Thank [Music] you for coming out to tonight's public hearing. First item on the agenda is the business investment grant for Reliant Corporation. And we have uh Evan Raleigh uh from the city manager's office and Kyle Touchstone with Raleigh Economic Development. Good evening, mayor and council. Uh before you is the business investment grant for or Kyle Touchstone Raleigh Economic Development. Before you is the business investment grant for Riant Corporation. Um under the state matching grant provision. Uh this grant is for $36,000 over 5 years. Uh this is in the recruitment of their headquarters which represents a $2.12 million um investment in real estate and equipment. 80 permanent full-time jobs with an annual average salary of $190,858. Um they were approved for a job development investment grant from um the state of North Carolina. They've also received an incentive from Wake County and uh that includes workforce training support. Recommended action is following the hearing, make a determination that the incentive will increase the taxable property, employment, and business prospects of the city and authorize finalization and execution of an incentive agreement by appropriate city officials. Great. Thank you. Um questions can open the public hearing and since there's no one signed up, close the public hearing. Any other question? Did just Sorry, Kyle, I ask you this every time, but we don't do these a ton and so I always assume there's someone tuning in for the first time, but when we offer these grants, the uh recipients do have to meet a certain set of standards, right? Correct. Kind of avail those. Uh thank you for the question uh council member Patton. For the uh business investment grant um the state matching grant provision it is required that they qualify for the state's job de development investment grant. In order to meet the provisions of the local of our incentive, they have to meet the minimum hiring requirement, which is the um 180 full-time jobs. Um, and then we pay that out over 5 years, but they have to meet the requirements of the JD Dig in order to then and fulfill our requirements to receive that payment. And if for any reason they did not fulfill these requirements, they would not receive this incentive. Correct. All right. Any further questions or discussion? Anybody want to? I'll make a motion. Y second. All right. uh that we make determination that the incentive will increase the employment and business prospects of the city and authorize finalization execution of an incentive agreement by appropriate city officials in the amount not to exceed 36,000. Second. Okay. Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion I. All opposed. Thank you. Thank you for coming down. Okay. Next we have petition annexation AX0225 50 and0 Lewisburg Road and we have Matt Bailey. Good evening uh madame mayor and council. My name is Matt Bailey. I am planning manager for long range planning and development and I'm standing in this evening for Christopher Golden. So the petition that you have in front of you is for contiguous petition annexation within the ETJ. It is currently a residential mixuse sevenstory condition. uh use uh conditional use. It is just under 11 acres. The proposed applicant is looking to build a 330 multifamily apartment unit. Uh and the administrative sites review is currently under review. Uh the annexation, if approved, will fill in an incorporated county island, therefore filling a donut hole within the ETJ. There is water uh connection alongside uh Lewisburg Road and sewer site uh sewer connection on the site. There's also an outside uh of standard sorry it's also outside known standard fire response times for full fire response and arrival of a second company. So, this is currently the site location outlined in yellow for you uh with Lewisburg Road to the northwest at 401 and then southeast Kyle Drive. Uh this is the zoom out of the property filling in the donut hole. As you can see, there are other residential uh neighborhoods that are within the area. This is an aerial view uh of the property. There are no known structures currently on the site. This is a utility location map showing you in blue the water connection that is available along Lewisburg Road and the water sewer connect that is going through the property sites. This is a map showing you the current zoning of the site location and the current zoning of the surrounding locations. And this is the site typog typography and flood plane of the location. Um, this is the administrative uh site review that is still under review, but this shows the 330 apartments uh building complex with the parking deck on the site. And then this is the view of the site uh going north on 401. And this is facing south on 401 of the site location. And then this is another uh street view uh southbound on Kyle and then north on Kyle. So now open it up to any questions that you may have for staff. All right. Questions for Mr. Bailey. Seeing none. Okay. I will open the hearing on AX0225. And I will close the hearing. Awesome. Um yeah, so many new faces in the house. Uh y'all might not know, but I'll just use this moment to educate you. Um welcome to city government. Um, this case already had its reasonzoning and for my colleagues, this is across the street from the other case we did a few weeks ago where they're going to do um affordable housing and build the greenway. Um, they can't build in that flood plane that was shown on the map. And so for all these reasons that and also to fill the donut hole and um broaden the tax base, I will move to authorize annexation effective immediately. Second. Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion I I. All opposed. All right. Next, we've got resoning Z3824,400 Edwards Mill Road, which is what most of you are here for. And we have Hannah Recal from Planning and Development to Good evening. Hannah Recal, Planning and Development. So this is uh resoning Z3824 request to reszone one property 1400 Edwards Mill Road um from CX12 conditional use to a planned development district. So this is the site of the Lenovo Center, a stateowned property, a little over 80 acres in size. To further situate ourselves, this is uh right south of the interchange of Wade Avenue and Edwards Mill Road. a number of other stateowned properties in this area. Uh institutional uses, um light industrial and some commercial in this area, uh as well as um residential farther west. Um directly west of Edwards Mill Road is the Cardinal Gibbons High School. So some views of what this looks like on the ground. Uh the bottom right image is is from Edwards Mill Road and then the other two images are from the private streets inside the property. So the requested district is a a planned development district which is one of the special district options in the UDO allows the applicant to define a unique district and to make modifications to sections in the UDO uh that are uh and it's possible for it to be less restrictive than than the UDO. So these are um the sections that are modified uh uh in this plan development. um modified or clarified uh what the entitlement is. The full detail is in the plan sheets in in the agenda and then at the beginning of the staff report is a good highle summary of what these changes are exactly. But I'm going to go through each of the the plan sheets. So the uh requested district defines entitlement through a maximum dwelling unit counts and a maximum amount of uh non-residential square footage. uh does that um by subd district. There are four subd districts A, B, C and D. Um and then there is this other category of entitlement that uh future in the future they could pull from specifically for subdists A, C, and D. There's also maximum height not notifi um specified per uh subdist. Um I'll note that the square footage of residential in this table is a staff estimate based on the unit count. that is not specifically um regulated. Um that's just to give a sense of of what these numbers mean. So um overall, no more than 4,200 dwelling units would be permitted in the district and a little less than 3.8 million square feet of non-residential. to compare that with the current zoning which has a maximum building height of 12 stories. Um they could build taller um but those limits on non-residential and residential do cap it um a little bit less or less in in most scenarios than sort of the absolute max under the current zoning. So the subdists um there as I mentioned are four uh sub district A contains the current um arena and surface parking to the north. Um that has a a maximum height of 40 stories. Subdist B uh is um south of that contains just surface parking currently. Um there is a pending ASR for parking decks for that area. Uh and then subdistrict C and D are on the western side of the the property. Um and and also contain undeveloped areas or surface current current surface parking. So all subdists have a maximum height of 40 stories with the exception of of B which would be 15 stories. The PD defines in detail the list of land uses that are permitted. Um the list is the same for all subd districts and closest to the CX um district uh base district. Um the exception um is for the detention center, jail, and prison use, which would only be allowed in subdist A. There is an open space plan that defines where open space on the site would be. Uh it is on the periphery of the parcel. So on the western and northern street frontages um it's 11.42 acres total identified which is about 14% of the site. Uh this larger uh piece uh next to the letter C uh contains the Richland Creek Greenway and associated um uh buffer areas around the creek. The district also defines uh pedestrian and and street connections. Um so in in this diagram the the solid lines represent what currently exists. So in yellow existing pedestrian circulation on the southern side of Steven Straoud way and then around um various points around the arena currently and then the existing greenway um on the western side of the site. uh dashed lines. Yellow represents potential uh pedestrian circulation uh and then a dotted green line on the site for pedestrian um potential greenway connections to the site. There's also um a a purple line designated right there which is potential bike connection bike lane connection there. The proposal is to keep the streets as private streets and there's several uh cross-sections that are defined. Um one uh for the entertainment mixeduse live work uh area is a two-lane uh uh cross-section with parallel or angled parking on either side. Um there's a a private access way that is three lanes, two travel lanes, and a reversible center lane. And then the Wade Park connection private access way is is four lanes with a median. Uh the greenway cross-section um as defined is between four sorry between eight and 14 uh feet in width. Uh there's a parking plan. So these numbers you're seeing here are reflecting existing parking spaces at various points in the uh the site. Um, subdistrict A would be uh served by the existing surface parking until future development occurs. Subdist B would have a minimum of three parking decks. And as I mentioned, there is uh an ASR in review uh for parking decks. Um, subdistrict C would be served by the parking in district B as well as on street parking. And then subdistrict D would have a minimum of one parking deck as well as uh on street parking. Uh the tree conservation plan identifies several primary tree conservation areas. Uh in green is the thoroughfare uh TCA and then in purple um is uh tree tree conservation area that is in the noose river buffer zone 2. So as a whole this is uh 4.37 acres which is 5.42% of the site. And then there's also a utility plan. Uh and this the blue is the existing uh water rema um water man that would remain and then in red some potential um other connections to to uh elsewhere in the site. And then there's a generalized storm water plan. Um this identifies existing storm water control measures that would be maintained. Um uh rough drainage areas and and some potential um rerouting of sto existing storm water. And then finally the the phasing plan um identifies um several phases. Um it's it's these lines in red which are overlaid with uh the subd districts and almost align with the subd districts but not quite. Um so um roughly the the more or less subdistrict B um followed by a portion of C uh D and then this last um piece on the bottom as as phase four. So uh this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan uh that includes the future land use map designations for the site which are public facilities and then public parks and open space. There are several urban form map designations including city growth center and urban thoroughfare u that would like to see a zoning frontage or something approximating a zoning frontage to encourage pedestrian friendly um urban form. Um nothing like that is included in this request. So for that reason is inconsistent with the urban form guidance um but is consistent with a number of of uh comprehensive plan policies. These generally touch on the mix of uses that's permitted in the request that um nodal type of development that would occur or could occur in this district. um as well as uh policy priorities around institutional growth um culture and entertainment hubs um and um several area specific guidance policies. Inconsistent policies are are really touching on um the bicycle and pedestrian connections proposed and and sort of mismatched with the intensity of development that's also proposed. um as well as uh the the guidance that wants to see some type of zoning frontage um especially internal uh to the site and then the planning commission recommended approval 6 to zero. They had several findings um which you can read here which touch on um the the site as a attraction and destination for arts and culture um the mix of uses that would be permitted and um kind of the the institutional cooperation and regional growth that would be part of the project. Um so with that I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Great questions for Mr. Recal. Okay. Well, we'll go ahead and um open the hearing. And this is again for Z3824. And we have eight minutes on the clock for those supporting. And Jamie Schwedler with Parker Poe. Uh we have eight people here, but I'm sure you have a strategy. I do in fact have a strategy. I'll be speaking on their behalf and they'll be available to answer any questions. Uh good evening, Mayor Cow, members of council. I'm Jamie Schweather with Parker Poe 301 Fateville Street here to present a project that's four decades in the making, the Raleigh Sports and Entertainment District. I'm joined tonight by Brian Fork with the Carolina Hurricanes and Gale Force, as well as Aaron Lockach with Pacific Elm Properties, the developer, Nathan Romberg and uh Jordan uh Brewer with Kimley Horn and my own colleague Walker Abbott. The vision for this project began in the 1990s when a new arena was envisioned on stateowned land. And the Centennial Authority was created to oversee not only that amenity, but all of the accommodation surrounding the amenity. Now, here we are, and this zoning is the last step to make that vision come to life and become a reality and become a new economic driver for the region following not only the uh city and county agreements that were entered earlier last year, but also the significant investment uh from Pacific Elm and the North Carolina hurricanes to stay here and invest in our community for the next 20 years. At this time, I'd like to turn it over briefly to Brian Fork, who will talk a little bit about those agreements, and then I'll walk through the case. Good evening, Mayor Cal and council members. Uh, I just wanted to touch base a little bit on a couple issues that are out there from agreements entered into before. You all are very familiar with the agreements and enabling work from 1995 all the way through the seventh amendment to the triparty agreement last May that set up the construction of the agreement and ultimately the development of the site we're talking about today. There's two things that I want to specifically point out that were in the triparty agreement that the council agreed to with the county and the Centennial Authority in May of last year. Um, which have transferred over and are now binding on Gale Force um, pursuant to the redevelopment agreement between the Centennial Authority and our company Gale Force Sports and Entertainment. The first is the affordable housing requirement. So the development agreement now requires and we are bound by all the residential units housing that's produced in the development throughout all four phases 10% of all of that has to be affordable for those making households making up to 80% of AMI. So in addition to being that contemplated in the triparty agreement that is now part of the development agreement and is binding upon Gale Force and is certainly what we're going to do throughout the development. The second piece is the payment of advalorum taxes to the city and county or payments in lie of taxes. As you all know, this is stateowned land otherwise would not be subject to city or county property taxes. In the triparty agreement, you all charged the centennial authority with using best efforts to get any potential developer to agree to make payments of advorum taxes to the city and the county. We have agreed to do that in the development agreement. We do get a credit for any public area improvements within the site that we fund and build and install and leave out there on the site, but once that credit is is surpassed, we are then sort of on the hook for city and county taxes over and above that amount and throughout the life of any of the leases that that we take down at the property. So, really just wanted to point out those two issues to each of you. Um, that was something that was important to the city at the triparty agreement amendment stage. Just wanted to let you know that that's now officially binding on Gale Force. So, I'm going to pass this back over to Jamie to go through the zone. Um, so with that, the um existing site is 80 acres. Of course, the legacy zoning conditions in 1997 did not permit for residential uses or the height um for the hotel and office use that we're obligated to bring forward in this redevelopment agreement. And so we need to pursue as a resoning. Uh the comprehensive plan guidance here goes back to 2012 with the Blue Ridge corridor study vision that designated this as an entertainment area. That of course was carried forward into the 2006 uh arena Blige area special area plan um which also had this designation of the entertainment and education district that you see on your screen. And then it's no surprise then that the 2030 comprehensive plan designates this as a city growth center. this is where you all have already elected to see the growth and investment in our community. Um there's plenty of policies talking about the economic uh driver for this area and where you want to see infill and development. And to match that, we brought forth this PD, this PD zoning to break that 80acre site up into four distinct districts so we could give the public an expectation of not only the character but the height of what we're pursuing here. Um I'll just hit that briefly on the screen. The Arena subdist up to 40 stories. We're not planning for that for the immediate future. That's going to be surface parking to meet the obligations of our stakeholder NC State. The real um meat of the entertainment district being subdistrict B having most of the entertainment and music venues up to 15 stories to be congruent in a public space with the arena and Carter Finley and district C and D being the mixeduse district and then the live work district. You have additional height and 40 stories in those areas because you want to be able to attract a corporate tenant that has the visibility and the accessibility out onto 40440. but having kind of a mix of different heights as we go. Um, this is also broken down into phasing. Phase zero really is the arena and the arena upfits that you all approved last year, making phase one the entertainment district the true phase one where we're delivering the affordable housing, the minimum amount of um, apartments, hotel, office, and retail. Um, each of those are broken down in development maximums that are on your screen. I'm happy to go into more detail. Um, but they start all with that entertainment district to liven it up. The conceptual massings are part of your PD and are shown in the application here that show how some of these areas, even though they're designated 40 stories, have 40 story tower components. The open space plan commits to a minimum of 15% open space and pulls that development into the center of the site, leaving room for the edges to have that meaningful circulation. Not only are you seeing new pedestrian facilities, but also greenway facilities ting tying into Richland Creek, as well as a new fourth leg of the intersection at Wade Park. That will be our primary vehicular connection. and then the um Richland Creek Greenway tying into the new bike lane shown in purple. This is of course feeds into uh the adjacent connectivity on the site. You see areas of the existing um sidewalk in yellow that exists throughout the area tying into the site and the proposed greenway connecting offsite as well as the Carter Finley Park and right as we've heard a lot about transit and are committed to continuing that conversation. It ties into the larger West Raleigh area and the existing greenway and sidewalk network that already exists. And again, that'll be part of the conversation going forward. I'll touch briefly on the transportation. Our TIA looked at the distribution shown in the bubbles on the screen. Most of the trips are of course geared toward avenue to get people to and from this regional attraction. And looking at that uh distribution, the initial transportation recommendations, which have been reviewed by DOT and the city, but will be ongoing with each site plan as we go forward, recommended that fourth leg of the intersection at Wade Park, a focus on a pedestrianoriented street uh streetscape that um Hannah went through. And that leaves us an area to pull some of the vehicular cars down onto Steven Straoud, but focus more of the event traffic in and out on Wade Avenue through specially designed uh garages that will enable us to pull that off of the normal load that's on Wade Avenue with a new frontage road that's also part of the recommendations. These are all being reviewed by DOT and the city and that review will be ongoing. Um these will of course be coordinated with the NC DOP projects that you see on your screen. Some of those are funded, some of those are under construction. Um it's important to note that all of that will be continuing a part of the conversation that we started in the transportation committee and expect to continue throughout the life of this case which will take uh 10 to 15 years for a full buildout. The reasonzoning is just the first step. Uh the proposed transit would tie in um by others and building on your investment on the Western Boulevard and the fast 2.0 study by RTF. The comprehensive plan policies have been covered. I'd like to just hit quickly on the inconsistencies, mainly focus on the fact this is stateowned land. Um, we're excited to continue the conversation tonight and look forward to answering any questions. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh, we'll proceed with the the next round and then go to questions. Uh, so in the opposition, uh, we have five people. Do we want to go ahead and Yeah. set the clock. And uh first speaker I have, if y'all want to queue up, I have Laura Ford, Tim Thrawon, Jean Spinner, Lola Holderness, and Jeff Bell. Okay. Yeah. And you do have eight among the five of you, right? My name is Laura Ford and I'm here to represent myself and the board of the Alliance for Reedi Creek Trenton Quarter, a volunteer neighborhood organization located in close proximity to the Lenovo Center. As development has increased in this area, we have experienced substantial traffic growth and environmental impacts that have accompanied West Raleigh development. We are not opposed to more development and we are confident that addressing our concerns will contribute to a top-notch event area with easy access for neighbors, visitors, and the investors. We ask that the developer create periodic Lenovo Center area reports detailing traffic mitigation efforts, the plan to mitigate the traffic disruptions, and a plan for emergency access into nearby neighborhoods, and commit to addressing these neighborhood reports annually. We ask that reszoning be allowed only with simultaneous road access development utilizing solutions such as hub lanes, mass transit, off-site parking with bus access, and direct rapid access to and from the events for participants. We ask that land disturbance be mitigated and phased such that construction sedimentation impacts upon Richmond Lake and wersheds are minimized and the soil is stabilized within the required time time requirements. We request turbidity monitoring following rainfall. The resoning request will significantly increase the traffic jams and backups directly associated with the rest rally entertainment venues. And currently uh I personally have had to wait hours to get to my house. We have two ways in in our neighborhood and and we are very concerned about emergency access in our neighborhoods. They are directly impacted by the Lenovo Center growth. Thank you. Thank you. Tim Thrawron. Good evening, mayor and council members. Thank you for allowing us to speak tonight and hearing our voice. My name is Tim Thron. I'm the chair of the board of Cardinal Gibbons High School. The proposed development that will will transform the Lenovo Arena and the area around it into a major sports district. I want to be clear, we're supportive of this development, are excited about what it means for Raleigh. This area will continue to grow exponentially over the years and I suspect if this resoning case wasn't before you tonight, we would be in front of you at some point in the growth cycle of West Raleigh to address pedestrian and traffic safety. We support this growth for our city, but we believe it's incumb in incumbent upon all of us to make sure it happens safely. To that end, the developer has taken the time to understand our safety concerns, which we sincerely appreciate. Our interest is in making sure they continue to work with us as things get underway and they get very busy. The intersections near our school are some of the most dangerous in Raleigh and the state of North Carolina. As noted in my email message to you last week and stated earlier tonight, the developer plans don't currently comply with the city's pedestrian and bicycle safety standards in its comprehensive plan. This has a direct impact on Cardinal Gibbons High School, the students, and the community. Without proper crossings and safe access, students will inevitably turn try to walk to the this development across Edwards Mill Road to e East Even Stout Drive, the current main entrance to the Novo Arena. Our request is simple. We are asking you to add a formal condition to your approval of the resoning request. The condition is for the developer to work collaborative collaborative collaboratively with us and the broader public to address pedestrian safety concerns and construction traffic management with agreed upon solutions to be incorporated in the final site plans. We think that this change and with solid plans for pedestrian safety as well as traffic safety, our community may move from cautious supporters to enthusiastic advocates. Thank you for your for taking the time to listen. We would appreciate your support for clear and well articulated plans for pedestrian and construction traffic safety in the area. Thank you, Jean Spooner. Good evening, Dr. Jean Spooner, chair of the MStack Coalition. Thank you. Um, and thank you for the greenway um projects that are in this corridor and one thing is to continue them. The reason I I spike speak in this eight minutes is to get time to speak and suggest conditions. Um uh protection of Richland Creek is very important to us. Um there are some existing stormwater structures there. The consultants have I walked out with them. They have great opportunity for improvement and an amenity instead of their um chain link fence obnoxious whatever they are now so we can improve our water quality. Please monitor turbidity during construction um to if it's monitored we'll do better. uh and maintain the 20 space parking lot for the LLA trail head. That is the commitment, but but is it make sure it's a condition when there's two events now, of which there are anticipated to be many more. It's gridlock. October 18, we couldn't get our musicians and our pizza vendors to Glenwood Avenue for our 90th anniversary of William BMS State Park. Just total locked. So I propose to an incentive for multimmoal is if there's two vents 25% of the capacity has to come in from non-vehicle cars bike transit buses remote parking, um and increase that up to the next 20 years where it goes to 50%. I I propose that as some incentive. We have an incentive. We can work to make it work. Get rid of this gridlock. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Lola Holderness. Good evening. My name is Lola Holderness and I'm a student at Cardinal Gibbons High School. Thank you for giving me the chance to speak tonight. I want to express my support for the proposed Lenovo Center development. For students like me, the idea of having new restaurants and gathering spaces nearby is something we're genuinely excited about. Right now, there aren't many places within walking distance of school where we can safely spend time before or after practice, rehearsals, or events. This development could change that in a great way. In order for that vision to really work, we need to make sure it's accessible and more importantly safe. Even now, getting to Gibbons to to the current Lenovo Center area is not easy. Edwards Mill Road is fast, busy, and not built for pedestrians. And once the new development is built, it will attract even more traffic. If sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals aren't built into the plan from the beginning, it could create a dangerous situation for students trying to cross or walk to the area. We're not asking to stop the project. We're asking to make it better for everyone, especially students. Please make sure that the walkability and safe access are part of the vision from the start. If this is going to be a community space, we want to make sure students like us can enjoy it and get there without putting ourselves at risk. Thank you again for your time and for your care for our safety and future. Thank you. And then final we have Jeff Bell. I yield my time to Okay. Hello. My name is Austin and I'm also a student at Cardinal Gibbons High School. I'm here to speak in support of the Lenovo Center development project. Like many of my classmates, I'm excited to by what's being proposed, new places to eat, hang out, and spend time with friends and family. It's the kind of growth that adds energy and opportunity to my neighborhood. That said, we also hope this project will be planned in a way that takes the daily routines of given students into account. Traffic near our school is already heavy, especially before and after school. Introducing large-scale construction could make that even more challenging, especially if construction vehicles are coming and going during peak times. We're asking for proactive coordination. Can construction errors avoid school drop off and pickup? Can routes for equipment and deliveries steer clear of the main school entrance? Can signage and flagging help guide drivers and pedestrians during the project? Long term, once the development is finished, we hope traffic plans, including improvements that help students and families navigate the area safely, whether walking, driving, or biking, will continue to make this project safe. We believe in this project and we're excited to see it come to life, but we also know that smart planning today will protect students tomorrow. Thank you for your time and for listening to our concerns. Thank you. All right. Um, I'll leave the hearing open and see if folks have questions. I will start with council. I don't mind getting us started. I'm sure there'll be a lot of other questions. Um, my first question is really for the applicant or for our transportation department. Can you speak either one of you speak to actually both from staff the required improvements but from the applicant what improvements you implant you plan on making in particular at East Steph and Strowway um as it comes off of Edwards Mills the improvements from the TIA from the TIA um and those intersections onto the property. Yeah. I'd like to um and staff of course can can correct me or supplement as as much as they'd like, but I'd like to just kind of set the stage for what this TIA is. And I think there's been a little bit of confusion and so taking a little a note from uh Council Member Pat and just kind of educate folks as to how this is to operate because this project really is different. You don't normally see projects that have a 10 to 15 year buildout and you don't see projects that are going to be broken down into as many phases and site plans as this one is. And luckily we have mechanisms in the city that are going to be kind of the stop gap and and a a watchdog for that. And the UDO requires as we go through those site plans to have that review continually going. So we're talking about a TIA that was done voluntarily at the zoning stage. That doesn't always happen, but we knew transportation was going to be an important inquiry here and and we're invested in pedestrian safety as well. And so doing the the TIA here, we walked that through the city comments through several rounds of review. We got DO's comments. That's as you heard at the transportation committee. That's not very common. They don't normally comment on uh resoning TAS or TIA at resoning. And that's because they really want to see what the actual buildout is going to be in time. So what we're doing now is looking at if we build out the entire area kind of worst case scenario, what are the improvements that could be possible and necessary over this 10 to 15 years. And the reason we do that is because we know all those projects on the screen are funded or in construction and may develop at different times. Folks that have reszoneed properties that are smaller may go forward um at different timelines. And so not only the DOT, but your city staff needs the flexibility to make sure that the improvements they recommend, just specific site plans make sense for that type of development that's going forward, be it office or residential or a mix of the two, and they make sense at the time that that plan is going forward. And so I know it can be frustrating sometimes when it feels like, well, what are all of the commitments and why aren't they all here at the beginning? And that's because we're looking at the big picture and then your staff will work with DOT as they do every day to make sure that those um implementations happen at the site plan stage. So initially at this big picture stage what our professionals have recommended is that at this location of the Wade Park um extension today that's a three-legged intersection going into Wade Park from Edwards Mill Road. They've recommended that be a four-way intersection. No. So, not only would you have an extension into uh the arena at grade today, of course, this is a kind of a ravine and the um existing tunnel over from Wade Park and and Points West um comes underneath and connects up a ramp. The fourth leg of the intersection would actually stay at the grade that it is today and be a sort of an elevated ramp that would take vehicles and pedestrians all the way through to that entertainment district and closer to the arena. The section that Hannah showed on the screen shows it would have pedestrian facilities on both sides of the street as well as street trees in a special section. But the intersection itself, what is already signalized, it would be upgraded to kind of the the first class crosswalks, signalized push buttons for pedestrian crossing, everything that DOT would require of a brand new intersection today because we're going to be making so many substantial um movements on that new fourth leg. So that does a couple things. First of all, it gives you new crosswalks and visibility and safe places to cross. Um, but it also gives more predictable pedestrian movements when you have that kind of crosswalk of seeing its the driver can see its level um with that new extension. And then you're going to have the bike connection that's coming under the tunnel, but also kind of wrapping around in a clover leaf movement here that gets you back onto um Edwards Mill Road where the existing greenway is and then into the site itself with connectivity. So all of these are part of the plan, part of the master plan um that we're envisioning. the transportation recommendations themselves are shown conceptually because we will need DOT's buy in to make sure that when we put the first site plan in um exactly which facilities are going to go go where but that's one major part of it and I wanted to focus on that because we had so much interested in that intersection and making sure folks can get across um there'll also be kind of studies of each of these intersections especially with Wade Avenue and the potential frontage road um that is designed to to accommodate two new parking decks which are in this portion of the site um that are going to be designed to really hold a lot of the event traffic so we can shift the event traffic ingress and egress up towards Wade Avenue with that new frontage road and some special lanage to get people in and out of the district in a more predictable way and certainly more predictable than it is today. So each of those are commitments that we are recognizing are valid to be studied and continued. They're not commitments of the case because if we do that, we're binding DOT's hands and they need the ability to to control these roads which they own and control and collaboration with the city um as we bring our site planes in overtime. Jamie, could you just speak to the Steven Strad way because I understand what you're saying about the Wade Park Boulevard, but what exactly are are you looking at as the plan with this TIA for that intersection? Because that's another entry point for the high school. It is. And today it's a it's their vehicular entry point. We went out on the site and and thanks again to Tim and Jeff for hosting us out there. We had two great site visits. We walked the site. We looked at all the the different opportunities and and we're joined by Remy Kemp um their traffic engineer. So, it's a very productive two days. Um we have looked at that intersection. I believe that that is a very close spacing to Trinity and there's already um improvements to the crosswalks that are planned on Trinity, but but pulling making that a full signalized intersection. there's some concern there and so that will be continued to be studied um as these site plans go forward. But because of that concern of of of a lack of potential full movement signal and when I say signalized, you know, this is already um completely signalized and just needs the fourth leg, uh Steven Stout is not. And so that will continue to be a main vehicular um entrance. But we're really trying to pull pedestrians up into to this vicinity so that we can get them the shortest distance between both the school and Wade Park where there are other residents and businesses um over into the arena. So there could be improvements including lanes and turn lanes and things like that as those move forward, but having a signal in that location uh is a little bit too close. Could I also hear from Tim um on this? I just would be curious from the high school perspective, is this what you're looking for ultimately or are there other concerns when it comes to getting in and out of the high school safely? Sure, I'd be happy to address that. I don't know if you've got a picture of a bigger picture that shows Cardinal Gibbons on the map. Um, but I could speak to that. You'll see if if um we had that bigger picture, you could see where our main entrance is where our kids actually leave the building and go to lunch during their lunch hour. And you'll see that at almost immediate access is East Steven Way or behind on Trinity Road. And a lot of kids go to Bojangles across the street on Trinity Road and cross that and cross that street. But this is this is like a a 30 foot wide sidewalk for these kids to walk down and get into that main section of of um the Lenovo Arena development where they want to be. That is that is one of that's our probably our most significant concern is that East Steven Way and the pedestrian crossing there. We've talked about a pedestrian bridge. Ideally, we'd like to see a pedestrian bridge if possible um into the development um and to make that safe for not only our students but the public as well. Um we've heard um the objections to that, understand all of that. Um but at the same time, um this is going to continue to be an area where the kids are going to naturally cross because if you understand where our front door is and where the kids come out of the school, this is the this is the closest area. There's no access to that um intersection from our uh property except if you go all the way around back of our property on corporate center way. I think it's back there. And then you can you can walk down, but the kids are not they're going to go to East Steven Stroud way. They're not going to go all the way up to this crossing behind on the streets behind and then come back down into the development and in 45 minutes walk all the way back up there and come all the way back down to the front door. I appreciate that. Just trying to understand. Yeah, thank you. Can ask our transportation department to speak about that spacing comment that was made. Good evening, city council. Uh Carter Robertson with transportation. Yes. So I'll measure it right now. This is only a few hundred feet from Trinity Road to Steven Stroud Way. And typically um NC DOT requires at least 1,200 feet of separation. And looking at that now, that's about 400 feet. So that's not a appropriate area to signalize in any way. And of course, we wouldn't want to uncontrolled crossing there either. So looking back at the at the big picture, if I could navigate back to that, um, we mentioned what it was already mentioned that there are two main crossing points on Edwards Mill. The one most relevant to the school would be the one at Trinity Road just at the bottom of the screen. And so there is a NC DOT project proposed there. Um, some of you from the Transportation and Transit Committee might remember this from a few months ago. That's a number eight intersection on our top 10 most dangerous intersections in the city. So, thank you, Hannah. Yeah, that's good. So, just calling attention to that there. And so with that project, they are going to put in currently there's a crosswalk on the north side and on the east side we're going to be putting in a high visibility crosswalk on the west and the south with pedestrian signals. And so we're this is a funded project. It's not fully planned out yet. We're continuing to talk with NC DOT. We'd like to see a few more things. um maybe some flat work to reduce the turning radius to make really slow down vehicles as they're turning at that intersection and make it safer. Um in terms of requirements just at Steven Straoud, really we'd just be looking for updated curb ramps and a marked crosswalk for that portion as you're crossing Steven Straoud going up Edward's Mill but not going across. Um, in terms of the uh Wade Park Boulevard, as would me as was mentioned, the marked crosswalk and the ped signals, that would kind of be the bare minimum. Um, we've done some site visits with our vision zero team and kind of came up with some other opportunities for making that intersection safer as well. Similarly, sharpen curve radius, pedestrian refuge islands, get people slowed down so they can see the pedestrians. Um, we can also look at signal timing adjustments as well, things like leading pedestrian intervals, get the pedestrian out into the crosswalk earlier so they're more visible, things like that. And so we've been looking at this uh com uh pedestrian uh safety is a concern for us as well. We're happy to keep working with the applicant and with NC DOT to make sure this is addressed, especially with all the movement going on in the area. Thank you. Okay. Um I'll go to um Mayor Pim and then councelor Patton. City manager, we may not say go Caps in here because they may run us out the building right? But we can tell them we spent some time over at Cardinal Gibbons watching some basketball um supporting the Caps. And I think I was telling somebody earlier that I went to Cathedral. So I played at the old Cardinal Gibbons many many years ago. So very well familiar with this. Um but Mike, I'm pointing to you because you know we had this conversation earlier. I think you kind the gentleman right in front of you kind of touched on it, but there are some additional um mechanisms that are being considered like Hawk systems and stuff like that to put out there. Is that correct? So, as it relates specifically to Lenovo, a lot of those conversations uh Mr. Robersonson hit, uh we are having conversations with the school right now as it relates to the access across Trinity because there is significant amount of pedestrian traffic with students trying to get over to Bojangles. So we are coordinating with them and there have been conversations of hot considerations that have come up during those conversations as well. So just want to make sure people understood that there's going to be ongoing conversations about how to make sure the pedestrian safety is going to be um implemented as a project goes forward. Um yeah, so I was also going to ask about a hawk at this intersection. Um, Steven Strad and Edwards Mill. Um, I I'm sorry, Kenneth. I don't know if you answered directly. Is a hawk possible at Trinid uh Steven Strad and Edwards Mill? Or maybe you were just saying that at Trinity and Edwards Mill there's work going on. So, the Hawk that we're discussing would actually be further up Trinity. Um I think there the school has actually got some considerations for bringing access back out to to Trinity and that's where I think consideration of signalization for the pedestrians is coming there. Uh in terms of the there at uh Trinity and Edwards Mill signalized intersection today we'd be looking at any enhancements that Mr. Robersonson referenced in terms of the funded project with NC DOT and then certainly anything there. I think spacing's g spacing is going to continue to be a concern when it comes to Straoud. Um whether it's a hawk full signalization, I think there's gonna continue to be those concerns just by nature of how close it is to the end to that. And I think too understanding certainly understanding how the school uses it today. I think being able to get pedestrians to the two four really four-legg intersections that we're going to have here is going to be the safest way for us to move people back and forth in this area. So certainly I think the introduction of that fourth leg across from Wade Park and the enhancements that would come in with that are really going to provide that access really directly into the new entertainment area that you're seeing here. Okay. So you're saying some of the other tools that we use sometimes like hawks or raised crosswalks or other things like that might not be appropriate at Steven Strad and Edwards Mill. I would have to we will have to have continued conversations with the department but yes based off of spacing signalization is going to be very tough in this scenario. Raised crosswalks u it's going to be difficult in this to think about raised crosswalks across Edwards Mill. Um and I know that depending on obviously vehicular operation as they referenced I think they're looking at Straoud being a a heavier vehicular movement there. Uh raised crosswalks across that could create some challenges from that standpoint. Okay. Got it. Um okay. And then um for the applicant perhaps um can you speak to I'm sorry you had a slide about transit access and I know in transportation and transit committee we talked a little bit about current transit status but can you speak to like transit access through through and near this site and how might people use transit to access the site? Sure. So I think this was a site we showed or we kind of illustrated where BRT is today or planned to be today. Um and then some of the other rail opportunities and where the site is in in location to that. Um the other slide that showed transit was the existing park and ride facility, the Carter Finley Park and Ride um that exists today and then connects into the site with sidewalk along Trinity and and up near w into the site. So that's the existing transit facilities, but then the future connectivity we think would be through working building off of that BRT plan and then working with the fast 2.0 know study which looks at other transit options throughout the region including getting from the site out to the airport to Kerry down to downtown Raleigh um and other areas as you know transit's been you know struggle for the region and is a regional problem so we're not going to be able to solve that on our own um but we're going to be working with them um and handinhand over the next 10 to 15 years to figure out how we can accommodate that on site we've also talked with some of the u neighborhood groups about some of the uh other multimodal options of kind of incorpor operating space on the site for um ride sharing or um bike sharing and things like that. As you may know, the city's program on bike sharing is changing and so we've worked with Kenneth and transportation on how we could accommodate that but still leave flexibility for the city depending on what that could look like in the future. So those those conversations will be ongoing but are also part of transit, not the the big T transit, but maybe the little T transit um that we can work into the site as we go. Um, I also just wanted to point out, I know we were talking about the options um on Cardinal Gibbons and I and again, we really appreciate being out on site and and appreciate all of you being here. Um, I have an 18-year-old at home and so I know uh the the path to and from school is an important one. Um, and that's why we looking at some options to help Cardinal Gibbons solve the the issues that they see. And one of the things that we talked about was, you know, could there be a path from their existing site um directly to the brand new four-legged intersection we're talking about? And Tim was gracious enough to kind of escort us around out the back door of uh of the chapel area here and walk down and and there's an old roaded from two this is 2007 picture but we understand that when Cardinal Gilman's moved there in 2000 this was their kind of original entry that then of course changed because of um Wade Park and not being able to have those two entrances right next to each other. But could there be an opportunity for them to extend another pedestrian facility and tie right into the brand new four-legged intersection? Those are the types of conversations we hope to continue with them. Um, we're earnest about having those conversations and helping them find solutions that work for everyone and of course would put their students within, you know, a 0 2 mile walk of where all of the the eeries and things that they're looking forward to to being a part of. So, they're a great partner. We're excited to keep working with them and um and look forward to continuing that conversation. I can I can pass. Okay. Do we have Okay. Yes. Councelor Harris. Yeah. Yeah, I just want to give us a little bit of a bigger view around the development. Um, I really appreciate the folks here from Cardinal Gibbons. Um, I think you all raise important uh, you know, just questions about pedestrian safety and traffic safety, but this is also important to me all around the development, you know, east, west, north, south. And so I just want to note some of the other um uh you know residents and different groups that have been part of our conversations over the last number of months. Um you know there's the West over neighborhood to the south um certainly Rey Creek neighborhood uh further west. We have a lot of folks who live close um who maybe don't have a vehicle um NC State students who are obviously going back and forth to this area all the time. Um, and there's just a lot of potential improvements when I think about how folks get to this area. And I'm really excited about what is to come. I'm really looking forward to seeing more opportunity beyond just the game day, you know, for people to stay longer, for them to come in at different times, leave at different times. We're not increasing, you know, with this development. It's not increasing the number of seats um, you know, that for the hurricane. It's the same number, 20,000. Um, but we are adding, you know, the potential for residential, for folks to live nearby, for them to walk to these activities. Um, as well as, you know, retail and restaurants that folks who live in West Raleigh are going to want to come to. So I think what I'm uh asking for to the applicant is how can I guess I call them I'll say myself and my own residents about their concerns of staying in touch about all these different traffic concerns and issues over time. I understand that a lot of this is going to come to pass once you have an administrative site plan. So at each you know step of the way there will be another TIA there will be requirements about improvements. So how are you all going to stay in touch with the residents and neighbors you know around the development. Um thanks for mentioning that and I did mention this just briefly to Jeannie um Sephra with uh with Architect who's been also a great partner. I didn't want to leave you guys out. Um the fortunate thing about this project is that we've had a lot of engagement throughout. We've talked to a lot of groups that not only are individuals but representing a lot of others. Um and they're easily identifiable. They've come to each of the hearings and they've participated in the process which is a great thing because we know who they are and we're able to identify them. So it's not just, you know, keeping in touch with the folks in our immediate vicinity. Um, but through that process and talking with some of their requests, we are prepared to add a condition that we would would meet with not only the neighbors that are within a thousand feet, which is the the city's requirement, but also provide notice to each of those groups. Um, I could list them the the architect, the um the high school, the Raleigh School, Jasper's here somewhere. Um, the West Raleigh CAC, and the um West Raleigh Alliance, newly for newly renamed, I guess, formerly known as the Blue Age Corridor Alliance. Um so we are happy to provide that as a condition and to note that we will meet with them. Um the way that this is going to develop I mentioned is a little bit different from other projects. So I think looking at a condition we would want to tie it to um the first site plan that's connected to their the heart of the district that district B. Um there's several site plans that are going to be in review for just the garages or just a pad for you know Live Nation or some such. And so we really want it to be the first tier three site plan that would really get to the heart of where these improvements are happening and where most of that activity would be. And we're happy to kind of work on that and think about how we would do that for the future phases and and site plans as they go forward. Yeah, I like the comment about, you know, some kind of an annual at minimum touch point. I think for us all to stay in touch and I am committed to attending these meetings because I want to keep understanding what are the improvements needed, what are the concerns um because this can be a great development I think if we're all staying in communication. Um, another question I'll just raise is, you know, the inconsistencies um, in terms of our own plans and, you know, future land use maps or form um, are really around that pedestrian safety aspect that we keep hearing about from the public. And so I'm curious what you all are thinking about, you know, beyond your own property, you know, sidewalks that might be required on site. You know, how are folks going to get here? You know, if they're walking down Youth Center Drive or, you know, West Chase Boulevard. I was just looking at that road and there are some sidewalks, but it's hit and miss. And that's how it is all over here where you've got one block that's good and then you're at the fair and nope. and and folks are coming from, you know, within a mile or two walking because not everyone can afford to pay for parking. There's a lot of, you know, that just foot traffic. Um, sometimes folks have been drinking. You know, there are elements of, you know, just safety that I really want to think, you know, help us think about. And if we're going to have, you know, 20,000 people at a game, these sidewalks, many of them shouldn't be just a regular sidewalk. We need wider sidewalks. So, I'm just curious, you know, how are you thinking about how this development connects just right outside of it? Yeah, it's a great question. Um, and I went to this slide because there's a lot of um things that facilities that are already existing or in the works and West Raleigh is very fortunate to have that investment in the greenways that already exist as well as the sidewalks. Um, you can see the yellow area just to the right of our star uh site is that's the Westchase area you were talking about that connects. there are some some gaps in there and there is um a facility all along the the south side of Trinity and the east side of Edwards Mill that connects all the way up to Points North. So, we've got a lot of fortunate investment from the city in the past. And then when you look immediately around the site, there are a considerable amount of sidewalks and greenways that already exist. Um when you look at where some of those gaps occur down in in this area where um the youth center drive um in some of the areas so points uh east all of that is stateowned land. And so some of the inconsistencies that are noted in the report um are really because this property the property that we're developing on is stateowned land and will remain that way. And the state has a policy of developing with private streets and and coupled with public access easements, not dedicating new rightway. And so we're able to provide that on the site, but when we look at places offsite and whether the state would we would have authority to even make an improvement over state land um even if we tried, that would be a challenge. It's a challenge even on the property that we're developing. And so, um, when you look at who, um, the the control of the fairgrounds, the control of, um, NC State's Carter Friendley Stadium and Points East, that's all some sort of state-owned entity. So, we're um committed to work continue to working with that. I think the unique thing about this project is you've got a 20-year commitment from the developer to stay here, to invest in the Canes, to make this place um, as good as it can be, and to make a new economic driver for the region. Everything in that investment points to making this work for everybody in the community. All of the partners at the table are going to be the same partners with the state, with the Centennial Authority, um with the with the owner of the hurricanes, um in that investment that's already been entered and has already approved and kind of before before you all with the inner city. And so I think the unique opportunity here is that we are committed to continue working toward getting those improvements done. They're not um necessarily something that we can offer as a zoning commitment at this time, but it's something that all the parties are invested in and have a vested interest in making sure um all of our spectators and visitors and neighbors um are moving to and from areas uh within the development and points beyond. So, um I've already had conversations with our uh city transportation staff about this and looking forward to continuing that conversation as we go into site plan of how we can be creative that way. Yeah, I want to say I really appreciate that thought, that commitment into the future. Um, you know, this applicant team is very unique. You know, you all are it's it's the state, it's Centennial Authority, it's private investment, you know, huge public private partnership for Raleigh. Um, so I just want to, you know, continue to beat that drum that I want us to all stay in communication to figure out how we connect all the pieces. is, you know, Hillsboro Street is just another example of when you're, you know, crossing, you know, around Meredith College and trying to get towards the fairgrounds and up towards Lenovo. I mean, that's not a safe place for people to, uh, you know, bike or walk. And there aren't always even bus routes. There is the route 60 which is I believe a wolf line bus for NC State but there isn't even necessarily you know good go Raleigh access right now to this site so there's just a lot of improvements that need to be made and I want to keep working together. We're committed to that. Right. Uh, Councelor Silver, I don't have a question, but I do have a comment. And I do want to uh both thank you and the applicant team. Uh, as you stated, this was a project that was decades in the making. Uh, this area was always envisioned to be uh a growth center uh another destination uh in this city. I I recognize with all of the standards we have in our UDO and all the other requirements from all the different departments and we particularly are very concerned about the safety of students but we want to have a safe crossing. I too had questions about the access from their entrance to Straoud and it seems like how we can elevate uh the Edwards Mill and Trinity whether there could be a refuge uh if there is some type of median so cuz sometimes those distances could be quite wide but that's a conversation for another time but I just want to thank you and for moving forward on a vision uh there's a lot more uh conversations that need to happen. I suspect you'll be asking to bring this back uh very soon uh to respond to some of the concerns you say here that you heard here tonight. Uh but just want to thank you for bringing the project going forward uh to urbanize a part of our city. These are always public private partnerships. Uh the private sector at least in this case the authority is bringing the proposal but the city also has to look at what their obligation is to help fulfill the infrastructure and the pedestrian network. This is a partnership. So, I just I'm excited to see this uh after again decades in the making and just wanted to thank you and looking forward to uh future conversations particularly solving some of those pedestrian safety issues. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. One more topic that I did hear tonight I wanted to make sure we address was Richland Creek. Um so there was some questions about ensuring that we protect you know water quality there and certainly during construction you know that is always a concern. So, can you talk about what the procedures are there and then if we have anyone uh maybe Wayne from Storm Water um can talk about what the rules are? Um I love the idea of monitoring and making sure that we're doing the right thing. Yeah. Um Jordan's going to come up and talk about the specific rules. Um I would just like to note we did meet with Gan on site. Had a great conversation. We did reserve those um 20 parking spots. That's in that is a commitment. It's already a condition. So, it's in there. Jordan. Hi, Jordan Brewer with Kimley Horn. I am a civil engineer. So on this property f first of all we have to meet state standards which is um NCG1 standards which is a you know uh sediment basins on site and things of that nature as you would normally see in any major development. There are three things unique to this development that um make it so that we are likely not going to be producing as much environmental impact as other developments. One of them being our um phase construction. So, first of all, because we have the phase construction, we only are going to be disturbing a smaller amount of the site than what a average development would be. So, in a normal development that is currently undeveloped, you're just cutting down all the trees and you're building your basins at the low point of the site and hoping that it kind of gets any sort of sediment that hits the pond and settles out in that pond. On our site, we will have multiple phases of development with multiple ponds due to the urban size and the intent to be able to make it so that one we can construct in the time frame to make sure that the park surface parking is available for football season. Um so that's item number two. We have to be um very good with our construction schedule in order to be able to meet the requirements of our developers agreement for NC State and the football schedule. So with that contractors aren't going to be able to just move dirt in one place and move dirt in another place. They have to actually stabilize the site once they're act once they get it to grade. A lot of times you will see on larger sites contractors know how to beat the system and on this site they won't be able to do that because of our construction timeline and schedules. Um and then the third item is we have existing storm water infrastructure on site and we won't be disturbing that. We will likely be improving it to some degree but we will not be disturbing that. So that creates extra treatment over and above what would otherwise have been required by the state. So we will meet the state requirements within our limits of disturbance on site within the parking areas that we're disturbing, but we will also have what is already there for additional treatment just downstream, which is over and above what would normally be required for the state. Thank you. Wayne, could you also speak to any rules that Yeah, they have to follow? Hi. Yes, Wayne Miles, engineering services stormwater manager. Good evening. Uh, yes. So, this uh property is considered part of NC State's property and it's a little unique within the city of Raleigh because NC State has their own uh clean water act storm water permit. So all of the storm water regulations for this site would fall under the NC State MS4 which is the the type of stormwater permit that they have um and outside of the city's jurisdiction. Similarly for construction controls um it would fall under the department of environmental quality uh jurisdiction for for um erosion and sediment controls as well. Okay. So if residents are looking for data, they would need to then work with the state on that. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. And we do have um information about Richland Creek itself, but for this specific property, it would be under the state regulatory authority. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions or do is there a uh action? Yes. I just wanted to like echo that. I think if it seems like we might be bringing this back in the future and I think this this development has an opportunity to be a real gemstone of the city. Also, if we don't do it correctly, we will just solidify it as a car only destination that the only way you can access the events that happen here are v via your car. And I'm not sure that's the that's the confirmation we want to give. And so I think if we're going to call this back in a couple weeks, the pedestrian access and creative solutions to making off-site improvements, we have seen other applicants like at the iron works um take creative solutions to how they address needed off-site improvements. And so I think uh explorations of similar tools would be useful. Um and then we also did get requests um for interior access, greenway access, understanding that people will come off the greenway, but getting them to Carter Finley or further into the site to to the arena is really useful. So, um yeah, I just think if we're going to call this back in a couple weeks, let's let's really get it right on people accessing this site, not in their car. Do you want to make a motion? Yeah. And I'll just second what council member Patton said as well as the need for that ongoing collaboration among all the parties um on traffic. So with that I will um I guess motion this to keep it open and bring it back on April 15th for our 100 p.m. session. Second. Yep. And then before we vote on that, I'll just say I appreciate, you know, everybody being here, the Cardinal Gibbons uh clearly and all the other uh constituents. uh Jean Spooner and West Alliance and um the fact that everybody here even those in opposition were excited about it um and just wanted to make the project better. So uh we have another few weeks to do that and I will go ahead and call the question. Uh all in favor of that motion I all oppose nay. All right so we will work on this appreciate the uh applicants and all the questions. All right, we'll give you a moment if y'all want to clear out or you're welcome to stay. We've got three more. No, four more. [Music] [Music] on Wednesday. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] 24. Yes. Hannah Reco again, planning and development. So, this is request Z4524. uh is two properties on Lichford Road uh under an acre in size currently zoned R4. They're requesting R six uh conditional use. So the site is at the corner of Lichard Road and Hunting Ridge Road on the west side of uh Lichford Road. It's largely a residential area. Further east um are some light industrial warehouse uses and then the um Northridge Golf Course is immediately adjacent to the west. Uh you can see some views of the site. It is forested and one of the properties has a single detached house on it currently. So there's three proposed zoning conditions. Uh one would limit development to no more than eight dwelling units. Another would commit to planting on the south side of the property. And then a third uh commits to certain proportion of exterior wall materials being brick uh natural or cultured stone or fiber cement sighting. So comparison of existing and proposed zoning uh both residential districts. The proposed condition caps entitlement right around where it is currently. Uh the difference here is the uh building types that are allowed and smaller setbacks. So more flexibility in in the h type of housing that could be built. Request is consistent with the comprehensive plan that includes the future land use map designation of low-cale residential. There's no urban form map guidance for the site. and then some um consistent policies uh really touching mainly on the compatibility with the surrounding area and there's no inconsistent policies identified. Planning Commission recommended approval 800. Uh and I'm happy to answer any questions you have before you proceed. Okay, any questions? All right, I will open the hearing for 7:15 and 719 Lichford Road. And I have no one to speak on either side. Correct. That's right. The representative of the applicant is here if you have questions. Okay. And I will close the hearing. All right. Any further comments or is there a motion? Yep. Um I move to adopt a proposed consistency statement dated April 1st, 2025. uh and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action. Second. All right. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor? I. All opposed. Okay. All right. Next, we have uh Z4624 uh 4349 and 4353 Pearl Road. Yes. So, this is a site, two properties on Pearl Road. Um, a little under four acres, uh, combined. Um, currently part of a larger R10 conditional use district. The requesting a different, uh, a new R10 conditional use district. This is also primarily a residential area. Uh there are some um private and uh future public open space um areas as well as some places of worship in the surrounding area. You can see the the site from the road here. It's undeveloped forested. Uh and then there's three proposed zoning conditions. Uh one would prohibit some uses uh normally allowed in R10. A second would um uh restrict the apartment building type so that stacked you uh could not build stacked units that have to be side by side. And then the third condition would cap the site to no more than 40 dwelling units. So comparison here um the same district on paper uh different zoning conditions um essentially doubles the residential entitlement um setbacks would remain the same. request is consistent with the comprehensive plan including the future land use map designation which is low-scale residential. Uh also no urban form guidance on this site. Uh number of consistent policies. Uh these touch on compatibility with the surrounding area. Uh maintaining housing variety and um zoning for housing. One inconsistent policy which is response time standards. And then the planning commission recommended approval unanimously on this one as well. Okay. Thank you. Questions for Mr. Riley. Okay. If not, I will open the hearing for Z4624. And we had one uh individual signed up right in support. Worth Mills. Good evening, Madame Mayor, members of council. Worth Mills here on behalf of the resoning applicant. As Miss Real mentioned, this is a request to reszone um about 3.8 acres u from a 2006 R10 zoning district to a new residential 10 conditional use zoning district. The intent of this resoning is to facilitate another town home development. Um just looking at the site uh a little bit closer up of an IMAPs aerial here. Um Princess Curry Way stubs to our western boundary line and Ivy Bridge Lane to our north stubs to our northern boundary line. Um we fully expect both of those streets to connect into our property probably at a T intersection and then continue on uh down to Pearl Road. So, one of the big public benefits of this resoning and and this development in in general is the connectivity that it brings to this area. As Hannah mentioned, we are consistent with the future land use map. We have limited our development yield to no more than 40 dwelling units. And we have prohibited the apartment building type to ensure that there is compatibility with the adjacent uh town home development as well as the adjacent single family development. Um we think that this case is uh reasonable and in the public interest and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you. Okay. Uh we can proceed. Do you have questions for Mr. Mills or we can proceed with the um we had one uh person in opposition Tanya or Yep. And you'll have eight minutes. Hi, good evening everybody. Mayor, city council members, how are you all doing? Good. Um, I live on Princess Curry Way which is right up against I don't know if I can. Uh, let me see. Right in this area right here. This one. You can just draw on the screen if you Oh, I can draw on it. I can draw on it. It's not doing it. Okay. So, I live right adjacent to this area that is is going to be developed and it's actually a it's a dead end. So, we bought these town homes thinking that this is a dead end street and so this is where children play. Uh what's being proposed right now is there's a street that's going to run from our street all the way around to Pearl Road. This is from what I understand. So from our dead end all the way around. And so the throughway traffic from the end of our block, which is Pearl Road, going through Princess Curry Way, that whole area on Pearl Road is like a drag strip. So what we're afraid of is that pedestrians are going to ride up this road and down Princess Curry Road all the way to Pearl. And we didn't buy into this. So that's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Um can y I was going to ask can staff come and speak to the stubbing and requirements as far as connectivity because I think we may have a conflict here of our city requirements with um community expectations. Right. Thank you for the question. Uh Carter Robertson with transportation. So in chapter 8 of the UDO, we have a requirement if a substrate is a budding of property that has to be built through to form a through street as u was shown. Um see if I could get back to it. Pretty much as worth was describing forming a T right here. So that that is a um a requirement in in chapter 8 of the UDO. And would that be a requirement regardless of what is built here? I believe so. Yes, I could confirm. Um yeah, I'm getting a nod. Like if they were apartments instead of town homes or single family homes. That is correct. any level of subdivision or major site plan would require that that substreet expectation. Really, it would only be they were looking at a single family home on this property where that that requirement wouldn't kick in. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Yeah, maybe for the applicant. Um being respon trying to be responsive to the resident concern. what um sort of internal traffic calming or stop sign have you discussed like what kind of mitigations can be placed between the existing neighborhood and the future neighborhood? That's something that we haven't discussed much with transportation to date. I think there is um like transportation department was saying there's there's just that general expectation that whether this was subdivided for single family or town home that there's going to be an extension of both of these streets into our property and I'm assuming that there's going to be a T intersection whether that is uh kind of an always stop or whether that's you know one stop for for one route of traffic that I I don't know yet But um you know I I I don't foresee this being much of a a cut through just given how close we are already to the uh Pearl Road uh intersection. So Pearl essentially just continues up this way and then you know this green is Camelot Village Road. So, uh, in terms of saving time for vehicles to come off of Pearl, come through our site, come through Princess Curry, and then get back onto Pearl. I just don't I don't see that being much of an advantage for any any driver. Um but obviously we want to make sure that these streets are compatible with what is in place today in terms of both street type uh in terms of providing uh sidewalks on both sides, street trees on both sides so that these are um neighborhood streets and and that they are safe both to drive on and for people to uh enjoy as pedestrian. Okay. additional I more or less had a comment or clarification of transportation because we do have a adjacent property owner that has some concerns. Can we give uh not just this adjacent property owner but everyone in this area asurances when transportation does ensure that we start connecting streets cuz that in in of itself is a public safety feature by getting emergency vehicles in and out. uh that as is designed that you have public safety top of mind and I do agree this probably won't be a cut through but I think it's the the person coming here to testify uh certainly has concerns. So just so you can allay some of those concerns that when you do start to look at connecting these roads together for both access to people's property but also for emergency access that safety is top of mind. Safety is going to be paramount and top of mind for every decision that we look at and every coordination effort that we have. And certainly as we look at these intentionality of design as we get into that level of detail with future submitts along with this property will allow us to take a look at some of that. Obviously some of the tools that we've got in our toolkit. Uh Will Shoemaker was here a couple weeks ago doing his update on the traffic calming program. We've got those types of tools that we can coordinate with our development partners on having some of those things integrated with uh the early delivery of new streets so that we're not having to come back in and retrofit. Certainly intersection design is another element we can look at as we're as we work through that. But certainly safety is and will continue to be the number one priority for us as we look at continuing to expand and enhance our transportation network. Okay, Matt. Yes. I I just want to say to the resident, we hear you and we and we understand your concern here. Um, one of the things about new development that's being built out, we also have to think about our fire and police response and EMS response and that's why we have those connectivity requirements. One of the things that our staff has been looking at and and I know they will continue to look at is as we build new streets, ensuring we do not have to go back and do traffic calming, build traffic coming, have traffic coming built into the product. So, the goal is to reduce the amount of traffic that can come through. That's really just the residents. Um the good part is you are very close to how Pearl just wraps around um instead of someone driving through. if they drive through there, they're more likely going to have to stop and then before they can continue on. And most people don't like to stop. Um, but I will ask the applicant if they um cuz first before I ask staff, can they even put in traffic calming conditions cuz I know our UDO and things some things are required and some things are not. I'll have to confirm, but I believe the traffic calming integration with development is not a requirement that we have in the UDO, so it would be voluntary. Okay. To the applicant, is that something you would be willing to consider? I think it is. And I'm I'm guessing and I I'll let council correct me if I'm wrong. The the impetus is to put that traffic calming on the extension of Princess Curry, I think, is where we would get the most benefit out of that. Correct. We're happy to take a look at that and and work with transportation to um see what type of condition that we can offer um and and get back to you with an update. Okay. With that being said, Madame Mayor, I would move to hold this until the 15th at our 1:00 to give the applicant time to look at a condition to put in to address commoning a common condition. Okay. Second. Any other discussion? Not. All in favor of that motion? I. All opposed. And we appreciate uh you, Mr. Mills, and uh you coming down. So, we'll continue that conversation. All right. Uh next we have Z4924 37 3716 and 3800 Pearl Road. Yes. So this is uh two properties on a different portion of Pearl Road about 4 and a half acres in size. They're currently zoned R4. They're requesting R10 CU. So this is farther north on Pearl Road at Rockoy Road. Uh a lot of residential uses in this area. uh Barwell Road uh elementary school to the north and then the nearest commercial node is down by Battlebridge Road. Some uh views of the site uh with some existing residential on a portion of the property and then there are two proposed zoning conditions. one that lists some prohibited uses and then a second uh that um would prohibit again the stacking of units and the apartment building type. So uh this is a shift from one residential district to another. Um greater variety of building types would be permitted, smaller setbacks would be allowed, so more units overall could be built. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan including the future land use map designation of low-scale residential. There's no urban form guidance for the site. Um and then some consistent policies see here and then no uh inconsistent policies were identified. Planning commission recommended approval unanimously. Happy to answer any questions. Great questions for Miss Reco. Um, not well not a question for you. Um, I'm going to ask I'm actually going to give Mr. Mill some time because he has this case as well. But if transportation can speak this property is directly in line with the realignment of Barwell and Pearl um road at Rock Cru. So can you speak to that alignment and how it could possibly impact this property? Yes. So, um, being right on the in on the border of that intersection, this property is going to be directly affected by that realignment. Um, trying to show that. So right now the intersection is offset and so that is going to be realigned to be a straighter fourleg intersection to reduce any conflicts. And so design has already been completed as part of that project. Ride ofway has been acquired. Um right now they just changed up the scope and got a bid. um and still making some decisions about implementation, phasing, and funding. Definitely. Thank you. And I wanted to bring this up because I know as council, we had received an email originally about them wanting to hold this and add apartments. It's because of this condition here, this improvement to our roads and our public safety here um that we were doing. they were considering that but from my understanding and hopefully the applicant if someone can let them know that his case is up um they decided to move forward with this project as is but no one has signed up in opposition to this project um as well. So he he left I think he knew his case was up. He did email us saying they're ready to Yeah, he stepped out to talk to the neighbor on the previous case. Take your time. We haven't started it yet. Okay. So, I'm going to go ahead and open the hearing. Okay. And appreciate uh Mr. Bills. We just had a few questions about the realignment of the road and we did get your earlier email, but we go ahead and let you uh Right. And again, uh, Worth Mills here on behalf of the applicant. Just start off, apologies for the multiple emails over the last few days. Uh, that's not how I like to do things either. Um, and I don't think it'll happen again. Um, and I'll just go off of uh, Hannah's slides here, but but the request is to change just under 4 and a half acres from R4 to R10. This is another uh, townhouse subdivision. Um, we have a natural buffer, a noose river stream buffer along our north that will uh sort of, you know, provide some enhanced landscaping for the single family homes to our north along Grand Drive. Um, we think from a land planning perspective that this creates a nice density increase, a gentle density increase from the single family subdivision to our north and our west. You know, transitioning to the R10 town homes and then across from Pearl Road are the newly constructed uh age restricted affordable uh apartment complex uh that recently went up. So, I think from a land planning perspective that makes a lot of sense. Um, and I think as as you discussed while I was out of out of the chambers, we are going to have the benefit of a realignment of Pearl and Barwell, which is going to make getting um either to Barwell or or to Pearl a heck of a lot easier. Uh, for anybody that has to make that drive um and make that turn on Barwell or P or Pearl, uh, you know that that is not fun. Um but uh you know by the time that these homes are um you know ready for sale I think all of that's going to be resolved and we'll have a very uh clean uh uniform four-way intersection here. So I say all that to say that the request is consistent with the future land use map. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um planning commission unanimously recommended approval and and for those reasons we think it's reasonable and in the public interest. But happy to answer any questions that you all have this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Um, additional questions from Mr. I don't have any questions. Mills. Okay. So, um, I leave the hearing open. I I was ready to close it. Okay. We can hopefully act on something tonight. All right. We will close the hearing. Um, so thank you, U, Madame Mayor. Um, I move to adopt the proposed consency statement dated April 1st, 2025 contained in agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda in the agenda item under recommended action. All right, have a motion and a second. All in favor of that motion say I. I. All oppose, nay. All right, thank you. Okay, final uh item for this evening is text change TC824, townhouse building type clarifications. Thank you. Good evening, madame mayor, council members. Uh Justin Rometo with planning and development. I have for you this evening uh what I hope is a relatively uh straightforward and minor uh text amendment to the UDO. Um what this text change does is um seeking to clarify the regulations for the townhouse building type. Um kind of specifically the different ownership structures and development patterns um related to town homes and how they are um laid out in certain developments. Um it does not change where town houses can locate. Does not um add or subtract any existing zoning districts where town houses can locate. Um does not change any other dimensional requirements. height, setbacks, etc. Uh, makes no changes to those. Um, also does not affect how town houses are reviewed um, under the North Carolina building code. This is a simple change to the zoning code um, to clarify that uh, multiple townhouse buildings can be placed on a single lot. So, here are examples of those two common ownership structures. Um on the left you have the scenario where um every unit is located on its own subdivided lot. So a property owner owns their uh portion of the building and the land uh underneath it. Um typically called fe simple ownership. Um on the right you have the scenario where multiple units or even multiple buildings can be placed on a single lot. Right? So you might have a condominium scenario where a u an owner owns within the four walls of their unit but a POA or HOA owns the land underneath or an apartment type scenario where um individual units are being leased to um renters. Uh do want to point out that you know both of these scenarios are very common and there are many examples of both throughout the city today. um it has been our practice to uh permit both of these scenarios. The text amendment just seeks to clarify that. So with that in mind, here's the um the proposed change, the definition of townhouse. Um you can see just eliminating um this language, the entire building and adding this clarifying language that one or more buildings can be placed on a single lot. So I hope that makes sense. Um certainly happy to answer any questions you might have. Right, questions? Thank you so much for this. What is the benefit to having one owner instead of multiple owners in that in this case? It's just a preference, right? So, um, a developer can choose to sell individual lots that can be built upon or or sell individual units or in some cases a developer wants to retain ownership of an entire project, right, and lease the units. Um, it's just a a preference from the owner or developer um, from a zoning standpoint, from a built form perspective, right? They're both they're both the same um, to the to a viewer on the street. um these distinctions really only exist on paper and recorded maps and deeds and such, but um from a built environment perspective, they're they're pretty much the same. So if an if somebody rent well, I guess it wouldn't be renting, but if they own the building but not the land, would that inherently hopefully make that less expensive? So increase affordability? It it certainly could. Um and obviously highly dependent on, you know, the size of the unit, the location, etc. But it certainly could. Thank you. Justin, it's not for this case, but a cottage court probably mirrors the latter one where the cottage courts, which we allow, have they're not attached, but you basically have structures on one lot, but those are also condominiums. This one is just affecting those that have adjoining walls. That's correct. Okay. Yeah. All right. I'm gonna o oh open the hearing but continue. Um so one thing we hear often from residents is a desire to um make sure there's lots of ownership opportunities and um there's a sort of a constrnation amongst residents that we can't do more to control whether something is ownership or rental. Um, does this change make it easier, more difficult, or this or has no impact on whether a town home will be for sale or for rent? No impact. Um, I will say, you know, again, this is um a uh language that has existed since 2013 when the UDL was adopted. Um, again, it just comes down to the the uniqueness of every individual project. Okay. So, there is no for or opposition. So, I will close the hearing. And do we have a motion? Move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated April 1st, 2025 containing the agenda materials and to approve the zoning text amendment. Second. All right. Um, all in favor of the motion, I I. All oppose, nay. And the motion passes. Thank you so much. And we are adjourned. All right. [Music]