Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey hey hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Heat. Hey Heat. Hey hey hey. Heat. Heat. Oh, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, Heat. He feels Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Welcome to the regular meeting of the planning commission. I'm going to call this meeting to order. My name is Dwight Otwell and this will be my first attempt to chair this commission and I'd like to introduce Jessica Cochran who is our newly elected vice chair. And uh real quickly, I'd just like we have a new member and new leadership. So, I'd like to run down the line and have every all the commissioners introduce themselves real quickly if we could please. So, hey, I'm Dwight. I'm Dwight Otwell. I've been here four years so far. >> Jessica Cochran. I've been on the commission for one year and I'm in District C. Uh Bert Fox, I am the ETJ representative from the county. This is my sixth year. >> Brian O'Heay, first year. I also live in district C. >> Tana Sanchez. This is my first meeting and I live in District D. >> Mark Shelburn. Um I have no idea what district I'm in. I'm sure I should know. Um, but I've been on since May, which basically has very little time since we don't do anything in the summer. >> All right. Thank you. And uh and welcome aboard, Trey. It's good to have you. >> And so I'm going to I'm ask for everybody's support and patience as I try to get the hang of this. I'm sure I'll make a few missteps, but we'll get through it together. For the first order of business, uh before we begin our other business, we provide a opportunity for the members of the public to speak upon any items that are not included on the agenda today. Is there anybody here that is wishes to speak on an item not included in the agenda? All right, seeing no hands, we'll move on to the next order of business, which is the consent agenda. The only issue we have on the consent agenda today is the approval of the minutes from the March 10th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Have the commissioners had an opportunity to review and uh ready to make a motion on the minutes. Are there any comments or corrections? Entertain a motion. >> Motion to approve the minutes. >> Have a second. This is motion by Commissioner Fox and seconded by Vice Chair Cochran. All in favor? All opposed. And that passes unanimously. Backing up just one second if you would please. Uh, Commissioner Brian Bernett has been in touch and he is unavailable and he is marked excused for today, please. And I'm still hoping to see from Commissioner Neptune. And who else is on the list that we're not seeing today? Commissioner Bernett is the only one that I've heard for that is not going to be here today. So, we'll keep an eye out for the rest. Okay. We have a pretty a pretty average agenda today. We should be able to make through it. We have two old business items and two new business items. And so to jump right into it, starting with old business, we are going to bring up case Z1525, Randley Farm at the intersection of Auburn, Nightdale Road, and Battlebridge Road. Um, we're going to now open the public hearing. Uh, for each item, the staff will make a short presentation and the applicant and those in favor will have 10 minutes to speak. After that, the opposition will have 10 minutes. And following the public comment, commissioners will have the opportunity to ask questions to staff, uh, the applicant, and the public, and then we'll move on after that. So, I'm going to turn it over to staff for a staff presentation please. >> Uh, Commissioner, well, this, uh, case was heard at your last hearing, so uh, really you'll just be receiving an update from staff today and then if you have additional questions for the applicant, you can ask those. And Ben, I'm not sure if there was any time left for the opposition on this one. >> Okay. Okay, >> we do have two minute and 8 seconds remaining for those in support and eight remaining for those in opposition. And did we keep the public hearing open at the end of the last one? The public hearing is still open on this one. Thank you. >> Good morning, Chair Otwell, members of the planning commission, Matthew Burns with planning and development. As a reminder, this is a request to reszone a 24 acre portion of 7800 Battlebridge Road. Uh, and the request has been revised since your last meeting to reduce the requested height and to update the conditions and your deadline for action is May 9th. So, zoning in this area is predominantly residential. Uh the site is a a piece of Raleigh city limits that's surrounded to the most part for the most part by uh unincorporated uh Wake County. Here's a view of the site showing some nearby uses including agricultural and forestry uses as well as rural residential uses and some views of the site along Auburn Nightdale Road and Battlebridge Road. So the zoning conditions have been revised since our last meeting. Uh the use mixes in condition number one were updated to remove uh retail use mixes because the applicant added a second condition which I'll go over on the next slide which prohibits various uses. They also added some clarifying language in order to avoid some conflicts with the UDO uh once it comes to site plan. So the new condition that was added prohibits various higher impact public institutional, commercial and commercial uses including retail as well as some industrial uses and the condition which would exempt the property from the block perimeter requirements of the UDO remains unchanged. And this is just a reminder that the Randley Farm consists of two parcels which are jointly owned by the city of Raleigh and Wake County. The northern track at 3 3221 Auburn Nightdale has uh is to be exclusively used by the city of Raleigh whereas the southern tract, the portion of which is subject to this resoning is for exclusive use by Wake County. So this table of entitlements and the backup materials including the staff report have been updated to account for the changes uh which reduce the height and prohibit prohibited uses but the request would still increase residential entitlement as well as office and industrial but retail is now prohibited. So the request is inconsistent with the sites for future land use map designations. It is consistent overall with the urban form guidance and consistent overall with a comprehensive plan. Consistent policies include those which support uh the development of large sites, nodal development, uh commercial development and higher impact uses as well as the location of industrial areas and community facilities, facilities operations, facility concurrency, and policies specific to the southeast special study area. And the inconsistent policies cited here are related to the future lane use map, fire service, and large sites within the southeast area. And just as a reminder, if this request is approved, the future land use map would be amended from its four designations to public facilities. And that's what it would look like on the map. There are no outstanding issues and your deadline for action is May 9th. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for that presentation. Uh at this time, I'd like to invite the applicant and those in favor to remain the use the remainder of their eight minutes speaking time. >> Good morning. Um I'm Zach Pierce, landscape architect with CL Design. Uh back and uh kind of bring back this project based on some of the feedback we heard. Uh we have representatives from Wake County government here and then CL design again Matthew I don't really want to rehash what the what what Matthew did but we have uh same site the same area on on the corner last time we shared the benefit uh last time we shared the benefits of and the need for the animal center in this location. Uh we did modify some of those zoning conditions uh that we that Matthew went over and happy to go over any as well. Uh we have a list of prohibited uses that we added for condition number two and then the condition three was what we had uh before is just renumbered where the uh we excluded the block perimeter. So really I didn't have much time to uh uh have really muchh to add here today but space size we revised a lot of the conditions based on on the good dialogue that we had last time. So happy to answer any questions >> and uh we'll continue to reserve the portion of your time remaining. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to speak in favor of this application? All right. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak in opposition? The opposition has eight minutes remaining on the clock. All right. And seeing no one wishing to speak in opposition, I'll bring this back to the table. Let's keep the public hearing open. And if there are any commissioners that had issues and we're asking for conditions at the last meeting. Um, if you have any questions of staff or the applicant, now now is the time. Please indicate your desire to be recognized. Commissioner Fox, >> I just wanted to add I appreciated uh the clarifying language that was included in the zoning conditions and I'm uh ready to make a motion at the appropriate time. >> Commissioner Oay, >> um just confirming that this was the site that was uh they were only going to use two stories, but they asked for five, and they're making an amendment to only ask for two. It's going down to the It's gone now gone down to three because it's either that's the lowest. >> Yeah, the previously the request was for EX-5 and now they're asking for EX-3. So, a maximum of three stories. >> Okay. If there are no further comments or questions, let's uh close the public hearing and bring it back to the table. Uh entertain a motion at this time. >> Commissioner Fox. >> In regards to case 1525, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated March 24th, 2026 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. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second from Commissioner Neptune. All those in favor, please raise your hand. All those opposed. And that passes unanimously. 8 to zero. Move that screen back. I can't see. It is close. Thank you. >> And thank you to the applicant and their team. Move on to the next case. >> Next up is resoning application still in old business Z3925 319 Hex Street at the intersection of Hex Street and Oakwood Avenue. I believe that we have three minutes 3 minutes and 5 seconds remaining for those in support and 1 minute and 14 for those opposed. But first we will continue with an update from staff. >> Good morning Shesh Bareron uh presenting on Z3925. Um, this is a request to reszone just over half an acre um, located at 319 Hex Street from R10 with the Newburn Edon NCOD to RX4 with conditions. And then since your last meeting, the applicant has submitted revised conditions. Uh, another look at the site and where it sits. It's bordered by Idle Wild Avenue, Hex Street, and then at front uh, and also Oakwood Avenue. Um, and is and is across the street from uh, Oakwood Cemetery. It's within walking distance of St. Augustine's University as well. And then a look at the site again. And it's where it sits within the NCOD. It's within um the NCOD is bordered by the um Oakwood Historic District to the west and then also the transit overlay district or the TOD to the east um which is mapped with the future Newburn uh BRT. Uh since your last meeting, the applicant has revised conditions. The first is prohibiting all retail sales in that first condition. And then the second revision is adding the third condition which requires the property owner to install a commemorative plaque on the property citing uh the property's location within the Idle Wild neighborhood and as well as the historic significance of the Idle Wild neighborhood. And the plaque will be installed on any new residential building um prior to the first prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Um here's a look at the change in entitlement. No difference in units here, but um with the prohibit prohibition of retail sales from the first condition, that's removed here, but office uh could still be a limited use. Um overall, the request is still consistent with the future land use map. It's still consistent with the urban form map and also the comprehensive plan. Overall, a number of consistent policies here that speak to compact development, capitalizing on transit access, as well as providing additional um housing options and variety near future BRT routes. Two inconsistent policies remain. These uh are related to fire service response time standards. Um no outstanding issues remain. Uh and then your deadline for action is May 9th. >> All right. Thank you for that presentation. The public hearing remains opened and I believe we have three minutes left for those in uh support with the applicant like to use the three minutes to give us an update on the conditions in the case. 3 minutes and 5 seconds. >> Thank you. Good morning. Molly Stewart, Morning Star Law Group here on behalf of the applicant. The applicant uh is on his way. He's had some trouble this morning. He wanted to speak with you all. Um I will I will do my best, but um I wanted to cover briefly the three concerns that we heard last time. Um first, we heard that retail um use was going to be a concern. We have prohibited all retail use on the site. That's in our conditions. Um we've also heard about the importance of the name Idle Wild. That has also been addressed um by a new condition requiring a plaque to be on the site. And I have more to say about that if there's time left. And then finally, we heard a concern about removal of the NCOD itself um um in the name of preservation, right? To to keep things um together because that is the quicker topic. I'm actually going to start there today. Um that NCOD does a couple of things. It has a minimum lot size and you see here on this map, this is what's available in Raleigh right now um for town homes on a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet. Now, this NCO requires 4,000. So, you can see that there are few offerings and they start at around $460,000. Um, if you take that away and put a maximum 3,000 square feet, again, smaller than what's required on this site, you get a lot of town home options. U and they start about $180,000 less expensive um than what would otherwise be available. Also, this is an example of a block in the South Park NCOD that has similar lot size requirements starting at 3,000 square feet. Uh, this is the same block a few years later. Um the result isn't preservation. The result is single family detached houses. Um that is what that that lot size results. And again the this is the same block pair as well. You can see the telephone poles are the same. Um that that is what the result is there. So I wanted to go back and talk about that name Idle Wild. Um as as I mentioned we have a new uh condition requiring a plaque. Um because um without that name, we have the street name, right? But but the neighborhood name um we want to make sure that that doesn't fade and that there's something permanent on the site uh to commemorate that and to um make sure that that at at a minimum people uh develop curiosity about it and start asking questions and and maybe look into it as a way to preserve that identity um going into the future of this site. Um and as you see that that name uh started very early uh in the history of of the area here. So, so immediately after actually let's go back to here. Immediately after the uh the Civil War, we had uh formerly enslaved people who uh who who moved to this area uh and between Oakwood and Edon and and filling that area between Lynen and Tarbor as well and gave it that name Idle Wild. It's just an overview of kind of what the lots looked like initially um in this time. Now, this timeline I I find especially helpful because you see starting right after the Civil War, we have St. Augustine's founded uh and really providing an anchor for this neighborhood that became a true self-sustaining neighborhood with businesses, with churches, um with St. Augustine's anchoring it as well. Um and of course with the homes, you see the subdivision happening and it becoming Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh there is a minute and eight seconds left. Is that what I'm reading here? I'm sorry. >> I think that if we would like to hear the remainder, that we can pick it up as a question. >> I think we should hear the rest of that to be honest with you. Sorry. >> How much additional time would you guys to give? >> Uh what? Two minutes. Without objection, let's add two minutes to both sides, please. >> I really appreciate that. Thank you. So, so right, we just want to make sure that that story is told, that there is a plaque that begins to tell the story. Um, like I said, really sort of locks it in place there and triggers curiosity as well. Um, as I mentioned, this neighborhood uh truly was anchored by St. Augustines, which which was a driver for um for education in the area and um and really keeping that neighborhood uh functioning and and together as you know the white residents moved away became primarily a black residential area over time. Um still not here looking looking for I know that that Stuart Cullinin really wanted to um share this information with you. He put this together and was very excited about it. Um in any event, so you you see here again uh there's there's a timeline of the campus and of St. Agnes hospital in particular um you know for miles around the only um black hospital that was available to serve this community and so um people people coming from a quite a distance to to use that facility as well um becoming a major employer and like I said really sort of driving that um commercial success and of course we have uh you know the the families of the neighborhood as well um you know obviously can't can't read through these but um but this is this is going to be important as well. I don't know exactly what is going to be able to um be shared on that plaque. Um but we can say um that it will note that the site is within the Idol Wild neighborhood and describe the historic significance of that neighborhood. um particularly its its early history and its founding um and its its early subdivision into these residential lots that that began to create a community which you know currently um you know lives on as as a as a current modern community as well um but but also has that street name in place. So, the more we can do um to to help focus uh folks and and let them see uh the history of this site, uh the the more that story can can be told and and the more that people will be interested to hear that that history as well. So, um hopefully that is helpful. Thank you. >> Thank you. And having added two minutes to both sides, that leaves 3 minutes and 14 seconds for those opposed. And I ask everybody to be mindful that there appears to be more than one speaker. So please allow time for those coming behind you. >> Good morning. It's uh important to say to preserve the name of Idle Wild, but even more important is to preserve the actual neighborhood of Idle Wild. There's still many historic houses surviving in this neighborhood. If you take away their zoning protection, it will incentivize people to demolish the houses and redevelop them, which would be a sad loss for our city. This is one of our oldest, historically black neighborhoods. Please deny and preserve this lovely neighborhood. >> Uh before you step away, would you state your name, please, for the record? >> Uh Matthew Brown. >> Katie Long. uh take note of the diversity of race, gender, and generation here united in opposing this request. We asked council questions to ensure the basics were handled um in consideration of and in collaboration with neighbors feeling the daily impacts, big building versus town homes planned, number of units, parking, trash, all undecided at this stage. So where is our protection? And what if it was sold no to a cart blanch zoning change at this time? Chris Crew, 306 Elm Street. Uh we profess to support government of the people, by the people, and for the people. For profit does not appear in that statement. Honor the people. Honor the plan. Do not dispose of this NCOD for financial gain. Thank you. is Octavia Rainey. I am opposed to My name is Octavia Rainey. I am opposed to the plan. I will congratulate Stuart for taking my advice on the honoring of Ottawa, but yet and still it still remains. I am still opposed to to the reszoning of Ottawa. And I would like to say to this to this planning committee, George Chapman, the former planning director, he he came in with the NC OD on Edithon Street, Newman Avenue all the way back to IDA. I worked with George Chapman on that NCOD and he said it was for our protection for the future. Now, we are here at the future and we want that to still be honored because it is our protection. He said, Octavia, this neighborhood is going to change, but we've got to have the builtin protection for your neighborhood for it to sustain itself, for it to carry on the name of Ottawa. So, I'm asking you to say no to this resoning request. Thank Thank you everyone for your comments. Um looks like we have 18 seconds left on We'll keep that on the clock and we're going to keep the public hearing open but bring it back to the table and see if the commission has questions for staff, the applicant or any of the speakers. Commissioner Oai. Um, my question is, uh, and I thought I I heard them say that they were willing to, or maybe they were just showing us different options with the NCOD. Is that the major part of the opposition for this project is not removing the NCOD over the project because you don't want that to set a precedence that then changes the community. Is that accurate? Is there a way for the applicant to develop the project while maintaining the NCOD? And we've talked as a commission before about as much as some people don't like it it being important and I know our last chairman chairwoman made that comment and a couple other people I believe said it. So I'm wondering is there an opportunity to develop the project and move forward with it without removing that? Yes, please. Um, well, we're trying to put a little bit more regimentation around comments, asking questions of the public in particular. So, let's uh let's invite folks up to the podium if you would like to ask them a question so that we don't get a back and forth to the audience, but you may invite whoever you like. And Miss Stewart, I think that that is an appropriate question. We could ask it of staff as well. >> Thank you. Um, it's a great question. And so the the two aspects of that NCOD that um do make this uh potential project impossible are are are two things. One, the minimum lot size is 4,000 square feet. Um what you're looking at on your screen is like I said the um South Park NCOD and it is this is a minimum 3,000 square feet. You don't get town homes in in that configuration. You you end up with these single family detached homes that are that are more expensive as brand new downtown detached homes. Um, also, um, in addition to the the minimum lot size issue, uh, there's a height issue. And the height, um, the the very small height, uh, cap that's in this NCOD, um, would prevent the apartment building type. So, so really that you're leaving folks with two choices to to maintain or renovate an old aging home that that is very expensive to renovate or maintain, or to build a brand new downtown single family detached house. So it takes away um a lot of the more uh affordable options uh and more more dense options here in this frequent transit area. So for those reasons the NCOD itself doesn't work. Now we have uh spoken with some of the the the folks that are concerned about that overlay and um apparently it's it's not tied to either of those factors. Um it's not about a particular height or a particular lot size. It's it's about the NCOD itself and making sure that it stays there. Um just as a reminder, this lot never complied. Um so it was this it was in its current configuration almost 20 years um before this overlay came in. Um and this this overlay doesn't match the existing character of the site. It doesn't match the existing um lots uh along um most of Oakwood Avenue in this location. Um Oakwood Avenue is something different in the area. So um that NCOD sort of came in and tried to change um what's already here. Thank you. >> I have a question. Um bear with me uh since this is my first meeting. Um you just stated that um with the height cap this removes affordable options in the area and because this is kind of my first time seeing it. I did review it before this meeting, but um does the proposal plan include affordable units already? So, so not subsidized affordable units. Um, so, so what it does, it sort of uh the height in particular um is the thing that prevents uh a a more standard apartment um type building that can be construct feasibly constructed on land this expensive, right? So, it takes at least those three stories. And so, that's um the issue. Um with four, we could have more off-site parking, which was another concern we heard from neighbors. Um so, that's that's where the height issue is. Um it it while not providing subsidized affordable housing, it does provide more options than simply either renovating an an older house or building a new single family detached. >> Okay. Thank you. Sure. >> Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Sanchez. And Commissioner Omai, you had a follow-up question. >> Yeah. I guess one of my concerns, can you go back to the slide that showed like the sing the pricing for the single family home? Those were town homes. So, this this is the slide showing um town homes available on uh lots that are at least uh 4,000 ft, which is what the requirement is. Um and that's these are the cheap cheapest options. The only ones that that I found um were in this kind of format, the duplex format, where you only have end units. Um so, they're they're larger, they're more expensive. Um, and then whoops, there's this this slide shows um if you change that lot size to no minimum up to 3,000 square feet. Um, now you start to see um more standard town home options um at a much lower price point. >> I'm sorry. Please um as long as you're asking questions, we'll have discussion and comments after we close the public hearing. >> Okay. So, also is there an opportunity and I guess this is the commission or staff or whoever. Is there an opportunity if this lot is the only lot that's being questioned to be removed from the NCOD? Is there an opportunity for that just to be the case for this lot or are is there and maybe this is also the people who are in opposition. Is the concern the loss of the lot itself even though the rest of the the area around it is still covered by it. The concern is what could happen. I'm sorry for them. >> Chris Crew 306 Elm Street. Um, I'm a member of the Society for the Preservation of Historic Oakwood and also an organization called Preservation Raleigh. And the the preservation concern is this. We have very minimal protections on our historic and cultural resources. One of these is the historic overlay district. One of these is the NCOD. And these were all established with uh considerable public input. very robust process led us to these overlay districts and nibbling these lots away one lot at a time at the edges of these will eventually unravel the whole system and so if if we lose one we lose another one we lose another one and soon we look like Charlotte or Atlanta so that that's the position >> Octavia Rainey I want to I want to go over this again. When George Chapman was the former Well, he's dead now and I wish he was alive to be here to speak. We met and he and the city of Raleigh only initiated two NCODs. One was for the West Ottawa plan and the other one was for South Park. The reason why he did that and he told me he said because these black neighborhoods are going to go through a lot. These two black neighborhoods need protection. They need protection as we begin to go through changes in our planning process. This will protect them regardless of what we go through. It will protect them. Now, I want that honor that was made by George Chapman and it was made by the city of Raleigh and the city of Raleigh have got to stand behind this. This is what they said they wanted to do. This is what they said and said and said and even before Dempsey Benton became the city manager, he was the assistant manager and then the manager of the city of Raleigh also agreed those two areas would be protected and guided through because Raleigh is changing. Raleigh is growing and we got to protect them. Those were the only two created by the city of Raleigh for sustainability. And this planning commission should not go back on the city of Raleigh's word regardless of what the planning entails. This is wrong. It's wrong for the beginning and it's wrong to my black community. And if that ever happens in South Park, it's wrong. We have to stand for justice. We have to stand for what is right. And just because it's a new development or you add it on to make changes don't make it right. It don't make it right. It don't preserve our history. It don't protect us. And you know we if you would please restrain your comments and uh address the question specifically, please. Thank you. Commissioner Neptune, you have a question. >> That was a quick one. Any more questions for staff or the applicant or the speakers? Commissioner O'H. >> Yeah, I have a question for staff. Uh, my main concern was about the sideyard setbacks. I know we'd had some conversation about what was required. Can you remind me what those requirements are cuz I don't see anything in the presentation. >> Yeah, just give me a second. I'll unhide one of the slides because it's located there. Um they're listed here. So for the side lot line, it's 0 to 10. Um >> but there's a transition yard, I think, if I remember. I think it sort of muted my point the last time. So, I just want to refresh her on. >> Sorry, one second. >> Um, in which for side street or just >> Okay. >> Yes. uh >> my concern which has been consistent are the existing single family homes that are adjacent. That's that's my that's my focus. >> Yes. So for that it would be it would be 10 ft for side street >> which is basically what's existing. Okay. Thank you. >> Commissioner Neptune. Yes. >> I have a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wonder if staff and perhaps planning staff could speak to uh when this NCOD was brought into effect. If we could get maybe a ballpark year or >> Yeah. time frame. >> It was effective in 1992. >> 1992. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Shelbert. >> Well, then you can just stay up there. Sorry. Um, and just to we hadn't talked about it this morning. I just want to be sure that my recollection is correct before making decisions. This is the site that's got the vacant apartments on it right now. Correct. >> It's an an existing apartment building, but they are vacant today. >> Right. Exactly. And it's how many units roughly? >> Uh, I believe 12. >> Okay. Thank you. >> One more question. >> Thank you, Commissioner Hakai. Please go ahead. And I I don't think I think it's because it's on the slide that I'm looking at and I feel like I'm looking at the right slide. Am I looking at the right? Yes, I am. It says uh proposed office space 4,000 square feet. Is this still being asked to be mixed use commercial and re like it's just not going to have retail, but it'll be residential and office space. Is that what we're proposing? Now, >> I'll answer for what the UDO says and then I can let the applicant answer u more. Uh for RX districts, commercial entitlement is a limited use um and it has to be incorporated uh as a ground floor use in an apartment building at the corner of two public streets. So, this eye is eligible for that and it could be up to 4,000 square ft. The conditions explicitly prohibit retail, but they do not prohibit office, which is why it is still could be a permitted use here. >> So, it's permitting retail, but not office space. >> Prohibiting retail, but not office. Correct. >> Office space sound like retail to me personally, but this sounds like a work now. Now, okay. Are there any more questions from the commission? All right. Uh, at this time we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the table for comments and debate. I would like to remind the commission that applicants have one opportunity to update conditions when you're in front of the planning commission and they have done so between our last meeting and this one. So, if there are any further conditions that people commissioners would like to see, it would have to happen between now and when it goes to city council. We can't ask them to come back again with more conditions um by policy. >> Commissioner Neptune. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to briefly thank the residents for joining us this morning. I, you know, again, I I mean, I appreciate the fact that as commissioners, we're all volunteers here. Um I think doing the best we can to constantly sort of test, measure, and balance along with our colleagues and staff. Um that real question of the public good and the public investment with any of these decisions. Obviously, there's a sort of the checkbox questions with regard to is this aligned with our comprehensive plan? Is this aligned with our future land use maps? But at the end of the day, as we grow and develop as a city, we don't want to grow and develop at the expense of, you know, what's made us who we are. And so that's where the question of preservation comes into play and then to significant consideration. You know, I was curious about the NCOD and its origin in part because, you know, 92, wow, what a year. Uh it's an effort to preserve and protect our history which you know as a Africanamean male deeply sensitive to that conversation. And so I especially appreciate Miss Rainey being here with us to acknowledge you know the fullness of that history. But I also want to express my appreciation for I think Miss Stewart and the applicant and a willingness to commemorate and to celebrate our history uh as we continue to grow and develop. You know, there's a concern that comes to mind when we make these efforts to protect and we see them through, but they're not coupled with investment. That protection without investment, I've just been a witness to it over the decades. you see protection without further investment resulting in uh what could become disrepair and degradation in our communities. And so it is this constant tension that I feel I think we all feel where how do you balance investment and growth while not losing who we are along the way. And so I just I think this is I just I'm trying to share kind of the thought process that's running through my mind as we consider okay again if this is aligned with comp plan our comprehensive plan align with future land use then how are we acknowledging you know the public good. Well Lord knows there's a truth in that we are growing and developing uh dramatically as a city and we need places for people to live. So this idea of expanding our opportunity to add to the housing supply which we know has actually resulted in in a capacity to help stabilize rents in this uh in this community making it um you know more accessible not less more affordable not less. Uh that's a good thing. And at the same time, we have an applicant who again has expressed a willingness to engage with this with this uh community uh to acknowledge the concerns with regard to retail uses um and has also followed through with an opportunity to commemorate and celebrate the history of this neighborhood. So, I just want to express my appreciation for all of that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Are there additional comments? Commissioner Oay. And this might become a soap box, but I will make it short if I can possibly can. Um, I piggyback on what Commissioner Neptune is saying about the fact that things are put in place because sometimes people then understand that it's it becomes a slippery slope in the future and that while growth and change is good, it's not good at the expense of to me uh legacy resident events and historical context of a community. I feel uncomfortable with removing the NCOD and seeing that originally I thought it was going to be all re all residential, but now seeing well we it's like a workaround to the retail of saying 4,000 square foot of office space. And I don't know if that takes away the issues that the community was having about parking and preservation. And while I appreciate all the the history lesson and all the research that went into that, my concern of a community being erased and the only thing left of them is a plaque with names bothers me. My concern around not preserving people's ability to have a single family home that's detached, that's one level. And we talk about we had a lot of people here on other projects talking about blocking their sunlight and their ability to to to to thrive with basically having an encroaching structure sitting next to them and they have a valid point to that and we understood it then. Sometimes in these areas, in these neighborhoods, we don't get the value of a neighbor that worked hard to earn and gain what they have to only have it slowly stripped away from them. That in the next 20 years, we're not going to recognize this this area. But there will be a plaque and maybe some markings on the ground that show that this is a historical trail, but it's a it becomes a a a tourist attraction more than it becomes what is supposed to be a place for people to rest their head. My also concern is yes, we're talking about adding to the housing supply, but truthfully, council and the planning commission has approved enough development and planning to meet and exceed the housing need that we have in this city. It's not being developed because we don't control that. What we control is people buying land, reszoning it, holding it, selling it at the highest value, and then there's no way for us to look back and regulate any of the decisions that we asked them to make at this point. So, to be honest, I I have an issue with this project. I appreciate the fact that they said, "Well, we're just going to take the retail away, but add office space," which to me is the same thing. I appreciate the client's due diligence to learn the history of this community and want to preserve it on a sign, but I would rather it be be preserved in truth and not just in spirit. And I think that there is I want to see us have a retreat to be honest because I think there's a conversation that we could have and I'm not offending anybody hopefully about implicit bias when we make these decisions and not accept how important and then there's no affordability added to it in a community that needs it. But we're going to put office space and take them out of a protective zone. And it can eat away at a community that is historic, that is right next to Oakwood that has culture and community and history that another part of the community has lost because of all this resoning and development. So I tr truly still have concerns with this project. >> Thank you for your comments, Commissioner Oay. Commissioner Sanchez, please. Um, I also want to acknowledge both of the other commissioners and um, saying that pretty much uh, I feel the same way. Um, I have a difficult time with um, it not protecting the historic legacy of the neighborhood um, and the citizens that currently live there. Um, I have concerns with it not increasing the affordability and it pricing out the homeowners that live in this neighborhood. Um, and again, genderrifying another predominantly black neighborhood in Raleigh. Um, I don't agree with removing the NCOD um, as well. So, I'll keep it short. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Shelurn. Um just offering a contrary perspective that preserving the physical characteristics of a neighborhood and in this case being vacant empty apartments is makes it even more stark. But just the general notion of preserve just saying we're not going to change the physical layout of a neighborhood doesn't mean you keep the neighborhood like it is. We've seen that all over the country. The most um stark example that is the Hayashberry neighborhood in San Francisco. If you go back far enough in time, it was extremely diverse. Had a wide range of population that live there. But they froze it in amber and now it's nothing but rich white people. See another example of that. Even just down the street here in Chapel Hill, they did the same thing. They froze their town in Amber and it's now basically a retire an active retirement community again for rich white people. And I think we need to look at that representative example and look at that as a potential reality that we all have to face that we can't preserve who lives in a place by not letting the area change. And that the way to prevent gentrification is actually to allow housing to get built because otherwise what you have is slow, quiet gentrification. And and people don't notice that or fight that because it's small in each instance, but it happens and it's a real threat. And the way to prevent and slow down that threat is to allow the supply of housing to meet the demand. Thank you for your comments, Commissioner Shelurn. Any more comments? Ask you to keep them brief since you've already had one set of comments, please. >> I'll try my best. >> Thank you. >> Um I agree to a degree, but I believe that that is part of why the housing and rent has kind of started to decrease because we have approved more housing. And it doesn't always have to be affordable because it's supply and demand and that's simple economics. But I think when you have a community that historically is naturally affordable and we remove that because we're not adding more affordability, that is what preempts and pushes gentrification. Not just not allowing people to move into a community. Because what we're not seeing is a lot of this around the city. What we are seeing is a lot of this in one part of the city. And that is what concerns me. That is gentrification. Unfortunately, I don't know who quoted this, but gentrification is when white people want affordable housing. So, it's not going to happen in North Hills. We had somebody come here last month and say there's plenty of room up Newburn where this needs to take place. That is a that was not an isolated thought. That wasn't a Freudian slip. That wasn't something that he just thought. That is the conversation. And that is why we're often seeing things like this. And not it's not on Newburn, but it's Newburn adjacent. We get what they're saying when they say that. So that is a concern. And sometimes when it comes down to it, culture and people have to be put before profit, especially when that building is not adding to support the people that's in that community. >> Thank you, Commissioner Mai. Are there any more comments? So, at this time, I would like to entertain a motion. So, may we be willing to bring one forth? I'll make a motion. Um, and again, I appreciate all the comments and thoughts. I think we've um talked about this quite a bit. I have a lot of thoughts about this, but I'm ready to recommend approval. Um, so I'd like to make a motion to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated March 24th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials to recommend approval of zoning case Z3925. Second. >> We have a motion from Commissioner O'Haber and a second from Commissioner Neptune. All those in favor? >> All those opposed? The motion passes six to two. Uh, Commissioner Sanchez and Commissioner Omay, would you like to make a statement to include in the public record when they read the packet when they deliver the package to the council? >> I think you were very eloquent with your statement and it's part of the public record already. >> All right. Thank you very much. That concludes this case and concludes our old business section of the agenda. on your screen. Okay, that brings us to new business. Next up, we'll have reasonzoning Z3525 Ligan Mill Road, north of Lewisburg intersection. We will be hearing a presentation from Herum Marziano. >> Good morning. Um, Hyram Marziano Z3525. Uh this is 7929 Ligan Mill Road. Uh this is a request to reszone uh 59.21 acres from uh Wake County zoning of residential 30 to our zoning uh residential 6 conditional use. Uh deadline for action is May 23rd. Um just want to point out that uh this property is outside the ETJ and outside the corporate limits. Obviously then uh the properties to the north are annexed and so this would be contiguous to the north to the west and also across Lan Mill to the east. There's an associated annexation case with this that would go to the council if uh this moves forward. Zoning in this area is predominantly residential. Uh as you can see here, it's got several subdivisions to the east uh west across the Noose River. um some lowscale development from um Lewisburg Road north there. Uh this is against the Noose River. So on the western portion of the property, there's roughly 12 give or take acres of uh flood zone including flood uh floodway. Uh they do have conditions that mitigate and our own UDO uh prohibits development there and they're aware. Uh just some quick sites here. Uh the property has a structure on it currently uh there towards the front of the property next to that uh pond on the south. Several conditions proposed by the applicant. Um I'll run through these. Uh the first condition is uh limitation on number of residential units to 180. Uh requirements for open space exonation of 30%. Net site area to be undisturbed at 20%. uh $20,000 contribution to the city fire department. Uh requirement and regulations for recreation areas and what qualifies as amenities within those areas. Prohibiting the apartment building type. Identifying uh location and type of protective yards for the adjacent properties. Uh establishing uh easement requirements within the greenway corridor, which would be the majority of that flood uh flood zone. I believe all of the flood zone. uh specifics on silt fencing for increased erosion control protection uh during development uh increased storm water discharge regulations and native and adaptive plant species at 75% of what's planted on the property to be uh native to our region. Uh again, this is currently uh Wake County zoning residential 30, which is a low to moderate density area for mostly single f uh single and some attached structures. Uh also includes manufactured housing. Um this is just a comparison between what detached for Wake County's R30 would be compared to R six. Uh this is a fringe area of the the jurisdiction. So we're looking at a low walk score, low transit, low bike, average transportation, and low proximity to jobs. Um you can see here that the closest uh route that go Raleigh has is about 2 miles away. So uh definitely not a walkable uh not a transit oriented situation. Um overall though does how add to the housing supply permits a variety of houses uh smaller units than typically allowed in the city. Um some demographic area here area residents are less likely to be racial minorities less likely to be low income and it's actually had an average change in the rent. Um I suspect largely due to the fact that it's not as developed. So the numbers there aren't as comprehensive. As you can see I don't have anything prior to 2020. Um this is consistent with the future land use map. R six is a zone typically found in low scale residential. Uh there is no or form designation. I believe it is consistent with the comprehensive plan consistent with the future land use map. Some of those consistent policies are here. We have our typical adding to the housing but we also have open space preservation um and some natural resource protection as well. inconsistent policies would be the zoning infrastructure impacts and response time standards largely due to the uh lack of fire service availability um and the response times believe that's part of the condition for the 20,000 is to help support an increase in that in the future. Deadline for action is May 23rd. Here's some upcoming dates for you and uh that's what I've got for you. >> Thank you Mr. Marzian Hyram and in case it wasn't apparent uh when I asked staff to open the presentation that opened the public hearing for this case and uh we now have 10 minutes for the applicant and those in favor. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I am Collier Marsh with Parker Poe at 301 Fateville Street here on behalf of the applicant. Um we have a number of members of our development team with PY Homes, Underfoot Engineering, and Kimley Horn. All here to answer any questions you may have. Um Hyram covered this one pretty well and so I'll just hit a couple of the high notes, but again, we've looked at the site. It's about 60 acres currently in Wake County's jurisdiction. Um the annexation isn't before the planning commission, but I know within this district, we've had cases that had a more involved annexation discussion. I bring this slide up to show you that this isn't one of those controversial cases. We are adjacent to the city limits. Um, so there's a site to the north that's zoned R10 and RX with planned dense residential development apartments. Um, and you look at the context that gray kind of shaded area is the city of Raleigh limits. This isn't one of those cases where it's creeping out further and further into Wake County. Instead, we've got a gap there that's starting to be filled and it's a necessary gap because the city's already providing services to this area and so you want to be more efficient in your provision of services. So, this does avoid some of those more difficult discussions we've had on other cases. Um, always like to start with the future land use map and talk about the city's vision for an area uh where lowdensity residential calls for R2, R4, R six. In some parts of the city, it calls for RX um zonings uh and even considers things like town or apartment um uses. In this case, what we're requesting is an R six conditional use. So, spot on with what the future land use map calls for. Um the list of conditions here, I I would start to say that this is based on established precedent from cases in this area. I've done a number of zonings in this area and we've kind of come up with a list to address all the concerns. But recognizing that we've got several members of the planning commission that weren't here for those cases and don't know have that history. I did want to point out just a couple of reasons behind why we have these conditions in this part of the city. Uh what concerns they help to address. Um in short, there's a number of stakeholders that have spoken out with their concerns and we've worked to address those um with each of the cases in the area. uh we've got a max unit count that helps to provide assurances for neighbors. We've had good neighbors in this case where we've met with them directly and had just good friendly discussions and worked with them to ensure that they're comfortable with our project, but also informs traffic in the area and we know kind of in these growing parts of the city where there's a lot of constraints on existing roads, informing the maximum number of units helps to ensure that we know what the traffic impacts realistically are during the zoning stage. Um, this is an area where we recognize there's a need to build housing. Uh, but we want to make sure that as we're building housing, we're being smart about it, setting the right precedent. So, if we're encouraging density in these outlying areas, we want to encourage the right type of density with open areas, open space, preservation of the natural environment. And so, we've got a number of conditions to address that with 30% of the site designated as open area. So, that's any area outside of lots, right? Um, and so, you know, outside of privately owned property, uh, but to further fine-tune what that space is, at least 20% of the site is going to be undisturbed, untouched by this development, and maintained, uh, in its natural state. Um, the extension of services is always a question. Fire services came up as one of the two inconsistent policies. Uh, and the cases in this area have made contributions to City of Raleigh Fire to support future fire stations and future fire needs in the area. There's a good pot of money growing. uh and our contribution matches what other projects have done in this area on a perunit basis. Um just to pause on that one inconsistent policy and how we address it with that um that contribution. The other incon inconsistent policy is about connections of utilities. Um this project will tie into the project to the north that's going to have apartments and town homes and so we are making those connections. They don't exist today. So, it's kind of a yes, we're inconsistent today, but at the time of development, that policy is addressed. Um, open spaces again address park service questions, comments, concerns to ensure that in areas that aren't um don't have sufficient park access that we're providing sufficient private parks for the residents of this community. And so, we've added commitments to have programmed open space, one's at least an acre in size, to make sure that residents in this community are sufficiently served by the community itself. Um, apartments are prohibited to address neighbor concerns, but also to address fire service concerns. Uh, they require apartments require different apparatus uh to service them. And so ensuring that we're not providing apartments in this point of time helps to plan for the future. Um, and then continuing on with neighbor friendly conditions, uh, we work directly with our neighbors to ensure there are adequate buffers and those are kind of custom based on their preferences and what they asked us to do and we we said yes to those. um greenway easement the full width of the flood plan on the western side of the property again to address environmental concerns um but also to ensure future park service there's a planned greenway on the western side of the site with connections planned to the north and so we've got about 12 and a half acres that will be dedicated as part of that easement area um along those lines because we are near the river there uh we have super silt fencing which was requested of us and that will help to ensure erosion control during uh construction and then enhanced storm water controls up to the 25-year storm uh upon completion of the project. So there has been, you know, an established precedent, but there's good reason for all these conditions. Uh we've met all of them, and so the project is overwhelmingly consistent with the comprehensive plan. The minor inconsistencies do get addressed upon completion of this project. So um with that, we've got a number of members of our team here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you for the presentation. will reserve 4 minutes and 17 seconds for those in favor. Are there any here in opposition to this project? Right. Moving on from public comment, uh we'll keep the public hearing open and bring it back to the table. Uh commissioners, if you have any questions for staff or the applicant, uh now is the time. Commissioner Neptune, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. A question for transportation staff. I'm just curious if you could speak to present and future plans for investments in bus uh multimodal transportation. I mean in in other words I think I appreciate this investment in uh potential future housing but I also understand I mean there are some significant constraints on the current infrastructure there with you know what's already been uh plenty of growth. I'm just curious if you could speak to present and future transportation related plans, bus, multimodal, car, etc. Thank you. >> Right. Yeah. So, I'm going to look at Right now, there's no transit service nearby. No pedestrian facilities either. This is kind of on the outskirts of town starting to develop. I'm not aware of any uh current plans for increasing bus service out there. Um what does come to mind there is a major uh NC DOT project just south of the site um at the intersection with uh Lewisburg Road. Um so currently Mitchell Mill Road and League Mill Road kind of form that intersection with Lewisburg that is going to be rearranged um to call create what we call a offset intersection. So there will be instead of a four-way intersection, uh Mitchell Mill will be redirected to the west and that'll create a T intersection. Legan Mill will be realigned to the east and there'll be another T intersection. So the purpose of that is mainly uh safety and improving traffic flow. So that's the main um planned project we have in the area right now. I don't recall any um any near-term plans at least for increasing PL uh transit service. And of course with um this development and the development north that was mentioned, if those are tier three site plans, they'd be required to um install multimodal facilities on their frontage in accordance with the UDO. >> Thank you. >> Of course. >> Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Commissioner Mai. >> Um it says in your plan that apartments are prohibited. Why is that? >> So several reasons. Uh one um as I think was just stated without transit sometimes that's not the best use. The main driver for that is because of fire service in the area and just the different uh fire service has been one of the main topics of discussion prior projects and you need different equipment and when there's not adequate levels of service that puts more strain and so ensuring that this project isn't going to add to that um by bringing apartments that more difficult to serve we made that commitment. >> How what's the current fire response time for the adjacent neighborhood? >> I'd ask staff to to answer that. Um, I don't know that offh hand. >> Anybody know? >> I don't have the specifics for the actual neighborhood. I have the fire report that was given to us for the general area itself. Um, it's part of y'all's staff report in the packet, but um, it looks like response times vary between 4 minutes and 15 minutes um, based on which company's responding from which area. That's a wide gap. And is this resoning being reszoned for mixed use or is this strictly residential? >> It's sorry, it's residential. >> So no offices or retail >> only what we allowed through the the table of uses for residential. So it's going to be primarily just residential uses. >> Interesting. Thank you. >> This is district B. Is that a hand, Commissioner Fox? >> I know it's a hand. Is that a question? >> Uh, it is a it is a hand. I have two. Um, no. I I was just going to acknowledge um there was one only one inconsistency which um I identified which staff also identified which I had questions about. Um that was in in terms of the response time standards. But I do acknowledge conditions are intended to mitigate that and then also the contribution to the fire department um is a is an attempt at mitigation there as well. So um seeing no other inconsistencies at the appropriate time I'm ready to make a motion. >> Thank you Commissioner Fox. Are there any more questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner O'Her. >> Um, thank you. I I also want to commend the applicant for the thoughtful conditions. We hear a lot of this, so I appreciate that. My one question is about that existing pond. Is that jurisdictional? Is there any are there any plans for that protection for that? I'm just curious. >> I'm gonna have uh Rob Rudliff with PY come up. Hi, Rob RDLoff, PY Homes. Um, there's no current plans to um, you know, to do anything with the pond. I mean, sometimes I will say during our um, uh, permitting process, you know, we tend to hear from dam safety, right? And, you know, at which case, you know, sometimes when you build a road downstream of a pond, it, you know, create causes the dam or the pond to become high hazard, in which case it would need to be addressed. Um so um you know that's something we'll work through during the permitting process with them. Um you know sometimes you know the ponds are are breached and drained or sometimes you know dams are rehabilitated but yeah those are the two options I guess >> and and just to add to it um when we evaluated the conditions and we looked at open area and undisturbed area and just looking at the yield here that was an area that we envisioned not being disturbed. >> Thank you. If there are no more questions or for staff or the applicant, I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the table. Um, are there any comments or the commissioners would like to debate at this time? Or if not, I'd be happy to entertain a motion and move this forward. Commissioner Fox. >> In regards to case Z3525, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated March 24th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Fox and a second from Commissioner Neptune. All those in favor? All opposed? And that passes unanimously. This brings us to our our last reasonzoning application on the agenda for today. Z5325 5616 Forks Road right near the intersection with Milbrook Road and we will be hearing a presentation from Matthew Burns from the planning department. This this opens the public hearing. >> Good morning, Chair Outwell, members of the planning commission. Matthew Burns with planning and development. This is a request to reszone a single parcel totaling just over 7 acres from office mixeduse three stories parking limited frontage with conditions and office mixeduse three stories parking limited frontage to neighborhood mixed use five stories urban limited frontage with conditions and your deadline for action is May 23rd. As you mentioned, the site is about 500 ft north of the intersection of Milbrook and Six Forks. Nearby uses are predominantly um office and institutional with some commercial at the intersection and residential further east and west of the site. Site is fairly close to Sanderson High and Optimus Park to the north northwest and abuts the Lassa North Hills Apartments to the west. The resoning site features several existing structures which formerly served as the state of North Carolina's offices for uh women and children's health and the NC department of uh health and human services campus. According to the applicant, these offices have been vacated as of January of this year. Here are some views of the site along Six Forks Road and Loft Lane. The applicant is proposing two zoning conditions. The first of which would prohibit various uses otherwise allowed in NX and prohibit grocery stores. Uh and I'll note that the backup materials list an additional condition which was removed in response to staff comment after publication of the of the agenda. So the request would increase entitlement for uh residential and retail uses. Office would remain about the same after resoning. And uh that increase in residential is due to the uh increased height and uh in terms of retail, retail is subject to limited use standards in the office mixeduse district but fewer standards in neighborhood mixed use. the sites within the boundary of the Midtown area plan, which includes policies that focus on walkability and other transportation needs, creating new public spaces, improving infrastructure, uh, and reducing emissions. So this map on the screen, map MT1, provides land use and urban form guidance for the Midtown area and the resoning site is located kind of at the top of the map uh northwest and recommends a maximum of five stories of height for the site as well as an urban limited frontage both of which the applicant is proposing. The second map in the Midtown plan map uh MT2 provides transportation recommendations. However, none are located on north front on this site. The site has an above average walk score, an average transit score, and uh above average bike score, below average transportation costs, and above average access to jobs. And the site is served by Go Raleigh Route 8, Six Forks, which connects downtown Raleigh to the Six Forks Station's shopping center and has 30 minute service uh frequency during peak hours. It's also served by route 23L, the Milbrook Connector, which connects Crabtree Valley to Capitol Crossing and has 30 minute service frequency on weekdays. The request would add to the housing supply, does not include subsidized units, would permit a variety of housing types, and is within walking distance of transit. Area residents are less likely to be minorities compared to the city average, uh, less likely to be low income, and the cost of rent has increased 75% since 2016 and 40% since 2019 compared to the citywide averages. The requested NX is and the height is consistent with the uh neighborhood mixeduse designation on the site. Uh and guidance per table LU2 in the comprehensive plan as well as the Midtown plan and the requested urban limited frontage is consistent with the urban form guidance of the Midtown plan and broadly the comprehensive plan. So overall, it's consistent with the comp plan, consistent with the future land use map, and consistent with the urban form map. And consistent policies are related to future land use map and zoning, mixeduse development, development along corridors, uh mixeduse centers and commercial development as well as commercial nodes and uses and housing opportunity and variety and mixeduse retail and as well as uh zoning consistency with the Midtown plan. And staff did not identify any inconsistent policies with this request. There are no outstanding issues and your deadline for action is May 23rd. Please let me know if I can answer any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Burns. >> We will now allow 10 minutes for the applicant and those in favor to speak. >> Good morning, uh, Chairwell and members of the commission. I'm Jamie Schwedler with Parker Poe. Um I'm here on behalf of the applicant, the Six Forks owner office owner. Um and joined by Kevin Troutman with Six Forks office as well as Bob Zumwalt and Travis Fluitt both with Kimley Horn and my own colleague Walker Abbott. Um we brought a very straightforward request for your first uh meeting as chair um from a comprehensive plan um overview, but an exciting opportunity for the city because it's one of few um office opportunities that can convert into a new housing opportunity when the useful life of that office has now passed. And so I'll go over what some of those comprehensive plan policies show and show you what that office looks like today. Um so this area is of course along six forks road a major transportation and transit thoroughare where you want to put housing and and people. Um but when these offices were built um you know several decades ago they were kind of dated office that kind of grew over time and have now become vacant. our last tenants left um earlier this year. Um and because of that aging, just not a lot of prospects for um office to be able to compete with the other more new kind of mixeduse centers just down um the areas that the city has selected for those mixeduse centers. So we'd like to take those three vacant office buildings um from the 1982 era and convert them into more modern uses. The comprehensive plan um Matthew did a great job describing that really looking at the future land use map of neighborhood mixed use. So, wanting to attract a residential user here, but with potential mix of uses to provide some modest services. Um, what we'd like to do here is to attract a multif family developer to be able to build apartments along this area and have something that it's both walkable and near other amenities such as the school to the south and the other existing services that are around this intersection. Uh, the urban form also supports growth and and adding residential units here. We are a mixeduse center and a transit emphasis corridor just about a mile north of uh of North Hills and its intersection with 440. So where you'd like to put additional density already um served by infrastructure on that urban grid. Matthew summarized the Midtown area plan well. We are um looking at a recommendation for fivetory height and urban limited frontage and that's exactly what we've adopted here to make sure we're following that Midtown area plan. Um, our site is shown on the screen with the red star and all of the recommendations from that plan are being met in in our request. We did in initially file the um the use as an NX7 um urban limited or or conditional use without the frontage, but hearing some of the responses from the neighbors who were concerned primarily with traffic and what that additional height might mean in terms of of additional residents, we dropped that down to a fivetory cap based on our second neighborhood meeting and they expressed uh interest and and support for that. And then we also added added that urban limited frontage. So, we're asking for an X consistent with the future land use map, five stories, consistent with both the future land use map and the Midtown area plan. That urban limited frontage, which has um not only a street facing uh interface with what those bike facilities and pedestrian facilities would look like, but also pedestrian entrances and uh prohibition on parking between the building and the street. Um and then the conditions mainly focus on prohibited uses, uses that we wouldn't seek to put in this area due to its proximity to other single family uses to the west um and the north and then others that might um otherwise produce a good bit of traffic. So we identified um with with Kimley Horn's help that supermarkets might generate more traffic than u we'd otherwise plan on placing here and so prohibited that use along with several of the others in condition one on your screen. Um this just shows what the streetscape and access could look like. We did have some questions about that um at our neighborhood meetings. Um the main street or mixeduse streetscape would be applied with that urban limited frontage. Access will be determined by NC DOT at site plan. It's not something that we can um guarantee or dictate at zoning, but because of the level of traffic on Six Forks and because we have two existing driveways there, we expect there to be a restriction of uh right in right out or other limited movements. Um, and that was a concern that was raised uh at our neighborhood meetings and wanted to just make sure we explained how that process works at site plan. Um, with that, we're consistent with the the future land use map, the overall comprehensive plan and the Midtown area plan with no inconsistent policies and we really appreciate staff's time to help us work on this case to to bring it in in line and consistent um with the comprehensive plan. With that, we are available for questions and would appreciate your recommendation for approval. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Were there any other members of the public that would like to speak in favor of the project? Right. Seeing none, are there any members of the public that are here to speak in opposition to the project? All right. We will keep the public hearing open and bring it back to the table. uh invite commissioners to ask questions to staff, the applicant, and any of the speakers that they need information from. >> Commissioner Fox, >> um I have a question for staff um related to improvements on Six Forks Road or not. Um, my only concern with this case was related to pedestrian and cyclist safety along Six Forks, which I acknowledge that that infrastructure would be part of the site plan review process, but I'm just curious if staff could elaborate a little bit. I I know there was a capital project on Six Forks and then there wasn't and then there was again and then there's not. Do we What's the status? >> Yes, I'll clarify that. Um, and I forgot to introduce myself earlier. Carter Robertson with transportation. So, there's been a lot of discussion about the Six Forks Road corridor recently. Um, most recently at the Transportation and Transit Committee um with city council. Um, the main points that were discussed there were pedestrian improvements along the corridor, but then also this inconsistency across the corridor and the number of lanes, the widths of the lanes. And so our staff is now working with partners at NC DOT to try to correct some of those things. Um to talk about the project that has changed a lot over the past few years. Um I believe it was originally supposed to be all the way from Lasser Mill, no Rowan to the south, just north of that North Hills assemblage that came through recently all the way up to Lynn Road. Um I believe a few years ago it was reduced because of cost escalation to um Milbrook Road and so that was going to be a full widening. This past summer transportation staff came back to council to give an update. Costs continued to escalate and so the widening was removed from the project. Um and so those funds were reallocated. Most of them are going towards safety improvements along the corridor. So, there's going to be a new signal at North Glenn, a new pedestrian crossing uh in between Northbrook and Northwood, filling in some sidewalk gaps and making uh intersection improvements. Um so, that's where the project lies right now. in terms of where this site lies. That's one of those um inconsistent areas. Um where southbound there's only two lanes. Um and as Jamie showed on her slides, um this is supposed to be three lanes northbound and southbound. Um if this comes in as a tier three development, they'd be required to give that ride of way. And I believe that was a main component of that cost escalation that resulted in the scope being reduced for that project is acquiring that land to build the road out. >> Thank you. >> Of course. >> Are there any other questions? Commissioner Mia, >> um where's the nearest grocery store? Okay, thank you for that. >> I think we I think we got it. Yeah. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff or the applicant? >> All right. We'll uh close Commissioner Haver, are you preparing or you have a question? >> Preparing. >> All right. Excellent. All right. >> Sorry. >> I like close the uh public hearing now and bring it back to the commission table for discussion and motion. So, are there any discussion or points of comments? Well, then I will open the floor for a motion. >> Commissioner O'Hver. >> Thank you. I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated March 24th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of zoning case Z5325. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. Second from Commissioner Fox. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Opposed. And that passes unanimously. And I think Commissioner Neptune counts as a yes. No. >> No vote. >> No vote. >> There's no vote. There's zero vote. >> Okay. >> He's just not here. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, it's seven votes total. >> Okay. >> Yeah. That concludes our agenda reasonzoning cases for the day. Thank you to all the applicants and the public for coming to speak. All right. Now, we'll move it on along to other business and we will start with the report from the chair. So, I don't have much to report because this is my first time. So, thanks for bearing with me. A couple missteps along the way, but I I think we did okay. Appreciate your support. Um this is uh Commissioner Cochran's eye probationary period because this was a special election held at the departure of our last chair. We by our bylaws will have a election of officials in June. So you get a chance to re-evaluate our performance and make your opinion known at that time. Um I don't think there's anything else from the chair. Uh let's go on to the report from the members. Well, actually, I'm sorry. I'll back up. I do have some more to talk about. We're going to We are working on u rearranging the membership for the text change committee. I've asked Commissioner Neptune to chair that committee going forward and we're still deciding on the final membership. Um there I'll be stepping out from my role on that committee altogether and we'll need to fill it up and we I'm in discussion with commissioners about who would like to remain on and who wants to join the commission after or join the committee afterwards. So, look for an update on that. But Commissioner Neptune going forward will be your point of contact for coordination and uh the report from the committee chair. But since he wasn't the chair at the last meeting, I will fill in and uh report of the text change committee. Text change committee met last week and we heard a citizen sponsored text change proposal to eliminate the minimum square foot requirement per pupil for schools. So currently if you develop or redevelop a school you have to have 500 square feet of lot space per student and this is uh causing some problems especially for charter schools and private schools that wish to redevelop or do significant upgrades. And so we we heard questions, we heard the presentation and we had a robust discussion and the issue will be coming back to the committee next month and Commissioner Neptune will pick up leading that discussion from there on out and I will do my best to attend and make sure that we have as much continuity between the members as possible between those meetings. And that is it for my Oh, and I I looked at the report from the assistant director and I did not see anything on the tax change committee, but I would assume that the the issue will be coming back for the lot size. And so we should expect to have a tax change committee meeting next month on >> April 15 at 4 p.m. >> April 15 at 4 p.m. So mark your calendars now. Um, can we get a pre Well, no. We'll have to wait to know who's going to be on the committee. But we can also say that everybody is here is hereby nominated a standby and uh if we can't fill with our standing members, then we will be going down the list and seeing who can make it to that meeting to make sure it happens. >> And it would be great if the members that were there at the last text change committee could be at this one as well, just because I know you all had some unanswered questions. So, that would be wonderful if the same group could attend. >> Yes. And as uh as a note that all commissioners are always welcome to attend the text change planning and participate in the discussion. Only the standing members or alternates actively filling a role will have an active vote. >> All right, that that does it for me. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Uwell, and good job today. Um, I want to welcome Commissioner Sanchez to the commission and um, in collaboration with Commissioner Fox u mentioned that the committee of the whole is canceled for this week on the 26th. There are no current agenda items for April 23rd on the um, report that I read. >> Too early to cancel the April calendar. >> So, it's not canceled yet. So, on standby until we've confirmed that. Thank you. Please hold that time. >> I'm excited to have no report. >> I'm actually bummed we canled committee the whole cuz I was actually available but okay. >> Well, I have an event for you, Commissioner O'Hver. >> Uhoh. >> Since the commission of or I should say the committee of the whole has been cancelled, we do have an event with our colleagues from Raleigh Parks. We will be sharing an update on the parks bond projects from 2022's parks bond at uh the Dicks Park Chapel. >> Uh and I believe that'll be on Thursday, March 26 from 4:30 until 7:30. We'll have lots of uh in addition to these updates, some free interactive, familyfriendly, community events and uh activities. So, I would encourage folks to show up there at Dicks Chapel this Thursday, the 26, 4:30 to 7:30 to come hear all about how our investment in our parks and our greenways has resulted in healthier uh and stronger uh communities across the city. I'd also like to welcome Commissioner Sanchez. It's so good to have you here. I think if I'm not mistaken, you've spent a number of years with our colleagues on the historic development commission for the city of Raleigh. So, we're grateful to have that background, that experience, and that perspective. Uh, and I think with that, uh, I will also acknowledge my gratitude to Commissioner and Chair, uh, Otwell for the appointment to, uh, lead our text change committee. I'm grateful to have attended, uh, numerous text change committee meetings by this point under your leadership, and I feel prepared to move forward with it. So, with that, I'm off the box. Thank you. I want to express my disappointment that I wasn't considered for chair for text change committee, but that's okay. Um, I do have a report out. Actually, I want to celebrate my nonprofit, Evolve Mentoring. We turned 15 last week. We've served thousands of youth in the triangle. We have have a book club that has actually helped young men learn literacy. We've done a lot of great work in this city and we lead the My Brother's Keeper initiative for Wake County. So, cheers to me and to 15 more years of serving, truly serving community. >> Um, I want to thank everyone for the warm welcomings. Uh, I'm excited to be here. I just want to clarify what uh Nick said. I am currently also on the historic district commission. Um, I still serve on that board. Uh, I just want to put that out there. And uh yeah, that's it. Thank you. >> The land use technical team for the comprehensive plan has had uh three meetings and they've uh really been um presentations by staff. That's been basically what's involved. There hadn't been any like votes or anything like that. I don't think that's really the point of it. Um but people in the room do give their thoughts in response to what's been said. Um, and so if anyone has any questions about that, I can do my best to remember what was said. Um, although you may want to ask staff because if you do have interest in that because they actually are like taking notes and pay attention to everything whereas I've got ADD so I tune out every now and then. Um, but um, but it's been it's been good so far. It's been productive. >> Oh yes, Commissioner Cochran, please. vice chair. >> Thanks. Uh, one more report from um the um Nash Square uh project. There's ongoing public engagement opportunities. So, if anyone is interested in participating and giving feedback, um please let me know or um you can let Commissioner Neptune know he's also involved in this project. But >> it's going to be ongoing conversations soliciting uh the community's vision for Nash Square. and it's it's a really great opportunity to um add some some texture and value to the new municipal building. So, I would encourage you to at least provide online input if you can attend in person. >> And with that, we move on to report from the assistant director. >> Right. Thank you again. I also want to offer a very warm welcome to Commissioner Sanchez. We're so glad to have you on the commission. Um reminder that if you are not able to participate in a meeting, please email planning.commissionnc.gov so that we know who's not going to be here. We have a good sense of quorum. Um text change meeting April 15. Cow not meeting this month, April cow a possibility still. And congratulations, Chair Otwell, on a meeting well run. >> A question. Was Commissioner Walters able to con communicate his inability to be here due to a professional obligation at the Urban Land Institute? >> I may have missed it or my spam filter may have caught it, but I'll double check. I did not hear. >> Okay. I suppose for the record, that's where he is. >> That's fair. >> And thank you. Uh and if there are no other issues for the good of the order, I will adjourn this meeting. Heat. Heat. N.