chair Bennett you made a point about other cases where that has not been um offered uh he said and I almost rose out of my chair to say yes that he would accept Section 8 vouchers on two of the units which I think on this site right across from a bus stop and not far from the arena and not far from Crabtree Valley um that'd be a good thing but he didn't offer it and it isn't customary uh but the height is an issue I think so surprised he did not offer that he seemed to actually offer it uh when he stood up last time so just point that out thank you thank you Mr giri is there are there other members of the public to speak in opposition thank you is the applicant here you have an additional two minutes to um present what you'd like um good morning staff um yeah we we did talk about the height uh last time uh we were not sure uh you know the uh the property actually next to that land I don't know if I could tell it's just uh a multi-units just built it's about uh 45 ft so uh they agreed to uh lower it to 40 ft since you know the uh the apartment complex now right next to me is 45 so probably will go you know about 45 so the request was to uh lower to 40 so I I probably offer to 45 as far as height so um we have th our one bite at the Apple in terms of adjusting conditions right no he hasn't adjusted he's he said he would consider changing conditions he has not changed as I understand from staff he has not changed his conditions he still has an opportunity you still have time okay uh to defer this and give him an opportunity to change his condition so would you like us to defer this again so you can change or added condition I looked the change I mean last time we we talked it was not clear the uh affordable housing and it's only you know up to 8 units so it didn't make sense to me to uh put that condition is a condition you want to add the height condition yeah yeah so would you like us to defer the case so you can come back to us with that condition let's vote on it today I mean we could add it today no we can't add it today you would have had to have added it already so we could consider it we can't consider it if it's it's not already added as a condition yeah the procedure for revising conditions once the case is at the Planning Commission is that you submit to the planner in this case Matthew the uh draft condition unsigned no later than this Friday staff will review it and make any necessary comments if you're just adding a height condition there probably won't be any substantial cont comments but uh then you have till the following Friday to submit signed conditions and then it can be considered at the very next meeting which would be February I think if the proposal consist with the uh with the rules of Regulation I think I I will ask the uh you to vote in it so we at least we'll get so you'd like us to vote on it today yes please okay okay so um attorney York could let's say we did vote to approve them could we do so and ask Council to consider the height condition could he add that condition before it goes to councel you've made recommendations to council before either in favor or in opposition but forecasted that the applicant has offered to revise their condition um and so I would this would be very similar okay so I mean we could approve vote to approve or deny with that okay okay thank you thank you right by I'm going to bring it back to the table now and Commissioners if you have questions or comments commissioner Fox um I understand the concern about the height um coming from Neighbors um and I'd be willing to include that um in our motion um in regards to the affordable units again I'm going to acknowledge the ability to do that in an 8un project is very challenging and puts a large onus on a private developer um and a smaller scale developer so I'm not interested in including that one thank you thank you commissioner fox are there any other excuse me questions or comments um I would vote against this if it was just that I think this opens the door to oneoff spot zonings um and it's inconsistent with the future land use map and um yeah I think for the sake of consistency my comments would be the same as last meeting we heard it which is in this same state thank you commissioner peer other questions or comments I'll just just make note that I acknowledge Roberta's comments about the uh challenges with committing such a small parcel to affordable housing restrictions um but I do appreciate any opportunity if it voluntarily does come to fruition it would be great to see that in the community so thank you thank you commissioner Li yes commissioner fo a follow-up question this might be a question um for the attorneys it may be a question for Miss Walter as well um in regards to including a condition relating vouchers just wanted to acknowledge that comment from Mr Gary I've not seen that before and I I'm I was concerned does that kind of Meet the threshold of what we call like a poison pill we have talked about that as a you know we've looked at many options for how we can um help applicants make commitments to affordable housing if they are interested in that as part of their projects addressing vouchers via a zoning condition is very diff very difficult to enforce for staff okay um especially when you recall that most enforcement is complaint-based in the city thank you commissioner Haver thank you Miss Bennett um I have a question for staff I wasn't here at the last meeting and I've asked this question enough I should probably know the answer my concern um appreciate the conversation around height um is the proximity to the existing single family home adjacent to it so I want to understand there is no rear yard setback but there are some requirements in the code that dictate where the building can be built and can you remind me what those are and again I ask this question a lot so I should know it but just getting back from holiday so there would be a neighborhood transition requirement on the North and Western Property boundaries uh from from this perspective uh so that's a minimum 10t wide uh buffer between this property and any development there as well as the property to the North and the property to the west and the reason it wouldn't apply to the South is because there's a flag lot that has an existing Hotel use that's hard to see on here cuz it's off the map but it's over here and the lot looks like this so the neighborhood transitions would not apply to that green portion but it would apply here and here yep so we're going from a 30ft rear yard to a 10ft rear yard so theoretically he could build a 50 foot building 10 ft next to an existing single family home so the the developer would have an option of several different protective yards but that 10t is the minimum required I think it's called a type a uh neighborhood transition buffer I'm not I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that just it's kind of what I'm thinking right now thank you commissioner H maybe for a little bit of additional context he's also proposing a green Frontage which would prohibit building uh parking between the building and the street and I believe the intent is to have uh parking in the rear of the property yeah we talk about this a lot that that's the intent but he could sell the property might not develop it and we don't know what the future intent is so I've I've just seen too many times um and I just wouldn't want to be put in that situation I'm all for housing I'm you guys know as long as I've been on Planning Commission but my um my concerns have been and and continue to be existing single family homes and building right up basically on the property line so commissioner Fox may I ask a clarifying question um if this were not to be rezoned and just built with a single family home what's the height limit that would be allowed now 40 ft okay so then I guess a question to commissioner O'er is the 45 a compromise that's acceptable I'm I'm fine with 45 my concern is that the existing zoning requires a 30 foot rear yard which seems a lot but putting a 45t building 10 ft from the property line so that's what my concern is currently 30 I could find a compromise in there for sure other questions or comments if not I will entertain a motion I I have one more quick comment okay I think I speak to the affordability and the notion that it's um we talk about it a lot up here that it's potentially financially infeasible to do onside affordable housing and I just really want to challenge that because there's is a there's a property with uh two homes by right right now we're talking about making that to eight so the notion of adding a small affordability restriction in one or two of the units um you're again you're changing it from two homes to eight so I just think that's something to think about when we talk about what's financially infeasible and what what is feasible but I think those eight would likely be rental correct I mean we could figure out like a cap rate on this and like what the pro fora is yeah but two homes two homes for sale versus eight homes rental is a very different product in terms of what the value value of it is that's true but I I mean that's not our job up here the Planning Commission I don't think is to decide what's what the the proor are but but no I'm I'm just acknowledging it's not it it likely is not financially feasible for a rental product with eight units to have 12 to 25% of the units without some subsidy so the majority of affordable housing projects are either litec or bonded this would not meet the threshold to to partake in either of those um I'm just not sure we know that and it's not part of the comp plan or the Udo so I have a tough time with measuring our votes against what is something in theory about the proor of the the property and and I think we around the you know in other places we have seen voluntary uh affordability conditions that that would not be that off from one out of eight or two out of eight so just my thoughts I'll just add that um and and I had comments at our last meeting uh about the affordability having that as a condition my comments weren't so much about whether or not it was financially feasible or infeasible my questions were more about fairness and US asking all of our applicants I I just felt it wasn't quite fair that we were asking this applicant who's before us representing himself for eight units if he would be willing to have an affordability condition when we have multi-million dollar private developer standing before us proposing hundreds of units and we don't ask the same thing so that was my issue with that if we're going to ask it of this applicant then I would expect that question asked of every applicant and if we're going to vote no because someone won't add an affordability clause in an area where we think it makes sense to have affordability then I would expect to see consistency that that was really my um my issue with it not so much whether it was financially feasible or infeasible I I still feel that way I mean I don't well first of all we aren't supposed to make decisions based on whether or not they add an affordability um condition or not but um you know aside from that I I just that that's where my comment was coming from I'm I'm not um if I vote no for this it won't be because of the lack of an affordability clause I I am concerned about the height and next to a single family home um are there any other questions or comments before we um make a motion okay then I'll entertain a motion anyone commissioner Reigns thanks chair Bennett um in general I I I'm in favor of of more housing opportunities so for zoning case C 3124 I moveed to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated January 28th 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning Amendment this recommendation also includes an amendment to the Future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement I would also like to add that Council um consider a height limitation of 45 eight for the proposed application we have a motion do I have a second commissioner fox has seconded all in favor one two three that's four all opposed that's three four to three um would you each like to State for the record your um reason for opposing sure um I agree with commissioner Reigns definitely in support of more housing opportunities I'm I'm okay that there's not affordability attached to this my my concern is the height the potential height that close to an existing single family home thank you commissioner peeler I know you've stated but do you want to State again for the for the record because Council will ask yeah I share the concerns about the height I think also just it being inconsistent with the future land use map and because of that inconsistency it would be nice to see other conditions that in a way made up for that uh and one of those things would be affordability that first come to mind in an area like this near a bus stop um and in a generally more Working Class part of rally thank you um and my reason for opposing was because of the um height I would support if the height were changed sometimes opposition gets recognized um more impactfully so I'm hoping the the height will be reduced and this can be approved okay moving on thank you next we have um comprehensive plan Amendment CP 524 3104 South Hall Road which was first heard on December 10th 24 I need to be recused from this case because the firm I work for is part of the applicant team so could someone please make a motion to recuse me motion to recuse commissioner Bennett second all in favor thank you very much um I've asked uh commissioner Atwell if he will facilitate the discussion on this case thank you Vice chair Ben I think according to the rules we either need to have unanimous consent for me to continue as a chair Pro Tim so sorry do I need to do we need to take a vote on that or you can make a motion if you'd like Mo can I make the motion yes so I move to have chair otwell serve as chair proem um for kcp 524 second all in favor we have unanimous thank you chair Bennett Vice chair Bennett so uh as Vice chair Bennett just said this is c524 uh request to amend map T1 to remove a two-lane divided Avenue between skyrest and South Hall Drive the applicant uh asked for additional time to have discussions with Duke Energy and has brought it back to the commission there have been no changes to the application and uh I would like to hear what happened in those discussions so uh is there an update from the staff good morning commission Robert Tate Planning and Development you largely sum up the updates to this request um so they had a conversation with Duke Energy along with Transportation staff um the conversations seem to consist of what we already knew about um encroachment into the easement um but transportation staff is here to maybe provide a digal information if you like that I then I also wanted to also uplift and highlight that um the street plan in itself um with South Hall Road would connect to existing dedicated RightWay um which would cross the stream and that's a normal action um this type of Crossing is us is common and would be reviewed during the development review process um but with that um if you have any questions for myself or Transportation staff we're here thank you uh is there anybody here to speak for or against this uh request at this time do you have an update if there's nobody against we'll provide both sides a two minutes for a quick update and then we'll bring it back Charlie Townsen um with VHB 940 Main Campus Drive Suite 500 here in Raleigh I won't go through all of our slides from our last presentation I will highlight that in yellow here is that Duke Energy easement um we also have identified streams and wetlands that cross right through the proposed alignment this is is that existing right ofo stub that was previously mentioned that connects to our property the proposed route as shown here is the Avenue two lane divided with a raised median it has proposed impacts to streams Wetland and also crosses a 100-year flood plane boundary Additionally the request from this city of Raleigh Street plan or comp plan Street uh you can see that these are the site distances that would be required along a 35 or 35 mph design speed specifically want to bring to attention a stop condition here where you're going to have to look back to the oncoming traffic with no other stop conditions Additionally the intersection itself here is at 10° of an intersection city of Ry standard policy is 75° minimum for that this is the South Hall Road that's existing so you can kind of see where those sight distances are going to be Crossing you have energy or power poles as well as significant existing vegetation we also want to highlight that what we're asking for is to remove the street on our property it's everything on the red to the right on the screen would have to be built by the City of Raleigh everything that's required by our development would be to stub the proposed route and then the code has Provisions that we would have to stub and not impact that environmental features but pay a feet and Le for the ultimate Crossing just to our property line so request here today is to try and create a connection that can be continued in the future even if we build this stub road we don't know when the road is going to be built that's not our development's responsibility we did meet with Duke Energy to talk about the two and I I think that allow another minute to keep going please so we did meet with Duke Energy to talk about the two City of Raleigh preferred alignments Duke Energy sent us their guidelines it was Bruce Pate with Duke enery we met with City Ry staff on on December 16th they highlighted that streets may not run parallel to the center line of the de energy easement or within the easan area and further streets roads driveways may not form intersections or entrances within the easement our proposed solution it be compliant with the city of rale stub Street policy it would remove the road to the north removing the environmental impacts and the undue burden on our property as well as allow for the development of the assisted living facility that we're proposing this alignment here shows that what would potentially be required from a stub Street continuation per the City of Raleigh Street manual and the City of Raleigh udio and then I'll end it with this prioritizes vehicle and pedestrian safety minimizes environmental impacts is context sensitive to the surrounding uses and increases housing options as there's only one other licensed assisted living facility in two and a half miles than thank you I think we got the got the gist of the message is there anybody here to speak against yeah given that there's no one to speak against let's bring it back to the table and take uh questions and comments from the Commissioners anybody have questions or comments commissioner Reign yes thanks uh commissioner otwell um questions for clarification for City staff Transit um there's some new information I heard today that I want to get clarification on one is the uh 10° versus 75 de uh few angle I I think that's what was said um I would like to have Transit identify what that is and if that's a safety issue and if that is a safety issue is that something that's going to be picked up with the current um traffic line designed the second item is clarify the alignment with Duke easement requirements it said some um applicant said it cannot be parallel to the easement is that within the easement or adjacent to or maybe the we'd like to hear from Transportation staff on this please thank you good morning Bradley Cal transportation department so the question was related to the design standards specific to how intersection alignment uh is held to a a a a minimum uh deflection angle I guess is that the fair way to capture that yes that was the the question that there was a note about 10 degrees versus 75 degrees I wasn't sure what that was referring to and if it is a safety issue with the current planned Road alignment so so the city does have a design stand standard that speaks to the the minimum amount of deflection that an intersection can happen can can occur at um that level of detail would get uh reviewed it would be accounted for uh measures would be uh taken into account when we do a full design so when a a much larger project was to come in and and get to that level of detail all those factors would be taken to account as well as sight distance and other control and safety measures um I think I think today what's in front of us is a request about policy and overall what the network uh intent is um so so appreciate the question as far as the the specific of Standards go um but that's that's really what that is meant to do and uh staff would most likely handle all those level of details during the review and design phase thank you C Could you um also respond to the U Duke easan request requirements for parallel versus um perpendicular Road alignment adjacent to their easements is that adjacent or is that within their easement I believe the feedback from duke was their easements they're sensitive to the impacts of that so as it relates to infrastructure and how infrastructure then uh road infrastructure ultimately plays with their overhead infrastructure they prefer the the least amount of impact and so through those conversations which are common all over the city and and areas with their easements coincide with roadway uh they would prefer a perpendicular Crossing to minimize the amount of Crossing that a street uh would would go up under an easement does that answer the question I I think but the the plan has the road adjacent to the easeman right it's not or does it cross over into the easement let's see did did we have an exhibit there am I going back or oh okay is that the one you want yes thank you so this one doesn't U go over the ement line it's the alignment is actually outside of it so it's there's no impact on that's correct within this scenario which is reflective of the current Street plan alignment the the proposed Road would not impact Duke easement whatsoever great thank you yeah further questions coms commissioner box yeah U Bradley this may be another question for you I apologize you come back down um I'm read meeting um transportation staff's um review of the proposed alternate I just wanted to be clear on one issue um is the issue at hand more from a network perspective of the the alternate not providing a route that's acceptable or is it the capacity that it's a change from the cross section I want to make sure I understand the question um and may need to pull on the team that did the analysis um the question is the alignment uh versus what was proposed as an alternative and and how staff viewed the impacts within what the model analysis shows is is that a way to capture what the question that's a way to capture it yeah so um so as the model currently shows and in the way the plan the current adopted plan uh South Hall realignment would operate as a an alternative north south route to alleviate some of the capacity on New Hope Road today just to the West so with an alternative alignment that does not establish the continuous north south that South Hall shows today in the in the plan uh we would not expect the same benefit to New Hope as the model and what the adopted plan is meant to do okay thank you commissioner oer sure who the the question is for I'm just um the applicant had mentioned that the proposed alignment um is shown in property that they do not own do they own the property to the Northwest and imaps Miss Peggy Johnston owns that property that they're proposing to put a road through the middle of so have we I'm trying to figure out the difference between property they don't own to the Northeast versus the North Northwest is still shown as a stub going to a piece of property they do not own and so I'm just IMAP shows it as Peggy Johnston is the owner of that so have there been conversations with that homeowner or that parcel owner I guess I speak to it sure um we have reached out we've not heard back from that property owner the exhibit that we showed with the alignment in red going that would be compliant with the City of Raleigh stub Street policy as well as block perimeter so our development's only required to stub to our property line just as on the following slide where I showed us stubbing the road to our property line and then it would be on a future development of the adjacent property should that occur they would make that connection thank you that that answers my question um hearing Bradley say that it the new alignment would not really support their plan for traffic movement and the fact that the applicant is propos closing the stub Street to a private property owner that they have not heard back from I'm not not sure I can support this at this time any more questions or comments from Commissioners I I I do have one question on the city required alternative that is not a two-way connection to South Hall Road correct it's just as in an exit ramp it's it's only flowing North traffic can't turn right off South Hall and and go onto that stub I'm assuming unless there's something I'm missing from the drawing um right if staff would care to respond sure I'm sorry can you repeat your question I I I think the answer is is yes but uh this drawing right here that's on there what's in the comp plan that is only a oneway entry onto South Hall people can't turn right off South Hall onto the stub correct people can turn right onto South Hall from kaslin Drive no from from South Hall the this South Hall yeah traveling Northeast on South Hall they cannot turn right onto the proposed new stub correct the the new proposed South Hall Road they can't turn right is that what you're asking uh I'm I'm asking this this model that's on the screen if if a car is traveling Northeast on South Hall Road they cannot turn right onto this stub correct it's just a one way extension One Directory One Direction extension no it will be two-way it would be two-way right so that's I think uh operational issue that we would resolve and design right so you don't want an unsafe maneuver I think is what you're asking about um so how that works exactly with the existing South Hall Road and how it enters the new South Hall Road would be something we would have to resolve at design but the proposed South Hall Road Extension is two-way okay okay I I asked that because it it resembles you know like an exit ramp which would be One Direction it is um hard to picture from the aerial image thank you while you're up there would would you mind stating your name and your role for the record pleas sorry Margaret tala transportation and and I do have a question for you sure um has staff been able to or is willing to estimate the impact that this proposed as it exist Street plan would have on the New Hope uh New Hope Road Service like what's the level of service expected to be at 50 years and what would it be given this uh if this street section were built out as currently planned so we haven't done an intersection level analysis on level of service on the nearby intersections or New Hope Road um that's a pretty in-depth analysis that normally gets done either as part of a really big plan like the um Mo's Plan update or as part of a really big site development I think in general we had some analysis done with the Triangle Regional model which is through our ourm Campo um and how I could get you exact numbers I don't remember them off the top of my head but essentially when this section of South Hall Road is developed you see in the model in the future that New Hope Road the numbers aren't expanding to the same extent right so instead of having um looking out to 2050 say 11,000 on South Hall and 24,000 on New Hope if if both were built out like they expected to be you would see 5,000 St in South Hall because it hasn't been been built out to serve the function that people would want to use it for and 28,000 or 30,000 on New Hope Road but I can provide specific numbers if that would be helpful I don't feel the need to hold this case up to get those specific numbers unless commission feels differently um how how accurate have the models been to date in predicting the traffic increase along New Hope Road sure that's a great question I don't think we've ever or really uh Campo has ever done an analysis on that there's definitely uncertainty um you're looking out 50 years we're using numbers from developments that we know about and the land use but when the land use changes when we have reasonings um those numbers can change so Campo does updates every five years to try to keep up with changes they're actually doing an update right now um that's still sort of in the beginning stages but there is uncertainty I'm sorry one last question do you can you say if those models have taken into account uh induced demands from a new uh throughway on given the street section being built out would this would building this street out uh induce demand and would there in fact be more traffic using the whole network with a better Network than If This Were to remain a NE or to be built out as a neighborhood Road I can't speak off the top of my head to how they account for induced demand um the models are very complex and so I want to say it's accounted for but I would have to look into sort of their methodology in order to speak more to that uh commissioner Fox thank you um Margaret I just one follow-up question did did I hear you say um Campo is currently updating um future projections okay yes for so the 20155 Metropolitan Transportation plan MTP is currently being updated they have just collected all the likely and juuse data um so they're still um like tweaking the model so that they can do an Alternatives analysis in the near future do you know when that might be anticipated to have more information um I'd have to look at the specific timeline I think it's not going to be until next year though okay thank you Mr Kimbrell would you like to follow up I just I just want to clarify something related to the model uh from a context standpoint so the model accounts for buildout probability of land so think about it as the model considering okay all this available land on this area um what is the probability or likelihood of what it yields um how many additional trips and then it takes into account what the street network is available to accommodate the demand based off of that so the street Network is not necessarily in this model driving what the demand is it's really accounting for how that demand uses the larger Network um when you consider alternative routes and how drivers would choose a parallel route to kind of uh level spread if you will the demand across uh one two three additional roadway corridors um we would then start to see those corridors get balanced based off of that projected demand so not sure if that helps um the model doesn't drive the traffic demand it really helps account for where that demand would then go into the network um generally speaking more than one route helps all the network does the model assume that a better Network would have more users and higher VMT or VM vehicle yeah VMT vehicle miles travel does the model assume that with a better Network there will be more driving and longer trips I don't I don't believe the model is accounting for that I think the model is is accounting for what what routes are available to drivers to choose from um is it one route and now everybody's using one road um or are there multiple routes that can handle a level of capacity and that then offers choice to the drivers okay thank you y the anecdotal the first traffic uh lesson I ever received was uh engineer described it as draining a bucket and you're draining a bucket of water do you want one hole to drain the bucket or do you want multiple Hol holes smaller holes to drain the water more efficiently so that's how we typically would would look at that comparison thank you hope that helps if there's uh any more questions or comments from Commissioners I mean I I just want to say I'm genuinely torn on this case because I I think that connectivity is vital and we talk about that a lot up here um and especially this portion of Raleigh in the county has a lot of disconnected development um that said this is a senior living facility so it doesn't probably doesn't in reality require the same connect uh car connectivity that most developments would and I also think the environmental impacts as staff pointed out are are pretty large to building through this flood plane here um I don't know I'm not providing a lot of valuable insight there I'm just saying I'm very torn on on this commissioner Fox um I'd like to agree with your comments there I'm also torn on this one and I'm I'm hopeful in thinking that there might be additional data coming forward although that is a year out that would actually help in making a decision like this in terms of the impact the overall Network um so for that reason I'm I'm leaning towards uh recommendation of uh denial any further comments or questions from the commission commissioner Reigns yes thanks I I um like to Echo o'haver commissioner Oher's and commissioner Fox's comments um from the data we from the information we received in the last uh two meetings it seems like the current roadway enhances and is a public benefit for the entire Street grid and the surrounding area um and there the city has noted that they have dealt with environmental issues like this on other projects for Street improvements and addition so in general I would plus the fact that an adjacent landowner would be required to make a um committed effort for for connectivity I think I would um not support this application if there's uh no further comments or questions entertain a motion are you ready for a motion yes I'm asking for a motion okay please commissioner box um in regards to comprehensive plan Amendment CP 524 I recommend denial of the proposed amendment as it is um not reasonable nor in the public interest and is inconsistent with con comprehensive plan policies related to coordination with land use RightWay reservation um integration of travel modes eliminating gaps and preserving the grid we have a motion is there a second second commissioner Reigns has second it all in favor all opposed motion passes 6 to one the uh Planning Commission will recommend denial to the council 5 to one did I oh that's right we have somebody five to one thank you um commissioner otwell if I could again just for the record um anybody or all of you you've been on the commission for a while know that those dashed lines are my Nemesis I think this is the first time I've voted in denial of of removing some of those but I think because of those Dash lines and what they mean uh the environmental impact is certainly some concern but just putting a dash line on somebody else's property that's not aware of it I just I don't really see how we can how we how I can approve that so if they came forward and said oh we've talked they're in agreement so on and so forth maybe the uh the fact that Transportation says it wouldn't function as well as what they had intended but there's less environmental impacts and there's better configuration okay but that point alone uh there's just no way I can support support this thank you I think with that we can call commissioner Bennett back to the table resume uh discussions with her as the chair of the for today excuse me commissioner well since you were the Lan no vote they often ask what the person voting no uh what their concern was I know in this case basically you're no was supporting the application so I I support the application to remove the street connection I I don't think that it has been proven by the Campo models that there's a significant impact that could be relied upon and I suspect that a better connection through here will uh increase the total number of trips and that we're not going to see a total benefit thank you commissioner Atwell we will move on to new business now we have three items under new business the text change and two res zonings first up is text change tcz that's hard to say fast 4124 3616 Lewisberry Road will receive a presentation from staff good morning Vice chair Bennett members of the Planning Commission Matthew burn with Planning and Development this is a request uh for a text change zoning conditions on a just about 1 acre parcel um in Northeast Raleigh and your deadline for Action is March 29th zoning in this area is uh predominantly mixed use uh with some residential uh there are commercial uses along Mitchell Mill Road along the front edge of Mitchell Mill Road and as well as moderate scale residential uses to the Northeast and southwest and there is private open space to the southeast which is I believe a golf course here some views of the site along Lewisberry road so the applicant is proposing removing several conditions from the request um it would maintain a limitation on retail space to 5,000 ft it would remove a condition uh requiring any new parking area to be located at the side or rear of the building it would maintain uh a building height of Maximum 45 ft remove a setback condition a maximum building setback condition and a requirement that the development will be residential in character and it would maintain uh and access a single point of access to the property on Lewisberry road across from Shady bottom Lane it would also remove a condition related to offers of cross access and location and screening of dumpsters and would maintain uh condition about shielded about shielding light fixtures uh outdoors and it would also maintain several prohibited uses um I'll note that landfill and kennels would be removed from the list of prohibited uses and the reason for that is they are already prohibited in the CX District um the request would result in uh increase of approximately three residential units that could be built on site and a small increase in office square footage otherwise the set the setbacks uh build twos and the max gross retail would stay the same the site is within the boundary of the Wake Crossroads area plan uh a portion of the site is within a transition area while another portion is is within what's considered the core area which is uh intended for retail or expected to develop with retail uses the request has a lower walk score than average lower bike score than average and lower job proximity than average uh and it has an average Transportation cost but the site is not served by municipal or Regional Transit the request would add to the housing Supply does not include subsidized units permits a variety of housing types allows small units but is with not within walking distance of Transit uh area residents are more likely to be racial minorities compared to the city average and less likely to be low income and median rent decreased by 23% between 2020 and 20121 but ACS data for this site is incomplete the request is consistent with the community mixed use fature land use map designation and uh the the front edge which would be maintained on site is consistent with mixed use Center so the request is consistent with Comprehensive plan the future land use map and the urban form map consistent policies include those that about reinforcing the urban pattern and buffering land uses in the weight Crossroads plan and inconsistent policies are related to response time standards for fire and parking design in weight Crossroads there are no outstanding issues and your deadline for Action is is March 29th please let me know if you have any questions thank you Mr Burns we'll now turn to public comment um the applicant and those in support have 10 minutes good morning my name is carolos cahil I'm one of the applicants um so the reason we're here today is because we were trying to build a dealership with a mechanic shop at the front of the property but um there's an easement uh and we can't build under that easement but the how do I go back to the can I go back to the um use arrows yeah okay so number four maximum building setback of 20 ft wouldn't allow us to build in the front so we removed that and then um the parking would we're trying to build the building in the back instead of the front because of that so the parking would have to be put in front of the building as well as the dumpsters they also can't be behind that's also why we removed that one we do still intend to screen the dumpsters um and then the the development the residential part it's going to be a mechanic shop and a dealership so the mechanic shop is going to be a metal building and that's really hard to put a lot of Windows in as well as there's already garage doors so you can't put Windows on those either um that's pretty much it thank you are there other members of the public here to speak in support of this case okay we'll Reserve 8 minutes and 24 seconds for um the applicant are are there members of the public here to speak in opposition to this case Okay seeing none we will bring it back to the table for commissioner questions and comments I have a couple questions thank you chair Bennett um I'm I'm a little confused in the staff report it seems that maybe some of these uh policies listed as consistent should be under inconsistent am I reading it wrong um for instance uh apwc the Wake Crossroads parking design is listed under consistent policies but the the policy says that parking should be behind building and this request allows parking to move to the front of the building I'll need to double check the staff report I'm uh standing in for this one okay sure uh it's on page 10 are there other questions or comments while Mr Burns is looking that up okay then we'll wait and and when you're finished I I would also like a little bit of discussion about the awake Crossroads plan and its intent and application so [Music] far so I I would need to uh maybe diging a little bit deeper to to review the the policy and the and the and the plan but it maybe relateded to the fact that the condition is being removed but the frontage is still being maintained um so there would still be parking between the building in the street but that's just off the top of my head I have to look at it a in a little bit more detail the the policy states that uh located parking should be located behind buildings and this uh request would allow parking to move to the front of the building and it's in response time standards are also listed under the uh consistent policies and I'm pretty sure the response time standard should be an inconsistent policy hi Hannah Reco um Planning and Development I just want to clarify you're referring to uh apwc 3 the buffer land use is policy I I was referring specifically to apwc 8 the Wake Crossroads parking design yeah that is um that is listed as inconsistent I'm seeing that under inconsistent for the reasons you stated okay I'm sorry um you know what I missed the I missed the subtitle I apologize I'm wasting everybody's time here I can speak briefly about the Wake Crossroads plan it was adopted in 2005 and as uh area specific guidance that rolled forward from the 1989 plan and the 2009 plan if you think about what the Wake Crossroads area was like 20 years ago I think you would understand the intent of the plan I would say a lot of that has so much development has happened there since then does that help yes thank you other questions or comments from Commissioners if not I'll I'll have a couple comments um I don't really like these requests and I think in general it degrades The Pedestrian environment uh on the other hand The Pedestrian environment in this area is pretty much lost cause so this is it fits in with what's there I would ask that um transportation staff in the future consider using a quantitative language in their descriptions instead of the qualitative language that's employed in some of these uh descriptions for instance uh let me see if I can get to the trade reviews uh it talks about a ncdot project that's going to upgrade the intersection and the traffic flow will improve the situation um I think that's up for the public to decide on an individual basis for instance a continuous flow intersection and improve and increased traffic flow might not be considered an improvement from the perspective of pedestrian so that's not going to affect my vote I'll be voting to support this because it's consistent with our policy and our future land use map but uh that was just a comment that I had so thank you thank you commissioner otwell I'll entertain um a mo well I will say before we entertain a motion that um my first home in Raleigh was just off of Mitchell Mill Road um in this area and um The Pedestrian experience is not good um as I recall a few years ago but I believe across from this is a current like uh car auto shop anyway so um I'll be supporting this too because it seems consistent with what's there now and as um bam noted the weight Crossroads plan is very outdated so um I I'll be supporting this with that I'll entertain them actually oh I'm sorry um I too am very familiar with this area my my in-laws used to have a place on Blackley Pond um so I'm very familiar with this area um development is spreading East very quickly and and I don't think it's great development quite frankly um I think the plan is consistent um I'm going to assume that there are some pretty stringent in place environmental standards for garage and that and such because to the east of Lewisberry is pretty rural uh and there's some beautiful natural bodies of water in there so um I too will be in support of this and I'm going to assume that um it's a minor detail but it's one that drives me crazy that um the applicant stated that the intention is to screen the the dumpsters but I think that's in the code anyway so just confirming that I will need to check on dumpster screening requirements commissioner hver do you need that answer before we make a motion I mean I'm pretty sure it's in there it's pretty minor but again it's a it's a small thing to ask um in making some of these changes so if it takes more than 2 minutes then the answer is no okay we can improve it with with me adding that comment so that it goes to council if we want to keep this moving so not to put any pressure any more pressure on on him so let's keep rolling okay are there any more comments or questions before I use the magic phrase then I will entertain a motion commissioner Fox um in regards to case uh tcz 4124 I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated January 28th 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning Amendment do I have a second I'll second it all those in favor all opposed that's unanimous 70 if just a quick followup yes there are screening requirements for trash collection don't worry about it Shena we got it thank you very thank you very much moving on to our second item resoning Z 4024 2340 compassionate drive we will receive a full presentation from Robert Tate good morning again commission Robert Tate Planning and Development this is resoning requests Z 4024 at 2340 compassionate Drive um this is a request to reone than 10 acres from R six with the special Highway overlay district one to residential mix use four stories conditional use your deadline for Action is March 29th so zoning in the area is predominately residential with a mix of R4 and R six here is an aerial image of the site and surrounding land uses so you can see um north of Rock Quarry Road is largely lows scale residential um and South um of Rock Quarry Road there there are a couple different uses um directly across from this site to the South is southeast Raleigh Magnet High School um to the west of that and west of Cree Road is some moderate scale residential so some apartments and then to the east of the high school is some commercial development here's a little closer look at the site so currently today the site is landlocked so you can kind of tell from this image um but they would generally um receive access from here which is compassionate drive this area and here's a closer look at the street level so because there are no public right of ways um this is this closest I can get to show you I'm from the ground level but the first image is looking from Southeast Raleigh High School their entrance into compassionate Drive the second image is a bit closer you can see on the right is the Granite Ridge Neighborhood and to the left um are some homes within the rock view subdivision and then the bottom right image is looking from the opposite angle so looking towards Southeast rally high school and their entrance so there are a handful of zoning conditions being proposed by the applicant the first is a Prohibition on various uses um specifically um some residential uses a couple to point out are single and two unit dwellings and then um a Prohibition on all of the commercial uses that would be allowed in the residential mix use zoning District the second condition would reduce the maximum amount of residential uses allowed on the site so no more than 225 units would be allowed the third would dedicate some open space so that at least 25% of the net Site Area um would be dedicated as that and the fourth is an affordable housing condition um it has some pretty lengthy um language but to sum it up um effectively rents will be no more than 30% of the household income of of of those individuals and would have all units would have an average of 60% of Ami the fifth condition would require a signal warant analysis at rock quarry and compassionate Drive um after requesting the first certificate of OCC occupancy and the final condition the sixth and final condition would also require um the property owner and developer to host a neighborhood meeting either before or 30 days after the submitt of a site plan so the big change here um going from a residential district to a residential mixed use District um so one big change would be um an additional story being allowed within the district so going from three to four stories um the increase of entitlement so you saw that condition where they're limiting their residential unit count to 225 um and then then also you would also unlock the apartment building type which has some smaller setbacks um but I would also like to to include that there are some neighborhood transitions that would be required so this site and the surrounding senses track has a higher walk Transit and bike score than average um it also has a higher Transportation cost than average which if effectively means that Transportation costs are lower than the Citywide average I then it has an average job proximity so here's a reference of transit to the site um the Route 17 which is shown along Rock Quarry Road um is most close to the site and then there's also the 7l along Atkins drive not necessarily walkable within the surrounding area so this request would add to the housing Supply includes subsidized units with that fourth condition permits a variety of housing types smaller units smaller lots and again with walking distance of Transit area residents in the census tracker are more likely to be racial minorities than the Citywide average also um they are more likely to be low income um cost of rent like most of the city has increased but in this sensus track has I increased at a much lower rate than average so this request is inconsistent with the future Lane use map here um the designation is low scale residential the request is for um a residential mix use District overall consistent with the comprehensive plan as I noted inconsistent with the future land use map and there's no Urban form guidance so there is no Frontage also being proposed by the applicant so there are a handful of consistent policies largely speaking to compact development providing some open space and new development and then also I'm dedicating some affordable housing on the site inconsistent policies Lely um talk about the inconsistency with the future L use map and um compatibility with the existing surrounding built enironment and also just noting that this site is within an area of known fire service concern so one outstanding issue that has been resolved so at the publication of this meeting agenda um staff did receive unsign zoning conditions um and did not receive those until after the meeting agenda was published so we have received that in time for you all to consider the conditions that I've gone over today um just a reminder your deadline for Action is going to be March 29th and you have a couple of meetings before then and then really quickly before this goes back to you all um this would require a future land use map Amendment so the request if were if it were to be approved would go from lows scale residential to medium scale residential thank you Mr tape moving on to public comment um the applicant and all those in support have 10 [Music] minutes good morning my name is Amy Crut I'm an attorney at Smith Anderson I'm representing the applicant in this case standard communities I have representatives from the applicant as well as compassionate Tabernacle of Faith who's property owner with us today um first I just want to say thank you to staff we've done a lot of work on this application working with the planning department and transportation department to get it to where it is today um so what is standard communities uh standard communities is a Workforce affordable residential developer um they have 190 communities across the country over 27,000 units um and they've recently been expanding into North Carolina and this would be their first project in Raleigh they are an affordable housing developer um with a vision of have being a nation in which you can't tell how much someone earns by looking at their home address their values are they act with kindness they sweat the details and they move with urgency and we've seen that very much in this application um process so this rezoning is really to facilitate missing middle housing as I mentioned there are Workforce housing developer I'll talk about it in a moment but it's income restricted to 60% Ami so what does this mean um you know you're targeting postal workers Elementary School teachers police officers social workers electricians and you're getting the rents down about 15 to 20% from the average these are just some examples they are based on 2024 data so they're always subject to change but this is about what you're looking at in terms of the annual salary of those types of um employment groups in Raleigh versus what kind of a one-bedroom versus two rental two-bedroom rental rate would look like at a 60% Ami with the condition I think one of the things that we often talk about is you know why different sites are selected for affordable housing development and there really are some barriers to entry in terms of funding um because a lot of site selection for affordable housing um can be difficult and funding can be based on whether the property is in a QTC or DDA site um for a qct site those are set by um HUD and the United States Treasury um they're often used to identify communities that are underserved or disproportionately impacted and at least half the uh households have incomes below 60% of the Ami and so this site meets these qualifications it's it's a QT site so really this is a partnership between standard communities and compassionate Tabernacle of Faith Partnerships between faith-based communities and affordable housing developers are becoming more common um as both groups are working together to meet housing needs in the community uh the church has been an active part of the community and we're really looking how to use this 10 acre track of land to positively impact the community which led to this rezoning request we have Reverend Burgess here today along with some congregation members um who will speak after I'm done uh partnering with the community and really looking at this site in particular um we are requesting an R six with the shot overlay to rx4 cuu overview of the site um it's highlighted in red here the church is the 10 acres directly north to it there are residential communities surrounding it and a nearby neighborhood mixed use and office uses um the site would be accessed as Robert stated um from Rock Cory Road via compassionate Drive in red and I'll talk about that in a moment um but in terms of comprehensive plan we recognize that it's low density residential but Apartments can be appropriate in these types of areas and as you'll see when I go through the proposed conditions we've really Limited the development to try to bring it as close to in line uh with the area and make it more consistent with that neighborhood scale it's also right outside a frequent Transit area and Transit emphasis Corridor there's a bus route right on Rock Cory so it's really an ideal location for affordable housing as it expands access uh to Transit opportunities for the residents there so we have a pretty robust set of zoning conditions already um this really goes back to standard communities kind of sweating those details they're committed to being a good neighbor because they're going to be in the community for many years following the development of this project um so most of these conditions were added in response to different neighborhood concerns so condition one really the big thing here is we've limited all commercial uses we wanted to take out the you know mixed use from this residential development rx4 was really chosen um for density and story purposes not for height um so we've kind of paired down these uses to kind of signal this is this is for affordable housing um condition two under rx4 I think the original kind of density would have been at 438 units we've knocked that way down this isn't just you know a response to kind of neighborhood concerns we don't want 438 units the funding wouldn't support for 138 units so we're actually going to be closer to 200 if not a little bit below that um condition three we recognize that the land is currently vacant and this would be a change um so we wanted to preserve 25% of open space so you'll see from the concept plan what this kind of looks like there are neighborhood transition yards that would be required of 50 ft um to the west and to the South and another neighborhood transition yard um to the east that is also there where there's not plantings we would end up supplementing some of those plantings so trying to be really conscious about what the site ultimately looks like and we put together this concept plan just recently as last week as part of our um HFA application so in terms of just kind of so you can see a rendering we put this together for this meeting the facade detail obviously isn't there but just kind of thinking about massing these going to be three basically three four-story Garden Apartments um again RX was not requested to get the 68 ft in height it was just a quirk in the grading there's some like below grade basement so the four stories was necessary but we're we're going to stay more towards that actual 50 ft in height if this gets approved and developed so it's going to be more consistent with like an rx3 stories affordability we talked talked a little bit about this this is 100% affordable development and we wanted to go ahead and commit to that at 60% of Ami targeting those kind of middle income workers traffic impacts um we spent a lot of time from the initial neighborhood meeting kind of reviewing what compassionate drive would look like um and we've worked a lot with transportation and are in conversations with NC doot um any development to this property affordable housing or not would requ require the Improvement of compassionate drive because there is no public rate of w Frontage and the goal is to develop it improve it and um dedicate it over to the city but safe access being one of the number one priorities here we are committed to doing that signal warrant analysis we're already talking to ncdot about that um to kind of make sure no matter what you have safe Ingress and egress to the site finally with Community engagement again committed to be a good neighbor and investing in the community um you know one of the things that we heard is you know neighbors wanted to see more of a site plan and that's hard in the affordable development context there are lots of application reviews lots of additional restrictions um and it's rezoning not site planning so what we've committed to is doing another neighborhood meeting following the rezoning process um before the site plan or right after the site plan is committed to get additional feedback from Neighbors um and just a couple things these communities typically have Innovative Services provided on site at no additional cost to Residents just want to touch quickly on timing we are in the funding deadline kind of zone right now in order to meet deadlines we would need a resoning by early April of this year with that I'm going to reserve the rest of my time for um the church to come up and speak and then we're happy to answer questions we only have 30 seconds left um excuse me I know we have to be mindful of time because we have other agenda items but um would the commission be interested in adding um two minutes yes without objection We'll add another two minutes to hear from the Reverend well thank you thank you so much well good morning Commissioners I'm usually I'm happen to refrain myself from saying brothers and sisters I'm James burges I'm the pastor of compassionate Tabernacle Faith Baptist Church here in Raley I'm here to represent I here am representing not just our congregation but also our commitment to promote the well-being of our community and with me I have some of our leaders as well as some of our members could if it's okay could I have them quickly stand yes sir okay if you would compassionate thank you at compassionate we are deeply dedicated to uplifting our community we are excited to partner with standard communities to address the critical need for affordable housing the absence of safe wellmaintained and affordable housing is a pressing issue that affects many particularly those caught in the missing middle just last evening a member of our congregation shared the story of a retiring relative relative who despite the desire to live in Raleigh had to leave due to the lack of affordable options this person account highlights the real challenges faced by many in our community this Housing Initiative aims to provide alternative affordable housing who are currently under served now we appreciate stard community's openness to our suggestions and ideas on how to integrate this new uh Housing Opportunity thoughtfully into our community as we move forward our compassionate church is eager to serve this new Village in alignment with our vision our vision is to serve and to support excuse me um rever burges bam there were 28 seconds on the clock when we added to so he has another 28 seconds 10 more seconds together with them we are hoping to create a thriving environment for all the residents of uh Raleigh thank you for your time and your consideration and we sincerely hope you will support this important initiative thank you Reverend verges welcome thank you now those in opposition will have a total of 12 minutes and 28 seconds please state your name for the record [Music] good morning my name is Kesha Lovelace um I am a child of the rock View Community which is the closest area to this vacant land I'm here with my mother who just turned 80 years old on January 1 here in the back I also see other members of our community here um and I Stay stand on behalf of my mother and my neighbors to speak on this I did attend both of the public hearings in this matter along with another 80 approximately residents from the surrounding area the closest two neighborhoods or three rather is the Rockview subdivision which has been there for more than 60 years um Granite Ridge which is probably about 30 years a larger subdivision and then there's a Southgate Community that is also there um glad I came this morning cuz what we asked for at the public hearing was to see a rendering or the concept plan none of that was presented to us we're talking about a vacant land that is going to be developed that has remained not necessarily vacant for 80 years it was owned by the gervey family and I'm going give a quick history um just so that you know the gervey family um emanated from Wilmington North Carolina um started the Wilmington Journal started the carolinia newspaper there were pioneers and black newspapers in the Raleigh area responsible for development of much of what you would consider historically black household and residential areas from Bowling Apartments Martin Street so forth and so on in the 1940s and 50s they built the rock View Community after is actually when you looked at the picture you saw vacant land there that vacant area in the the tree lot it was old golf course it was the tea off golf club it was the first black oned golf um community and Country Club in Wake County during segregation but they moved it Mr JY PR Jervey was one of the founding members of mebrook which is off of White Oak Road still exists Today part of the reason they moved it was because the land was unsuitable to continue as a golf course and I will get into that the moment with our concerns from that once it it still continued in some part as Mr jy's own golf course he used it um while I was a child growing up but part of that land was subdivided into the Rock view subdivision restrictive covenants were put in place in 1960 they expired in 1990 but it's basically Halfacre Lots um minimum 1200 square ft but most of the houses there are much much larger than that in the Rockview subdivision um you had old pioneers um and Elders of the black community Dr George Walker who was the first black dentist in Wake County um Dr Charles Holland he was a op optometrist and also the chair of the Wake County School Board many many years ago you had high school principls firefighters so forth and so on and what they were doing was building a community with home ownership in the early late 1950s early 1960s which is now continued on until today and now pass passing on I'm one of the younger folks from my neighborhood I'm turning 50 this year I've got um calling my big brothers and sisters there in the 60s now um so we got an Asian Community there with basically establishing back in the 1940s and 50s the foundation for generational wealth what I'm concerned about today um there were primarily several um concerns raised and at the hearing and public meetings and I want to preface my by saying that the current zoning of R six is more than sufficient to provide affordable housing town homes and apartments in this area we do not need an r s-6 or what or four whatever it is conditional use permit there what I'm concerned about is my mother's home and I'll start there is I will describe this area when I say it's unsuitable to build picture a bowl my parents house sits at the bottom of two hills and if you look at that area from an area view that shows the topography compassionate Tabernacle is elevated Granite Ridge is elevated Southeast Raleigh High School is elevated my neighbors in the Rockview subdivision elevated that storm water runs down into and basically deposits right where they're getting ready to build these apartments now during the public meeting I raised concerns about hey what about the P there now you saw on the pictures a whole lot of trees there I guess that would be the western part of the property it was never that overgrown what has happened since Mr JY sold and I will say Reverend bures was here the founder of compassionate Tabernacle was Reverend Giles who was also a neighbor in the Rockville Community he founded the church bought the land um and the church bought the land I should say from Mr Jervey in 1990 about 3 years before his death and they built the church up there it was on the upper portion of it I believe the lower portion where they're trying to build now was sold several years later by Mr Jery's daughter Miss MRA who recently passed away um and I will also say while I'm talking about the land acquisition compassionate Tabernacle did not own compassionate Tabernacle road until December 30th of 2024 they've owned it for less than a month and so we have heard nothing about how they're going to expand this area that plot of land is completely landlocked you saw in your report from the city that I read over the weekend about the response times there is no way to get into that area what they do is they go through Granite Ridge go through a narrow neighborhood street and go through a very narrow Corridor almost like an alley to get to the church currently so they just now purchased and acquired the ownership to it if you go look at the Deeds what they have was a right of Ingress and egress the property remained owned by the descendants of Mr gervey and that was closed off over the years when it was growing up I used to play on that road it was a nightclub back there was all kinds of stuff before the church was going on the country club was back there um only one car could get down there in order to widen that street you're going to have to deal with probably about three or four more Property Owners to acquire land acquisition to basically expand that and widen it for traffic um and that's also going to impact the storm water piece dealing with the um drainage from rain water and things of that nature over the 50 years 53 years my folks have lived there my father has had to deal with he's passed away now but I recall heavy rainstorm we're sucking water out it comes up through the ground when they built the house in 1972 it's a basement in the house when they started digging the foundation they struck water the engineers had to dig until they got to dry ground put two steel beams in encase it in cement so if you go into my parents basement now you see two brick pillars those are the steel beams upon which the foundation of the house was built because there's water there when I asked you on the public meeting what about the pond because those trees weren't there it used to be about two golf holes right back behind the houses um behind my mother's house the Whitakers and the davises along TTI Street um is now over overgrown I was told that the pond is no longer there the dam burst but if you go to the North Carolina division of um Environmental Quality look at the division water Maps you will see and I have a picture of it I printed it out you will see where the water is pulled there it is still there the water just flows there so my concern is when you put a four-story building there is it going to be sustainable you're going to have to put a sump punt in all of that area is now um surrounded by housing where is the water going to drain to now when my parents bought the house they also TD Street was being paved they used the dirt to level it off so when you do the grading how is that going to flow and our concern is that that water is going to basically flow into my mother's property and eventually my property as well flowing to that property um causing flood issues we are interested and I'm glad to see just one moment I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt you I just want to let you know there 3 minutes and 50 seconds left are there other others here who want to speak in opposition I just want to make sure everybody has a chance to speak you speaking for everyone I think Miss tally wants to speak I'mma finish in 30 seconds we I'll my time to her I'll my time to her because I'll my okay yes ma'am okay again I'm sorry to interrupt you I just wanted to make sure we had enough time yes ma'am um we're concerned about the transition um I'm glad to see about things there I would like to see some things to deal with um the water runoff whether it's digital natural barriers whether it's water flow or water resources that basically controls the water flow I would like to see fencing there when Southeast Raleigh high school was opened in 1997 um the kids would basically go through what was in an open area and cut through my parents yard go at Brenda Drive which is directly across from the entrance we want fencing there to prevent that from happening we're concerned about Transit yes cor Road was just widened right there it was just completed but the area is still congested you have a large apartment complex that is down by relieving the redeeming love that was there you have word of God Fellowship that has some plans in the future there and then the traffic study did not take into account the amphitheater that is down the street from this subdivision between April and September when the concert series is going on that traffic backs up to the belt line for more than 2 miles and so it still needs to have some things looked at even with compassionate Drive opening up what you're going to have is the entrance to Granite Ridge you blink your eye you write at the um compassionate drive you blink your eye again you're at Brenda Drive which goes in rock Cory road to the right if you go in that direction to the left is the entr of Southeast Raleigh high school with over 2,000 students there's only one sidewalk on one side of it and there's a blind spot there there's a curve so you can't see so you're going to have high school students crossing over in a blind spot with three quick roadways um there right one right at the other and I do believe that needs to be studied um and with that I talked about Transit I talked about um the height restriction my parents house is a split level house it's two and a half stories um I believe I heard 50 ft that is way too high um like we said the r uh six that leaves it at um about 40t I believe it is is more than sufficient there is consistent with the neighborhood I know the church envisions some things a daycare and a Family Life Center that be further off we have no opposition to that what we want to do is see a seamless integration into the existing Community there like I said there was those restricted covenants in place the other thing that they Envision was no commercial use in that area I do realize that it has expired those restrictive covenants but it's residential with a predominantly elderly population um and it needs to be a seamless transition and that's what we're looking for and with that it's about a minute left I see did I miss anything okay y go right [Music] ahead good morning my name is Greta Gil 2400 Brenda drive and Raleigh Kesha did not leave anything out I am here to express my opposition to the project as well based on the high density of traffic in the area that she mentioned the a Theater High School the uh uh neighborhoods where there are sidewalks on one side not on the other a project of that nature would involve students I'm assuming who will need to travel to that high school so there would need to be a lot of improvements I think along Rock choire Road before you get to introducing something that would bring 225 units into the area are you all familiar with this area that we're speaking of if not I would invite you to go in the morning rush hour traffic see the impact of what's going on in the area right now and then imagine adding the vehicle uh traffic of 225 more units in an area where the uh entrance and exit would not really accommodate traffic thank you thank you well with that um I was furiously taking notes um I'll bring it back to the table for commissioner questions and comments who wants to start commissioner Fox I'm not exactly sure her to direct this to on staff I just I'm noting in the staff report comment about at least one incident of down Downstream flooding um I wanted to uh better understand what the current development requirements would be related to storm water to see if it would be appropriate to add something in addition to what's required by code thank you Sally hoit with Raleigh storm water uh so this site would uh due to the size be required to meet our full storm water requirements that address both water quality so the amount of nutrients coming off the site and the peak flow rate for the two and 10e storms the 10year storm is about 5 Ines of rain over 24 hours and because there is a documented case of Downstream structural flooding the site would either have to show that they are less than 5% of the drainage area to that site or uh provide additional detention on site for uh larger storms um this this site would be subject to our newly revised storm water requirements that came in in November of 20124 um so a couple things that that that does that would um address some of the public comments one one thing is it gives us the explicit ability to look at where where um the 100-year flood levels might be changed on properties other than the development site so that would um give us the ability to look at propose any changes to the water surface elevation um on those Upstream residential lots um it also uh provides some limitations on where the flow could be discharged so it can't be discharged just to somebody's backyard it would have to be into an existing jurisdictional stream or into a a right of way or into a drainage easement um I do not know at this time whether the streams and the historic pond on site would be considered jurisdictional that is um regulated by the State Department of Environmental Quality that is something that would be determined through we would uh require the applicant to have DEQ come out and take a look as part of the development process and if they were determined to be under DEQ perview what are the additional so if those um let me go back uh so there there's two channels on the site if they were determined to be jurisdictional streams they would need to have uh stream buffers the first 30 ft which of which would have to remain vegetated in um if it's currently Forest it would have to remain Forest um DQ also evaluates existing ponds and lakes and determines whether they are jurisdictional um if I I was not familiar with the dam being uh breached or or um letting water through but if that is the case sometimes they'll find that there's Wetlands there and that might cause some of that area to be protected but again that's something that um an applicant team would work with the state to figure out and that's routinely done as part of the development process other questions and oh keep talking can I follow up apologies um I'm wondering if if the applicant team um if you could pull up your um um a potential proposed layout um and if someone on the team could indicate where those streams would are yes would be helpful I'm going to pull up Matt louder from our development team yes good morning my name is Matt louder I'm with Bowman Consulting 406 Barrett Drive um yes so you can see and maybe you can see my cursor on this so everything from the site is flowing from east to west like the um ladies mentioned um you can see on the concept plan that we do have this area in blue that is where everything basically is draining to today so basically coming through this way and then I believe it's coming up to our northwest corner is where all the drainage is currently discharging um there was a there was an existing pond on the on the site that Dam has been breached and so our intent and we do have a consultant looking at the environmental currently that's ongoing so like she mentioned if there streams or Wetlands will definitely account for that but um our goal is to basically replace that existing pond with our new storm water facility that will be built in accordance with City standards um basically it be a lot more safe out there just because it is a breach situation so we will be able to control all the storm water that is currently flowing through there plus accounting for all the impervious that is coming from our site so this Pond will be you know designed to to handle the current conditions as well as the future conditions yes yes basically like I mentioned everything is flowing east to west in this general direction towards this corner the existing Pond is basically where we have the parking lot shown now and so we don't have any buildings proposed over that area um she's right it could be a little bit of a structural issue so we want to avoid that with where we have the buildings proposed so if those streams are determined to be jurisdictional Waters under DEQ perview M what I'm hearing is it would require a different layout than what's proposed correct and this is a concept plan um yes if there are streams or buffers there we would have to accommodate those and work around those areas maybe reconfigure this layout again this is conceptual at this point but um our goal is to replace that pond and put it there but it can change of course thank you other questions or comments commissioner Reigns yes I think this question is for the applicant for clarification some of the neighbors of con concerns are related to height adjacent to the um adjacent single family homes um the comment was made that the proposed development would include four stories but because of the layout it would aesthetically appear to be three stories um looking at the require you know the the description of what a story is it's you know related to the average height from grade um so if this were to get approved you could still have four stories all around the building so if if the applicant can clarify the need for four Stories versus three stories I'll do my best as a civil engineer not an architect but basically what we're looking at like I just mentioned the site is draining from east to west um there's roughly 20 ft maybe a little bit more of fall across the site and so what we're proposing to do is basically have a split in these buildings so again if you can see my curve cursor if you basically take BC those buildings um everything on the east side would be a three-story building just a traditional three-story building we would continue that roof line towards the west but basically add a four-story but going down and so if you're in this parking lot on the back side of the site and you looked at the buildings you would see four stories um and basically it would go four stories for this half of each building um and then as the grades transitioned up we would go to three stories so the appearance the roof line would stay straight the um the view from the Eastern side of the site would be three stories is just trying to take advantage of the grade by adding a story at the bottom part of the buildings thank you that helps clarify that so in the middle of the site the neighbors to the South would would have fuse to a four-story building essentially correct yeah if you just imagine the buildings kind of being bisected you know one side would be three stories one would be four stories but the four stor would go down kind of like a basement understood thank you other commissioner peer I I got a number of questions but I think while we're on this just with the retention Pond being that it looks like the property to the east of that pond it looks like 2033 Atkins Drive looks like that backyard of that property is even lower than the lowest point in that corner so I'm just I I'm not a topography expert but it seems like even putting a pond in that corner you'd still have Downstream flooding to that house which is lower than anything on this property to the West sorry is what I meant yeah to the very this is the very northwest corner of this property is where 2033 Atkins adjoins it um is your question for the applicant or for storm water staff I think it's for storm water staff because I'm curious if if that's the example of the downstream flooding that was recorded and if I may tag on to that um Miss Boyd I heard you say with the new storm water requirement there are limitations of the discharge point and would that address this I wasn't quite clear um so under the the the new rules um if that's a jurisdictional stream that goes through the backyard of 2033 Atkins then they could discharge it because it would be considered to be an existing water body that's an established flow path they would still have to meet the detention requ requirements on site um but the idea is that by Meeting those detention requirements it shouldn't increase the water level on that Downstream lot um if that were not a jurisdictional stream then they would need to um take some additional measures such as obtain an easement if there wasn't an existing easement um on that pipe and to be clear we don't what needs to happen before we could know that it's a jurisdiction stream um so typically a consultant will go out and and determine that themselves but um the the ruling comes from DEQ um depends on how backlogged their office is how long it takes but I've seen it take anywhere from a week to a couple of months um for them to be able to come out and determine that on site but I would say these are issues that are common to be addressed during the development process um I not seen uh resoning conditions come out about those topics commissioner Fox did you have a separate question no I I think that addressed it I was a little bit concerned about the potential for flooding but I I do believe the new requirements related to quantity specifically would address those the applicant have a response as well yeah if I may I'm going to call Matt louder just to answer any questions we did submit a drainage easement exhibit with our application um showing that that we met that five we were under that 5% requirement so um if you have any questions about that specific drainage easan uh drainage exhibit that we provided Matt can answer those as well but we were under the requirements thank you commissioner fox or peeler did you have a specific question for for the applicant not not on that subject okay um commissioner lman um I just am curious about the specific language tied to the affordable housing Provisions can you speak in to you Mike I didn't hear the oh I'm sorry I'm I'm curious about the specific language that pertains to the affordable housing restrictions okay what's your concern it just is it it's very general and Broad in nature it just says that affordable housing um according to the restrictions here within or something like that but it didn't really say I assume that that means that whatever Laura is tied to the property that that's what they're adhering to but I'm wondering if we could tie the zoning itself to the affordable housing restrictions that they're planning on committing to with the state agency so I I the condition language that's in the slide is not the entirety of that language just for um brevity purposes so after that particular sentence um there is a declaration of restrictive covenant for affordable housing in a form approved by the North Carolina Housing Finance Finance Agency shall be filed and recorded in the property's chain of title in white County's Register of Deeds prior to receiving the certificate of occupancy um and the 60% medium in in is determined by Hud so we had we pulled these from um other conditions used by the city and um we can have uh Robert Tate or someone come up but this is a pretty standard affordable housing condition that is tied to uh just restrictive covenants attorney York I was just going to say if you look on page 24 of the primary backup thank you document in the agenda you'll see the wording thank you I does that address your question commissioner lman okay other questions or comments commissioner Fox just one final question just going to um acknowledge one of the speakers had mentioned compassionate Drive um and that being dedicated as right of way it's currently I guess a private road um what would the width requirement of that be upon expansion that might be a staff question it might be an applicant question yeah so the um smallest RightWay is 55 ft for a neighborhood yield Road the RightWay with for compassionate Drive is 50 fet right now but we've talked extensively with Raleigh planning and transportation about what design Alternatives would look like there is enough space in that 50 foot RightWay to put two lanes Ingress egress with at least one sidewalk if not two on each side and some streetscaping and buffering um we do we would end up probably having to do a design alternate um for this but again very extensive discussions with transportation and they can speak more to it um but we are committed to making sure that it's safe and not having to acquire any additional um Land from the neighboring Property Owners can we go to the map that shows compassionate drive that would just be helpful if we're going to talk about Transportation which I think we might is do you want like that one this here yeah thank you additional questions comments commissioner ha you look like you have something yeah you know my ammo I like to go last because normally I'll cover everything I want to ask so I'm just keep going okay while we're talking about Transportation um I noted the the the fire service issue which we've talked about that at length and and I understand there's a master plan being developed what what struck me was the ability of large fire trucks to get to this site is that a concern um I'm asking Transportation staff or is anyone here from fire uh Carter Robertson with Transportation I'm not quite too sure about the amount of roadway needed for a fire engine to get down but what they had proposed or the applicant had proposed in our meeting with them was 27 back to curb back to curb so that's two 13 1/2t travel Lanes so that part's in alignment with our Udo crosssections I'm not sure if that would cover a fire engine though okay um so let's say it doesn't satisfy code requirements it's going to part of the co the code requirements are written to satisfy fire requirements so okay they're satisfying code requirements it would satisfy satisfy fire requirements okay and given the site plan that they showed and generally how circulation would function on a site um with this disposition with a flag flag whole access like this there's going to be turnaround adequate turnaround and that's going to be required as part of the site Des design review with development services staff thank you Beno um commissioner peer I have a question about I apologize this is a question for staff and I do not know this in the Udo under rx4 are there any requirements for a lot this size to have tree conservation percentage at all tree conservation is tied to lot size not zoning and this is more than the minimum acreage limit that would trigger tree conservation that be what's the percent I would have oh I don't know that off the top of my head we'd have to do some research okay and I the reason I asked that question is just oh sorry you were you about to no oh you're moving the Bic I thought you about to say something my question for that is just I mean I I think with anything that's multif family and of that size um and I think it's a particular issue in southeast Raleigh is tree coverage um and I'm I'm just interested to know what can be added to improve that because otherwise this will obviously be clearcut and there's quite a few trees on it I know there's the 25% open space but that doesn't cover uh you can grade open space so I'm I'm uh I would love to know what that is and if that can be you know improved in any way it's hard to know if it needs to be improved if we don't know what it is but uh that's the reason I bring it up so I believe I heard a question about the TCA requirements so the requirement for any districts outside of R1 and R2 would be 10% okay thank you Mr takee um and and can can I ask a quick followup question to to be clear that TCA requirement um is that 10% of what's currently planed or can things be graded and then replanted and counted as tree conservation I believe the latter but I would like to get confirmation from stor staff for you that a storm water question really uh just with the 10% TCA that would be required here the 10% is based on the acreage of the property right right um does the definition of that tree concentration mean that it cannot be graded from what the current trees 10% of something that's currently there or can it all be graded and then replanted TCA is preserved you can't grade it and replant it okay so that would require 10% of the property not be graded and during development essentially right got it thank you that's my question um commissioner otwell thank you chair Bennett um normally I'm pretty opposed to Zoning for mixed use and then taking all the mixed use out the intent is to have a walkable community and I think that benefits lower income households with don't have to drive as much and perhaps not own two cars in this case I think given the significant uh dedication to affordable housing and the fact that this is this is a church with a trying to leverage their property for the common good and this is a huge opport across our city and our region and I would like to see more churches take this kind of action I'm prepared to support this application and a time when somebody's ready to make a motion thank you commissioner Atwell lman the nover I was just making sure no one was going to make a motion see like Mr outwell was pushing us on there so I I will reserve my I say I will entertain a motion so you're good I think you're safe Brian all right um I just want to make a general comment about um you know this is affordable housing um is challenging to get done regardless um the funding needs are extraordinary um so uh as the developers looking to pursue a larger development like this um you know especially on sites where there isn't just much availability anymore they and so um I'm grateful to the commitment that comes into uh providing affordable housing at a standard that we really need and want to see for ongoing support of our communities um this will be you know an expensive Endeavor to make sure that all of this is you know um supported but it's one where in affordable housing um people persevere and they're able to still be committed to the cause in providing housing so thank you for that thank you commissioner lintman commissioner oer thank you Miss Bennett just a couple of things and um most of yall have touched on this but I just want to clarify getting back to the zoning of RX versus R six Miss Lovel had mentioned that it's sufficient and I do have a question I'm assuming that the RX is what allows the apartments versus the r six is that correct that's correct so then the RX the height is what's the existing height is 40 ft and the proposed height is 50 ft is that correct the proposed height would allow 68 ft feet was there a condition remind me or was did the applicant just mention that it was going to be 50 ft the applicant mentioned um and they can provide additional contexts that their structure should not be um but that's not that's not in the zoning conditions that's right I appreciate the the 50ft transition yard yall beat me to the comment on that I I do understand the the grading and the three stories to the front as the grade drops away it ends up being four stories to the back um I know it's a concept plan I I do think that that gives enough buffer for the adjacent Parcels but I do remember four or five years ago we've changed the way we measure height to be able to look at the entirety of the building versus just what's along the public right of way and so I would just encourage the applicant to look at that and see if there are ways that we can just minimize the areas where it's 40 ft so that's just a an ask but to pick up on the storm water I also am not a storm water Guru but I am looking at the topography and to commissioner peer's point there's a 258 Contour that sits down there with nothing lower than it is sitting on the adjacent property so I am curious how the applicant is going to deal with that that's great that we've got new requirements in place that retain the water it's not released any faster than current but there's still no where for that water to go so I don't care how slow we're let releasing it where is that water going um yes and I can appreciate that um I don't know if we have the overall map of the watered available but I do believe everything does continue to go generally east to west um we did like um Amy mentioned do a study of where we are as far as the total Watershed and we are less than that 5% so we're a small part of the overall Watershed but um you know we will obviously work as we do the the Environmental Studies of the site look where it is draining make sure it's not a wetland and just deal with it appropriate with you know state and local requirements I appreciate that and I understand IM Maps is not exact right um but I don't see on imaps where the water continues going yeah here comes storm water so miss Hoy looks like she's going to set me straight Sally to the rescue Sally to the rescue yeah Sally Hoy rally storm water um so I'll just show you I'm looking at something on my screen that shows the storm drainage so basically in this lot that's along Atkins Drive um there's a little bit of a channel and then it goes into a 30in pipe then it heads West and ends up in a 48 in pipe along craw I believe this is Crawford Road before uh heading oops North along Crawford Road into a stream so there's basically an existing storm drain network through Southgate that the existing flow from here enters in the backyard of this house on Atkins drive thank you that's clarifying is that easement maybe I don't have that layer turned on on imaps is that a public easement maintain public easement or is that a channel that's running through a parcel I don't know the easement status it would um in general depend on the development date of the Southgate neighborhood whether an easen had been required or not I'd be curious about that and and I'd also be curious about if that channel is what's causing some of the flooding issues because again releasing the water at the same rate that it is now if there's a current problem we can build the pond as big as we want to but if we're releasing at the same rate there's going to be a continual issue and I think there are a lot of of of um cases that come before us especially in some of the outline neighborhoods and the lower income neighborhoods where where it was developed not necessarily taking into account the conditions of the neighbors meaning doesn't mean it's the right way for storm water to work and we talk about that on on other projects and so I'm obviously in favor appreciate the church and the applicant on on what you're doing and I want to see this project move forward not at the expense of the adjacent neighbors and so personally I would like to understand a little bit bit more about the storm water the topography and how we're dealing with that in that area and I understand it's a concept plan DEQ can come in so on and so forth uh but once it leaves this commission we we don't have another say about it so I've got some concerns about the storm water looking at imaps I'd like to see the applicant come back and demonstrate that they can they can sufficiently deal with that issue or if it's a public easement that's public maintained and there's not a additional burden on the adjacent property owners that that'll change my perspective considerably thank you commissioner oer go ahead I I did get an additional piece of information from my co-worker um that he did evaluate the map that was submitted and that the site composes 9 and a half% of the Watershed to the downstream um structural flooding location which would mean that the additional controls on site would be required does that address your concern commissioner o'haver or is there more information or additional conditions that you would request of the applicant I think we've talked about what those additional requirements are enough in other cases so my my general understanding of that additional requirement that I wasn't presented earlier makes me feel bad better about how that's going to be addressed cuz I I didn't see it being addressed previously so and Sally um could I call you up one more time and um the additional requirements that it would be subject to because we have so many members of the public here could you just at a high level just kind of go through them so they know what they are so it basically applies additional detention requirements so instead of um the 10year storm or that 5 in of rainfall being the maximum amount of rainfall to be analyzed uh greater amounts of rainfall the 25 and 100-year storm have to be evaluated and so that's uh more like 8 Ines of rainfall that would have to be evaluated and they couldn't um discharge a higher rate for that larger Storm from the property but um cig if I'm wrong I thought also it because just just because we're detaining a higher rate storm the ponds getting bigger if the discharge rate is still the same that exists now and there's a problem now we need to deal with the discharge rate and I thought those additional requirements when there was Downstream flooding adjust I mean so the um the way the the code language is set up is that it's holding the development M site to make not making the conditions worse it is not holding individual development sites to addressing the existing problems Downstream those are actually um the the way that we get these locations is that it's people who have come to the city to request assistance and so they're on um a list to be funded so that might be upsizing pipes or improving channels or um you know regrading things um so they're kind of they're in a queue of projects to be completed by the city thank you for clarifying for that that for me because I I I I don't know that it does and again just because it's what's existing doesn't mean it was right when it was developed and so and again to standard communities very few times this is a really weird Planning Commission meeting for me because I voted against taking away the dash lines which I always do when I I'm I constantly in arguing about not a need to increase cost for storm water because it's expensive typically though the storm water is dealt with and in this particular situation I'm not confident enough that it is so I'm not trying to add costs I understand the importance of that I typically don't deal with storm water issues because code generally deals with it but in this particular case I'm just I'm not sure I've gotten enough information to make an informed decision on whether or not it's being done dealt with that's my that's my one issue on this um commissioner Lampman I think we had a recent affordable housing case where the developer had made some additional commitments to the storm water and wetlands conditions there and there may be some ideas or some solutions built into those zoning conditions that might be um of reference I think it was the Strickland Road Reon zoning earlier this year or last year so um just as a as a frame of reference as you're going back and looking at updating zoning conditions for floodings uh they may not have to I mean that's just my that's just my perspective y'all might not y'all might not have that same feeling right now so I don't know that it's necessar think I I I I think I I agree with you um yeah I I never want to vote against an affordable housing project um I I really appreciate seeing the partnership with the church um I appreciate the work that's been done with the community but I also heard the concerns of the neighbors and I don't want to do harm to the community that's already there so if there is something that the applicant could do or could look at doing to make us comfortable that we aren't exacerbating really a harm that was already done then I think that would make us more I'll speak for myself make me more comfortable um I'm all for the project the resoning but I just want to make sure as as um Miss lovy said it's a seamless transition and that this is an asset to the neighbors who are already there and it doesn't create other impacts that's sort of where I am so I I don't think I would be ready to move forward right now without seeing more information and perhaps some more discussion about storm water and additional conditions I think this might be one of those cases where above and beyond is appropriate any other questions or comments uh does the applicant want to respond if I can you can we we completely understand your concerns about storm water and we take those very seriously uh one of the only things that we would say is we are on a very strict funding deadline and if we don't hit our April rezoning with increasing interest rates and everything else this project might not be a possibility so we are very willing to move forward with a recommendation for city council to study this and come back to them with a full report um and to really analyze this issue that's not a problem we are a little concerned about timing um and just wanted to make you aware of that I understand that um Commission elment did you want the NC nchfa application ltech application deadline which is like May something um so it's right here so H HTF is um early April and then nchfa is May so yep so um we could talk about voting this out with some sort of recommendation to council um you know for uh approve deny I guess we could vote it out with no recommendation explaining to council why um what is the will of the commission commissioner Fox I'd be comfortable voting it out uh with an approval with the um additional request for some additional storm water conversation with the council I agree okay I think um I think I'm going to go the other way yes um may I have 30 seconds just to say one thing hold on just one moment I I we would have to vote to do that since the hearing part of this is closed do does the commission want to Grant 30 more seconds to each side okay without objection I'll give uh the opposition Bam could you give Miss lbl an additional 30 seconds please thank you I just want to say on behalf of my neighbors who are here and um in the community thank you for the conversation we learned more today than we did in the public meetings I understand the time pressures with financings and things like that the first public meeting was in August uh the second in December um approximately a month ago and we did not see any of this and the questions that you have asked this morning is what the questions that the neighbors asked I would ask that this information be shared with the neighbors because you highlighted on the concerns and we receive no information thank you thank you um does the applicant want 30 seconds to respond or are you good um no we appreciate Planning Commission and your comments this morning there things that we're actively addressing um you know we would would ask that you recommend approval with those additional storm water concerns uh to commissioner Oher's point we're also willing to uh look at the height and put additional restrictions on there if you wanted to add that to a recommendation for approval as well we're open to that but we thank you we're willing to open and communicate with the neighbors so uh we want to continue and move forward with this really good project for the city thank you thank you for that followup I'm I'm probably still going to vote denial I want the project to move forward it's going to pass but if we don't send that message to council There's an opportunity that it's not talked about because we've sent stuff to council before that's not addressed and so I just want to go ahead and preempt my denial that I'm 100% for the project I want to see it move forward I understand the funding the timing I understand all that it's really more a message to the council to make sure that they address it so I just want to pre my denial vote with that thank you for that commissioner orher I think I agree with you with that I'll entertain a motion commissioner otwell I have a question for Mr York um looking at the consistency statement um will this motion require a additional statement to update the future land use map the comprehensive plan I believe the statement includes that yeah the statement should include that and it does require an amendment to the comence [Music] okay it does okay does I thought it did the answer is yes if people are the motion to den I had an issue but if it's a motion to approve you can just go as it okay um so I feel a little bit uncomfortable speaking for the folks that would like additional uh request for additional storm water requirements so I'm not sure exactly how to word that if somebody else would like to make the motion or make a suggestion I'd be happy to do so I think it's probably just going to be me but I can't recommend approval and then vote against my own recommendation so okay it's been done before actually it has been done before it wasn't me though so I'll go ahead and give it a shot and we can vote it down if y'all don't like it um with respect to Z 40-24 that make sure that we're on the right one all right um I think I clicked the wrong [Music] one yeah there we go with respect to Z 40-24 I move to recommend adoption of the pro proposed consistency statement dated January 28th 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve and to recommend approval of the zoning Amendment we the Planning Commission includes a request that the developer the applicant return with additional studies and potential conditions related to enhanced storm water and consider limiting height on the western portion of the property after considering the policies maps and other materials included as part of the comprehensive plan the com the Planning Commission determines that the proposed zoning amendment is for a zoning District that closely coord responds with the development envisioned in the land use plan am I reading the right one you don't need to read all of them okay that is yeah oops oh jeez here we go this recommendation also includes an amendment to the Future land map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement uh we have a motion do we have a second second commissioner well has made a motion to approve with some additional language commissioner fox has seconded all those in favor two all opposed that's 5-2 commissioner Haver would you like to restate your opposition I think I think Shen has got it I think I was pretty verbose in my comment so you were very verbose um I and I agree with uh commissioner o'haver I came here fully prepared to support this um and I have been comfortable in the past moving something to council with a you know a note that they consider something because the developer was on a timeline but with this one I have some concerns about the the neighborhood and I I feel like um seeing the two opposing votes might make Council um think about this and make sure that that enhanced storm water um conditions are are considered I I don't want us to do harm to existing communities as we're trying to do good to address the affordability problem I think the existing Community um is an important concern consideration as well so with that the vote was 5 to2 um to recommend approval to city council thank you all very much for showing up um thank you for your comments moving on to our final um item under new business resoning Z 4524 7015 and 1719 lford road we will hear from Mr Tate give it a second all right okay Rober Tate again in with Planning and Development so this is rezoning requests z45 24 at 7015 and 7019 Lich for Road this is a request to reone just shy of an acre from R4 to R six with some conditions and your deadline fraction is March 29th so zoning in the area is predominantly residential um with the mix of R4 R six and r10 and then there's also a apartment complex that's zoned rx3 with some conditions just to the north and east of the site so here's an areial of the site and surrounding land uses so this site was originally a part of the North Ridge Subdivision so to the west of the site is the golf course in North rdge Community um to the South is predominantly some low-scale residential with a mix of detached single family homes and town homes and then across lford road on the East is um a conglomeration of apartment complexes um that are within the moderate SC residential designation I'd also like to note that um a little more than 1,000 ft to the east as well is um a complex of industrial and Warehouse uses here's a closer look at the site and we're looking at the site from the ground so the first image is at the intersection of lford Road and Hunting Ridge Road you can see this lot um is the 7 719 lot which is vacant and on the bottom right is the 7015 lot which has a single family home and here's a closer look at the 7015 lot and the applicant has proposed one condition um and that would require specific materials for the exterior walls so that's brick um natural cultured stone and fiber cement sighting so the change here um is really an increase of entitlement um this would also allow a 45 foot um town home so that's also just a gentle increase in height for a structure and then also um some relief in these setbacks allowed for a principal structure so this site in the large area with around it has a lower walk score and lower bike score also lower Transit score than average has a higher Transportation cost index and high job proximity than average um this would add to the the housing Supply does not include subsidized units would continue to permit a variety of housing types smaller units smaller lots and again not within walking distance of Transit this census tract is less likely to be um less likely to have racial minorities than the Citywide average and is also less likely to have low income households than the Citywide average um and rent is increasing at a similar Pace as the Citywide average so this request is consistent with the future land use map um the zoning re being requested is R six which falls in line with the low scale residential designation so just to wrap all of this up I'm consistent with the comp plan consistent with the future L use map no Urban form guidance here are list of consistent policies largely speaking to the compatibility of development that could be produced in this zoning district with the surrounding um properties no inconsistent policies were identified and your deadline for Action is going to be March 29th available for any questions thank you Mr Tate moving on to a public comment the applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes thank you [Music] good morning I'm Tamara waitman with ba folk on behalf of the applicant tallpines Custom Homes is interested in developing some luxury town homes on this site it is right there between lford and Hunting Ridge Hunting Ridge goes right there into um million dooll homes multi-million dollar homes um so this site is um we're seeing it as a transition between um these lovely town homes that are at the bottom here in The Landings which are um over half a million dollars and then just north of the site are the two four6 million homes um we're looking at um having if you look here at the the plan eight homes that will be luxurious town homes with uh two car garages behind them um so that they would be facing lford and then the homes would be facing over the golf course so that uh the people who live there can appreciate the amenity of having the golf course right there um looking at the the neighborhood um in general there are apartment complexes um up to the Northeast um as was mentioned there's Industrial Area um over off of lford road it's a very varied area but we think that this provides a nice transition between um some of the the extremely high-end homes um and then the more moderately priced homes that are to the south and east I do have um with us today uh the developer David Phillips is available if you have any questions for him as well thank you thank you are there other members of the public um here who wish to speak in support of this case okay okay then we'll move on to those who are opposed you will have a total of 10 minutes please state your name when you um begin before you begin your comments good morning Andy pettish pettish law 127 stowage drive and carry I'm here on behalf of uh Brantley pal he and his wife own uh property uh 2515 uh Landings way which is um the immediately south of this project uh those Town Homes it's it's the uh town home that's closest to lford Road uh Mr I want to just preface my comments by saying Mr poell is not blanketly opposed to the development of this property he's a developer himself he lives in town homes he is very aware of of not wanting to um uh present a double standard in in position here um but there are some concerns that I think need to be addressed um uh in this application um and uh and so I want to just quickly go over those with the the commission um the first and let me see if I can find uh potentially a a better but well this this may be the best one here this plan um it this the the proposed design layout understand this probably still a concept plan um although there's looks like there's been some pretty significant engineering done in this drawing um is that the uniqueness of recombining these two lots you're going to have an orientation where the the the front and backyards where it's going to front the golf course apparently I just heard that from the applicant um and then have the rear yard being facing lford Road is is then going to be perpendicular to the town homes to the South who have their rear yards um facing abing that southern property line of the subject property so you're going to have a side-facing um property there uh right up against those backyards which are fairly close to that rear line the way that was designed originally and approved and and constructed so I think there needs to be some very close consideration to how that that is buffered between those two projects because um as Mr Tate indicated there's an increase in height here going up to 45 ft and it's my understanding that these are going to be proposed to be three stories and um the applicant can correct me if if I'm wrong about that so and and the existing um homes are are well are I believe just twostory um there and so you're looking and in addition to that the Topography is higher this proposed side is higher and it rolls off towards um the uh land to the South there so you're looking at an a pretty extreme elevation change in terms of the built environment and what's viewed from the the rears of those homes um in addition Mr Pal's property is going to be and I don't know if it's it's not completely clear here um in this drawing but there is um I believe where the proposed stormw management uh I believe probably be a detention pond located here in this Southeast corner of the property that would be right across from where Mr Powell's property is so one other concern is where the discharge of that pond is going to be and if that's going to be onto lford Road into that storm water catchment system and not going to discharge into his property which assuming that this is only going to be built to the 10 and twoyear storm is minimally required by um uh the existing code um then um you know you got to ensure that that when when there was a discharge for storms that exceed that that um there's no um significant impacts for those um southernmost Southern and easternmost um properties in the uh adjacent development um so again this orientation and and one thing to note here that the the setbacks for R six would be 20 ft and I don't I don't know how the city would actually interpret this is a new I just found out this is going to be reversed but how that the different front and rear setbacks how are you are you going to apply I think I don't think the orientation of the house is necessarily going to dictate what's the rear yard um and so you have a 20-ft setback but only a 10-ft setback on that sidey yard um now in the existing zoning there's also a 10- foot setback so that doesn't change but this is an increase in density um and they are looking to maximize this layout which going to push these homes right up to that 10 ft uh so I know that if there is a different configuration that could be worked out I Mr I talked about this with Mr Po and he would support if there could be an agreement any variants that would allow for a different configuration to uh to encroach into those um uh rear yards um uh as well to ameliorate the proximity of this development to the existing development near nearby and um which would also further help that height um differential and then there is an existing mature leand Cyprus um stand that runs across that tront it's not clear talked about this Mr pal he's not clear yet as to whether that is on the subject property or on the um existing town home property but to the extent that it's on the subject property we would want that to remain but then also incorporate new plantings that would grow and help to supplement that especially because Le and cypresses planted in a row like that can be subject to ice storms breakage and so in another four five six years that could um even though it's providing a a decent screen now could be removed in in when with just one quick winter storm they're dead believe excuse me excuse me excuse me um he has the floor right now and I'll wind up so that other people can um can uh provide their comments as well but there there are you know a handful of important issues I believe need to be addressed um and again a lot of it stems from the uniqueness of the orientation of this lot to the existing lot and the number of lots that the uh applicant is trying to create um so with that I would respectfully request that the current version of this application um be recommended for denial uh thank you very much much thank you are there others who wish to speak in opposition okay thank you please state your name yes thank you my name is Lori Jones I'm an attorney at Jordan Price uh 201710 y Cliff Road in Raleigh I'm here representing The Landings of Northridge Home Owners Association and I do have here in the audience some board members and or um all board members okay I just wanted to make sure um members of the board of directors we have some very similar points to those raised by Council for Mr Powell um I'll just start out by saying we are thankful that the requests change from r10 to R6 um we are concerned about the density there are eight units that are shown on the proposed plan at this point in time but I would note that up to 13 could be placed um unless the applicant were to agree to some condition limiting the number of units um that is concerning for several reasons um storm water is a potential issue um there is a history of flooding um in the units and um Council explained this but The Landings is directly south of this site and so there are several Town Homes um that would be directly impacted um and so increased density increased in pervious is going to have an effect on storm water and we just don't have information that I'm aware of that the board is aware of of how that is going to be handled um and it certainly will exacerbate an existing situation if not addressed correctly um I'd also say you know there was a comment from staff that this was just a 45 foot um gentle increase I think that does have to be taken in the context of the Topography of this property um this property is at a higher level than the existing town homes and so there are significant concerns um regarding screening and privacy you know we do recognize that I mean let's be honest this property will be developed at some point by someone um and we also recognize that infill development is important but one of the Hallmarks of that type of development and this is from C the city's policy um is mitigating adverse impacts on adjacent homes um and so that's really what we're asking you to consider with this last Point um again our understanding is that these are three story Town Homes at this higher elevation and we would Echo concerns about screening um both with a potential for an increased buffer on the southern side of this property that does back up to these existing homes tree preservation but also additional screening requirements those would all be significant to our community and to the Privacy um that our folks uh would be looking for um as proposed we think that it's not compatible with surrounding areas being our development um to the to the left isn't a a recreation area open space I mean it is a golf course but it's not built upon um and so we would just ask that in its current form again that this application um not be recommended for approval thank you um I believe the applicant had about 3 minutes left on um on her time with those three minutes would you like to address any of what we heard would you like to wait for us to ask you questions or uh yes ma'am uh David Phillips I'm the applicant and uh the the developer as well and and the general contractor Builder um I don't know if three minutes will be enough to uh to elaborate on that so I might have to ask for an extension or at least to uh have you guys address the Litany of questions because I I in fact do have answers for each and every one of them um so I'll start on the back end and then I'll let you guys lead me as as you desire okay um we do indeed uh put forth this uh 8un town home plan as a Revis plan the initial plan we had was a conceptual plan it did look very much different than this it didn't work it didn't flow well it didn't work properly with the discharge Ingress and egress on to lford Road it also did not have a uh the best use for these new homes with their Aesthetics that's why we've placed the condition there for all members around specifically the town homes just to the South and The Landings um we are just as mindful as they are about just like we're looking at each other right now you're going to be looking at me and I'm going to be looking at you in these new homes there is going to be some screening and it will look very much like a a side yard sea in the city's Udo now just to elaborate for what that means that's a combination of basically three different types of vegetation some taller stuff might be Maples might be Leland Cyprus some variety like that then there's a middle story tree some some more bushy tree but something that as you mentioned if you plant leand Cyprus in a row you have you know gaps in the middles as well as they they have to grow you know you can't get a 40ft Le in Cyprus anywhere it's going to be about a 14 to 16t tree and then some under story as well we want it to look pretty from both sides uh there was a mention of the existing leg and Cyprus that was meant to be there for screening for the same reason between the golf course the home and the town homes they are indeed in bad shape and we mentioned at length in the community meeting that we had which was very well attended had about 14 members of the community they're looking pretty bad we weren't exactly sure where they were and there's a fine line now that we've looked and got the survey done some are some aren't we intend to work with The Landings the property owner adjacent to the South if some are there and those trees are in bad shape we intend to take down any screening trees that are dying or or dead and we intend to replace them with our buffer trees to enhance the existing buffer so we're already going to meet that condition inside of our proposed development eight units is the right with your permission Madam just one minute we are running up on 12:00 are we going to lose Quorum how long can individuals remain you have to leave at 12: so we're going to lose Quorum at 12:00 um hey wait thank you um so we're not going to get through this at this meeting and I would imagine we want to hear more from you um so can I just without objection defer this case to our February 11th meeting yes commissioner orher can we just try to give the applicant some direction I don't want to just defer it and then sure come back and so okay what what types of information or other conditions would you like to see him come back with I mean I have some I have some questions about sort of that 18ish foot strip that's between that parcel I'm curious what the sidey yard SE distance is and then I sort of heard two different things from the opposition first it was they wanted views and then now they want screening so I'm not if it's screening I have sort of a different approach than than views but they don't seem that there's any views that exist they're talking about taking down Cyprus because they're dead and adding more to to provide more screening so those are really my only questions okay are there other yes um commissioner Reigns for the applicant I guess what I've heard from um those opposed in the applicant is uh as commissioner AER mentioned buffers um so would the applicant um be willing to take a look at adding actually the type C buffer to as a condition as a question the second question is if if your concept I know the concept could change shows eight would the applicant be willing to limit the number of units to eight for um as part of this recombination application yes and yes and we will not only add that we would put a c there type but if any of the cooperation with The Landings The Neighbors to the South were to have us leaving some of the trees that are in good shape you know we'll look at a holistic view there we have some support here that feel that all of them are dead um we obviously have a different view from the opposition that you heard that well maybe not all of them are dead maybe not all of them are on the property I intend to have a sit down this is a brand new uh occurrence we didn't know that we had a couple of lawyers on the opposite side we didn't know anybody nobody really voiced this opinion at the community meeting and when we talked out our proposed uh ideas on this it it seemed to congeal so I want to just say to the to the commission here that we're going to work with them no matter what and I know one of your most strong items is storm water we've got that we've got a big plan for that and it's not going to affect the southern Neighbors at all it's going to go into an existing right and we're going to have it metered rate and it's going to be engineered design and it's going to slow down the red discharge rate from what it is if it were just running normally so I appreciate that but strangely enough I normally don't have comments because I understand that that's why it just so happened it was odd on the previous case that's why I made that comment yes okay good thank you so with that um well I would like to just sorry add one more comment I do appreciate the condition about materials because we ask a lot of applicants to do that and they push back and so I think I want to commend the applicant for doing that because it's something I asked for or a lot so that is one of my strong issues too so thank you for to that one I also have heard you speak about before you know height um if we were just to go like some of the other development ha has happened the last uh unit to sell in the community is 5.2 million on 7 Acres one house three stories is reached up to the top of the of the Udo limit for its height if we were to put that there there's nothing we can do about the Topo the height of the ground is the height of the ground we are going to grade it we're going to make it pretty we're going to make sure that we take into account the storm water collection so we don't have a dam run over effect nothing coming because it does slope toward those town homes so we're going to utilize that catchment as not only a slow down Dam like at the end of the ski slope but it's also going to retain it and run it out into the existing um I don't mean to cut you off I just don't want to L because we'll have to stop the meeting so um and thank you for waiting patiently through this meeting but we don't want to rush through your case so do you when would the conditions need to be presented for us to hear them at our February 11th meeting Mr York they would have to get draft conditions they would have to get draft conditions in this Friday staff would comment I think it's Tuesday or Wednesday and then they would have to submit signed conditions by next Friday by next Friday would that work for you and then they the okay so then we will defer this case until our February 11th meeting thank you klye appreciate it thank you very quickly before we lose Quorum um we need to approve the minutes from the January 14 2025 meeting does anyone have any changes um I noted a couple things under attendance for absence it said Mr McMan should be Ms McMan um and I noticed that for the um old business item z122 24 old Cruise Road there was not an explanation for Mr peer's opposing vote Council always ask for that so if you could include that that was what I had um from last yes from the last meeting so um with those changes I did anyone else have anything else okay I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the January 14th 2025 meeting with those um changes thank all those in favor okay great um report of the chair the chair isn't here but she wanted me to express her regrets and to tell Mr York she's enjoyed working with you sorry she missed your last commission meeting um moving on to me the vice chair we will have a special Committee of the whole meeting this Thursday January 30th at 400 p.m. when we checked last week we had Quorum can we please confirm who will be here for January 30th 4 p.m. in this room 1 2 3 4 five Miss Miller will be here yes okay thank you very much good yes we're good um same Mr York enjoy working with you but we'll see you at committee the whole let's go down the line really quickly um we do not have any uh infrastructure Mobility topics for this this month that's all I got thanks oh and um Mr yor has been great working with you and enjoy your next chapter no report and unless it's changed since I looked last we don't have any topics for the text change committee did we do you will have a meeting and there will be a topic I cannot remember off the top top of my head right now which one it is well I apologize for that February 19 um the it says items to be determined and and the staff is still working on that yeah so text change meeting will I'm hearing a lot of suggestions from my colleagues but I'm pretty sure none of them are the right one uh but it but it will be you will have an item for discussion okay on February 19th at 4 pm thank you commissioner lintman um I have uh spoken with with uh chair Miller and also bham Walter um I received a offer that requires out of state relocation so my last day would be the week of that ends on the 28th so um so of February so that will be my last but Mr York it has been an absolute pleasure serving alongside you as well so thank you for everything and I'll be submitting my uh written uh resignation to you Shena but um thank thank you all it's been an absolute pleasure and I know I'll See You Again commissioner peer it's been great working with you Mr yor learned a lot from you so sad to see you go but I'm excited to work with you um should I give my thing on cruise now or should I put that in writing should you give your what uh you were saying the comments on Old Cru road on the previous case should I do that in writing you can email it to shenita is that right is that okay B them that he emails it well it needs to be what he said in the meeting do you need to look back at the recording to make sure you say what you said right if you go back and look go back and look at the videotape if you explained your no vote then yeah let's put it in the minute if you didn't we're we don't need to create it right that would just be something the chair would like to have when I'll go look chair present the U two plan recommendation other than that no report commissioner Fox uh strategic planning has a meeting scheduled for February 12th at 4M um in this building and commissioner O'er no report Mr York I just want to comment that I'm super excited after five years you remember to pull that mic in front of you when you commented at the end of the meeting other than that I don't I don't have anything to add he's using humor to cover his that's right that's right well um commissioner lintman you threw me there um I just would like to say that it has been a pleasure working with you I really have learned a lot about affordable housing and um best wishes to you I'll miss you I'll be around so I'll be around for February so that's good well still I just wanna W to say it best wishes thank you I do I do think maybe um you bring a wealth and knowledge on the affordable housing and it's such an important topic so I don't know how we get to counsil that I would love to probably we all would probably like to replace you with someone with similar knowledge because you understand it it's such an issue and there's lots of fors and against and you just bring a really good perspective so I think we need to replace somebody with you I think you just put it on the record so we'll make sure it's included in the minutes thank you anything else all righty well all hearts and minds are in agreement meeting a journ