[Music] Oh, [Music] heat heat. [Music] Hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh. [Music] Oh. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] D hey down. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hello. Hello. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Oh. Oh. Oh, heat heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Hey Hey [Music] everybody. Heat. Heat. [Music] dang. [Music] Down. [Music] [Music] Okay. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh. [Music] Oh. Ooh. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Oh, [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] a data. [Music] Hey [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Come on. [Music] Hey. [Music] Down [Music] bad. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] [Laughter] [Music] Number back. ninth meeting of the Rally Planning Commission. Welcome to those present here today and to those joining us online. My name is Nicole Bennett. I'm chair of the planning commission. Commissioners Miller and Shelurn are absent and excused. We begin each meeting with an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda. Is anyone here this morning who'd like to comment on an item not on the agenda? Okay, seeing none, um we will move to the consent agenda, which includes approval of the August 26 meeting minutes. Does anyone have any comments on the meeting minutes? Could I get a motion to approve the minutes? Um, Commissioner Fox has moved to approve the minutes. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Commissioner Neptune has seconded. All in favor? All opposed? Great. That's unanimous. We have one committee report coming out of our text change committee. Um, I'll turn it over to the chair of that committee, Commissioner Atwell. Thank you, Chair Bennett. Um, when we met in August, the text change committee saw we listened to a presentation on TC 325 as Greenway amendments, which uh clarifies some issues uh surrounding widths and standards and requirements for development. And it's mostly about development uh regulations um what the developer is required to provide and the guidance is given and provides some incentives for extra greenway connections at uh at the time of development. And we heard a presentation and we had discussion and voted unanimously to recommend approval. And I'd be happy to answer any questions y'all have about the ordinance or anything that we discussed during the meeting. And uh after that, I'll be happy to make a motion to recommend approval at the full commission. >> Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. Does anyone have any questions or comments about um this ordinance? >> If not, then Commissioner Atwell. >> All right. I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated September 9th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. Um, Commissioner Artwell has moved for approval. Commissioner Fox has seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? That's unanimous. Next, we'll move on to um old business. We have one item under old business. That's Z125 2230 South New Hope Road. Um, we received a full presentation from staff and the applicant at our August 26th meeting. We deferred the case to allow the applicant to consider conditions related to storm water and I believe Commissioner Cochran wanted some further information about a nearby pump station. Um I'll ask staff to provide an update focused on changes since we last heard this case. >> Uh good morning. Uh again this is Z1 uh 252230 South New Hope Road. Um, again, the request is to reszone 22.98 acres from CX-5CU to CX5CU. Just for clarity sake, I'll go over again that this was part of a reasonzoning in 2019 that incorporated two properties. Only one of the parcels this time is up for the resoning. That's why only one of the parcels is having the conditions ch uh request to be changed. Um since the last meeting uh new conditions were um uh supplied um new number six uh that would restrict the flood plane area encroachment impacts at 40% uh which are what the current um conditions on that property are. And this was crafted with the assistance of storm water. Um and I apologize about the big branch pump station. And I did not remember to uh get further information on that. I do remember my original conversations with them where driveway would have to be secured so they'd have permanent access width enough to handle a truck um going down through there. But um as far as the remainder of information on that, I I apologize I didn't get anything back. Okay. Thank you. Um we did receive public comment at our previous meeting. Um is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this item? Okay, without objection, I'll give five minutes to each side. >> Great. Good morning. Michael Burch, Longleaf Law Partners here on behalf of the applicant and just wanted to maybe address the questions you had with regard to the pump station. So, there is an existing uh easement providing access to the pump station surrounding the pump station uh all in favor of the city of Raleigh. It was upsized as part of the Oldtown uh development and there's more than sufficient capacity to serve this development as well as other you know future development in the area. I don't know if that those were the nature of your questions or if you had any other >> yes we'll just bring it back to the table to um Commissioner Cochran. So, my question was in regards to odors. They um the other lift station nearby, they noted sulfur smells and I was curious to see if there was a similar issue here. We're not aware of any. Now, there isn't any uh development on this side right of the west side of New Hope where the pump station is located. Um that is not something we heard uh at our neighborhood meetings and we had attendees both uh from the neighborhood to the west, the neighborhood to the north and um believe we had on at our first neighborhood meeting an attendee from Oldtown and that was not uh that issue was not raised here. Um so >> is the city staff aware of any issues? Um, nothing was addressed in any the comments received and nothing was addressed in the original notes from staff. >> Can I answer that to answer her question since I do live near this? There is a smell. >> Okay. >> There is a smell. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, just checking. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in support? Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition? Okay, seeing none. So, we'll keep it at the table. Now, are there any additional questions or comments related to the um additional condition that has been added? >> Commissioner May, >> my comment is to the not necessarily just to this condition. I do also want to reiterate I live up the street from this. Can you talk in your microphone, please? >> I live up the street from this development. Um, there has been inadequate community engagement. I even after the last meeting drove around New Hope and up Rock Corey to see if there were any signs. There was one sign that is set back into the property on the New Hope side where nobody can see it. Nobody can stop and know that this is happening. I measured my home to the edge of this property. I am within the thousand ft. I was not notified. Other residents were not notified. The CAC was not brought into this conversation. Um what the pictures on this presentation don't show is the Kitty Corner Street from this development that is swamp land. So, I want to reiterate the concern I brought up last time of multiple developments being done in one area. We approved in that meeting uh affordable housing up Rock Corey about a mile from this development. The meeting before that we approved on New Hope less than a mile from this development. we the bar uh barwell road which she's referring to about a smell and nobody everybody's saying they don't see one as a person who is directly impacted or would be by this project there is a odor that is in this area multiple uh developments being done in this area will increase the likelihood of flooding even if this one developer does make their uh you know make their conditions to make this not happen us developing a lot approving a lot of development and short area that's less than a two-mile radius from each other that is highly being overdeveloped up Rock Corey Road will cause an issue. Um, this area is in a flood zone. There is a better place where there could have been signage put on the corner of New Hope and Rock Quarry where Jones Sausage meets that is a busy intersection where a lot of people would have seen the signs. It almost seems like people weren't intended to be uh engaged in this process. The terrain that this development is on on the New Hope side at Rock Quarry is extremely rocky. It's over a bridge is going to be is going to be very very disruptive. And I do think that this development will not be in the best interest of uh the environment of New of New Hope, Newburn and uh Jones Sausage. Nor will it be in the best interest of the residents. I think there's a significant harm to the residents in this area if this project passes. >> Thank you. Commissioner Omay, would um the applicant or staff like to comment on um Commissioner Omay's uh comments about engagement and sign placement and how that is determined. Yes. U again, Michael Bur with the applicant and certainly we'll uh have staff address this as well. But um we received from the city uh the notice list both for the 500t radius for the first neighborhood meeting as well as the list of property owners and tenants within 1,000 ft for the second neighborhood meeting. Um you're right, you are within 1,000 feet. Uh you were also on the mailing list. uh uh we provide as part of our neighborhood meeting report uh to the city that should be uh in your backup material the full mailing list. We then submit uh to the city uh the set of envelopes stamped, addressed, sealed um and they review that against the list and then put it in the mail. Uh so we certainly complied with those. Uh we also receive uh guidance from the city as to where the signs uh need to be placed both on the property and on any multi-tenant properties within that notice area. Uh those were all posted uh in accordance with that city guidance as well. Uh with regard to the CAC meeting, uh we reached out to Dr. Lane. We are presenting uh this Thursday evening at the Southeast CAC meeting. Uh Dr. Lane was also present at our second neighborhood meeting. Um so that's with regard to uh kind of the notice uh of the meeting neighborhood meetings as well as this meeting and what will ultimately be the city council public hearing. Uh just on the comments related to uh environmental impacts, right? The city's regulations now prohibit uh any fill within the 100-year flood plane. What we did here uh with this condition is even took it a step further. Even with the 100 uh kind of 100% uh not allowing any fill within the flood plane, there is an exception for if you do a flood study or go through a map amendment. Uh Stormwater asked us to keep this 40% restriction uh which again is above and beyond what the code would require if you went through one of those processes. uh the areas that are environmentally sensitive on this property. Uh right, we cannot develop develop within we can't develop with any uh within any of the stream buffers. Uh we can't develop with any of the uh areas within the flood plane. That that's both the floodway itself as well as the 100red-year flood plane outside of that. Uh and many of those areas are also subject to city of Raleigh easements for utilities. Uh I want to remind the commission that you know this is not a situation where uh we are going from like a low density you know zoning right now. This site is currently zoned CX5 uh and allows for commercial and office uses. So right this site is already entitled for you know significant development uh that you know again can max out the site. Um so just want to make sure that the commission understands this isn't a situation going kind of from a low low intensity to more intensity. uh we are actually through our cap on residential uses maintaining uh kind of the trip generation potential allowed under current zoning as well and certainly if it's developed for residential it will be significantly below you know any commercial development on the property. So >> thank you. Um let me ask a a question um for staff. Do you know why with the previous resoning residential was prohibited in a condition? >> Um, I do not. It It was just listed as a condition. >> Okay. Yeah, I tried to find it as well. I just saw the >> Yeah, I I read through everything the other day again. I just I couldn't find the the rhyme and reason why the uses were red uh that were restricted, including residential. Um, do you Okay. Uh just to address that question, uh Chair Bennett, so I did not handle was not part and our firm was not part of the prior resoning. Um but certainly was here and listened uh and were at CAC meetings where this was being uh going through the first time. So, at the time, the same applicant uh that was reszoning this side of New Hope was also reszoning the east side of New Hope, right? Kind of the commercial area within, you know, on the east side adjacent to the Oldtown development. Their vision was for a commercial development. Now let's see that group is no longer you know did not execute on the retail. Uh this site has been uh marketed for retail for over eight years and because of the environmental impacts, because of the side of the road it's on, because of the lack of visibility from Rock Quarry Road, it is not a suitable site for uh commercial. And so after nearly a decade of trying to market it for commercial, um the owners again who kind of deferred to the contract purchaser the first time around who wanted to do commercial uh are now uh under contract with a residential developer who uh is changing the is asking to change the conditions to allow residential. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Commissioner Omay then uh Commissioner Atwell. I can wait. >> Okay. Commissioner Atwell. Thank you, Chair Bennett. Um, I I believe that the storm water management advisory commission met within the past week or so and this was going to be on their agenda. I was wondering if storm water staff uh could give us a rundown on that discussion and if there were any concerns from that commission, >> Sally Hoy, Rally Stormwater. Thank you, Commissioner Ratwell. Uh the stormwater management advisory commission or smack uh briefly discussed this case. They are actually interested in hearing more about it um and plan to reach out to the developer to ask and to planning to ask them to come to their next meeting which would be before this got heard by city council. >> Commissioner May. Um, I just also want to stress that I did also do my due diligence uh last week to walk up friendly and knock on doors of my neighbors uh and went around the block and the whole community knocking on doors. Nobody on that side of this project heard about this, got any information in their mailbox, much like myself. Last time we were here, we were told that I was not in the zone. It also is concerning me about the other project where I said my mom house is right here and she wasn't. So I really think on on our side we need to figure that part out, but I don't feel like there's been enough good faith efforts done to make sure that the community has been involved in this. Obviously stormwater wants more information. He's saying they're meeting with the CAC after this meeting. This meet this decision doesn't have to be made until October. Um I would make a suggestion even to this commission to maybe take some time and drive by this area where there because this is I'm I'm taking much you know concern with this also because I would be personally impacted by it but not just with my personal impact. I do believe that this will have a major environmental impact along with the other developments. So, I would hope that if we could get more time before making a decision on this today to give us time to do our drive by the area and actually see where the sign is that it's only one, there are not multiple signs. It's not on the busy side of the street where people can see it and be engaged. So, I think that there needs to be more done. >> Thank you, Commissioner. >> I ask a question. I I um I appreciate um what Commissioner Omay is saying. I do have a question though because I think the conditions have been altered at least one time at this point. So we would not have the opportunity to change them. Is that accurate? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So they the conditions wouldn't we might know more information but the zoning conditions wouldn't be able to change between now and council. >> Right. >> Okay. So, is this an instance um Chair Bennett where we could make a motion based on the um current conditions but then uh make a recommendation to council regarding other items that might be addressed at the time of council? >> I think so. So, Commissioner Omay, they um regulations changed >> and the applicant can only um what we refer to as get one bite at the apple. So they've already changed the conditions. So even if we were to defer the case again for us to get more information, we couldn't ask them to change anything again. But we can note with whatever recommendation we make to city council that they take into account any information that comes from storm water management commission or um any any recommendations that staff might have for them to change conditions. We just can't do it at this point. I do understand that. I think my my uh point is to say before we make a decision and vote one way or the other, even making condition uh making suggestions to city council, making a more informed decision, being able to hear from storm water after they hear from them, allowing them to speak to the CAC and knowing what was brought back from that, allowing there to be more communication or mailouts if that's what's supposed to happen so that there can be community engagement so we can at least know what like have all the information so we can make a decision if we vote for or against it, even if we're going to add some extra uh insight to city council when we send it to them. So, I do want to make a motion that we defer this. Okay. Um, is there any other discussion before we take up this motion to defer? Yes. Um, Commissioner O'Haven. And I apologize because I was not at the last meeting. So, take that in mind. Just want to make sure I'm clear. In the staff report, it says the most significant change are the following. Allowing residential uses. Reduction and allow gross floor area for office and commercial. Limit on number of non-residential properties. Addition to a limit of dwelling units. clarifying dedication of greenway easements and being more stringent on the fill. So if we recommend denial of this, none of those conditions are in place. Correct. >> Um >> because to me that seems like a mistake. >> That sounds right. >> Okay. And I know I'm all I'm overt talking, but I'm only over talking because this is directly impacting my home. This is why I'm speaking up a bunch about this. I honestly don't think that it should be residential. I know that that adds to the housing supply of the area, but that also adds to the safety concerns of traffic in this area that I've raised. Uh uh the safety concerns of this area. I've raised traffic on this two-lane road, multiple developments within a very tight area that will also then impact the living the quality of life of the residents in this area. Their concerns being made if it's developed as it is with commercial and a grocery store, something that could be useful, but more people living on that particular place where it could flood with their their additional waste in a space that already has a smell uh prior to this. You know what I'm saying? Like I think there's other environmental and residential conditions that that can impact the wellness of life of the people in this area, including myself. >> I um Commissioner Neptune, give me just a second. I when we're going to defer a case, I want to make sure that I know we're we're um causing delay to the applicant, but I want to make sure it's going to change something. So, I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel like I have done my due diligence on this. I I've seen the site. I I've read the staff report. At this point, I don't think there's anything that the Stormwater Advisory Commission could say to me that's going to make me change my mind. So, if we defer the case, I want to make sure that we all think it's going to give us more information than what we have now to make a decision. If we all feel like we're ready to vote, then I would recommend that we not defer the case and put our concerns in whatever recommendation we send to council and then council can take that up. But if it is the will of the commission to defer the case, then then I'll certainly um go with that. Commissioner Neptune. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. Just a a question for clarification with regard to public engagement and ongoing community engagement. This will be heard by the storm water management advisory commission uh in weeks to come. It will be heard by the CAC. It will be heard by council. Yes. >> In other words, I think if and again I'm asking for clarification. So in other words, there are uh there are additional opportunities. >> Yes. >> In the weeks ahead uh for additional public engagement with this specific item. Uh so I just so I'm clear on that. I believe the applicant said that you're speaking to the CAC this week on Thursday. >> Yes, we are going to the uh Southeast CAC on Thursday the 11th. That's this Thursday. I wanted to just uh on the record commit to this body that we will, you know, staff can certainly take our resoning to storm water management advisory commission. I'll commit to this group that we will also be present at that meeting. uh not only will they meet prior to the public hearing, they will actually meet uh prior to council making a decision of when to schedule the public hearing. This will be reported to council at their first meeting in October uh which is the 7th. Smack meets on the first Thursday of the month, which is the second. Uh so again, we will have those two meetings prior to this even getting to council uh for scheduling a public hearing. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I just want to acknowledge my appreciation to the applicant for >> Okay. Let me just clarification. >> Please be recognized before you speak. Thank you. >> Um there is a motion on the table. Commissioner Omay uh made a motion that we defer the case. Is there a second for that motion? Okay. So, let me make sure I'm doing this right. So, the motion fails when there's no second. Okay. Is there any further discussion on this case? Any questions? Any comments? Commissioner Cochran. >> So, I acknowledge the point about deferring it will not change the conditions. However, I think that and my my perspective on this is that I haven't seen any incentives for changing the zoning to residential other than it's not appropriate for a commercial development, but I think there there were three inconsistencies and I just don't feel I don't feel like those are resolved in my mind enough to support it even though I am willing to vote on it today. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Not but not in support of it. >> Thank you. Other comments. Um Okay, let me add my comments because I I've been trying to listen and um take it all in and get more comfortable in this role as chair where I don't talk as much. I just listen and try to keep the meeting flowing. But um I spent a lot of time looking at this case and I'm not really comfortable with it with it being residential. Um because of the proximity to the floodway um and even the staff report has that noted as a detriment, the risk of flooding. Um, we had a a similar case last year or a year before last where we had a um an an affordable housing resoning that was close to a floodway. Wasn't in the flood zone, but it was close to it. And I I had I strongly opposed to that. I I was strongly opposed to that because I just don't feel comfortable putting residents in what I view to be harm's way, particularly residents that might be vulnerable and less likely to be able to recover from something like that. So, I do appreciate that um the applicant worked with storm water to uh to add this condition. Um but it doesn't remove the risk for me and so um I'm uncomfortable with that. I also note that the the fire standards the insufficiency there and I know we talk about this a lot and we've talked about the fire master plan um but this is in the ETJ and would need to be annexed for development if I read the staff report correctly and it feels different for me if it's residential now. Um, so I know sometimes we kind of gloss over that and just note it, but we note that the fire master plan is going to address that insufficiency. In this case, I think it's important that we not gloss over it and note that these are 175 families that possibly low income if we just look at the the census track in an area that doesn't meet the NFPA standards for fire response. So that coupled with the flood risk screams environmental justice concerns for me. And so regardless of what other additional information I hear, it doesn't change where the parcel is. It doesn't change the flood zone. It doesn't change those risks. So I I wouldn't be able to support this case as a residential resoning. Any other questions, comments? If not, then I will entertain a motion. Uh, Commissioner O'H. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. >> And again, my apologies. I wasn't here. So, >> you don't have to apologize if questions comments just >> uh I just again I want to clarify the current zoning restricts residential. >> Yes. >> And one of the main changes here is to allow residential. Okay, thank you. >> Does anyone want to make a motion? I would do it, but I'm struggling with my internet. Any Okay, give me a second. I can pull it up. Um, I will make the motion. >> All right. Thank you. >> Are we ready? >> I could I could try to, but you could do >> You can go ahead if you'd like to. Um, after considering the policies, maps, and other materials included as a part of the comprehensive plan, the planning commission determines that the proposed resoning amendment is for a zoning district that closely coni corresponds with developing uh envision for the future land use map designation and is therefore am I supposed to read all that? >> Go to the top. Read it at the top. >> I move to recommend I do not move to re I move to not recommend Just read it as it is. Read it as it is. >> Okay. I move to recommend adoption. It says approval though. >> Oh, we'll pull up the one that says denial. >> If you have the one that says approval, it's fine. You can still read it just where it says and to recommend approval. Say recommend denial if that's what your motion is. >> Okay. I move to recommend adoption. I do not move. >> No. Read it as it I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 9th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and recommend denial of the zoning amendment. >> Commissioner May has made a motion. Do I have a second? Commissioner Cochran has seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor of denial. >> One, two, three, four. That's six. All opposed. two. Motion passes six to two. Thank you. >> I didn't before we leave this. I'm sorry. Uh, Commissioner Omay, would you like to add any considerations for council along with your motion? >> Other than that, I can >> I mean, anything that you would like council to consider the the smack conversation, the C? I would like council to consider the whole conversation that we've had here at the commission and consider the last meeting's discussion. I would like for them to consider the impact uh environmentally of this development on the community. I would like to them consider the impact of the residents in this community and also like to them consider that making sure as we go forward in the future that we make significant intentional effort to make sure everybody impacted by any development happening in the city is informed with sufficient amount of time to be able to show up to planning commission I mean to to meetings concerning things that will impact them in the future. >> Thank you. >> That was our only old business item. Moving on to new business. Uh first, >> excuse me, Chair Bennett. >> Yes. >> I just would like to again for the record ask if there >> Yes. >> any additional additional comments. >> Um in addition to the five or six bullets that I mentioned during hearing the case, I I just want to stress again the the point that the applicant made that the the land is currently zoned for commercial and it's been sitting there for almost a decade. And I think while certainly there are not a lot of good sites left to develop, I think there's a need for residential. I think there's a lot of development in that area. I think it supports a residential there. I know there are a lot of concerns and issues, but um just want to further explain why I voted to not accept the denial, if that's the right way to say. >> Thank you, Commissioner Haver. Commissioner Atwell, would you like to explain your um opposition as well? >> Yeah, sure. Um I I think that our city's uh flooding regulations and FEMA's policies are stringent and appropriate and that we shouldn't be in the position of making technical decisions about uh possible flooding. We should rely on the experts for these and this in this case uh is uh aligns with the intention of the development from the applicant. >> Thank you. >> Now on to new business. Um we have resoning TCZ 1325 3219 Pool Road. This is our first time hearing this case, so we'll turn to staff for a full presentation. Good morning again. H Marziano uh long range planning. This is TCZ 1325. Let me get Here we go. Uh this is a property located at 3219 P Road. It's on the corner of Sunnybrook and P Road there on the north by northeast corner or northwest corner. It's a request to resone 1 uh 61 acres from NX3CU to NX3CU. This is uh a change in text uh change in the text conditions. Uh deadline for actions November 8th. Uh zoning in this area is predominantly residential and mixed use kind of equally. You can see that the residential um area is primarily to the north and west of this property um with a lot of mixed use as it follows that corridor on down to the highway. Um here's a scaled out version for you so you can just see the general uh mix of the area. Um, as we zoom in a little bit, there's that neighborhood directly abuing to the west and the church property to the north, which are the subject of several of the conditions um and their changes. Uh, just some quick uh visuals of the site. Um, for those who may know from previous, there used to be a house on this property. Um, it was removed. um the photo that took historical photos of it, archival quality and were given to historic preservation as a recordkeeping function. Uh of those conditions um there are several uh the first two are unchanged. Uh these restrict the uses of the property including um several of the uh neighborhood mixed use uses and detached dwelling units. Uh condition number three um maintains reduction uh building height to 45 ft and removing the transition requirements as it would not apply. Uh number four uh is unchanged and limits the hours of operation for b certain business types. Um former number five as I've mentioned was removed was related to that house. Um, so as we reorder these, we're looking at um, this took out the townhouse type from requiring urban frontage, but an urban frontage would be required for any type of apartment building or mixeduse building. Uh, number six, we're subitting the, uh, sets the dimensional standards and planning requirements of the protective yard to be established along the property lines adjoining the church to the north. Uh seven um clarifies information regarding the um uh real uh the rear building facades to maintaining a wall no more than 28 ft of uh blank wall area and references the correct sections of the ordinance. Uh number eight uh deals with um polemounted light fixtures uh north and west property that residential and the church property. uh 9 and 10 are both similar in uh dealing with screening requirements also for those two prop uh properties to the west and the north. Uh number 11 um would be increasing the maximum number of residential units from what's currently allowed at 22 to 32. And number 12 clarifies that when a transation uh a neighborhood transition protective yard is required along those property lines to the north and the west uh how exactly they will be um they will be the 25 ft minimum um as applied by the ordinance. Um here we have our existing versus proposed. You can see here that we're losing a little bit of office and retail entitlement for the gaining of residential entitlement. This area has a higher walk score, higher trans transit score, lower bike score, uh good cost of transportation, and a high proximity to jobs. Uh you can see here on the route uh 19 that this actually has two stops that are actually on the uh at the property for transit. Um we are adding to housing supply. It does not include subsidized units. Um permits a variety of housing types other than detached dwelling. um smaller units are allowed than city average and it's walking distance of transit being located at with two stops on the property. Uh some demographics for the area. You can see that uh rent increased significantly since 2016. Uh this is uh consistent with the neighborhood mixed use. The future lane use map was updated the last time this was resoned uh to neighborhood mixed use. Uh so since NX is staying as NX it's consistent um due to the condition number five now it would be consistent with the urban form map of being on the transit emphasis corridor and within a uh frequent transit area. Uh so consistent with the future land use map consistent with comprehensive plan consistent with the urban form map. uh several of the policies that we are consist that the applicant's consistent with here uh and currently the inconsistent policy be response times fire uh for fire safety. Uh deadline for action would be November 8th with upcoming meetings on the 23rd, the 14th, and the 28th. >> Thank you. Um we'll now move to public comment. The applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes. >> Right hand yours. >> Let me get that for you. >> All right. Good morning, uh, Chair Bennett, members of the planning commission, Toby Coleman, uh, here on behalf of the owner, uh, Southern Properties, uh, regarding this, uh, zoning tax change. Um, Hyram did a good job of, uh, outlining it. Um, you know, I think the the salient points here really are, uh, this is a request to increase the permitted, uh, number of unit, residential units from 22 to 32, largely to facilitate a a potential, uh, town home development at the site. Um the rest of the changes are largely technical. Um the um the prior zoning conditions which are from 2019 uh made a lot of references to um u the uh neighborhood transitions. Um but because of because of um various exceptions to the neighborhood transitions, it was a little bit confusing as to whether those would apply or not. So we wanted to sort of clarify the language around those. Um and so that language, what we put in is language that regardless of whether the ordinance says it applies, uh it would the conditions now would would apply. Um so for instance, there's a buffer provided for the church to the north. Under the current regulations, a church does not trigger a neighborhood transition requirement. Now, we would be requiring a buffer no matter what. We did meet with the church in advance of filing this resoning. Um and they did they did provide us with a letter in support of it. happy to pass that around if you guys would like to see it. Um the um you know other as as Hyram noted there's some other conditions related to things like blank wall and other things that were again reference referencing the wrong code or doing some other things that that just were we wanted to clean up. Um I have if if anybody has any questions I have very detailed slides for each of the changes where we could go through and ch and outline sort of what we've done. Uh but um if if you have questions, we are available for we're available. So with that, I'll thank you, Mr. Coleman. Anyone else here to speak in support of this case? Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the table. Do we have any questions or comments for staff or the applicant? I had one for the applicant. Um, and Toby, I may be misunderstanding, so this may just be like something that I need clarification for, but when I was reading about the the plantings that will screen the wall >> Mhm. It said that it would it would be screened by 50% at maturity. >> Yeah. >> Why not fully screened? >> Um that was well the the answer is is that that is consistent with what's in the UDO. >> Okay. >> And it is also what was the 50% standard was also what was in the prior condition. mainly what we tweaked was um was basically just trying to you know the uh the prior provisions um referenced a a UDO uh UDO provision that contained a lot of the language. we just sort of spelled it out more specifically uh for screening wall and then we also had at staff's request we we separated out for um both I'm just looking because this always always sort of trips me up but basically um there is a unencclosed loading area standard and a trash collection trash compacting area standard and previously those conditions had mushed them together so that was all one standard. Uh staff recommended that we break those apart. So that's what we did. Um but we we retained the the concept that was in the the existing ordinances. >> Thank you. And also thank you for letting us know you met with the church. That was one of my questions too if you had spoken with them. So um that's all I have. Any other uh Commissioner May? Um, have you all had an opportunity to significantly inform the residents that are going to be that live in the town homes adjacent to the church and what has their been their response to this development? >> Um, we did have we held the uh neighborhood meeting and so we did get that was most of the attendees were from the Montage development that is next door to the to the west. Um there were some questions and concerns just about um traffic, height, things like that. And so what we did was basically explain that a lot of the uh existing a lot of the requirements that are currently in place will will remain in place in terms of buffering. It's actually fairly the way that that property is shaped. Not sure if I have it on this one, but the way that the property is shaped, if you look at that, it it actually had a pretty minimal touch onto the Montage development and there's no cross access into the Montage development. This property is coming out onto Sunnybrook really. And so um we sort of just outlined those issues and as we discussed it with them but there is a there there will meet continue to be a buffer uh provision and then again we had various sort of blank wall and other provisions to try to further provide some some uh uh to address their concerns. >> What's a blank wall? >> A wall without a window or any other sort of break >> back of the building. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Fox, did you have a question? >> Uh no. I was going to say um overall this change is somewhat minor >> um in comparison to other cases we've seen. Um and I'm not finding any inconsistency and I'd be uh ready to support it at the appropriate time. >> Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments before we entertain a motion? Okay, Commissioner Fox. Uh, in regards to case TCZ1325, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 9, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Commissioner Fox has uh made a motion. Commissioner Bernett has made a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Thank you. That's unanimous. Our next new business item is resoning Z1725 Lewisburg Road. Um I'll note that this is also associated with the next new business item Z1825 Kyle Drive, but they are separate. So we'll hear them separately. So Z1725 Lewisburg Road. We'll hear from staff. >> Hello again. Hi Marziano. Uh this is Z1725. Uh this is a assemblage of four parcels on Lewisburg Road. Uh the request is to reszone those four parcels totaling 3.9 acres from R1 to R10 uh conditional use. Uh the deadline for action would be November 8th. Uh zoning this area is predominantly residential. Um there is some mixed juice up and down the road. uh a little bit further out, but you'll notice that it has R4, R1, and R10 surrounding it uh completely uh with R10CU uh adjacent to the north. The areas moderate scale residential, low scale residential. Some of the uh future developments have been listed for high-cale residential as you move down the highway. Um uh as said previously, this is also uh from the same applicants of uh Z1825, which you'll note is across the street behind the church. Um here's a arrow of the site. Um with subdivision behind it, just some street views um of the vacant land. Currently, uh it does back up to um I just now forgot the name of that road, Black Maple Drive. Um they're on the the rear side number three there. Uh the conditions being proposed would prohibit the uses of cemetery and parking facilities that would normally be allowed in R10. Uh you can see here that the change primarily is going to be with setback distances plus the maximum allowed units. R1 would allow for one dwelling unit per acre essentially. So only each of these four lots would only allow for one unit. Uh under R10 CU they'd be allowed up to a maximum of 75. Uh it does have sidewalks adjacent. However, we are at a lower walk score than average for the city. Uh lower transit score for the city, lower bike score for the city. Um being right there off of 401. Uh does have a decent transportation cost, higher than the city's average, and it really is close to several jobs in the sector. Uh popped on here. There's two close U bus routes, but you'll note that this is8 mi from one and 1.1 mi from another. So, it's really not within walking distance of transit. Uh does add to the housing supply. Uh no subsidized units in the application. Uh does permit a variety of housing types, detached, attached, town home, uh apartment buildings. Uh smaller uh units are allowed than city average um with smaller lots than city average. uh not within walking distance of transit. Uh just some key demographics in this area. Uh again, increased cost of rent in the area. Um likely more lower income than city average in this area. Uh it is inconsistent with the future land use map. The future land use map does have this area as low-cale residential. Low scale residential typically looks at R2, R4, R six. Um R10 we usually see closer to moderate scale residential. uh being outside of a transit corridor, transit overlay, R10 is really not suitable for low-scale residential. I will point out as well though that the neighboring subdivision behind it is R10CU as well. So, um take that for what it is. Uh we are along a parkway corridor. This being a residential project or residential zoning, not mixed use, um there's no need for uh um any frontage guidance. uh is consistent with our comprehensive plan, inconsistent with the future land use map um and technically non-applicable to the urban form map. Uh consistent policies here for you um in your packet as well. Inconsistent policies uh we're looking at response time standards and inconsistency with the future land use map. Uh upcoming meetings would be the 23rd, 14th, 28th uh deadline for action. Um, if this does go through and is approved, there would be a need to uh update the future land use map along with this request. Um, and would take it most likely to moderate scale residential being that that is what is associated with the area across the street and further down the highway. >> Thank you. Next, we will hear from um the applicant. The applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes. >> Good morning, Chair Bennett. Um Ashley Honeyut trous with Parker Poe here on behalf of the applicant St. Matthew U Baptist Church. And we did want to request that um the the board hear the staff report for the next case since it is the same applicant and the two cases are related and I think it's going to make more sense to everybody if I present them together. So would it be okay to that's fine. Okay, great. So, we'll hear from staff um presentation for Z1825 now. >> Good morning, commissioners. My name is Artic Castro the 4th. I'm here to present rezoning case Z1825 um for the 4.66 66 acre site located at 5209 Cal Drive. The applicant is St. Matthews Baptist Church. The applicant is requesting a reszoning from R-6 CU to R10CU. According to the future land use map, the area is designated as moderate scale residential. The current R six district currently permits single unit detached homes on a minimum of 6,000 foot lot as well as attached townhouse and duplex units. Um, compact conservation and cottage court developments are also allowed with preserved o open space and transit orient oriented modifications may apply in overlay areas. The proposed R10 district allows for a greater residential density including detached homes on lots as small as 4,000 square ft duplexes, town houses, and multif family apartments along with the same compact and conservation development options. So basically, it allows a greater variety of housing types at higher densities consistent with the site's future land use um map designation. There are two pre-existing conditions associated with this site. The first is development shall be limited to single family development on property and she'll be limited to detached homes on separate lots. The second is developer shall comply with CR-7107 storm water requirements. There is one new zoning condition associated with this request and that is the development should not connect to RB drive. The surrounding zoning pattern is predominantly moderate scale residential. However, the closest zoning is R is R1 and RX3. Um NX uh well neighborhood mixeduse residential um R4 and R10 are located within 1,000 ft of the site. This map presents the proposed resoning site which is outlined in red with a small section of the property frontage located along Cal Drive. The site is directly adjacent to St. Matthews Baptist Church which is outlined in blue. And across the street outlined in purple are the four parcels that are part of the joint reszoning quest Z-1725. This map presents a zoomed out aerial view of the proposed resoning site outlined in yellow at the intersection of RB Drive and Cal Drive. Surrounding zoning includes a mix of low, medium, and moderate scale residential districts as well as nearby mixeduse districts. The surrounding zoning context includes R1 districts to the north, east, and south, and residential mixed use to the west, which is the location of the Winston Park um apartments. Surrounding land uses are a mix of churches, apartments, and single family neighborhoods. This picture just shows an aerial view of the site alone outlined in yellow. This image shows the site from the property frontage along Cal Drive. The summary of proposed conditions. There is one new zoning condition associated with this request. The development should not connect to RB Drive. There are also two pre-existing conditions associated with this site. As previously stated, development should be limited to single family development on property and should be limited to detached homes on separate lots. And two, developers should comply with CR-7107 storm water requirements. The resoning request keeps most developmental standards the same acreage height setbacks but allows for a modest increase in density. Um zoning change from R sixcu um residential up to six units acre with conditions to R10 up to 10 units acres with conditions. The lot size is 4.66 acres total. There's no change in building form. Both districts cap height at 40 feet and three stories with identical setbacks. 10 ft for the front, 5 ft for the side, and 20 ft for the rear. Um the main difference is the number of permitted um homes, 24 units under R sixcu and 33 units under R10CU, a roughly 37% increase in potential housing. In short, the proposal keeps the same building scale and site layout standards, but allows more housing units on the same site, increasing residential capacity without changing the visual or physical impact of development. As far as the transportation and energy analysis, walkability with the walk score of eight versus the city average of 31, the site is highly um car dependent and not walkable. Um there is no transit score available suggesting little or no public transit um access. In terms of bike friendliness, a bike score of eight versus a city average of 41 shows that biking is not a realistic option for most trips. In terms of transportation costs, the HUD low transportation cost index is at the 60 is at the 66th percentile, which indicates residents spend a smaller share of income on transportation than average despite low multimmoal options. Job access. The HUD jobs proximity index at the 40th percentile means fewer nearby jobs compared to other city areas, limiting employment accessibility. In short, the site is um in short, the site is auto oriented with poor walk, bike, and transit options, but relatively affordable transportation costs. However, access to nearby jobs is below average. There is no available bus um transit service that serves this area. As for the affordability analysis, the resoning would add to the housing supply by allowing smaller lot sizes and a higher unit yield. No naturally occur um occurring affordable housing exists on the site is vacant um and no subsidized units are proposed. The new zoning will permit multiple housing types beyond detached houses um houses expanding choice. The requested district allows smaller minimum lots 4,000 square feet than typical supporting more compact development. The site is not within walking distance of transit so residents will likely be car dependent. Um overall the proposal increases housing capacity and diversity but but does not directly provide affordable or subsidized units and lacks proximity to transit. In terms of demographics and land use history, the site area closely mirrors Raleigh overall with a similar demographic index of 35 verse 37. The people of color share slightly higher at this site, 49% compared to the city 46%. The site has a much lower share of low-income households, 6% versus 29% suggesting relatively higher income status. I mean economic status, I'm sorry. Rates of limited English-speaking households are slightly higher, 4% versus 3%. Fewer residents lack a high school education at the site, 2% versus 8%. The site area has a younger population with fewer children under five. That's 2% verse 6% and fewer adults over 64, 4% verse 11%. Rent change data is unavailable for this site, but citywide rents have risen 25.5% since 2020 reflecting broader affordability um pressures. In summary, the site area is slightly more diverse, younger, and more economically advantaged than the city overall, though it faces some rising um rent environment as does Raleigh. The proposed reszoning from residential 6CU to residential 10CU is consistent with the site's future land use map designation of moderate scale residential which supports a range of housing types including um small lot detached houses, duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, town houses, and garden apartments. This category encourages missing um missing middle housing at a scale consistent with existing neighborhood patterns. Both R six and R10 are identified as corresponding districts within this designation. There are no urban form map designations associated with this site. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It would allow for a broader range of housing types and increase residential density in alignment with the moderate scale residential designation on a future land use map. The reasonzoning expands opportunities for missing middle housing. Um, it also promotes more efficient use of existing infrastructure and provides a logical transition between single family neighborhoods and adjacent multif family development. Um, consistent with the managing our growth theme, the reasonzoning increases housing supply in northeast Raleigh where housing demand and costs have risen in recent years and the request therefore advances comprehensive plan policies that encourage diverse housing options, neighborhood compatibility, and growth in appropriate infield locations. This is a list of consistent policies related to this reszoning request. This is one of two pages, one of two slides, I'm sorry. This is the second slide showing the consistent policies. There were two inconsistent policies associated with this site. Um, both have to do with the site does not meet NFPA 1710 standards for the timely arrival of a full alarm assignment. This require the required 8minute travel time was not is not achieved. There are no outstanding issues associated with this site. Um if if additional discussion is needed beyond today, the next available opportunity will be at the September 23rd meeting. The deadline for the planning commission to act in this case is November 8th um of this year. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Now we'll hear from the applicant on Do you have two separate presentations? Okay. But but um let me check with staff, but we will need to take these up separately, right? This will be two separate recommendations. Okay. So, we'll hear from the applicant. >> Thank you very much, Hyram and Arthur. Um again, I'm Ashley Honeyut Trazz with Parker Poe 301 Fable Street here in Raleigh, and I'm um working with the St. Matthew Baptist Church um on this resoning request for uh properties that the church uh owns and has owned for many years. Deacon James Holloway is here with me this morning as well from St. Matthew. Um so I'll go through I I think it's going to be helpful. Um James Mr. Holloway is going to come up and give the um board a little background on why the church is requesting this, but I'll give a quick um property overview and history. So again, like staff mentioned um the for Z1725, which is right across the street from St. Matthew Baptist Church um involves uh four parcels that they own. They bought them um about nine years ago um with the intention to develop them as a family life center um and later determined that they were not the best fit for a family life center for the church. Um Z182 uh 25 is zone R6CU. Those zoning conditions were from 1994 um which was and and the church was gifted this property in 1996. So, these zoning conditions were already on this property when um it was given to St. Matthew. Um and the and I I believe um staff went through what those conditions are, but it's essentially the only use permitted on the property is single family detached houses and the um and then there's a reference to storm water regulations that were effect in in effect in the 90s which are no longer um a part of the UDO. Um so um anyway, so um before I get into the um the requests for the zoning and why we are um asking for R10CU for both of these sites, um I wanted um Deacon Holloway to come up and explain um a little bit about what the um church's vision is for both of these properties. Good morning, Chair Bennett and Planning Commission. My name is Degan James Holloway. I've been at St. Matthews since 20 uh 2004. And our vision for um St. Matthew is to build, operate, and maintain a family center to serve St. Matthew members and the surrounding community for the purpose of adding and enhancing individual and collective Christian perspective. Our mission statement is that we uh would love to cultivate community inclusion inclusive to all ages and cultural backgrounds by providing a safe facility for ministry, art, education, recreation and celebration. Z1725, the Lewisburg Road property that's across the street from the church. Uh our intent was to purchase that property to build the life center on that property. Uh and we did purchase that property with that intent. Uh we already had the property that's associated with Kyle Road and um we had a feasibility study conducted on both properties. The recommendation was that we build the life center on the property on our campus, Church campus and um and we um took that to heart and we decided that okay with the Lewisburg Road property we could use that property to possibly fund the life center um that we are trying to fund. Uh and we in order to uh do that we will have to get the property reszone for high density uh and uh reszone according to what's being developed already in that area. Um the acreage is about 4 point u about four acres of property and also it would be a benefit to um the individual homes in the back of us because they have a highway that is a dead end road back there. So we're hoping that whoever the developer is that purchased the property from us on Lewisburg Road will consider affordable housing. Now, we we can't dictate what they would do with the property and also connect uh that uh highway and it was identified by gentleman here, >> Black Maple Drive, >> Black Maple Drive that give them a complete access instead of a dead end highway back there. So, it would be a benefit to them. Uh and again, our intent and our hope is to reszone that property for sale uh to help fund the life center at Cow Road. uh we are trying to add more value to the community in that area. We don't have uh a a facility that can accommodate uh the people that live in the area. As you say, as they said before, uh there's limited bus service or no bus service. There's limited biking. Uh if we're able to provide uh some um uh life center facility accommodations, it would definitely increase the value of that community also. and and being um not that far from the Raleigh area downtown, it would be very helpful to that community, I think. >> Thanks, Deacon Holly. Um so, I'm going to go through kind of the more technical aspects of the request and why we're requesting these districts to support that vision that the church has for these properties. Um so, again, as Deacon Holloway mentioned, the church recognizes that there's a there's a housing need in the area. There's um a lot of housing coming to this area. Um I'm sure the planning commission uh remembers, you know, these these cases right over here which were recently approved. There's apartments going up, you know, immediately next to the church over here. And then this site over here are um was approved by the city council just um a few months ago back in June. That was another R10CU request. Um so again, to be consistent with the housing types and densities that are in the area. And then the this is the Brandemir neighborhood that is also um R10 CU as Arthur um mentioned or I'm sorry as Hyram mentioned before. Um and so really they're they're um hoping to select a developer who can who can develop this at a scale that they believe is appropriate across from their church and in light of everything that's um going on. Um and we did get a good community turnout um at the neighborhood meetings and discussed um permitted housing types, heights, things like that with the community. Also the Black Maple Drive extension that Deacon Holloway mentioned. We in our very first discussion with transportation staff, we talked um through that and that would be a requirement of the UDO if it's permitted by NC DOT. Um and then with the uh for the Kyle Drive property back here that uh abuts the church. Um as Deacon Holloway mentioned, the plan would be for that site to be used for the family life center that they have long envisioned. Um community centers are permitted a permitted use in our 10CU. Um my my church has something very similar to what they're trying to do and it's in a residential district. Um so there and we are requesting R10 to be with some more flexible development dimensional um standards for that um for that building. We did add a zoning condition um as staff mentioned not to connect the development to RB drive which is this road right here and that was in response to community feedback that we got. I think um some of the folks that live on that road uh came to we had two community meetings. They came to both. Um, and their main concern was that they don't want any traffic on that road. It is a dirt road. It is technically public rideway. It was accepted by the city, but it's never been opened for public use. So, it's not built to city standards. And so, we we discussed this with transportation staff. And as the site has two points of access, one right here on Kyle Drive and then the church's plan is actually to connect it via cross access easement into their parking lot. Um so it would you know all the access would come from the church's property which would be permitted by the UDO. Um it was in coordination with transportation staff. Um we worked out that condition about not connecting you know voluntarily connecting to RB drive which would not be required to be extended or um under the UDO and this um anyway so just to wrap up um real quick. Oh yeah, >> the menu. >> Sorry about that. Um, so just pulling it back to the future land use map um for um Z1725 um or or sorry for Z1825 the Kyle Drive site um it's directly consistent um with the moderate scale residential um design R10 is directly consistent with that um future land use map designation and with respect to the Lewisburg road site for the reasons um we've already discussed um we we do think that the change to the moderate scale residential from low-skll residential is appropriate. Um and it and the type of uh residential uses and densities that are permitted in R10 um again is is appropriate um in light of other development and zoning in the vicinity and would allow for more um housing to be built there. Um and that and I'll just end on the consistent policies. These are um not all the consistent policies in the staff report, but the key ones that that staff found um both requests to be consistent with. Um again, just kind of highlighting that the there's a need for housing. Um we don't want to prohibit housing and um or housing types, which is currently what's going on with the Kyle Drive property. And um and we respectfully ask that you recommend approval. Thank you. Okay. So, we will bring these both back to the table, but we're going to discuss them individually to keep everything straight and to help Shenita with her minutes. So, let's start with Z1725, which is the Lewisburg Road property. Do we have questions or comments? Commissioner Atwell, >> I just have a quick comment. Thank you, Chair Bennett. Um, I don't have any issues that I'm seeing with this proposal. um and I plan to support it. But I'd like to point out that I think this is demonstrates some of my problems with the walk score and the transit score that we use, which is very formulaic. Um it's true that this site is a mile away from the transit stops, but I believe this is one of the most transit dependent parts of the city and bike score is low. I hate biking up here, but every time I'm out here, I see uh many people out there on the sidewalks using bikes to get to bus stops and get to jobs and using it for transit. I think that this kind of population goes largely ignored in these kind of discussions. Uh but I think that this is some of the most bike dependent and pedestrian dependent parts of the city. I think a mile is not too great of a distance to expect some people in this neighborhood to take advantage of the strong transit that's exists and is going to be improved over the next several years along the Capital Boulevard corridor. So that get off my podium now. >> Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. Other questions or comments for Z1725? >> Commissioner Bernett, Commissioner Omay. >> Um I don't have any issues with it. I think it'll be a great addition to that area. um that area needs um you know it could benefit from more density um from you know the type of housing stock that's been presented. So um I would definitely be uh offer supporting it and be ready to make a motion when the time comes. >> Thank you Commissioner Bernett. Commissioner Oay >> um before they made a comment about old storm water rules. I was wondering if we can kind of get a little more into that and talk about with the removal of the trees on the cow pro well this the old storm water rules. I know. >> That's the Wait a minute. Is that That's Z18. >> Yeah, that's the other case. Apologize. >> Hold that question. Okay. >> Um, Commissioner O'H. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. >> Um, a question for the applicant. May maybe to start with staff. The difference between the existing zoning and the proposed zoning probably won't come to won't be a surprise to anybody on the commission. Um the existing zoning is a sum of a sideyard of 10 feet and the proposed is 5 feet and the existing rear yard is 30 ft and proposed is 20 ft. So my question to the applicant would be again if I if I purchased a home there's there's three houses that are sitting adjacent to this property. If I purchase that home and I see an R1 zoning be different if it was already an R10 or something that allowed retail, but would there be a consideration to just maintain or at least increase to some degree the rear yard and maintain the sum of the sideyard which seems like I say this hesitantly a minimal change. I know even 5T has a huge impact on developments, but 5T also has a huge impact on adjacent property owners. So that's my only concern. Otherwise, I think it's a fantastic project and totally willing to support it. >> Thank you, Commissioner Haver. >> I just for clarity, the question is uh would they be willing to do conditions to offer scaling similar to um right >> correct? >> Okay. around the peripheral for all the development, >> the sum of the sideyard and the rear yard adjacent to where there's existing housing and just looking at where it's located. >> Any adjacent to um we did get we we did get neighbors from that that um area that came to the neighborhood meetings and that concern wasn't raised. And I did want to note that that is where most of the trees are on the site. So TCA would apply here because this is over two acres. Um, so likely, you know, Black Maple Drive extending through to Lewisburg Road, right? And then I I would imagine that's probably where the TCA is going to have to be, but you know, we don't have a site plan yet. Um, so I think the request and we don't and as I mentioned before, we don't have a developer, you know, and we are hoping to to keep this as flexible as possible. Um, so is the specific request like a like if it were townhouse lots or whatever like that the setback be the same as Okay. >> And I think um I think the fact that there's not a developer and we talk about this a lot putting those conditioners you we we assume the TCA is going to be there but we don't know that. >> So I don't want to move forward assuming that those trees are going to exist. So I would feel more comfortable if at least where it's adjacent we could maintain those setbacks and I assume TCA can occur in the setbacks. So >> setback lots. Yeah. >> Yes. The rear yard and the sideyard. So TCA can exist there and the trees are there then it just it just doubly uh pushes them towards maintaining that the trees there and the and the separation between the developments. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I I just would want to be careful in how we we word that because I don't know, you know, how the house is going to sit on a like a townhouse would sit on the lot. Um, you know, in the size of the town, again, assuming it would be a townhouse development if that's what it ends up being. Um, but could we pull up what the difference is? >> Yeah, let me grab my presentation. >> 10 feet on the rear yard and an additional sum of five feet on the sideyard. And just tactically, I'm not sure the rest of the commission agrees with me. So, this is just my personal uh this is just my personal uh perspective on this. So, >> your perspective is important. So, >> Oh, I know. No, I'm just I'm I'm just saying. I mean, we're going she's jumping through some hoops here. I just want to point out that maybe not everybody agrees with me. So, >> did you want to say something, Commissioner Cochman, while they're pulling it up? Yeah, I I share um Commissioner O'Hver's concern. Um we did receive an email from one of those residents in fact um with concerns about apartments, but they didn't I don't think they mentioned town homes. So if if in fact the intent is for town homes, but we don't know who is developing it. It could it could be apartments. Is there a requirement between these two um zoning types for a buffer? Um, no. U pulled up the zoning map. Uh, it' be R10 to R10. Uh, there it' be the same zoning classification. Um, and that conditional use for that neighborhood bender mirror behind it. Um, allows for multiple types of building types um, including condominiums, but not for rent apartments. So the scaling would still be allowed on both sides of the boundary line. Not that it's not fully developed. I'm just saying based on their conditions, um the the uses aren't that different. So there'd be no need for a buffer. Sorry. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner O'Hver. Did that answer your question or so? You would like the applicant to consider adding a condition around buffering. Okay. And Commissioner Cochran, you agree with that? Commissioner Omay had her hand up. Or is this related to that? >> It is. It's just >> Is yours related to this? >> Okay. >> Okay. Commissioner May. >> No, I was going to also say that I agree and I was uh I think this is a great project. Um and with there not being a developer protecting the residents that are behind the development by creating some sort of buffer and tree conservation on this side of the project. I know that if I guess if I live there, I would wouldn't mind something being built, but I wouldn't want to turn in into a, you know, brick wall. So, and the trees could also help with some of the sound uh the noise uh pollution in the area from the traffic and everything. >> Thank you, Commissioner Fox. >> I just wanted to clarify is the request from other commissioners to buffer an R10 neighborhood from an R10 neighborhood. I'm not mentioning buffers. I'm just >> You can pull up if you can pull up the proposed versus the existing setbacks. The chart >> right there. I I'm only suggesting that the sum of the sideyard be increased by 5t and that the rear yard be increased by some number between 20 and 30. I would prefer 30. So that's just existing so that the people who purchased those properties there can feel comfortable that they went into that purchase knowing what's going to be on the adjacent site. That's all I'm not ask for any additional buffering. >> But it touches it's on the shared property line of an R10 to an R10. Correct. >> Okay. On >> Can we pull up the map maybe so we can see the zoning? What you're saying is the R the R10 it's going to be the same R10 to R10. If you were to develop that R10, it's 20 ft and it's 20 ft on the north side. But if you look at those houses, they're right on the property line. I'm not sure how they did that, but I I I hear your point. >> Yeah, I'm I I often question buffering or providing additional screening from housing to housing. I'm not screening. Just setbacks. >> Just setback. >> Just setbacks is all I'm not asking for any additional buffering or screening. Just >> to if you look at how tight those parcels are to that site. Again, if I purchase that knowing that my the property adjacent to mine is an R1, knowing it could be reszoned. I I get all that. Uh but it's different. If I purchase that site and it was R10 to R10, then I think that's a different situation we're discussing. So all I'm asking for is just the setbacks that exist. No additional screening, no additional buffering. >> And then I'll ask too just to acknowledge the side yard would be the rear yard of the parcels in question right? >> Not to not to the norththeast. Um >> perhaps >> if I may real quick also in this chart we're looking at worst case scenarios or the the the the minimums right so even a detached home um it still would be 10 10520 u which is what's allowed next door 10 10 520 um so if you add in extra distance on these properties is what I think is getting just added a developmental distance not necessarily a screening buffer or something like that. Um, it's that's all it's doing is that, but we don't know the configuration. So, you wouldn't be able to say sideyard, rear yard is the I think an an issue >> and trying to make that determination of when you when this is if this is crafted, making sure it meets all possible conditions because with that road coming through, you then change the orientation of where access is. There could be internal roads, there could be driveways off Lewis, we we we don't know is the thing. So utilizing these setbacks for like for like um would be a standard practice. Um but in crafting a condition you need to if that comes about it needs to make sure that it doesn't just address sideyard or rear yard because orientations may change. So that's something to be considered in this conversation. Um, we can't just make a you can't just sit there and say let's make it 30 feet because I don't I don't know if a sideyard is going to be the sideyard there. >> We we absolutely have done that on other cases when it's adjacent to existing residential. We've added a condition just for certain property lines. So again, I don't want to get us down a rabbit hole. I think it's a great project. I'm I'm willing to support it. I'm just asking that there be a little bit of consideration for the existing neighbors. again, not knowing how it's going to be developed, not knowing who the developer is, and not having a plan. I would just feel more comfortable. But we don't need to we don't need to keep going down this rabbit hole if somebody wants to make a a um recommendation. >> I saw lots of microphones being grabbed. Uh Commissioner Atwell. >> Uh thank you, Chair Bennett. Uh normally um when my fellow commissioners ask for additional uh conditions especially around setbacks and transitions and the applicant is willing uh I'm happy to go along with it. In this case I am uncomfortable putting extra cost and complexity and limitations on the church in their project. This is not a normal residential or commercial development that we're looking at and I'd like to provide them as much flexibility as possible and would be happy to support it the way it is. >> Other questions, comments? Uh, Commissioner Cochran. >> Yeah, I wasn't requesting um a condition and I would like to acknowledge um Commissioner Fox's point that it is an R10 to an R10 and in that case I see no issue, >> okay, >> with the change. just like to say I appreciate the architects at the table. Um, other questions or comments? I do I have one comment and I mean it's related to this but it's more of a general comment and I want to preface it by saying as someone who always speaks vehemently about community engagement, I appreciate all the comments that we get from the public. I appreciate the um you know people care about their communities. We do often receive comments when there's a potential for apartments about concerns related to criminality. Um, when I was on the commission way back when, I've been on we've been here for a while, but we did have a committee meeting and we had staff present data showing that um there was not an increase in crime based on apartment status. So, I just want to say that I don't want to discourage people from providing their comments. Um, I know there are perceptions, but I I do want to make sure that we never judge people based on the type of housing they live in and and based on what was presented to us. There was um no correlation between crime and apartment dwellers. So, I just want to say that and put that on the record. Any other questions or comments for Z1725? I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Fox. Oh, wait. I think Commissioner Bernett had said he was ready to do the motion. All right. And so so we're so we're naming the just the cases both of them together. >> No, this is just for Z725. I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 9th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an attachment to the future uh land use map to extend described in the adopted consistency statement. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Commissioner Neptune has seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? That's unanimous. >> Commissioner Bennett, sorry. If I could, >> sir. >> Um, again, I I'm I'm in favor of this. I just want to I just want to respond to Commissioner Atwell's cost about additional cost on the project. Um, one, I don't know that there's going to be an additional cost to the church. They're selling it to a developer. And I think in in in sake of consistency, a lot of times when we talk about cost, um it's about the perceived rich developer and they should spend money versus a smaller local developer. Let's not have them spend money. But for me, it's not about spending the money. It's about adding a small layer of protection to the adjacent residences. So, >> thank you, Commissioner um O'Hver. Now, let's um discuss Z1825 Kyle Drive. Um Commissioner Omay, you had a question about a clarification about the storm water conditions. Okay. >> Um do I need to restate my question? >> Nope. Here comes Sally. >> Sally Hoya Rally storm water. uh this this case cond referring to CR7107 that was a storm water requirement in the 1990s that was in effect until we adopted more stringent regulations in 2001 and we continue to have those more stringent regulations in place. >> Does this neighborhood have any reports of or behind the neighborhood behind where we're talking about the Z1825 are there any reports of flooding? Has it been an area that has had that has dealt with that? >> Uh we did find some uh far downstream reports of flooding. However, this uh this site and actually the combination of these sites is less than 5% of the contributing drainage area. And per our code, if you're less than 5% of the contributing drainage area, you do not have to provide additional storm water controls. If you're more than 5%, you do have to provide those. But in this case, that would not be a requirement. >> Just one last question. Because this area is dense in trees and of course we know the trees help prevent flooding. With the removal of those trees, would that cause some sort of environmental impact? So the um the change in land cover including removal of trees is something that gets considered in the storm water calculations um that that are in place uh to look at the change in runoff from existing conditions to the proposed conditions. So that it that factor is considered. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you Sally. Other questions or comments? If not, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Atwell. >> Sure. >> Uh, with regard to Z1825, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 9th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Second. >> Commissioner Fox has seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? That's unanimous. Um, I'll note that Commissioner Bernett had stepped out. Does he count as an automatic? Yes. How How does that work? That's a yes. Okay, it's unanimous. Thank you. Um, those are all of our agenda items. So, thank you. Thank you, Deacon Holloway, for coming and providing your input. >> Um, moving on to our other business, report of the chair. Um, I just wanted to note that we will have a retreat coming up at some point this fall. I'll talk to staff about a date, but in the meantime, you all can think about topics that you might like to discuss and send them to me and I'll talk to staff and we'll get a nice agenda put together. Um, let's just go down the line. >> Thank you. Uh, it looks like there are no pending items for committee of the whole, so we will not have a meeting on September 25th. So again, no cow meeting on the 25th. >> Please bear with me while I look this up. Uh we do have a text change committee coming up. It's in the report from the assistant director. Oh, maybe not. >> While you're looking for that, we may have an item ready for September cow. I I would like to hold that time slot open and we can make a decision at your next meeting about whether or not the committee of the whole special cow. I know it sounds crazy. >> What's the date on that? >> September 25th. >> The 25th. So we can uh so we could do a uh make a decision later. >> Could I do a quorum check? >> Sure. >> Now? >> Yeah, that'd be great. Uh so if uh everyone can just raise their hand if they believe at this moment in time that they would be available on September 25th at 400 pm >> looks one two three four >> Bennett >> I will sorry >> perhaps >> Commissioner Bernett would you be available for a committee of the whole meeting on September >> 25th >> 25th at 4 pm >> okay so that would give And we still have Miller and Shelurn. >> That give you six. >> That gives us >> raise your hands again if you can. >> One, two, three, four, five. >> That gives you five >> and we'll check with Miller and Shelby. >> I will follow up and get back to you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So I I found my document. Thank you. Um, we do have a text change committee coming up. We have uh we'll discuss TC 324 RHDC updates on September 17th at 4 PM. And I would like to go ahead and do a quorum check on that and see if anybody's going to be missing that meeting on September 17th. >> Who's on the committee? >> All present. Good. >> You won't be there. I should have asked a more clear question. Um one absent, two absent. >> I can be there. >> All right. Great. I'm probably >> talking in your mic, Commissioner Ma. >> No, in your mic so we can hear you. That's >> um Is there We have to be there in person. There's no opportunity like to zoom in. Okay. >> And no, no report for myself. Thank >> Commissioner Neptune. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. Uh just first briefly, I wanted to acknowledge my thanks and gratitude to the uh our colleagues on city staff at the Department of Transportation. We had a last month a very smooth transition from the Cardinal uh docked bike program, a rental bike program in the city to our dockless program with Lime and Spin Bikes. And this all happened um in advance of the Hopscotch Music Festival where we you received thousands, tens of thousands of people uh here downtown and all around. And uh I certainly was one of many making use of our new uh docless uh program. And uh I know it was a big lift for our colleagues on city staff with city transportation. So I just wanted to acknowledge um the work of Hannah Dos Santos and uh her team. Uh just one other note with regard to our earlier conversation with the resoning case Z125 South New Hope Road. I wanted to thank Commissioner Omay for flagging uh the issues around storm water flooding and public engagement. you know, there was a a comment made by my colleague Commissioner Atwell about, you know, regulations and and how we should be uh, you know, by and large, I think, comfortable with that. I think there's there's certainly truth in that. Um, but I would also acknowledge that, you know, sometimes it it takes time for regulations to catch up to reality and I think especially in the context of of climate change, um, you know, we've we've been witnessed this summer, especially in the city of Raleigh, uh, to some, um, pretty uh, torrential flooding uh, and and, uh, I think there are, you know, reasonable concerns around that, especially with new development um, and especially with regard to development that proposes potentially to be um you know affordable housing right in the context of a floodway that just that's sort of like an added level of concern and I and I and I I think it's worth acknowledging because this was an interesting case to me where seemingly it met the comp plan it met the future land use map but then as a commission we have to consider the public interest and the public good and whether it's in our backyard or whether we're considering really the city as a whole um you know I just thought this was a again a striking uh case worth flagging, you know, for our colleagues on on council and of course storm water uh management uh the advisory commission. I was grateful to hear with regard to public engagement that there will be further opportunities for the public to participate despite uh what sounds like maybe insufficient public engagement leading up to this uh resoning case landing at the commission table. So, and I I'll just wrap up by saying, you know, there was a comment in our I guess engagement materials with regard to this case u from a resident who attended both neighborhood meetings uh and you know, just stated that they felt the the applicant um you know, sort of lacked a clear uh sort of presentation for these neighborhood meetings. It felt rushed. Uh apparently this this resident, you know, actually reached out to the applicant and did not get a response. Um, and you know, I would just note for applicants present and future, you know, public engagement is not a box that we check. I think there are many members of this commission who take it quite seriously. And if you only see a handful of people showing up at your meetings that I hope you feel encouraged to continue your engagement efforts and perhaps uh feel encouraged to get creative in how you're reaching people and where they are. Okay. So, with that, I'll conclude my comment. Thank you. >> Nothing to report. No reports for me. >> Um, I want to ditto what Commissioner Neptune said. And, uh, my report out does not have anything to do with planning, but the planning of my life. My student loans were forgiven. Hallelujah. >> Hallelujah. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> That's a big deal. >> That is all. >> If I did have comment, I would not try to follow up on that, but I don't have any comments. So, Okay. Um, thank you all. We'll turn to the report of the assistant director. >> I don't have anything to add other than what was published in the agenda. I hope you will read my report. >> Thank you. >> Can I say one thing? >> Um, Commissioner Fox, >> I wanted to thank you for putting in the photos of everybody. That was really helpful for me. Um, and the bios, that was very helpful. >> There's a lot of you knew. There's a lot of us new. Yeah, we need to get to know each other, right? >> I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Should we do the same thing? >> No, I was being funny. Um all together. >> Thank you. And thank you to to staff again. We don't always thank you, but thank you for all the work you do to bring this information to us and make a lot of super technical information make sense. So, we appreciate you. We appreciate the applicants. We appreciate the public. Um, I do want to say we do read emails. Um, so just because someone's not here speaking, I I want to acknowledge that we are reading the emails and trying to address those concerns that we see in our emails. So if there's nothing else, we will stand adjourned. [Music]