[Music] Good morning. Get my thing. I'd like to call to order the August 12th meeting of the Raleigh Planning Commission. My name is Nicole Bennett, and I have the honor of serving as chair of the commission. I want to thank my fellow commissioners for your trust. I'd like to welcome members of the public, city staff, and those joining us virtually. Our work here is about building a rally that reflects the needs, values, and hopes of all of our residents. And that work deserves our best focus and respect. A few quick reminders as we get started. Commissioners, please wait to be recognized by the chair before speaking. We will treat applicants, staff, the public, and each other with courtesy at all times. Healthy debate is welcome, and differences of opinion are part of the process, but let's keep our discussions on topic. construction, constructive, and as my former pastor used to say, decent and in order. >> We each bring passion and perspective to this table. My commitment as chair is to make sure that energy moves us forward to an informed recommendation for city council. With that, let's get started. We begin each meeting with an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda. Is there anyone here this morning who would like to comment on an item not on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll move into the agenda. First, we have the consent agenda, which includes approval of the June 24th meeting minutes. Does anyone have any comments on the minutes? >> I would just note there's a paper copy on the table for you. the attachment in the agenda uh was in a draft form and so it may be helpful to you to look at the paper copy on the table. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Does anyone have any I know it's a quick review but any comments on the minutes? If not, I will entertain a motion. >> So moved. Motion to approve the minutes. Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> It's unanimous. Thank you. The minutes are approved. Um, next we'll move to committee reports. We have one item coming out of our June 26 committee of the whole meeting, reszoning Z1324 South New Hope Road. The committee voted this item out with no recommendation pending additional conditions from the applicant. I'll ask staff for an update on this case. >> Good morning, commissioners. Um Aaron Clinger, Planning and Development here to give an update on Z1324. Um, as a refresher, the applicant is requesting to reszone approximately 7 and 3/4 acres from R six and R10 to NX4 CU. Um, the deadline for action is August 26th. So, the proposed conditions for the site would again limit uses that would otherwise be permitted in NX zoning on the portion of the property east of South New Hope Road, prohibit buildings within 200 ft of residential properties in the neighborhood to the northeast of the site, limit density to 150 dwelling units, and limit square footage for non-residential space to 35,000. um revised conditions that were submitted since the committee of the whole meeting would prohibit hookah bars or vape and tobacco shops. Um promise construction of a 10- foot wide multi-use path from the new development to the Walnut Creek Greenway and state that the portion of the property south of this existing city of Raleigh sewer easement will not contain residential units. Again, the requested zoning is inconsistent with the future land use map designation of low-scale residential, which designates R2, R4, and R six is the most appropriate zoning districts for this land use category and but it does envision a range of housing types. While the proposed zoning would permit the housing types described in this land use designation, it does so at a scale that better aligns with the neighborhood mixeduse category. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It supports policies and vision themes encouraging compact development, a variety of housing types, infill development, and open space preservation. It also aligns with goals for increasing housing supply and supporting neighborhoods serving retail. On the other hand, as mentioned on the last side, the request is inconsistent with the future land use map. Um the request aligns with the polic policies shown here related to infield development de d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d difying housing options and preserving open space. It also supports broader goals related to housing availability and access to neighborhood scale commercial uses. Um, as you can see here, the revised conditions have added policy um, PR 3.13 greenway oriented development to the list of policies with which the request is consistent. Um, inconsistent policies include those shown here. These have not changed from the last meeting. There are no outstanding issues with the request. Again, the deadline for action is August 26th, which is also when the next meeting is. Um the request would require an amendment to the future land use map. Um approval would amend the map from low-scale residential to neighborhood mixed use. And again um if the reasoning is approved, it would amend the future land use map. [Music] >> Thank you. Um we've received a full presentation from the applicant and heard from members of the public at the committee meeting. Um, are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item? Okay, I see the applicant. Um, I'll grant without objection um five minutes to each side. [Music] Good morning, Chair Bennett and members of the planning commission, Worth Mills with Longleaf Partners. uh here on behalf of Golong Holdings uh LLC who is the property owner and the reasonzoning applicant. Um when this case was at committee of the whole uh there were a handful of questions um specifically with regard to our uh our zoning conditions and what we were going to be offering in the interim between the committee of the whole meeting and uh this planning commission meeting. Um for one, we have reworked condition two uh which is the prohibition on hookah bars and vape or tobacco shops uh to make sure that uh it is clearly defined and that the condition does not prohibit uh other retail uses like a gas station or a convenience store uh from selling those products but making sure that we're we're keeping a specific you know hookah bar or vape tobacco shop uh out of this site. Um, we have also included the condition to connect this development to the Walnut Creek uh greenway trail with a 10- foot wide multi-use path. And we have uh offered a condition that requires uh all of the land south of the existing uh city of Raleigh sewer easement uh to be set aside for commercial space, which is a uh big point of contention for a lot of cases in southeast Raleigh that uh offer commercial uses but don't actually put those uses into practice. So, we want to make sure that we are setting aside land for commercial uses that will benefit this community as well as uh the surrounding neighborhoods. Um, while this resoning is inconsistent with the future land use map, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall. And given the uh constraints that are on the property today with the um Duke Energy Transmission line easement as well as that city of Raleigh sewer easement, we think that the highest and best use of this property is for multif family with commercial uses on that southern side. Um, having the ability to connect to the greenway offers folks additional ways to access the site. We have, uh, access off of South New Hope Road through a ride in, right out. Uh, and we'll also be, uh, extending Maybrook Drive to open up that piece of the street uh, as public right ofway. Uh, which again, not only benefits this site, but also benefits uh, the neighborhoods to our east. Um, myself and Peter Kasan are here to answer any questions. Uh thank you for the time this morning and uh we appreciate your consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mills. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in support of this case? >> Seeing none, um we'll turn to the opposition. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition? Okay, I'll bring it back to the table then. Commissioners, do you have any questions or comments? Commissioner Makay, >> um the last time that you all came to the committee of the whole, we discussed uh making sure that a good amount of residents knew about this project. Have you all done any extra outreach in July to make sure that residents knew about it who didn't know? >> We did not. We held two neighborhood meetings uh and have kept those attendees who are those who attended and who uh sent us uh email addresses. We've been in communication with uh those folks uh throughout the reasonzoning process to give them updates on uh new conditions um and and to answer general questions that they've had throughout the process. But we did not hold any new uh neighborhood meetings just given the fact that the uh first two neighborhood meetings uh were were fairly positive and people were on board with uh bringing new commercial uses to this site. Do you have an idea of what commercial I heard also in the committee of the whole and what you said now that it's a prohibition on vape shops and things like that, but do you have an idea of what type of commercial use you want this space to be? >> Yeah, there would. So, in talking with the applicant and the property owner, they envisioned um either some sort of office use or some sort of uh restaurant, maybe a combination of of the two, uh like fast casual restaurants. Um but but no specific tenants or mix of uses have been uh sort of selected at this point. >> Any other questions or comments? If not, then I will entertain a motion. >> Commissioner Fox. Uh, in regards to case Z1324, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 12th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. >> We have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Commissioner Miller has seconded the motion. Any other discussion? If not, um, all in favor? All opposed? Thank you. That is how many of us are there? Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight to one. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Um, Commissioner Omay, would you like to state for the record um your opposition to the case? >> I live in this community. Like literally this project is up the street from me and around the corner. It's a two-lane road. Same thing I said in committee of the whole that this is going to increase traffic in that area. Rock quarry already has substantial traffic, especially going past New Hope. That's going to increase that traffic. My mom lives literally right there on the map and she didn't get any notification or information about this resoning. I know that there is a little tiny yard sign on New Hope Road when you pass it, but there's no even sidewalk or place for somebody to pull over to even scan that sign. So, I don't think that the community was well in and uh held and aware of this project. Uh we had community members come to the community hold against this project. Uh yeah, so those are my reasons. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, next we'll move on to old business and our first item is Z5124 Fairbanks Road. This case was deferred from our June 24th meeting to allow the applicant to address a boundary issue is issue. I'll ask staff to provide an update. Good morning. Um Erin Klinger again here to give an update on Z-5124. Um the request has been updated um because as the boundary previous boundary line issue has been resolved. Um the request is now to reszone from NX3 CU and R10 CU to NX3 CU. Um the deadline for action is August 28th. Again, um as a reminder, the proposed conditions would prohibit several uses that would otherwise be allowed in NX3CU zoning, limit density to no more than 60 dwelling units, and limit off square footage for office and retail to 65,000 square ft each. Um, other than the current zoning having been updated to reflect the corrected parcel boundaries, the case has not changed since it was last heard before the commission. The requested zoning is consistent with the neighborhood mixeduse land designation and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall. Uh here is a list of policies with which the request is consistent and no policies were found with which it is inconsistent. Again, the previous boundary line issue has been resolved. Um there are no additional outstanding issues with the request. Again, the deadline for action is August 28th and the next meeting is on August 26th. >> Thank you for the update. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak either in support or opposition of this case? [Music] Um without objection, I will give five minutes to each side. >> I was just going to say Chair Bennett, uh Toby Coleman here on behalf of the applicants, uh we're available for questions if there are any questions. Um otherwise, we're we're we're happy to sit on down. >> Thank you. bringing it back to the table. Um, are there any questions or comments from the commissioners? >> If not, I will entertain a motion. >> Motion to approve this case and adopt the proposed consistency statement contained in the agenda materials. >> Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Do I have a second? >> Thank you, Commissioner Bernett. Any further discussion? Okay, we have a motion to approve. All those in favor? All opposed. That is 90. Thank you very much. Our next old business item is Z10258125 Leville Road. We received a full presentation from staff and the applicant and received public comment at our June 24th meeting. The case was deferred to allow the applicant to consider additional conditions. I'll ask staff for a brief update. Um, good morning. Mitra Shashesharon here providing an update on Z1025. Um, as a reminder, the request is to reszone just under three acres of land from R4 to R10 CU located at 8125 Leisel Road. Um, since your last meeting, the applicant has submitted five new conditions, um, which I'll touch on today. And then your deadline for action is August 23rd. Um just another general overview of where the site is located. Um conditions one through four have remained the same since your last uh PC meeting. Uh the first condition is prohibiting a number of uses otherwise allowed in R10 prohibiting the apartment building type and then conditions three and four uh increase the sideyard and rear yard setbacks um to 10 and 30 feet along the southern and western boundaries of the site. and then also creating a 6ft or requiring the installation of a 6ft wall and tree buffer along that same boundary um along the ghost pony trail sub. Um and then conditions 5 through nine will be new to you all. Um I will say that these there's a slight change between this and what's included in the agenda materials because of these are the official like signed conditions. Um but condition number five um pro exempts the site from block perimeter and dead and street requirements and the sub street requirements. Um also requiring a minimum roof pitch of 4 and 12 and then also capping um residential height at 40 ft. And then as well as condition eight um requiring the installation of a speed hump either within the Ghost Pony Trail rightway or in an internal private drive aisle on the development site should the development take access from the Ghost Pony Trail sub. And then the final condition is um requiring at least two of the following materials be included in future residential development front facades. Um, again, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent with the future land use map designation of moderate scale residential. A list of consistent policies that have remained the same since your last meeting. And only two inconsistent policies were identified. Um, those speak to fire service response time standards. Um, and then there are no outstanding issues for the case. And your deadline for action is August 23rd, which is before the your next PC meeting. So, >> thank you for the update. Um, we received um full presentation from the applicant and public comment at our last meeting, but um could I see if there's anyone here who wishes to speak on this case? I see Mr. Mills and I see another. Without objection, I'll grant five additional minutes to each side. We'll start with the the applicant and those in support. Good morning again, commissioners. Worth Mills here on behalf of Vibes Fund LLC, the applicant. Uh I did want to go over the updated conditions um that we've offered uh since our last meeting. We we did hold a another virtual neighborhood meeting with neighbors on July 29th uh and shared these conditions. Um so so first we've extended the the rear yard setback from the two adjacent single family homes on Ghost Pony from 30 feet to 40 feet. So that rear yard setback is now larger than the current R4 zoning requires. Um we've exempted ourselves from the block perimeter uh requirements which is consistent with the uh exception that we meet in section 8.3.2. Um we've effectively eliminated flat roofs and rooftop living space. Um, and we have lowered maximum building height to 40 ft. Both of those are uh intended to uh sort of create a a more compatible development with the Ghost Pony Trail neighbors. We've required an installation of a speed hump along the extension of Ghost Pony Trail. In conversations with City of Raleigh Transportation, it's become pretty clear that our access to Leville Road will be from Ghost Pony to Country Trail to Leville instead of going north through that potential future development uh at 8215 Leville Road. Uh so knowing that, we wanted to offer a condition uh for traffic calming. And we've required each home to include at least two building materials into the front facade, which is similar to the architectural designs of those homes along Ghost Pony Trail. There are there are two conditions that by my error did not make it into the uh updated zoning conditions. One is a uh maximum development of 22 units and the second is a uh condition to require uh no more than six individual town home units within a town home building to help with the building massing. Um I did just want to let the planning commission know that we would intend to hold this case at city council when it gets there to offer those conditions before the public hearing and and that is 100% uh my mistake. Um, I also wanted to show a um concept plan that Gary Walston at BNK put together. Uh, this uh concept plan shows uh 17 town home units uh with the extension of Ghost Pony Trail as a private drive uh looping around the site and and then exiting back south. Uh each town home would have a garage and a driveway and there are 10 uh additional guest parking spaces uh in the center. Um we are showing two uh storm water control devices on the western boundary of the site. Those would drain uh into the stream that's located on that larger 8215 Leville Road site. Uh again, the the cases consistent with the future land use map, the comprehensive plan. We've offered conditions to uh increase compatibility with our uh neighbors along Ghost Pony Trail. Uh but happy to answer any questions that you have this morning and we appreciate your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Mills. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in support of the case? If not, then we will turn to the opposition. And you'll have 5 minutes as well. Please state your name for the record. >> Good morning. My name is Eric Hungate. the vice president of the HOA for Westlake a country trail. I want to thank you all for allowing us to speak this morning. Um want to I'm here to summarize our safety concerns for this resoning and why we hope you will vote against it today. I want to start by saying we're not against development and we understand that Raleigh has a housing issue and and we we're not against development of this property. We bought into this neighborhood. We understood that we were buying into an early phase of the neighborhood that would uh that would be growing into a larger neighborhood that would be built cohesively with similar looking homes with systems that work together. Um that was approved by the city in 2017. And you can see here this is uh the next phase of the property. This is my home right here. So this next property was supposed to be six homes which we were actually kind of excited about. So now there's going to be town homes there. Um just a few of our to summarize of our concerns is adding a town home community in between two sections of a neighborhood will create disjointed developments with limited ability to solve future issues cohesively. There's actually a third property that's going to be a part of this land area as well. So you'll have three separate neighborhoods that uh that aren't really speaking and working together u to make sure there's no issues down the road. Uh storm water is another concern. The current infrastructure on Ghost Pony Trail simply cannot absorb any more runoff from this development, especially not an R10. U the property is uphill and all the water will be pushed down into a creek which currently runs through the back of our properties and the lower part of our community. It already crests the banks of of the uh of the creek when we get heavy rain. There's also no clear plan as to how the prop the uh property storm water systems will work together with the new Winter's Hollow, which is the other property, as well as our property. So, you're looking at three different storm systems that are not working together. Uh the the a couple other of our final concerns is the investor doesn't really have any details for price points, number of bedrooms, floor plans, etc. because we believe that he is not a developer. Um we suspect he is planning to sell the property once reszoned to another developer, which again leaves so many different questions that that are still out there. Um also the possibility of renters. You know, sometimes renters don't care about the neighborhood quite as much as someone who might own the home and some of their back decks will be backing up right up to my house and our property, which um we are are worried about renters having more parties there because when I was in a town home, I tended to party on back decks, too. So, that's uh one of our concerns. >> Um Adrienne Turner. Um as Commissioner Bennett noted during the last meeting, traffic in the Leville area is a huge concern. This is a three-school campus that serves more than 4,000 students all on two-lane roads. Um, we have a street with a lot of blind turns. It is uphill. It is not flat. It's hard to tell from these pictures. This is an uphill neighborhood. This is also a neighborhood yield street. Um, so parking is a huge concern. We have asked for a condition of twocar garages and we have not heard back from that. that is required in our covenants. Um, this street cannot handle the parking that will happen from all of these town homes. Hi, Maryanne Hungate. And final minute, I'm going to just show you some photos so that you can see some of the impact of the storm water issues that we're having today. And nothing has been cleared yet. There will be not one but two properties bordering our street. And the solution is to use a small stream. Sorry, I went the wrong way. I'm just going to show you what that stream looks like today after a rain event. And as everyone knows, these rain events are becoming more and more frequent as time goes by. And this is the solution that was just presented for the storm water is this little tiny creek for again not one but two proposed developments. And we do not consider this to be a solution. We are concerned that it will run down the street and flood our properties. Kyle Smith. I live on Ghost Pony Trail. We have a couple additional slides um showing traffic concerns which largely speak for themselves. It's heavily trafficked, low visibility, high frequency of accidents, and so increasing density of traffic with no plan to mitigate the safety concerns is dangerous and unreasonable. Um, I think I'll just wrap up by saying much has been made of the fact that the future land use map contemplates that this would eventually be R10 zoning, but what's lost in that discussion is the fact that the current zoning map and the future land use map contemplate that our neighborhood and the two adjoining parcels will share a zoning. And so eventually, yes, these three parcels together may be reszoned, but it's not reasonable to kind of do it peace meal and abandon the original plan for a cohesive community of 30 to 35 neighborhoods just for density for density sake. So, thank you for your consideration. Um, and absent any questions, we'll turn it back to the commission. >> Thank you. >> Okay, commissioners, we'll bring it back to the table for your questions and comments. Commissioner Bernett u for the applicant. My question is I mean they made a really compelling case regarding just like the storm water runoff. It seems like it's going to be a really big problem. Um I was just looking at it on Google Maps and it is a I actually used to go to Leville so I remember like how far that slopes downward. You have any information from the survey site survey about how far that slopes down? Um etc. etc. Let's see. See, yeah, I'm I'm going to have uh David Blevens uh one of our engineers at BNK uh kind of walk through the storm water. >> Good morning. My name is uh I'm David Blevens. Uh I'm a engineer with Bass Nixon Kennedy. Um uh 6310 uh Chapel Hill Road uh Raleigh 27607. I just did a uh of course I did a brief analysis of the storm water, but the the topographic condition of this property is such that the runoff naturally goes to the back of the property from Leville Road to the back. We can't change that. That's just the way the property was made. And of course, the stream is at the back. And so, uh, I looked at the, uh, I did just an analysis of the impervious area of the layout that that Gary did. And, and then I did, uh, an analysis or just looked at the impervious area of of a six lot town home of a six lot residential development, just similar to what was shown. uh and put 38% impervious for which is the allowable for single family R4 and there was about 1,700 square ft more impervious area for the town homes. So in the world of storm water for us that's that's really a a very very manageable number. it really doesn't uh it doesn't something that we can easily manage. So uh but yeah that's our we will not be running any storm water into their into Ghost Pony Trails uh uh existing storm water system at all. So we won't be impacting theirs. All of our storm water has to stand alone in whatever storm water devices we create to uh manage both water quality and quantity. >> Thank you. Additional Commissioner Cochran. >> I actually have another question about the storm water. In your analysis, you said you based it on the 17 units shown, but you're asking for a condition for 22 units. So that 17% increase is based on 17 units, not 22. Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> Yes, >> Commissioner Hotwell. >> I was wondering if we could get uh Raleigh Stormwater to comment on the difference in regulations that would be required for storm water control between the two requested zonings and the potential impact to the system. Good morning, Sally Hoy Rally Stormwater. Uh given the size of this parcel, uh the zoning does not matter. Um because this parcel is greater than an acre, the full storm water requirements apply. So there is no prescribed amount of imperous area. Um they just have to provide the treatment associated with the impervious area. Does that address your question? I >> I think it does. And if you could refresh my memory, the current rules uh require that the development u show no ex no excess no increase in the amount of runoff from the site from current conditions or >> that that's correct. There's there's two main components of the storm water regulation. One is aimed at the quantity of water and that looks at the two and 10year design storms which is um like the 10ear is about is I think 5.7 ines of rainfall um and so it looks at the rate of flow coming off the site. The rate cannot increase. So if there was a pipe that was able to convey that flow under existing conditions or a stream that was able to contain it then it would continue to be able to contain it. Then the second component is about water quality and specifically because of the impairments in the noose wershed for nutrients. It looks at the amount of nitrogen. So they would have to do um some sort of treatment for nitrogen. And it would depend on the density of the site, whether they had to provide on-site controls for that or could do uh by uh mitigation credits. And one followup, I I realize this is out of your purview. Um I understand the city is taking over flood mapping responsibilities from FEMA and will be doing their own mapping on a more detailed scale. The site currently is not part of a regulatory flood plane, nor is any part of Ghost Pony Trail, but there are floodprone soils located along the creek. Do we know if the city plans to expand the flood mapping modeling to this site or is there somewhere we can look for that? Um, we are planning to expand flood plan mapping, but actually that that I can't give you a timeline on, but in the changes we made to the UDO last fall, there's a requirement that if there's uh flood soils or even if there's not flood soils, if there's a certain acreage of drainage area to a stream, the flood uh boundaries have to be mapped. So, um, 5 acres if there's flood soils, 25 acres if there's not flood soils require some type of flood mapping. So, it appears that would be require I haven't calculated the drainage area, but there would likely be something done in this project. >> Thank you very much, >> Commissioner Miller. >> Thank you. And uh Sally, just to double check that I heard you correctly, did you say that whether um regardless whether the development occurred under the current zoning or the proposed zoning that the storm water um controls with respect to impervious service would be the same either way? >> That that's correct. Um it's only for parcels less than an acre where the the limits in the uh UDO apply. So, because this perkil is over an acre, it it those limits do not apply. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner May. >> Um, I have a question to the gentleman that came up to talk about storm water. Um, I know that I mean we've heard definitely that that's like one of the major issues of this site and I do hear you saying we'll do what we have to do, but I'm wondering what specifically you have in mind to do to maintain the storm water and then to also make sure that when future development comes that is able to be adaptable. Well, we well, as Sally mentioned, we'll have to meet all the requirements that Raleigh has for the two and two and 10year storms. Whenever you do storm water detention for the 10-year storm, you're actually doing detention for a good portion of the 25-year storm, maybe 30% or so or so. So, um, we won't know exactly what type of device we're going to use, but we will have to use a combination of something that would be water quality like a bio retention basin. And then on top of that, it we might store use uh storage for uh for flooding uh to store some water on top of that. And so, uh, you know, it on a small site like this, uh, I've done a lot of commercial sites, they're they're fairly simple to do. And um and I think in the amount of area that we we had left shown on on Gary's sketch there, we had ample area to uh to to provide storage, you know, room for both for both devices, types of devices. >> And are you all intending to use the creek that they're mentioning as a measure of easing storm water distribution? Well, that's where the storm water is going now. We don't have any we don't have a we don't have any um we we don't have an we don't have any other place to take it. The the topographic existing topographic configuration of the property takes all of the drainage to the back of the property. If we took it somewhere else, we would, if there was another opportunity to take it somewhere else, we would actually be violating the rules by diverting it from where it's naturally going to where it's not naturally going. So, we have to take it to the area where it's naturally going. >> Do you plan on enhancing the creek to make to be pardon me? Do you plan on enhancing the creek to be able to because it I mean I see it's called a creek but you know it's kind of tiny. Do you plan on enhancing that in any way to be able to maintain >> extra storm water drain off? >> Well the the creek is not actually on our property. So we don't have any plans to do anything to the creek because we don't have access to the property. There is a development. The Winter's Hollow is a subdivision that is in the process now. Uh it is one that is a just a subdivision that will it will not be before the planning commission. It's just a staff approved subdivision. But uh and they have some plans for storm water on their on on on their property as well, but uh uh but we can't get back there and do anything with the creek because it's not our property. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Commissioner Fox, >> may I may I follow up on that? Just really quickly, so if I was understanding um that towards the back of the property, you have either retention or detention proposed. You have a storm water device proposed on the property which would slow flow to the stream. >> Is that correct? Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. So the intent of that is likely to create a condition where the stream can adequately convey that water. Is that >> well we correct for the for the design storms that that Sally mentioned for the two and for the two and 10year storms and then for for a good portion of the 25 years. >> Thank you. That that helps. >> Yes. The uh the gray shaded areas on the screen are those for for storm water retention. >> Thank you. >> The green is the amenity area. >> That's required for town hall. >> The two gray areas. That's >> Oh, okay. >> Y >> we're all blind. I know. Um, sorry. We're all We're laughing that we can't see. We're We're all getting older. So, >> not very It's not very not shaded very well. >> Um, sorry. >> Uh, Sally, could I ask you a question again, please? Um, I just want to make sure that we are specifically addressing the concerns that we heard um from the public. And one of them was that there are going to be three different storm water systems that aren't working together. Um do you share that concern or is there some sort of cumulative impact assessment that would need to be done to ensure that they are in fact working together or is that not a concern? Um, I mean, it's it's not I don't have a large concern because each each development will be held to the standards. Um, I I I would see more of a concern from a if I were a homeowner from a operation and maintenance standpoint that, you know, if there's more storm water control measures, there'd be more things to maintain, that sort of thing. Um but from the the this the city standpoint in terms of the functionality um I think I think it's possible for them to operate independently. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments about storm water? >> What kind of >> Okay. Uh Commissioner Atwell. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. Um I note that the property that contains the creek is owned by the Church of Latter-day Saints. Has the city received any feedback or engagement from the church? >> Um, that site is currently undergoing like subdivision and site plan review. Um, and then has like indicated that they're applying for annexation. Um, currently, >> Commissioner Fox, are you reaching for your mic? >> Okay. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, I'm I acknowledge there are likely some stormwater concerns there. I'm I'm comfortable and confident that the code can actually handle that if it's built to standard. The only inconsistency I'm actually finding when going through the staff report is related to response times. And I know we've we've had that come up a number of times. I was wondering um Bum could you remind me the study that I believe the fire department was undergoing. >> Sure. So, city council saw the fire department master plan before the break. >> Thank you. >> And that uh document prioriti prioritizes some new stations. I don't remember that there was one in this vicinity. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh but I would I would also note that um yeah I'll stop there. Thank you. Um regarding traffic um so I did mention at the last meeting that all three of my all three of my kids both of my kids I just found got a ghost kid from somewhere. Both of my kids went to uh all three of the Leville schools there. So, I've been driving that area for many, many years. Um, and I was actually on the community task force that worked with the city to get um grant funding to do the bike and ped improvements that are on Country Trail and Prideway um after a student was hit. So, I I'm aware of there's a lot of traffic. Um, there was also a plan at some point to widen Leville. Um, and that stretch of Leville was has not been widened. I'm wondering if transportation staff can tell us is that um in the queue to be to widen that stretch of Leville. Good morning, Planning Commission. Carter Robertson with transportation. So, Leville was um evaluated as part of the last bond in 2017 to be widened. It ultimately wasn't selected at that time. It didn't rank as high as some of the others that were chosen. Right now, there's no current plans to widen it. Um that might be evaluated as part of a a future bond opportunity. We do know there now that it is reaching capacity as a two-lane road and the future designation would accommodate for the current volumes at a four lane. >> Okay. But this project did not warrant a TIA. Is that correct? >> No ma'am. >> Okay. >> Um Commissioner Atwell, >> could you comment on the uh public engagement process for the Leville Road widening project? Do you remember what the outcome of that was? I'm not familiar. I wasn't at the city at this time. Um, okay. Thank you. >> I do recall many years ago when the entire stretch of Leville was being considered to be widened, there was some opposition from the Springdale neighborhood about widening in that particular area. So, um, I don't know this for a fact, but my guess is that part probably moved down in ranking because there was an opposition for the other part of Leville, which is near widened, which is the part I live off of. So, any other questions or comments from commissioners? If not, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Miller. >> Um, I wanted to address the applicant mentioned that there are two conditions that did not make it into this case. Um, well, and I wanted to also address the the conditions that were added and thank the applicant for those conditions. Um, related to the speed humps and traffic calming. Um and additionally the it seems that they um went above and beyond what we typically see when you add town houses to a residential development in terms of managing their um appearance. Um the two conditions that did not make it in but the applicant intends to hold again those two conditions were a maximum development of 22 units and then the other is um to require no more than six individual town homes per unit to avoid to address massing. Those two, while the developer is willing to offer them, um, likely to address concerns from the neighbors, I I don't see those as so critical to this case. I think it's still consistent with the comprehensive plan without those two requirements that I'm comfortable making a motion to um recommend approval of this case and also recognize that um two additional conditions will be added before council. >> Thank you, Commissioner Miller. We have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Was that working? >> Okay. Commissioner O'Hver. >> You said it at the same time Commissioner Bernett's mouth said it, so I wasn't sure. Um, Commissioner O'Hver has seconded. Do we have any additional discussion? >> I would just like to follow up on um, Commissioner Miller's comments. I do appreciate the applicant increasing the setback. I think that was one of my comments and and anybody that attends these meetings regularly know that that's part of my focus is existing single family homes. So I want to thank the applicant for that. I appreciate the height max number of units no more than six units. Again looking at the scale of the development I hear the storm water concerns. Um I'm looking at Google Maps. There's a lot of asphalt out there, a lot of concrete out there in those existing homes. A lot. Looking at the concept plan, I just don't see the applicant must meet the city standards. I just don't see the storm water getting worse. I just want to say I hear the neighbors concerns, but knowing what I know about storm water and looking at existing conditions, I I'm comfortable seconding and approving this um application. >> Thank you, Commissioner O'Hver. Any other discussion? All those in favor? All opposed? That's 90. Thank you very much. Moving on to new business. We'll give the um members of the public an opportunity to get situated. We have resoning Z1225 Peace and West Street. We'll turn to Mr. Clim for a full presentation. >> Good morning, Planning Commission. Uh Matthew Clim, Raleigh Planning and Development. Um here to present uh Z1225 for your review today. Uh the request is to reszone uh 2.6 and 6 acres from industrial mixeduse with a 12story height limit to downtown mixeduse with a 30tory height limit and urban general frontage and zoning conditions. Your deadline for action is October 11th. Um just a quick look at the zoning map here. Uh zoning in the area is predominantly industrial mixeduse as the site is zoned. Um and uh downtown mixeduse to the south which is the burgundy color on the screen. Um the northwest of the map is residential 10 uh including the Glennwood Brooklyn streetside historic overlay district uh along Peace Street. There's also some neighborhood mixeduse uh and commercial mixeduse as well. an aerial view of the site. Uh you can see that the property fronts West Street and P Street. It's highlighted in yellow. Uh it's adjacent to um a 14 acre site that will be the home of Smoky Hollow Park. Uh um so a new uh large future park in the area. Again, Glenwood, Brooklyn to the west. Uh and you can see Smoky Hollow to the south. Um Capitol Boulevard cuts the map in half as well. also to the east uh seabboard station. Uh this is just a um 3D view of the site trying to highlight the um difference and topography along uh the property between the uh future city park and the site. Um and also just a sense of what other buildings in the area are in terms of scale. So looking at the site, this is from Peace Street. Um some existing structures there. Uh and this is from West Street. Uh two shots there. A number of zoning conditions. Uh the first prohibits highintensity uses. Uh they're listed there. The second uh is related to building height. Um and there is an associated uh exhibit that is on our future slide, but the site is broken into two zones. Um zone one is limited to uh 240 ft uh or 25 stories. Um and there's more detail on the exhibit slide. Uh zone 2 is limited to um 360 ft. Uh each of those zones have an additional 20 ft of building height depending on what the primary street is determined to be during site plan. Uh and we can talk a little bit about that if there are questions. Um, condition number three addresses parking deck screening. Condition four, five, and six are related to development of the property's edge to the east where the location of Smoky Hollow Park is planned. So, there's a condition that uh prohibits surface parking between the park and the property, the future park and the property. There's a zoning condition that requires pedestrian connectivity from the reszoning site to that property and uh requires a urban plaza um to be built as an amenity area adjacent to the park there as well. Um office uses are limited to 500,000 square feet uh in any development. And then the final condition is a a contribution to the city's affordable housing fund prior to the issuance of the fifth00 unit for certificate of occupancy. So what that means is if the property is developed with 499 residential units, no contribution to the affordable housing fund is made. If 500 or more are developed on the site, then a $1.2 million contribution is made. Um, so there's not a guarantee that the money would be given to the city for affordable housing unless uh more than 499 units are built. So this is the zoning condition exhibit regarding building height. Um, so this is the property. P Street is here, West Street is here. Uh, and this is where the split is. So for zone one on the northern portion of the resoning site, building height is limited to 25 stories or limited to 240 ft in height. Um if at site plan P Street is determined to be the primary street, the 240 ft building height limit is actually 260 ft. Um similarly for zone 2 towards the south uh if the the exhibit limits building height to 360 ft but if peace street is determined to be the primary street it's actually 380 ft. Um so there is some variation in development outcomes based on the zoning exhibit. uh and just to try to map where that line is um on the aerial view of the site. Uh it's roughly located in this this is not a surveyed map but generally in that location. Looking at the proposed development intensity based on existing zoning and proposed zoning, uh you can see that the estimated residential yield increases from 453 to 938. Um the office square footage goes down based on the zoning condition. So less office could be built under the proposed zoning than the existing zoning and that has implications to traffic counts during AM and PM peak hours. So office is one of the the office use is one of the higher trip generating uses. So by reducing office below this threshold, the intent is that it would produce fewer trips compared to the existing zoning. Um retail slightly goes up. Then of course 92,000 square feet are estimated to be able to be delivered under the exist under the existing zoning. The future zoning takes all industrial uses um out of out of out of a development option. So um by going from the industrial mixed use to the downtown mixed use, light industrial uses are not um permitted on the site. So in terms of transportation and energy analysis, the site has a higher walk score, transit score, and bike score in the city average. Um the site is about a 20 minute walk from this room. So if you're living there, you can walk here in 20 minutes or an 8 minute bike ride. Uh the site is served by the Rline currently. That is a frequent transit service that um has a 15-minute frequency. Um, it can also bring you downtown or to your work or wherever you're going. Um, higher transportation cost index than average. So, what that means is folks who live in areas with higher transportation cost indexes spend less money on transportation cost because they have these other options, walking, biking, or taking transit. Or simply, if they choose to drive, they're driving shorter distances, putting less miles in their car, requiring less maintenance over time. um transportation costs in the area are low. Um and the high job proximity index um is related to the adjacency and inclusion in the downtown area um which is a high employment area for the city. So the site is served by several existing bus services 12612 and the Rline. You can see the site here. [Music] The uh request would add to the housing supply. Uh it does not in include subsidized units. Um discussed earlier the contribution to the affordable housing fund if more than 499 units are built. Uh it does permit a variety of housing types, smaller units in the apartment type building. Um again uh we include walking distance of transit and the affordability analysis because cost of living is not just the cost for your housing. It is also the amount of money that you spend on transportation. So if you live in an area where you can spend less money on transportation it means you have more money for other things. So um affordably affordability relies on transportation as well is the point. Uh in terms of land use history, the property was platted uh into the city in 1885 um and annexed in the early 20th century. Um the original deeds granted uh by the Greater Raleigh Land Company in Glenwood subdivision prohibited occupant occupation by persons of color. So there are historic incidents in the area of uh racial segregation and also the 1960 Smokeoky Hollow Redevelopment Plan, an urban re renewal project um displaced a community and neighborhood of uh according to a News and Observer article from 1960, 165 families um from the Smoky Hollow neighborhood um for the purposes of widening the street uh the seabboard underpass and providing off street car parking. The request is consistent with the future land use map. Um this is the future land use map on the right side of the screen. Uh the future land use map designation is central business district uh which is the maroon color. You can also see adjacent to um our public park planning. The request is also consistent with the urban form. The urban form map uh functions to recommend certain frontage types. So the urban general frontage is consistent with that. Um this slide and map say a lot more about the case other than just the frontage as well. Um we know that building height is the primary issue under consideration here. We know that from hearing and working and speaking with the community that building height is um is the issue to be considered. Uh recommended building heights in the comprehensive plan come from a table called LU2 uh recommended building heights and that table functions with the future land use map in different contexts in the city to provide recommended building heights. Um there are essentially two qualifying criteria for what is called the core transit designation on that table. One criteria is being cited on a corridor that is planned or programmed for frequent transit. The site is currently served by frequent transit with the RLine service. Um so it qualifies for the transit aspect of the core transit designation. The other aspect of the core transit designation is being in the core of a mixeduse center of 30 acres or greater. Um you can see that the site is contained in downtown. The site is contained in the bus rapid transit area which is shown on the map and beyond the bus rapid transit area is the frequent transit area. So taken together this is in the core of those districts. Um the downtown designation on the urban form map follows the boundaries of downtown. The bus rapid transit area is within a quarter mile of corridors planned for bus rapid transit. So in this case would be Capitol Boulevard for the Capital Boulevard study. the site or well this this distance is roughly half a mile and then beyond that um the frequent transit area is a half mile from Capitol Boulevard. The site is core transit by the qualifying conditions of being currently served by transit the R lines of frequent transit service and within a mixed use center 30 acres or greater. The rest is consistent with the future land use map and the urban form map. Um, there are a number of policies that the request is consistent with in the comprehensive plan, capitalizing on transit access, station area land uses related to the bus rapid transit planning in the area, compact development, healthy communities being in the location that it is, folks are more likely to walk, bike, or take transit, active mobility um to satisfy transportation needs. And so walking and biking, living next to a park, those are healthy things uh for folks to do. Um station area recommended heights. So there is a planned bus rapid transit station in the area. Um we have transit staff to talk particularly about where that transit station will be located. Uh at the time that the current urban form map was adopted, the transit station location was at the corner of West and Johnson Street. Um that's also reflected on the urban form map with the quarter mile buffer for the BRT transit station. The current planning and location for the that transit station has moved uh a few blocks to the east and is now planned to be located on Capitol Boulevard. and uh between Peace and Johnson. Um and so the site is within a/4 mile of that area as well. Uh downtown edges and downtown transitions. Um the zoning conditions provided by the applicant to limit building height and stories. Um excuse me, building height in feet. uh transitions the mass of those sites down to uh the other lower slung development in the area. Um and um again downtown for high density for all the reasons of walkability, job access, transit access are consistent. Um there are no inconsistent policies um identified for the reasonzoning request. Um there are no outstanding issues and your deadline for action is October 11th. Uh the applicants are here. Um they'll give their presentation uh and we can answer your questions following that. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Next, we'll turn to public comment. The applicant and those in support will have 10 minutes. Uh good morning chair, members of the planning commission, Jason Baron with Morning Star Law Group. Excited to be here today on behalf of Raleigh Development Company who's the proposed developer of this site. Uh I really want to hit on a handful of high points associated with the case. I think the staff report and the staff's presentation has really done an excellent job of analyzing the applicability of the comprehensive plan and I'm going to talk on a couple of things associated with that, but really there are three overarching themes related to this case. First, it's the right use in the right location. That's what we're always trying to do with respect to when we're resoning and when we want development to go into a place. Is it the right use in the right location? And we submit that this is. Second, as was mentioned in the staff presentation and the staff uh the uh staff support plan, the there is no doubt that this case is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation that's out in the public um related to comprehensive plan policies that speak to this case, but there can be no mistake that this case is consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan. And third, we have appropriate transitions. This case is actually providing the types of transitions that will ensure that there is contextsensitive transitions to existing neighborhoods while also maintaining the integrity of the comprehensive plan that is so important to making sure that Raleigh can continue to grow and continue to grow in a way that discourages sprawl and encourages the type of infield development that we're looking at in this case. And so the a little bit about the right use in the right location. I do want to highlight a handful of things. This is a layout that we have in our presentation. This is the current planning associated with the development. Uh this is the site kind of in this location here. If you can follow my cursor um and as was mentioned what we have proposed, what the applicant has proposed is a step down from 30 stories to 25 stories. In addition to that, there are height restrictions associated with that to ensure that nothing greater than 360 ft will be developed adjacent to Peace Street and nothing greater than 240 ft will be developed along the northern portion of the site. Again, trying to provide those appropriate transitions. As we all know, this the city is investing a lot of money in Smoky Hollow Park. It's going to be a tremendous amenity to this development. A lot of planning has gone into this site by Raleigh Development Company to make sure that when this site develops, it appropriately addresses and embraces the park as a critical amenity, a critical feature in ensuring that folks who live here, folks who are going to be dining here have great access to that park. Additionally, as you're aware, across the street is Publix. I live in downtown Raleigh. Having walking availability to groceries is an incredible amenity to a site like this. Again, it's where you want to put people. It discourages auto dependency. It gets people out. They're allowed to walk and that a lot of that's already happening and and this is why we think density is appropriate in this location. It's also walkable to a lot of the other amenities that are developing in this area. And finally, as was mentioned uh related to future transit, there's existing transit stops. It's in a frequent transit area as of today with the bus routes, the multitude of bus routes within proximity to the site. and there's future plan transit in this area that we believe all of those things kind of coming together. It's really incumbent upon achieving the the goals of the comprehensive plan with respect to the comprehensive plan. And so this is just a little bit more of the urban placemaking that's being provided. Uh this is that break in the building. So this is kind of facing south. Um this is the the larger 30story portion and then the uh 25story portion here. And then this does a little bit job of kind of giving you a little bit of the scale. And so this is the current thinking, the current planning associated with this site. And this is the building up along piece. They're currently planning for a break in the building with this pedestrian prominade and a a featured stair. And you can again you can see the way that the park is really being embraced by this development. They're being very very intentional about making sure that what gets developed here is highly complimentary to what the city is doing with the park. I'm going to move through the comprehensive plan um as quickly as possible recognizing we don't have a lot of time and I've got a couple other speakers, but there is no doubt it's in the central business district. It's in the downtown center area. It's in a transit station area. All of these things speak directly to the fact that this is where the comprehensive plan is already calling for density. In fact, if you look at those comprehensive plan maps, those comprehensive plan maps call for up to potentially 40 stories. And again, why we believe this is appropriately transitioned because instead of asking for 40 stories, which is across the street, you may be familiar Caddy Corner to this site next to the Publix, there is a site that is zoned for 40 stories as of today. um why we believe it is appropriately transitioned because what is what is being achieved here is taking that otherwise 40story recommendation making it context sensitive stepping the building down to 30 and to 25 stories as you make your way north on the site. Again a little bit more about the transit station areas and I know this is a lot of information to cover in a short span of time so I apologize. Uh but as was mentioned in the staff report, this isn't a transit station area that the site where we are developing is directly on top of one of those future transit station map uh pres future transit station areas. U this map and all of these things are directly from the comprehensive plan. Talks about the station area types. This is a downtown station area type adjacent to the site and those downtown recommendations call for up to 40 stories or more. I would note for you that I think it's important as it relates to your review of this case. One of the things that's clear in the recommendations associated with transit areas is that where there's a discrepancy and this is in the land use plan. This is in the comprehensive plan. Where there's a discrepancy in building height relative to transit areas and any other map that the city has, those transit areas control. That is expressly provided for in the comprehensive plan. And again, I recognize that building height is is is the centerpiece of this development. And I would tell you unequivocally that this development is satisfying the comprehensive plans goals with respect to building height and is doing so in a way that will breathe life into those future transit plans. And so with that, uh, I'm going to turn it over to a couple of other our speakers and, uh, we'll be here to answer questions. Good, good morning, planning commission. Uh, my name is Larry Miller. Uh I'm president of the Glenwood South Neighborhood Collaborative. We're an association uh neighborhood association has has over a thousand members. Um we have 14 member board that made up of members of residents and um business u owners in the community and we're and we're actually a community that is adjacent to this site unlike the Glenwood Brooklyn neighborhood which is physically separated from the proposed site by a railroad uh track. uh but we thought it was important to to show our support for this development. Um first of all I want just I'm trying to be brief. I want to uh say the planning uh and development staff has done an outstanding job in presenting this and I think you should pay attention to what they have to say. They're your experts. I'm not going to go into the minutia but uh just note that they do uh indicate that it's consistent with a comprehensive plan future land use infrastructure urban form. I mean they don't they don't find anything wrong with it. Uh I'm going to just talk about a few of the factors that are that we think are important and that should be uh that you should be looking at in the overall public interest for this project and not the private interests of a few vocal opposition. Uh the transportation, it's a walkable neighborhood. We live in the neighborhood. It it it's great. you you want to have a uh a dense development like this in a neighborhood that's walkable. You've got pedestrian transportation. You have the bus rapid transit uh the frequent TR transit. Those have all been talked about about. It's also on a uh bike trail uh is going to be added on West Street. Scooters, you've got all that. you have all that transportation which will u eliminate the use of uh the need for cars. So, uh that's that's a strong factor in its its favor. Again, it's adjacent to the Smoky Hollow Park. It will allow access to the park from West Street. Right now, the park is surrounded by property. The only access the city is going to have is from Peace Street, which is problematic. This will create an an additional access to this great uh park amenity that's going to be built. Um the affordable housing part part of this the city is always that's one of the main issues in in Raleigh is affordable housing. Uh this is going to provide over a million dollars to to put for affordable housing. Um again it it is a factor that should be taken into consideration. I'm going to leave some time for another person. I just want to say uh please look towards the overall public interest and not the private interests of a few individuals. Thank you. If I may, may I ask for a additional time? I've got about 25 seconds on the time or I would love three minutes if that's allowable. >> If it's the will of the commission, I will add two minutes and then I will add two minutes to the other side as well. >> Great. Thank you. >> Without objection, we'll add two minutes. >> Thank you. My name is Will Choy. I'm an architect in Raleigh. I've been practicing for about 20 years. I hold a master's degree in architecture from Harvard University and I've practiced in uh several cities across the country designing buildings like this and executing them though now my work these days in Raleigh focus on much smaller neighborhood projects. And I come here in support of the project today. Now there are great many local issues in need of grassroots involvement these days in Raleigh. issues that I believe everybody in this room would agree our city needs solutions for. Real issues like housing affordability, mass transit, downtown safety, our city's environment. So, it must look pretty odd when one takes time off work to speak here instead in support of a reasonzoning that will supposedly only benefit some private company. But I'm here because I believe density is a necessary component in improving these larger issues I mentioned earlier. If that sounds absurd, let me ask, how can we address housing shortage without increasing the supply of housing? How can we establish mass transit without the mass of people who will ride it? How can we increase safety in downtown without any eyes or foot traffic on the streets? Density is a crucial ingredient in making Raleigh livable for people like me and the thousands of nearby apartment dwellers who did not feel compelled to come out and oppose the resoning today. Most folks downtown will readily agree we need things like sidewalks, bike lanes, beautiful parks to make our city livable. But without density, our sidewalks and bike lanes will continue to remain empty, our parking lots larger than the parks we build them for. And we will continue to cosplay a city rather than actually becoming one. We cannot say we care about our environment, public transit, walkability, or housing, and then turn around to reject density. That's about as ridiculous as saying that you love to swim, just not when the water is wet. And I hear the voices saying, "Hey, that's all fine. Just not right here next to all these houses." Yet, last I checked, this neighborhood is the single densest neighbor neighborhood in all of Raleigh >> and outside of Charlotte, it is the densest spot in the entire state of North Carolina. >> Thank you for your questions. >> If density isn't appropriate here, where in Raleigh is this magically better spot that's not near any single family homes? >> Thank you. Next, we will hear from the opposition. You have a total of 12 minutes. >> Please state your >> My name is Tim Niles. And thank you for allowing me to speak. Respectfully, I am disappointed this hearing is being held today when the public has only had access to the staff report since Friday. And that was made aware over and the staff was made aware over a month ago that the advocate for the neighbors could not be here today. The presentation he submitted to this body was prepared prior to the staff report being made available. Because of this, it does not address the latest assertions. I'm concerned that both neighborhood meetings were held without access to the staff report. Lastly, I note that two years ago, transportation reported that this location had been removed from consideration as a transit location. The issue was brought up at the first neighborhood meeting because the applicant claimed the location is a transit location based on an outofdate map and every part of their application relies on that designation. Without it, this proposal violates over 40 policies and plans. I was told by planning staff at the end of that April meeting that they would get clarification on the issue. They never got back to me. Transportation staff did reconfirm by email in April that the location has not been identified as a transit station. Now, magically, when the staff report comes out, West Street is once again identified as a transit location. This seems like a conveniently timed revelation when no one from the city was willing to disclose this information to the public previously, even when asked directly about it at both the first and second neighborhood meetings in April and July. gives the impression the fix is in. And lastly, stepping down from 25 stories to two cannot realistically be called a transition. It's laughable. Nearly 1500 people have signed a change.org petition against this proposal and more are signing it every day. Thank you. >> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Chris Crew, 306 Elm Street. This is not the right use in the right location because it's not consistent with the zoning. That's just pure and simple there. A lot of the people in this room participated in the development and adoption of Raleigh's comprehensive plan in UDO and a lot of them are passionate about the preservation and care of our unique historic architecture and cultural history. Local zoning is a tool that allows us to do this preservation. Because we've invested so much in developing and implementing these tools, it would be improper to grant a spot zoning privilege like the concession concessions now being requested on a property that has already been reszoned. Look at the map. The approval of this request would create a perverse and incompatible irregularity in the boundaries laid out in the zoning map. It's just not right. As far as people being uh opposed to this, u I have a message here from the Society for the Preservation of Historic Oakwood, which I believe was delivered to you by email uh last week. Uh if you did not receive it, I'll be sure that you did. That's a uh an organization with over 1,600 members. Their board of directors voted to oppose this on a number of grounds. Uh, first of all, allowing a 30-story mixeduse building within 240 ft of a residential neighborhood with an HOD designation represents an adverse impact that has not been addressed by anything we've heard here. In the absence of detailed and specific design information, it's impossible to judge that this development will be compatible with section 3.5C of the UDO dealing with setbacks. Beyond the questionable compatibility, the approval of this would set the president that 30story buildings just 240 ft from historic homes, it's not only allowed, but is fully consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan and its policies, which this request is not consistent with. And in addition to these easily recognized impacts, there are unexamined impacts on traffic, public safety, and public utilities. Did any of you note the flooding down there at the end of West Street yesterday? As a retired emergency manager, that gives me pause. We urge you to reject this proposal on the grounds that it is arbitrary, capricious, and represents an example of spot zoning that conflicts with the UDO and the comprehensive plan. Thank you. >> Good morning, Matthew Brown, 401 North Person Street. Thank you for your service. Thank you for letting me speak. We're talking about what Raleigh needs. Unlike most cities our size, Raleigh has no historic riverfront or lakefront or mountains or Beiel Street or other cultural attractions or Builtmore House or other architectural monuments. We need interest. We need beauty. We need character. That is what these historic districts provide to all the citizens of Raleigh and all the tourists. And that is why our UDA UDO protects them and a comprehensive plan envisions a U transition zone. It's zoned for 12 stories. That's dense. That's just like the public's building across the street. But but 30 stories next to twotory historic neighborhood violates the rule of common sense. And another thing he's talking about, oh, transit's not a problem because uh it's right by Capitol Boulevard. The problem is not north south, it's east, west. Uh Peace Street is a bottleneck because of the two sets of railroad tracks and the state government mall. And part of it's only two lane. The traffic's already horrendous. All these people will have cars. The next street, east west street north of this that crosses both sets of railroad tracks is the belt line. That's why it's a bottleneck. And uh you've already uh the city's already approved all this high density development along there. Uh uh a cad corner to this a skyscraper two skyscrapers at Seabard. When all these things are full, there will be constant gridlock on Peace Street and everybody will say, "Where were our planners? How could they let this happen? This is crazy." There's tons of wonderful places to put a 30-story building on this uh overloaded street next to this historic treasure is not the place. Thank you. >> Good morning. My name is Gaston Williams and clearly I'm not Esther Hall. She's away on family business, but I am a member of the Preservation Raleigh, Inc., a newly created preservation advocacy group in Raleigh. And we're opposed to the zoning request as submitted. Uh we haven't had a chance to look at all the details because they were recently released, but we we believe that allowing the construction of what could be a 30story mixeduse building within 240 ft of a residential neighborhood designated as a historic overlay district is uh significantly impacts that historic district. We're concerned with the lack that that given the fact that this site is partially elevated and the height is so important that maybe in this case too much is too much. This represents an urban wall that's going to be erected and without a lot of detail and fully comp. >> Excuse me. I'm sorry. Could I please ask that we silence our phones? >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. It wasn't me this time. uh without you're getting and demanding actually a real detailed topography understanding what this represents from the perspective of not just the buildings around it but also the neighborhood above it and also what it means to the park and everything else. We don't think that this should be approved without a great deal of study about the topography and the relative scale and that cannot be accomplished by onedimensional drawings that you often get in these situations. More broadly, we question whether this is really consistent with the comprehensive plan. um suggesting that this sets a great precedent for many historic neighborhoods in the area that could result in um a destruction or demunition of the historic districts. The consequences for long-term residents of these areas are great. We're going to have uh profound overwhelming building scale, increases traffic, noise, sunlight, glare, and and as frequently pointed out, the traffic problem is going to be, as mentioned, the number of units in here. It's going to be a real artful day to get through Peace Street with all the traffic that's going to be dumped into Peace Street. So we believe this proposal for a high density uh project on the core of the historic area largely residential represents the possibility of being argued in the future to diminish other neighborhoods. We urge the planning commission to request more detail before approving it or otherwise reject this proposal as it's submitted. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Just real quick, not on my time. Thank you all. We I've been in a situation along with Esther where y'all are sitting and devoting your time to this effort. We appreciate it and I understand it more than others. >> Madame Chair, uh fellow uh planning commission members, my name is Ben um at 123 Pier Street in Raleigh. Um I've practiced I'm a land use lawyer. I work with developers and u land use issues, variances, and so forth. I've been before this body several times before. I was before you uh when this came before you in committee and also last time when they sought to have it reszoned that resoning was ultimately denied. Um this needs to go back to committee. There's been policy changes since this last came before you in the adoption of the uh transition zone which does have significant impact in the policy framework that this has and it's not hadn't been mentioned once. Um but that was adopted by city council last time and it is a policy uh issue and layer that you need to consider. You also have to understand it's to me as a land use lawyer it's not about the use or the location. It's about the s the the height of it which is completely out of odds um with the context of the area. Um it's not in a transit station area. the west and uh west street and Johnson Street uh station area is off the books in terms of a communication I had with Het Patel two years ago which I presented to uh uh to the city city planning commission I believe uh at that time we have that documentation. It's supposed to be at the uh uh at at Capitol Boulevard right where it it verges off right behind the long leaf hotel. If you str if you string a line line from that point to this site, it's 26 uh 26 of a mile more than a quarter mile. Even if you argue that it's within the transit station area for that location, it's at the very edge of the transit station area. And what I would point you to is the equitable transit oriented development guide book, the policy that guides development within transit areas. And it suggests to you that in a transit area at the transit station, that's where the most heightened density would be. And guess what? As you venture further and farther outside from the transit a station area, the document says specifically, the policy guidance is that the height and the density would taper and transition down towards any uh nearby neighborhoods that are residential density. So for that reason, more policy guidance needs is needed. It needs to be put in uh committee and we we appreciate that uh consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. And thank you all for your comments. Okay, we will bring it back to the table. Commissioner Neptune. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh just briefly, I'd like to acknowledge um and express my thanks and gratitude to all of the residents for being here this morning uh on your time. Uh just deeply appreciate you taking time out of your day to be with us to share um your concerns. And I guess as a quick follow on that just to make sure I'm hearing it clearly, it feels as if there are sort of two buckets of concern. There's like the height and our homes, you know, like the height of the potential buildings and our homes. And then separate but of course related is transit and traffic. And if we could just kind of I just want to ask a follow-up question to make sure I'm clear and I think it's a question for we'll start with transit and traffic. Maybe start with transportation staff. Um you know I'm I'm under the impression and just you know based on the review of the materials also based on prior service with the bicycle pedestrian advisory commission uh since 2019 and being familiar with this corridor. My impression and understanding is that since at least 2016 at minimum when we adopted this Wake County transit plan, uh there have effectively been uh plans and studies and designs for a future, you know, uh transit sort of corridor. So, I know we're working on this like bus rapid transit corridor on the one side and then if transportation staff could speak to this. I think there's like an S-line highspeed rail connection we're also working on. I think we've got federal funding to support this. I mean, we're all these systems are are kind of moving forward, but again, I would I would welcome transportation staff if you could maybe speak to that briefly as far as the the transit related operations that again, just from my understanding of the review of the materials and just from prior commission service, um if you could speak to the transit related operations that are in development for the corridor. I think that it would be helpful to hear in in relation to the the concerns around traffic and gridlock congestion that we're hearing from the residents. If I could just add to that, there seems to be some concern that about the location of the proposed transit station. So, if you could just speak to the decision making um around where the transit station is proposed to be, that might clear up some of this. >> Thank you, Madam >> confusion as well. >> Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Neptune and Chair Bennett. We have uh Carter Robertson with the transportation department who can speak to the trip generation, traffic analysis, and existing conditions uh for car flow. And we also have Gabriel Gabriel Wilkins uh from transit planning to answer um questions related to the uh BRT and other transit services. >> Thank you. And maybe just I would note to staff as you approach if you could just share briefly very briefly just the background on these transit plans that are in development in progress. I think that would be appreciated by the commission. >> Of course. Uh good morning commission. Gabriel Wilkins with transportation and transit. on the BRT team. So, I'll start with uh bus rapid transit. Carter can handle Sline and my colleague Melanie will be able to answer questions about uh ordinary fixed route service here. So, the bus rapid transit system in Wake County was initially planned by a major investment study ahead of the 2016 Wake Transit plan. So, that included four corridors, Newurn Avenue, Southern, Western, and Northern. At the time, the northern BRT corridor in that study, 2016, only included from the downtown portion out up Capitol Boulevard to where it diverges off to Wake uh Forest uh Road. So, it was initially just that kind of stub with the idea that it would be revisited later after the other corridors advanced in their planning. The 2019 Raleigh comprehensive plan took those major investment studies, the corridors for BRT from those studies, and that's what kind of fed into the map that the applicant showed about the transit station areas downtown. Those are bus rapid transit stations. Bus stops kind of a different level of transit we can get to later. So currently that northern corridor is being revisited in a new major investment study to consider the downtown to its actual end points that is slated to wrap up the end of this year which will kind of come out with two identified kind of preferred corridors for that route. Now that those studies are taking as a starting point the existing 2016 study. So from that Wake Forest at Capitol and going one route up to Midtown and one route towards the Triangle Town Center area. The zoning case here is located within that kind of stubbed portion that was already within kind of planning. There were two kind of different routes for how it might move around. West Street was included at the time in going through planning. Capitol Boulevard is currently the preferred location. Specific stations will not be identified until preliminary design is entered and that follows the kind of conclusion of a major investment study. The Newurn, Southern, and Western BRTs are all currently well Newurn's getting ready to be built. Southern and Western have completed that preliminary design into final design. That's where those specific station locations get nailed down. Part of the major investment study looks at identifying key intersections at which a station near which a station would be located so that we can ride model ridership potential. See what the kind of development may look like around those stations and how connections to other fixed route other active transportation bicycle and pedestrian and kind of other amenities such as parks might happen. The intersection around Peace Street and Capitol Boulevard has been identified since that 2016 plan through to today as an area of interest to locate a bus rapid transit station. And that remains true. Where it will actually be located depends a lot on engineering concerns given the kind of lots of topography and and grade separated areas there. But that area is kind of key interest from 2016 to now for a bus rapid transit station. Thank you. >> Thank you. A quick followup. So just briefly, the actual locations have not been identified. That won't happen until we get farther into engineering planning, etc. Just make sure I'm clear on that. >> Correct. And that is why that quarter to a half mile buffer/4 mile buffer uh is where this kind of >> And then as a quick followup for the applicant or the developer on the project h have they been involved at all or have they expressed interest in working with the city in this I guess potential connectivity to the transit station? I mean perhaps you could speak to it. Perhaps the I guess the attorney here on behalf of the applicants could speak to that the interest of the developer in um coordinating the development with the transit station. I mean it seems like I feel like that was included in the presentation but maybe you could speak to that in more detail on behalf of the applicant. >> Sure. Commissioner, we've absolutely been following it. Uh Chris Carter and Raleigh Development Company have been following the discussions associated with BRT recognizing that as this site develops as well as the sites that are in proximity to the site, having access to transit is of critical import. So absolutely interested in continuing that work with the city and certainly we'll be following it as we go. >> Thank you. Thank you all. Now, now if we could hear about the S-line uh and I guess any work on that. >> I I just want to keep us on track. I I don't this is a frequent transit designation because of the R line. Correct. So that's not even I don't want to say it's not relevant, but it's really not relevant to the frequent transit designation of this area. So I just want to make sure we're able to talk about the TIA and the height and all of our other questions that we might have. Um is that okay? I I >> absolutely. I I suppose I it seemed relevant in that it's also within the context of the neighborhood and right now if I'm hearing it correctly, we have residents who are concerned about the proximity of the development and and just I guess I'm trying to seek clarity on the the neighborhood, their backyards, the rail line which is being upgraded to this high-speed rail line, and then we have this currently zoned owned industrial I guess mixuse. Okay. And then we have a street and then we have this development. That's what I'm trying to get clarity on as far as the proximity. >> Very briefly, could you just tell us about the sine its proximity to >> I can. Yes. And also, uh, Commissioner M, you raise, uh, the valid point for consideration is regardless of the BRT transit location. Um, the site is qualified as core transit on table LU2 by its service of existing transit today, the RLine. So the RLine qualifies it for the core transit designation and its location within a mixeduse center of 30 acres or greater qualify it. One or the other qualifies. This qualifies both. So the language in the comprehensive plan says core transit can be qualified with either planned frequent transit. It has frequent transit today. So that qualifies. The other is its location within the bus rapid transit area downtown. um and the other mixed use centers on that map. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Good morning everyone. Carter Robertson with Transportation. I'm going to find a picture here so I could orient us towards the site and the S-line and how those two will interact. Something a little more zoomed in. Here we go. So, brief overview of what the S-line project is. It's a partnership between um NC DOT and the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority to connect Richmond to Raleigh with highspeed rail. And so a federal grant was granted for um construction from Raleigh to Wake Forest in 2022, I believe. Um specific to the site where it will run is just on the other side of West Street here. Um we have the existing um railroad track. the S-line will align a little bit to the east of it there overlapping a bit with those buildings. Um so some ride ofway and property acquisition is going to be required that was included as part of the grant. Um design rideway acquisition and construction. Um currently US DOT is working through a backlog of grants that haven't been um designated yet and Sline is one of those that they are working on. And so once that gets encumbered to this project, we'll have the green light for construction. That's that's a big overlap of uh Sline that would be separating this development from the neighborhood to the west approximately as you see that line that I drew. >> Thank you. And thank you Madam Chair for bearing with my >> Of course. No, no problem. >> So now we're going to talk about I believe you wanted to hear about the traffic and what the traffic study showed, >> right? >> So uh a traffic study was not required for this site. Um Matthew did a good job of explaining earlier um at resoning. What we're looking at um is the difference between trips generated under the current zoning and the proposed zoning. And in this case the office entitlement was reduced significantly. Industrial entitlement was cut out entirely. And so those two land uses typically are high driver of trips in our model. And so while there is an increase in density for residential, the overall trip impact is less than what is currently um what the site is currently zoned for. So that's why a traffic study was not required at reszoning. One may be required at site plan if it meets the triggers that we look at at that stage. Um I I I hear the resident's concern about Peace Street. We do realize that that is an issue of east west vehicle connectivity um for downtown. Right now the volumes that we're seeing on Peace Street is around 17,000 vehicles per day. That's in line with our projections for a four-lane divided avenue. Um another thing I wanted to highlight, we've talked a lot about walkability in the site and current and future transit. Um this intersection of peace and west street is also going to be very valuable as a part of our future bike network. Um as I've mentioned before uh at planning commission we're working on our active mobility plan and right now our draft is designating both Peace Street and West and Harrington as priority bike corridors. Peace Street. Um we would like to see upgraded to a separated facility to provide that east west connection for the city in terms of cycling. >> Just briefly, I think the two former chairs of the bicycle pedestrian advisory commission deeply appreciate hearing about this future connectivity for our cyclists in the community. So, thank you and and and the walkers, too. And the walkers, too. >> Does that answer your question? >> It absolutely does. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Miller, >> may I have a quick followup for traffic? Could you also um just address the projections about Peace Street and the forthcoming development and any plans that may be um in the area to address traffic concerns? >> Not directly related to road capacity. I mean, the the overall vision for downtown and adding these different forms of um travel is to increase the mode share between vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit. So, that that's our overall approach for this area. Right now, we don't have any specific projects that would address specifically vehicle capacity. I was going to say, is that part of the city's policy where we sometimes put stress on an area on traffic while increasing on car traffic while increasing alternative options in order to try to pursue those alternative policies in the area? >> I would have to review our policy um a bit on that. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Outfell. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. Uh when this when this property was up for resoning the first time around a couple years ago, uh I I voted in favor of the resoning. When the text change came before us to add the area to a downtown transition zone, I I voted against it and but nevertheless, it's now part of the city policy. coming into this meeting, I thought that I would be uh voting against this proposal due to that condition um till I got into my studies and read the actual definitions and the the text is very clear that let me see it's DT1.14 I believe which states that these transition areas should be used for lower uh lower height developments but if there is existing overlay zoning in the area that that should take precedence unless there is a small area plan that's implemented. I think this area is very clearly uh defined as a core transit area by the definition uh that goes along with table LU2 in the comprehensive plan and uh as such like regardless of where the BRT gets placed it's served by frequent transit at this time and I think it is defined as such it's very clearly part of the uh core downtown area in the future land use map and if to reference table LU2 which is supposed to be our primary uh reference for determining land determining building heights and resonings. This uh clearly qualifies for the kind of height that is being requested. Um I believe our job is to give our interpretation of the planning documents and give a assessment of whether we think it's in line with the policies and documents as they exist. uh not our opinion on whether we think that this is a good or a bad development. I I wish this had a shopfront urban form designation. I think that would be better. I am concerned about traffic. I wish that the project contains stronger conditions about supporting the park. Uh but these are not part of our decision on whether the zoning meets the planning documents or not. Um table LU2 is very definitive in this uh projection and to address the concern that this sets a precedent across the city. Uh these conditions don't exist across the city that you have a 30acre mixeduse uh uh area that front on frequent transit zones and that cross reference on table LU2. me if I can get there. Sorry for my scrolling around. >> Go ahead. You're educating. So, >> these these kind of heights are only recommended at the intersection of a core transit area and a central business district or downtown core zone. And this does not exist across the city. And I don't think that this puts uh neighborhoods across the city at risk or sets a precedent. Um I'm going to be voting to support this proposal when the time comes. >> Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. I appreciate you going through table LU2 and the policy. Um could I ask staff um maybe Mr. CLM or Binum. We heard um a few times about the staff report not being available at the neighborhood meetings. Are they typically available at neighborhood meetings? Could you talk about the timing of when the staff report comes out versus when the applicant neighborhood meetings are held? So like this case and others when there is a second neighborhood meeting required by the code uh the case will not move forward to planning commission review until the second neighborhood meeting is conducted. So the staff report won't be published until your first review of the case which is today. So it is it is not typical that the full staff report is done by the time of the second neighborhood meeting because the case is not complete and ready for review until that is done. So, in the resoning process laid out in the unified development ordinance, um the second neighborhood meeting has to occur before you have your deliberations and the staff report is not published until your first deliberations. So, that is a condition that is perennial to the process. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Um, has there been any studies on the environmental impact of the neighborhoods around the project? And anybody, these are questions that anybody can answer. >> So, we have storm water staff that can speak to the storm water runoff. Um, and what the code requires in terms of addressing those conditions. Um, we have some analysis and the comprehensive plan recommends encouraging walkability, encouraging transit use and active mobility as an uh encouragement to burn less fossil fuels. Um, the staff report also contains metrics comparing uh detached houses to apartments and town houses and other building types that have shared walls. We know that um when folks live in a building type that shares a wall with a neighbor that both of them use uh less natural resources for heating and cooling because they insulate each other. So within the staff report um and within the comprehensive plan there is guidance that encourages dense walkable mixeduse apartment use and townhouse development and in an effort to reduce the per capita carbon emissions um from folks living in the city. >> What's been the consistent or the average feedback from community engagement about the project? So uh there is a engagement portal that we put up for every reasonzoning case. Um the particular responses from the engagement portal uh for this case I believe had four comments um in support and four comments um in opposition. So that's that's the city's official um engagement opportunity for every case. We have received a number of emails though >> um >> over the last several weeks. Even though the engagement portal wasn't really used, we've we've received a number of emails. >> Yeah, that's why I'm trying to figure out like what the average response to this project has been from your community engagement. Has the overarching response been in opposition or has it been in support? Yeah, I would say based on the engagement portal and then also outlined in the report is some summation of the the neighborhood group who came to speak today um and their online postings and social media has been in opposition to the case. >> I also see that um where did the $1.2 million number come from for affordable housing >> that was provided by the applicants. Uh, we can ask them up to speak to how they came to that number if you'd like. >> Yes, please. >> Did the applicant um address the question of where the $1.2 million figure came from? [Music] uh the affordable housing uh the the number it's specifically came uh to be as a result of 30 units at $40,000 per unit. >> Okay. And uh I know that there said they said that there were conditions on the affordable housing contribution. Why are there conditions like whether or not you get so many stories determines whether or not the contribution is made? Excuse me. >> Yeah. So, from a timing standpoint, and I think what you're what you're getting at um is we're not making the payment. The developer is not making a the payment until the fifth unit fifth00 unit. And primarily that's related to being able to finance the deal. so that you can start the building and then you can make a contribution as you're being able to occupy units either in the first phase or the second phase. As you can see, these are kind of broken up into two discrete buildings. Uh I would tell you that their intention, the developers intention is absolutely to make that contribution. We could do they could do 500 units as of today. They could do 499 units as of today, but they wouldn't be going through this process if their intent wasn't to significantly exceed that 499 unit count and make that contribution. Okay, thank you. >> Um, I had another one, but I'm still looking if anybody else has other questions. >> Other questions or comments from commissioners. >> One more question. Is there any economic benefit to the community benefit to this project like economic development? I know there'll be shops open, minority participation on the project or I mean minority participation goals on the project, things like that. So there are no conditions that speak to um minority part minority participation in future businesses that may occupy the site. In terms of economic benefit, there are two factors that we look at with every case. One is the transportation cost index and one is the jobs proximity index. So um in terms of the residents of a new structure here would see some economic benefit of having reduced costs for their transportation because of all the other options that are available to them. Walking, biking, taking a scooter, taking the bus. Um, that's one. The other economic benefit is the very high job proximity index. Um, folks who live in uh this site will be able to walk, bike, or take a bus to a job in downtown, whether that's a job in an office or a job in a restaurant. um any job. Downtown is a um very large job center for the city. It is the city's central business district. So um if you live in this location, then you will have economic benefit of proximity. >> Would the owner of the project be willing to put minority participation goals on this project >> as a condition? Uh, Commissioner, I think that's something that my client is definitely interested in interest interested in exploring at the time of permit approval. Uh, we talked about this specifically and the possibility of how could you craft an enforcable condition relative to minority business participation at at part of the zoning stage. And it's really tough to do, I think, from an enforcability standpoint. I I'll lean on the staff to answer that question. But Raleigh Development Company is just that. They're Raleigh Development Company. They've they've been in this area for a long time. They care deeply about the area that they're invested in and they're absolutely going to be looking for opportunities to engage minority contractors in the process. >> Yeah. I don't think that would be a zoning condition. Could staff >> Okay. >> or the attorney comment on whether that would even be an appropriate zoning condition? >> This is the first time I've heard about that condition. I'd probably have to look into it and get back to you. >> And I have I have a question for the community. I want to ask one more question. >> We don't typically question the public, but you can go ahead and ask a question and if staff or the applicant can answer it. >> So only for staff and applicant. >> Typically that Commissioner Fox, Commissioner Fox, Commissioner Bernett, I'm sorry. >> Yeah. I just wanted to know al although there are always ways to make a project better. I'm not finding any inconsistencies with adopted plans and policies. So for that reason I'm ready to support this at the appropriate time. >> Thank you Commissioner Fox. Commissioner Bernett. Um >> this is a question for the applicant. Um, just regarding what would you say to the neighboring, I guess, you know, residents, business owners, um, restaurant owners and so on and so forth, how this would be a benefit to the community, uh, their businesses and just the community at a whole. >> Yeah. Again, as as has been touched on a number of times, Commissioner Bernett, you know, locating density in a in in an area like this um that is planned for increased uh multimodal access, but certainly already what exists today is walkable access to the businesses along Glenwood South. There's certainly walkable and bikable access down to Union Station that get people out and around. And so, uh, without a doubt, having density of this type in this location in an area that is already starting to really grow into something unique, uh, and interesting, I I think can can only help continue to grow the businesses that you're seeing, um, not only pop up that have been at Glenwood South, but also at Smoky Hollow and other places in proximity. >> Any other questions or comments? Commissioner O'Hver. I'm not sure if this is for the applicant or for staff, but can somebody help me understand the intent of adding 20 additional feet to both zones if the primary street is Peace Street versus West Street. I know that's 20 ft. We're talking about 240, but I'm just trying to understand what the intent of that is. We're going from 12 to 25. That's pretty significant. So I'm trying to understand what two additional stories if Peace Street's primary. So I don't know if that came from the applicant or staff, but I'm a little confused by that. >> That's fair. Uh no, that abs absolutely came from us as the applicant team. And it really depends upon as was discussed during the staff's presentation. Um whether West Street or Peace Street ends up being the primary street. Um our goal is to make sure that from on the northern portion of the site that 240 ft is going to be measured from West Street. And so if West Street is designated as the primary street for the development of that portion of the development, then it will be 240 ft. There's 20 ft of grade change roughly from west to east as you make your way left to right. So west to east, there's 20 ft of grade change as you head down. So that 20 ft is just really recognizing the fact that if we end up having Peace Street designated as the primary street, de facto, it's going to increase the building height by 20 ft because it's now being measured from the low point of the site rather than the high point of the site. >> That makes sense. I'm struggling with it a little bit. 20 ft if it's primary. Think again I think you're asking for a significant increase here. Just I'm let me just process that for a minute. I totally understand technically what you're talking about but just I'm I'm hung up on that a little bit. >> That's fair. And and and to further explain it really the intent behind that was to provide predictability associated with building heights. As you're aware, a 30-story building, residential, commercial, you know, office can vary wildly. And so one of the things coming into this process in order to provide the transitions that we've talked about, one of the things that was important for Raleigh Development Company was providing predictability associated with what are those building heights going to be. And so when we started the process, we committed to doing 360 ft along uh kind of the the corner, the the zone two, if you will, and then 240 ft in this location here. As we were working our way through the process, we realized that could be measured from two different places, which is why we ended up having that 20 foot variation because we wanted it to be clear to everyone without any doubt that 240 ft is measured from West Street and that 360 ft is measured from the corner of West and Peace. Really just to provide those transitions to the neighbors who have expressed concerns associated with building height. So regardless of the primary street, why couldn't that be a condition that the the building height is measured from West Street? >> Uh, I'll let Matt answer that question. >> Yeah. So, thank you for the question. Um, where building height is measured from is dictated in the unified development ordinance and zoning conditions can't alter how things are measured. Basically, um, is the short answer. how or where, for example. So, they set up some scenario to account for that in the zoning conditions. >> Does that address your question? Commissioner Rover. >> Uh, yes, ma'am. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments, other Commissioner Miller. >> One final comment, just wanted to um not a question. There's been a lot of discussion about the benefit to the businesses um and to transit and the walkability. I just wanted to also note um similarly to when this case came up to us uh previously um the benefit to the park as well um being immediately adjacent. We've heard time and again a park is as successful as its edges. Um I too would have been interested in in more retail or a shop um shopfront urban form designation those kind of things on along the line. Maybe that's something um that the applicant can still think about when it terms in terms of putting in retail. Um, but I am encouraged and look forward to seeing how this positively impacts the park as well. >> Commissioner O'Hver, I see you reaching. >> Sorry. Procedural question. Is this the first bite of the cherry or is there an opportunity to change these orants? I know we've seen this case before, but >> No, we haven't. This is the first time we're seeing this particular re. So there is an opportunity to request that the applicant reconsider some of the conditions procedurally. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are there conditions that you would like them to consider or reconsider? >> Um well I'm I've heard a couple comments from commissioners about shopfront which I I think I agree with. Um I can probably be convinced but I'm still hung up a little bit on the 20 ft. And uh sounds I don't know where Jason went but a little bit in the weeds. I agree with Commissioner Miller. I appreciate the 15,000 square ft. A lot of times technically these projects downtown are required to provide open space but due to the technicality of it it's really not usable. So that commitment to do a 15,000 square foot open space I appreciate very much. again addressing the park, but it sounds like there might be a couple of items that could be critical to some of the commissioners. I'm not sure um what their thoughts are. >> I'm I'm happy to clarify that. Um, I look forward to seeing how this intersects with the park, but I believe it was uh both Commissioner Awell and Fox that I think to me appropriately stated that while um there a case can always perhaps be a little better um on some of the details, the core issues for me with respect to consistency with the comp plan are there um and I'm comfortable supporting this project as is. Um, other commissioners, are there conditions that you wanted the applicant to consider or reconsider or are you ready to vote? I think that this being the first time we're hearing about it, it is an opportunity for uh there to be other conditions added to this project just to make sure that community and the council, I mean, the commission is comfortable with it. >> Do you have specific conditions that you would like? No, I actually uh was listening to what Commissioner Atwater was saying and I I agree with him about the height and making sure that uh getting out the weeds of the height of the project, but also H is willing to I mean Oh, Haver, that's what I mean. I'm sorry. >> Sorry. Uh but also if the commission is willing to vote on this today, I'm willing to do that, too. >> Okay. So to be clear, do you would you like to have the applicant do something with that condition and bring it back to us? >> I think if that's the only issue that's left on the table coming from me, I think that can be addressed in further conversations with council. I think that the the benefit to the public, I think it's reasonable and in the public interest. There's no inconsistencies with this particular application. Matthew did a great job spelling all that out. It's hard to kind of argue with anything that he presented there. I think we asked really good questions that staff were able to answer. All that being said, I think I'm I'm comfortable moving forward with the uh application as it is and recommending approval. >> In that case, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Otwell. >> Uh, with regards to Z1225, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 12th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Second. >> Commissioner Atwell has made a motion for approval. Commissioner Fox has seconded the motion. Is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor? All opposed? Motion carries. 90. Thank you all very much. Thank you to the public um for coming out and providing your comments. That concludes new business. It's 11:15. Does anyone have to leave like the next 15 minutes? >> All right. Next up, we'll wait for everyone to leave. >> Next up is the rep report of the chair. So, welcome back everyone. It's good to see you all. Um, just one reminder to use the planning commission email address if you're going to be absent from a meeting because that copies Binham and Shenita. So then everyone is in the know. I failed to announce at the beginning of this meeting that Commissioner Shelurn had let us know he wouldn't be here. So he is excused today. Um, the other order of business is our committees. I believe I touched base with all of you either in person, we talked on the phone or I sent a text message. Um, Bum, do you have this sheet for everybody or >> your reference? >> Okay, I am going to let you know the composition of the committees. We have strategic planning, text change, infrastructure, and mobility, which is fairly inactive unless something specific comes up on that one. you'll be assigned to it, but that one rarely meets. And then committee of the whole, as you know, is all of us. We'll get in touch with you about when the committees will meet. Right now, just note your assignment. Strategic planning, Commissioner Miller is the chair. The members are myself, Commissioner Bernett, Commissioner Cochran, and Commissioner Shelurn. Text change committee chair is Commissioner Atwell. Members are Commissioner Fox, Commissioners Neptune, O'H, and Omay. Infrastructure and Mobility. Uh chair is Commissioner Cochran. Members are Commissioners Bennett, Neptune, Omay, and Atwell. And then again, committee of the whole is everyone. Um, uh, Bum, do we want to stick with the the times that are set for right now? And so, I was going to say, uh, we'll publish this information on the planning commission web page. It also appear uh in your minutes next time as part of uh the dire the chair's report. And then uh we do have set standing times for all of the committee meetings. And if you wanted to >> I can announce >> stay with those that would be great. >> Okay. >> So in that case >> to make changes >> please advise. >> So strategic planning currently meets second Wednesday at 4. Text change currently meets third Wednesday at 4. Infrastructure and mobility which again is inactive meets fourth Thursday at 3. Committee of the whole meets fourth Thursday at 4. So I'll leave it up to the chairs and the members if you need to change those. If not, we'll stick with those standing times. I believe the only committee that is set to meet this month is committee of the whole is text change committee. Oh, it's text change. I'm sorry. Text change. So um and again that's Commissioner Atwell. So he'll be in touch with you all. Please let your chair know if you will not be available for a committee meeting because as you see those are much smaller. So it's important to have quorum. And that is it for my report. We'll just go down the line for the report of the members. >> Hi. Um, as noted, committee of the whole generally meets the fourth Thursday of the month, which would have been September 25th. However, there are no items. >> There's no items for August. So, we're projecting the September 25th as a maybe. >> There may be an item, but there are no items listed at this time. >> So, no August meeting. >> Thank you. >> I apologize. I did not >> no August committee. >> No August meeting. I did not announce that Commissioner Fox is chair of committee of the whole as vice chair of the planning commission. I'm sorry. I apologize for the slight. >> There's no slack. We're good. >> Commissioner Atwell. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett, and to all the wonderful folks now on the text change committee. We do have a meeting coming up this month, August 20th. It'll be in the Raleigh Municipal Building, room 305. We're going to talk about RHDC updates and greenway amendments. Those >> are already on the portal, so we can start reading about them. >> I did want to offer a clarification. The RHDC text change uh will be in front of the I'm sorry, the preservation text change TC324 will be in front of RHDC on the 10th of September and won't come to text change committee until the 17th, but you will discuss Greenway TC325. Excellent. It's confusing because they're both TC3 from two different years. >> All right. Well, excellent. We look forward to having a greenway discussion. >> Do you want to try to get see if you have quorum right now? >> Uh, does anybody know if they will be unavailable to meet at 4 p.m. on August 20th? >> I can confirm availability on August 20th. >> Four o'clock. >> One more. >> You only need three of the five. I think you have three. >> Yeah. All right. >> Okay. Commissioner Neptune. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a brief note of gratitude to our colleagues on staff. Over the last uh month, I had the privilege of working and coordinating with uh Binham and Sarah, I want to say Shaughnessy and others in our planning and development department. They came through with a city block building activity for a larger public event involving our mayor and a conversation around growth and development in the city. And uh I just really appreciated our colleagues on staff being there with this um block building activity. We also have colleagues from city transportation uh who are present. So I just you know I won't recall everyone's names at this immediate moment in time but I'm deeply grateful for everybody who was present for the event engaging with our our larger public. So, thank you to our colleagues on planning and development and transportation staff. Deeply appreciate all of you. >> Mr. Cochran, >> I just wanted to say thank you for trusting me with the infrastructure and mobility committee and I look forward to uh maybe having a meeting this year and learning what it does. >> No, no reports. >> Uh no reports, but I hope everybody had a great break. We had an awesome time at lunch which was wonderful. So, I'm glad I've had an opportunity to, you know, get a chance to get to know the commissioners more and I look forward to more of those opportunities in the future. >> Commissioner Miller. >> Um, the strategic planning committee has no items on the agenda to my knowledge and will not meet in August. And well done on the first dooy of a first meeting. >> Thank you. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Ohver. I always say I like to go last, but Blandy took my thunder on that one. Nice job. I'm unfortunately not available on the planning commission meeting on the 26th. >> Thank you. >> Email us for the record. >> Do it right now. >> Okay. >> Now, we will turn to the report of the assistant director. You've all noticed we have a new agenda system. >> Nice job jumping in the pool. First meeting back. Appreciate you all rolling with it. Uh busy meeting coming up on the 26th. A lot of new business there expected and I don't think I have anything else. >> Thank you for your support Bennett on a first meeting. Well done. >> Thank you. >> Any other business? with the new agenda >> like with the the different projects. >> Did you get an email with the agenda? If you click on that link, it'll take you to the agenda and each case has a link. >> I can say a little bit more about the agenda. If you um visit the council boards and agendas page, which you all get a link to, as I understand it, the planning commission distribution list is now working properly for everyone who is appointed to the commission. Thank you, it um when you launch that agenda, there are blue uh titles. When you click on that on the right hand side of the page you will see all the attachments pop up and you can uh see like the staff presentation, the staff report, the engagement report. Um there are what else is there? So many pieces of business. Uh the consistency statement for approval or denial. >> Uh so all those uh pieces would be there for you >> and that's under the council link you said on the website, right? Yep. >> You can also get there from the planning commission web page if you visit raleighnc.govplanning-commission. Cassidy, one of our uh helpful city clerks is here and I think going to show you a little demo. >> Okay, hold on. Let me >> And while she's doing that, I have a quick question for staff. Is it Margaret Tartala in the audience? I think it was I just want I I just I I recognize I just I couldn't immediately remember her name, but our colleague I think from city transportation, Margaret Tartala was the one with us at this event with you know planning and development. So I just want to recognize I see her. I'm like I and now I just remember your name. So it's again thank you Margaret Tartala for being there with us. >> Yeah. Um I'm sorry this is unplanned but just for this since this is new for the sake of everybody um you'll see from the planning commission page there's a link to um upcoming board and commission meetings which has agenda and minutes um as planning commission is the first and only at this point uh board to be moved over to the new system >> it's the only one listed here and you will see um PDF HTML um the video which this is a good example of the HTML which I would probably recommend if you're following along in the meeting because it has the the video over to the side uh after the fact you know that'll be um timestamped so people can click the item that they're interested in. It'll pull up over to the side. If you click the item as B mentioned it'll mention all it'll um list all the attachments here that you can click. So this is the HTML view in my opinion is kind of the nice cohesive view of everything. So not an ecribe expert, but it that's probably the best uh way to follow along. >> Thank you. Anything else? If not, we're adjourned. [Music]