[Music] live meeting of the Raleigh Planning Commission. I am Nicole Bennett, vice chair. Chair Miller is absent and excused today. We begin each meeting with an opportunity for members of the public to speak on an item not on the agenda. Do we have anyone here today who would like to speak on an item not on the agenda? Okay, seeing none, we will get started. Um, our first item is coming out of committee of the whole and that is reszoning Z1424 3301 Tar Hill Clubhouse Road. This was um voted out of committee of the whole with no recommendation. So, we will ask staff for an update. Good morning everyone. Um so this is Z1424 for Tarheel Clubhouse Road. Um again the request to reszone is approximately 78.9 acres from agricultural productive to residential six conditional use. The deadline for action is May 27th. Um the surrounding zoning is pro predominantly a mixture of AP and R4. The closest R6 zoning is across Beaver Dam Creek from the site. There is an aerial view of the site and the surrounding area. The area immediately surrounding the site is rural residential and there is a lowcale residential um neighborhood nearby. Beaverdam Elementary is across the street and the site also has proximity to the news re and Beaver Dam Creek. Um here are two images of the site taken from Tarheel Clubhouse Road. Here are additional images of the site. The first one looks towards the northeast of the site from Destiny Drive and the second looks toward the southern portion of the site um south of Tarheel Clubhouse Road. Um all but one condition are new since the last meeting. Um and the language of the other one has been revised. The revised conditions reduce the maximum number of units just slightly. Um, minimum and maximum lot sizes were added and one condition stipulates that 40% of the lots will be over 7,000 square ft. Um, at least 60% of open space is reserved for being adjacent to envir existing environmentally sensitive or undisturbed areas. Um, there will be at least two usable amenities such as a dog park or playground. Um and they included a pedestrian connection from the site to the Elvis farm property to the northwest. Um the conditions still prohibit townhouse and apartment building types. Um this is just a comparison of the existing zoning versus the proposed zoning. Um the maximum number of units um is quite larger than what the proposed maximum number of units is quite larger than what is allowed under the existing zoning. Um the requested resoning is inconsistent with the future land use map designation of rural residential. The guidance for rural residential states that the density for this designation should be limited to one unit per acre. So the proposed zoning condition number one exceeds what the future land use map recommends. Corresponding zoning districts for this designation include AP or R1. While the new conditions have improved consistency, increased the level of connectivity and the amount of open space, and facilitated a connection to the greenway network through the Alvis farm property. There are still issues causing the request to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan such as the res residual infrastructure issues um specifically those pertaining to fire response times and inconsistency with the future land use map. Um consistent policies include those listed on this slide and the next policies that have been added since the last um meeting or underlined. They include policies related to connectivity and open space. Um here are some additional consistent policies. Uh inconsistent policies include those listed here. These have not changed. Um issues include inconsistency with the future land use map, a limit on the variety of housing types, impacts to fire response time and infrastructure, and isolation from jobs, services, and transit. There are no outstanding issues with this request. Again, the deadline for action is May 27th. Upcoming meetings occur on the 13th and 27th of May. Um, this would require an amendment to the future land use map. Since the current designation does not support residential entitlement more than one unit per acre, um, the low-scale residential use designation is more more appropriate to reflect this request. So, if the resoning is approved, the future land use map will be amended to low-scale residential for this site. Um, the map will be made more reflective of proposed zoning entitlements of the subject site and the long grain vision for this general area will become more suburban in nature rather than rural and agricultural. Thank you. You're welcome. We heard um from the applicant at our committee meeting, but um if it's okay with the commission since we have a new member, I'll just have the um applicant present and we can hear members of the public if they're here to dis uh if they're here if they have comments on this case. Is that okay with the commission? Okay, thank in that case then the applicant and those in support have 10 minutes. [Music] Thank you, Vice Chair Bennett. Good morning, members of the commission. Uh my name is Murray Farmer. I'm with Parker Poe. And as you may recall from committee of the whole uh a few weeks ago, my colleague Jamie Schwadler and I were recently brought on to assist her with this resoning. So Jamie and I do work for Meritage in several other jurisdictions. We did not become involved uh with this project until right before committee of the whole. So we are now up to speed and we have made uh quite a few changes uh in terms of the conditions uh to this case over the last few weeks after coordinating with staff and meeting with uh city parks and wreck. We would like to note uh that we did receive some minor additional comments from staff on the revised conditions this past Friday. Uh so that was after the deadline for submitting the sign conditions, but we are working with staff on those and evaluating to incorporate into changes made before setting the public hearing before council. Uh and those include u minor changes uh like specifying spec further specifying uh the timing mechanism for determining the location of the uh easement for the pedestrian connection. So, as Aaron uh mentioned, this request is to reszone one parcel of land totaling approximately 77 acres from agriculture production to R six with conditions to allow for a single family home development. The property is located in northeast Raleigh just west of 540 along Tarill Clubhouse Road and is right next door to future public parkland at Alvis Farm and Beaverdam Elementary School. This is an area the city has anticipated and seen lots of growth. This parcel is adjacent to primary corporate limits and annexation will fill in a gap in existing city limits. Currently, the property is zoned agriculture production which would allow for 21 single family homes with a minimum of 125,000 square foot lots. in order to strike an appropriate balance between the rural residential flume designation and the comprehensive plans policies that address increasing the city's housing supply to address housing affordability. The applicant has requested a reszoning to R six to allow for a single family home development with a maximum of 225 homes. So that's roughly three units per acre versus the one unit per acre for agriculture tracks. uh and we have added conditions uh to address uh the square footage of the lots. So, a minimum of 5,000 square foot lots and a maximum of 20,000 square foot lots. This request limits the density permitted while increasing the amount of open space provided to further consistency with that flume designation and the comprehensive plans policies and for consistency with the surrounding area. So, this request went before the committee of the whole because it was found inconsistent with that rural residential flume designation and with several comp plan policies related to growth and housing variety. Staff recommended several conditions to make the request more consistent, including addressing the minimum lot size permitted, increasing the amount of open space, and connecting to the Noose River Greenway. We worked with staff, met with city parks and wreck and responded to each recommendation. We also digested the feedback from the committee and evaluated and responded to a suggestion about consolidating the open space on site. So again, as you can see, staff recommended adding a condition restricting the minimum lot size and we added conditions addressing that. Staff recommended increasing the amount of open space and so we responded by providing a minimum of 20% of the net area as open area. Staff also recommended providing for a connection to the greenway and the committee of the whole requested a public benefit um for for this project. And so again, we met with parks and wreck and responded by providing that pedestrian c connection from the site's internal network to the city's Alvis farm property um to facilitate that connection. Now, uh we will continue working with city parks and wreck on that connection as there currently is not a park plan for Alvis Farm and so the location the exact location of that greenway connection still needs to be determined. And finally, uh, the committee of the whole, um, at the committee of the whole, there there was a recommendation about creating different zones to consolidate open space. So, something we heard was potentially seeing more density to the north of Tar Hill Clubhouse Road and more of that open space to the south. And so, we added a condition that provides at least 60% of the open area will be adjacent to existing environmentally sensitive and/or undisturbed areas surrounding the development. And so the result of that will be more of that open space that you see to the south um near Beaver Dam Lake. It will be consolidated in in that area. As it relates to the future land use map, again, this parcel is within the rural residential. Uh but as you can see it is only within a small node of rural residential that is surrounded by lowdensity residential which is the proposed amended designation for this parcel consistent with the character and pattern of development in this area. As noted in the staff report, a district that would be consistent with this designation would be R1, but that would allow for large lot single family homes uh where uh prices can get extremely expensive. Instead, the applicant has proposed R six at roughly three units per acre, which will again strike that balance of increasing housing supply and allowing for more affordable homes while still being consistent with the surrounding area. In response to feedback on the Flume designation, however, and uh from feedback from neighbors, the applicant did add conditions to address this um designation, including reducing the permitted density and limiting the building types to single family. The applicant also added added a condition that will guarantee some larger lots to make the request more consistent with that rural residential designation. So again, that um at least 40% will exceed 7,000 square feet. The staff report indicates that some of the inconsistency with the comp plan is related to policies that address growth with the concern being the fire department's ability to serve this area. But again, this parcel is not only within the ETJ, but directly adjacent to the city's primary corporate limits and sandwiched between properties within city limits. Annexation here would therefore fill in a gap in an area that is already being served. As you can see from the image on the left, this uh parcel is near uh fire departments number 21 and 27. And again, because uh this is located uh between existing city limits, um city limits are in gray in that image. The standards for response times already apply here and would be the same for this development as it already is for the immediately adjacent properties including the elementary school that are already within city limits. Additionally, there is sufficient access to city water and gravity sewer to the southern portion of the property. There are two vision themes and now nine key policies that this request is consistent with. As Aaron had noted, there are now three additional policies uh related to connectivity, open space, and greenway oriented development that this that this uh request is now um consistent with. And so although we did address every recommendation that has been made to align the case more closely with the comprehensive plan than it was at committee of the whole including uh becoming consistent with uh three new policies, the overall consistency analysis appears to generally remain the same. However, this proposal has been found consistent with more policies than inconsistent, and the request for that lowdensity residential is compatible with the vast majority of the surrounding area and pattern of growth this area has seen in the last four to five years. The applicant addressed every recommendations in the hopes of tipping that scale. And although the overall analysis has not changed, the proposal has changed substantially is consistent with the comprehensive plan and flume in many ways. And the public benefits will hopefully outweigh any of those remaining inconsistencies. So, this proposal will increase the city's housing supply in an area the city has anticipated and seen growth. again being located next to a future public park and an elementary school that is under capacity and it will provide housing near recreational opportunities. There's also sufficient access to water and sewer and it provides a connection to the greenway system. So we thank you so much for uh your time and we will be available to answer any further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Is anyone else here to speak in support of this case? Okay, we'll turn to um those opposed. If anyone's here to speak in opposition, you have 10 minutes. Okay, thank you very much. Then we'll bring it back to the table. Um may I ask staff to just pull back up the new conditions, please, so we can we didn't have those at committee of the whole. And also, I will note that this was the one bite at the apple. So, um, the applicant can't change conditions anymore for us. They can change them as they go to, um, city council. So, with that, um, do we have questions or comments from commissioners? Uh, Commissioner Peeler. Um, I missed the committee the whole, so apologize, apologies if this was talked about there, but this mentions environmentally sensitive areas. Um, and I'm just curious what exactly that refers to. Is it talking about the vicinity to Beaver Dam Creek and the Noose River or is there something specific on the site that is considered environmentally sensitive? And I think that's for staff or the applicant. Yes. So there is um and I can well I won't mess with this um but if you remember from um the the image of the site there is um Beaver Dam Lake that is to the south. So that is one of the references when we were um crafting the condition about uh at least 60% of that open area being adjacent to undisturbed or environmentally sensitive. That was one of the intentions there. There is also a water feature on the northern portion of the site. There's an existing pond and so we have um every intention of preserving that on site and that is likely where uh the connection uh the pedestrian connection to the greenway will be located. So those those were the features that we had in mind. Thanks. Other questions or comments from commissioners? Yeah, I could I no one else? Um yeah, I plan to vote against this. I think, you know, it's inconsistent with the comp plan and um I do want to push back a little bit that it is within um within annexed areas. I know it is, you know, Beaver Dam Elementary is right on the other side, but there is nothing else annexed in any direction that's residential uh that's adjacent. Now, there is there is that large development to the southwest, sorry, southeast. Um, but that is not adjacent. It's on the other side of Beaver Dam Lake. Uh, I think we at this table need to be really cognizant of expanding Raleigh's borders to the east, especially when it's zoned agriculture production like this. It's contributing to our sprawl. It's contributing to our traffic problem. Uh it's very unlikely that to a single family development like this there will ever be sufficient public transit to this area. Uh we've had a lot of cases like this recently and not all of them are completely inconsistent with the comp plan. U some of them are deemed not even partially inconsistent but I think we should be we should be careful with how we proceed with annexations like this uh and contributing to our sprawl. So for that reason I' I've got a vote against it. Thank you, Commissioner Peeler. Other questions or comments? Okay. Well, then Oh, wait. Commissioner Haver, I I guess again I like to sort of wait till everybody else comments, but it looks like nobody's going to say anything. I was um struggling with this a little bit at committee the whole but um I appreciate Commissioner Peeler's comments but we're inside 540 we're adjacent to an elementary school development is heading this way certainly remembering Commissioner Autwell's comment at committee of the whole on this type of development's ROI on infrastructure again one unit per acre versus three units per acre minimizes that I think the applicant's gone a long way to um put conditions in to preserve and protect some of those environmental areas. Um we need more housing. Surely we want to keep densifying the core, but uh putting 540 around the city was a long range plan and I'm I'm comfortable voting in favor for this um for this reasonzoning. Thank you, Commissioner Haver. Commissioner May. Um, I was just looking at it and it seems like it's very inconsistent with uh both of our comp plan. Seems like it's very inconsistent with both our comp plan and our future land use map. Um, we do need to be really careful about uh reszoning spaces that are agricultural. Every place doesn't need to be overdeveloped in my opinion. I do see that there's an elementary school next to it, but with no uh space for affordability, I wonder how much parents would be able to afford to stay next to the elementary school. Also, I think it's a one of my issues is how far away it is from transit and the ability for um any firefighter access to the location. So, I would uh would not be voting for this. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Hotwell. Sure. I think that this is well outside the the plans the city set forth and the comprehensive plan and the future land use map. I think low density development has a negative return on investment for our infrastructure and it just if if this area is not appropriate for rural zoning then where in the city in our plans is it appropriate and for that reason I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated April 22nd 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend denial of the zoning amendment. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Um, Commissioner Peeler has seconded the motion. All those in favor? One, two, three, four. All those opposed? Motion fails. Do we have uh another motion? What was what was it four? No, it was four. Let's do it again. All those in favor of recommending denial. Four. One, two, three, four. Five. This time I think it was four before. So we have five. All those opposed. One, two, three, four. Okay, that's different. So motion passes. Five to four. Thank you very much. Moving on to new business, we have resoning Z1624 Globe Road. We will have a presentation from staff. Chair Bennett, if I may, would it be appropriate to hear uh new business one and two at the same time? They're adjacent. They're asking for the same thing. They have the same owners. Um Steph's prepared a joint presentation. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So, we will hear reszoning Z1624 and Z625. Before we start, I'm sorry, um, Matthew, I did not I got frazzled with the count changing last time. I didn't get the um, everyone voting against council Austin asks why um, there is dissent. So, those who voted against the motion, would you like to state your reasons why for the record? I I'll start just because I I'll just say the comments I made during the hearing are the reasons I voted against. Thank you, Commissioner H. Uh, Commissioner Fox. Um, the parcel is located within the ETJ, which means it was anticipated to be annexed at some time. It's also adjacent to an elementary school. Those are my reasons. Thank you. I'm always looking to add to the housing supply. Thank you. And I don't think that this is intended to be used agriculturally. It's already intended to be built out for residences. So I don't see an issue with increasing the number on it. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Sorry about that. Okay, Matthew, we will move to new business reasonzoning Z1624 and Z625. Good morning, Vice Chair Bennett, members of the planning commission, Matthew Burns of Planning and Development. So uh as you mentioned and and know these are two separate requests but they are very similar. Uh so I'll be presenting on them simultaneously and you'll need to have two separate hearings for uh each resoning. So here's uh both existing zoning maps for the sites. So the requests are to resone uh 93 acres and n5 acres from Durham rural residential to city of Raleigh residential 6 conditional use. These properties are uh in Durham County, but they're eligible for annexation into the city of Raleigh per our annexation agreement with Durham. And the applicants have submitted annexation requests to accompany their resonings. And your deadline for action is June 21st for each of these cases. So zoning in the area is predominantly residential with clusters of R4, R six and Durham rural residential. Uh and a little bit farther to the northwest and uh north are some uh other Durham zoning districts including plan development, residential and industrial, light industrial. So here's a view of the site. The thick blue line is the boundary between Durham and Wake counties. The site is fairly close to Brier Creek uh to the southeast and to the west is largely low and moderate scale residential uses including those PDs. Here's a blownup view of the site. So, there are several subdivisions associated with the Brier Creek Country Club uh to the east of Globe Road. And here are some views of the sites along Globe Road. So both of these cases have identical conditions. Uh they both would limit the number of principal residential dwellings to one and require a 50-ft principal building step back from Globe Road. So again, the maximum number of units that they're proposing is one. Um, so reszoning from the the Durham zoning district to city of Raleigh would permit additional housing types and uh would allow less restrictive setbacks. The site has a below average walk score, uh below average bike score, relatively low transportation costs, and high access to jobs. But I'll note that the site is not served by uh any transit. So, here is the map from the uh last version of the city of Raleigh annexation agreement with uh with the city of Durham. And you can see there on the lower left the location of the site. And the way this annexation agreement works is uh anything east of that boundary line uh even though it's in Durham County is eligible to come into the city. And here's just a slightly more zoomed in version of that map showing uh Raleigh and Durham's uh city limits. The request would add to the housing supply, does not include subsidized units, permits a variety of housing types, allows smaller units, and is not within walking distance of transit. Area residents are more likely to be racial minorities than the city average. less likely to be low income and the cost of rent has increased 47% since 2020 which is higher than the citywide average. So the requested R sixcu districts are consistent with the lowscale residential designation and frontages cannot be applied to residential districts. So the requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent with the future land use map. uh inconsistent policies are related to uh location of growth reinforcing the urban pattern and uh crossjurisdictional coordination for annexations and growth. Inconsistent policies identified are related to fire response times. So there are no outstanding issues. Um and your deadline for action is June 21st. And just a general note that the city council will have to vote on annexation prior to resoning approval. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. We will now turn to the applicant and all those in support. Um and we have to do these separately, right? Didn't I hear you say? Okay. So, we'll begin with Z1624. And you have 10 minutes. Good morning everybody. Morning. I'm Keith Larson, Moonlight Electric and Construction, and I'm here to represent the both uh owners, individual owners of each lot. And not sure I can add much more to what Matthew already brought to the council in the review. The intent is for them to develop this at single family housing with the potential of possibly one detached building. I possibly a detached garage andor um a you know a wreck room or something of that nature. They have gone through this process of getting it recombined through the city of Durham and then have it so that both properties have frontal access to Globe Road. And the intent was to provide if it gets annexation and resoning gets approved to connect to the city's existing sewer and water. Therefore, not having the property actually have to apply for a septic tank and uh private wells. That too would be an advantage environmentally and also would be helpful and beneficial to the homeowners. Other than that, I any questions anybody might have that has not been addressed? Thank you. We'll we'll do our questions in just a minute. Um, is anyone else here to speak in support of Z1624? Seeing none, did I see someone? Oh, seeing none. Um, all those in opposition have also have 10 minutes. Is anyone here to speak against this application? Okay, we will bring it to the table for questions and comments from commissioners. This is Z1624. Okay, we're very quiet today. If we have no questions or comments, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Otwell. Got them all lined up today. All right. Uh, with regards to Z1624, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated April 22nd, 2025 contained in the agenda materials, and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion from Commissioner Atwell, a second from Commissioner Fox. All those in favor? Any opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Moving to Z625 Globe Road. Um the applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes. Um I can reiterate everything I said earlier. To recap, um the intent is to have the property as a single family residence and um through the process of reszoning and hopefully gainful annexation by the city of Raleigh and to connect at their expense to the city water and sewer system in order to alleviate and the original intent for annexation was they did not want to have to put a private well and a se a septic system in the air. considering all the other development around them. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here to speak in support? Anyone here to speak in opposition? You have 10 minutes. Thank you very much. Bringing it to the table. Do we have any questions or comments for this one? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Fox. In regards to case Z625, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated April 22nd, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Fox. Um, made the motion. Commissioner Mcrimman seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Moving to item D3. Oh, you're welcome. Moving to item D3. Um, reszoning Z4424 Avent Ferry Road. We will um receive a presentation from staff. Good morning all. So, this is a request to reszone four parcels along Aent Ferry Road from R4 with uh special residential parking overlay and R sixcu with uh the special residential parking overlay uh to a unified R6 CU with that same overlay. And your deadline for action is June 21st. So, zoning the area includes residential and mixed uses. Um, I'll note that the portion of the site that is zoned R6CU is uh in the the east within that gray boundary. Um, and that is associated with the previous resoning case from 2020. and the single parcel that's zoned R4 uh that's a little bit to the west uh will be would be brought in to uh allow for a single development. So this site is along a ferryy road and it is across from the Aanferryy shopping center which features a DMV and a food line and generally in the area uh with the exception of that Aanferryy shopping center are residential uses. Here are some views of the site along uh Aan Ferry Road and the applicant is proposing seven zoning conditions. Uh so the proposed conditions would limit the maximum number of bedrooms per dwelling unit to three. Limit maximum building height to no more than two stories. Require one row of structures aligned and facing a ferry to have a minimum setback of 20 ft. Require a sixft fence be maintained along the rear property line which could be an existing fence. Limit the maximum number of surface parking spaces to 45 excluding spaces in garages and driveways. prohibit the apartment building type and limit the maximum number of dwelling units to 19. So the request would allow for a moderate increase in uh entitlement and the site has above an above average rock score, transit score, bike score, uh a below average transportation costs and above average access to jobs. The site has convenient access to two Go Raleigh bus routes. Uh, route 11 Buck Jones and uh, sorry, route 11 L Buck Jones and Route 11 A Ferry with stops about 600 ft east of the site. And the site also has convenient access to uh, three Wolf Line routes. So, the request would add to the housing supply, does not include subsidized units, permits a variety of housing types, allows smaller units, and is within walking distance of transit. Area residents are less likely to be racial minorities compared to the city average. Uh they're more likely to be low income and the cost of rent has increased 32% since 2016, which is higher than the citywide average. And I'll note that uh this is an area where there are a lot of students um which may explain part of that discrep discrepancy with the income. So the requested district is consistent with uh the lowscale escential residential feature land use category and zoning frontages cannot be applied to a residential district. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map. Consistent policies are related to neighborhood scale housing, uh, compact development and housing variety and inconsistent policies are related to fire service response. There are now no outstanding issues and your deadline for action is June 21st. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Burns. We will now turn to public comment. The applicant and all those in support have a total of 10 minutes. Good morning members of the planning commission. U I'm Isabelle Maddox, attorney for the applicant. Here with me today is Sammy Stevens who is the representing the ownership and developer group. Um and I want to first say that Mr. Stevens has done a lot of things in the NC State area of town, but he's he takes a real uh interest in getting into the neighborhood and hearing what they have to say and really trying to respond to those concerns in a way that gives him most of what he wants and gives them most of what they need. So, I think he does a good job with that and I think this is a perfect example of that. Um, so a fairly small request to go from R4 with special residential parking overlay to R six. This is four parcels comprising about two acres. Um, three pretty rectangular lots and one a little bit odd shaped. There were there was a zoning case back in uh 2000 uh 2020 I think for for three of these lots. Um and this case originally had one of these lots plus one to the rear on Octavia. We after meeting with the neighbors, the neighbors back in more in the neighborhood were upset about the possibility of town houses densifying and so made the decision to take the Octavia parcel out and then come back in and grab those lots had recently been reszoned to put them all in one case so they'd have the same conditions. So that's kind of the genesis of the case to have these four lots, you know, right across the street from the shopping center um on Avent Ferry, you know, great access to jobs, transit, NC State, etc. Um that can show you those these three lots were just recently reszoneed to R six. We basically brought those back in with similar conditions as they had in ' 06 and then and then added this one and we took out that one. So just to give you the background. Um so Matthew went through the conditions pretty well. There are several that really uh address neighborhood concerns. Keeping the four bedroomedroom, you know, units out uh two stories in height, which is unusual to limit it that much, but they wanted it more consistent with their neighborhood, the lower the lower scales. The the neighborhood to the rear is mostly single family, but tends to be, you know, one, one and a half, two stories, that kind of thing. um maximum of 19 units. I think now you could probably do 12. So, it's not a huge jump. Um I think that just to sort of summarize this case, um we did originally include the Octavia partial but dropped that in response to neighborhood concerns. Now, all the parcels all front on transit emphasis corridor. We're adding more housing units close to transit, close to goods and services, jobs. Um, but we are in response to neighborhood concerns, restricting the number of stories, restricting the number of bedrooms per unit, excluding the apartment building type, and requiring a fence to to create a a buffer between these, you know, townhouse units is what they'll be, and the single family to the rear. It is consistent with the comp plan and the future land use map. Um and you know the two they're not even really issues but there are two things that brought up in the staff report that I want to comment on as to the urban forum. We can't add a frontage here because it's our it's our dash zoning. It's not mixeduse zoning. However, one of the conditions that we include is it's a 20 foot setback um along a fury and that setback will allow an urban frontage to be mimicked and you given the tightness of the site the the that set will probably build right up to that setback. So that'll mimic, you know, the various urban frontages which which some of some of which require 20 foot setback. So I think that gets you pretty close to urban frontage. As to the inconsistency on the fire response, the only issue there was a second ladder truck could not get there um within 8 minutes. It took nine. There several fire stations in proximity. So here we were the twotory height limit. We don't really even need the ladders. So, um I mean this this comment seems to be coming up more and more in cases. Um if you can't serve this location in Raleigh for fire, I mean you've got a bigger problem in this little project. Um but I do think in this this particular case, we don't really even need that second ladder truck. So anyway, I think we're we really should be good on that. And um I know the fire department is you know wanting to improve their level of service and and increase their budget to get more and better equipment and certainly we support that. But anyway, I think that's kind of concludes our case. Certainly I'm available to answer any questions as is Mr. Stevens. Thank you. Thank you Isabelle. Um is there anyone else here to speak in support of this case? Seeing none, those in opposition have a total of 10 minutes. Seeing none, we will bring it back to the table for um questions and comments from the commissioners. I'm just going to say that um I really appreciate the applicant's responsiveness to um neighbor concerns. I I'm a big proponent of community engagement and responding to the community, but I don't love these conditions. Um I don't know that I was here when this was reszoned. I can't imagine that I would have voted for this, but I this is like along a transit corridor, um a frequent transit area, and I feel like we have these restrictive conditions. Um, again, I understand being being um responsive to neighbors, but I I I don't love the conditions. I I it seems like restricting the bedrooms is trying to restrict the student the possibility of student housing, which I understand, but this is in an area with a lot of students. Um, I really don't like fences separating people from people. If this were some sort of commercial or industrial complex, something you know that could be harmful, I could say, "Okay, I understand." But just because people in single family homes want to be separated from people in townous, that bothers me. And I understand that these were conditions in the previous resoning. So, you're just making this consistent. I I I just I don't I have an issue with the condition. So, I just wanted to say that to start. Anyone else have questions or comments? Commissioner Fox, I have a question. It kind of gets to what uh you were mentioning. Um Commissioner Bennett. It's a clarifying question for staff. Um um when there's a limitation on the number of units, um a development could not then take advantage of the frequent transit development option. Is that correct? Y Okay. Um so then I I echo and agree with your thoughts there. Can you say that again? The frequent transit development option which allows an increase in density um with some uh affordability uh included um by limiting the number of units on this project. They are limiting the ability to use the FTDO okay option. Um so again it's a great location for housing. Yes. Um based on its proximity to amenities, services and transit, um it is quite restrictive, but it's not inconsistent. Um so at the appropriate time, I'd be ready to support it. Thank you, Commissioner Fox. Are there other questions or comments? Mr. Makay, um, is there any idea of how much this project would cost or how much it would go for? You mean the per unit? Um, there's no decision right at this point whether these will be for sale or for rent. Um, you know, I would say towns would be um if they were for sale, you know, in Raleigh it's probably hard to get under 400, but I that's sort of down the road and he hasn't decided whether I'll let Sammy speak to that if he wants to. Kind of not clear what what the you know what how these things are going to be either leased or sold. Um, but so I don't know, but I'm just thinking generally speaking, it's hard to find town houses, new town houses in Raleigh for less than about 400,000. You have a thought on that? Um, yeah, good morning, members. Um, yeah, we're anticipating $400,000 range. Um, I think wasn't mentioned, but because, uh, the four combined lots do are equivalent to 2.028 02 acres. We do have an incredibly large, uh, tree protection area included. Um, so general setbacks, uh, 20 foot or less. We have actually 65 ft of setback for probably half the property from the neighborhood behind. And I think that's one thing they really wanted. The 6ft fence actually was mentioned in our most recent meeting with the city. So, we've met with all departments of the city multiple times, and they had mentioned the six-foot fence, but it's almost a natural treeinfested area. So, it's almost not going to be visible because there's a lot of natural growth that's going to be retained in that area. So, it's not going to look like kind of like in a cookie cutter neighborhood where you see fence, fence, fence. It's actually just going to be hidden in the back. Um, just to offer a little more uh privacy for the folks behind it. The elevations of the neighborhood behind these four properties are ex uh incredibly elevated. So the neighborhood behind kind of elevates uh substantially 20 30 40 ft. So this project will actually kind of almost fit in a valley. Um going with the two stories is just keeping everything really tight. I think if we looked at elevations of houses behind and going back even two houses are going to be substantially higher than what I'm developing. Um, I met with the neighborhood uh five times. I met in kitchens, went over what exactly would please them, and this is a plan that they fully supported. Um, based on give and take, not doing three stories, um, putting in the real nice tree protection area. Uh, I've built a couple projects on the same street closer to campus. I always use stone on the exterior and make them look really pretty and enhance the neighborhoods that they're nearby. Um, I'm not the the sighting and walk away developer. So, thank you. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Peeler. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Omaya, were you done with your No, I was just going to say that um I think that it's great adding to the housing in that space. It does. I don't like the conditions also because I think that it uh restricts the kind of housing need that's out there. It is close to jobs, but I doubt anybody who is going to be spending $400,000 on the town home is going to be working at Food Lion. But I also do think that uh there's elements that I like about it also. Just want to say that. Thank you, Commissioner Peeler. Um question for the applicant. I'm looking at IMAPs. It looks like you own two of the properties and someone else owns me and my partners own the three that are connected. Correct. Gotcha. is um is it currently inhabited by long-term renters? No, year to year. Okay. But like but it's it's not like short-term rental. It's it's year-to-year lease. Um has it historically been students or not students? Um so one house was lived with the same folks since they built it. Um but they passed away. Um so I would say it's been more uh rented out to young adults. [Music] um usually people that are just graduated and working. And and just if I can explain the reason why I'm asking, I I think it's been a while since we had a case here where we were reszoning what our essentially long-term rental stock. Um I know that's not I know it's your prerogative to do that because you own it. Um and I know that's not part of our comp plan currently. My hope is that our future comp plan will include something about analyzing whether reszone properties have long-term tenants in it. Um, we talk a lot about increasing the housing supply, slowing displacement. Uh, I think that's something to consider when we reszone anything if there's current long-term tenants. Um, as you know, as many of y'all know, there's basically no tenant rights in North Carolina. So, it makes it hard for people to stay in rental housing in Raleigh. And uh housing in Raleigh is moving away from home ownership and towards tenency. So, this is going to get harder. Um I I just hope we can think about that going forward. Maybe we can talk about at the retreat once we have the retreat. Uh and I hope to give some feedback to our new comp plan about that. But, and it's just something I want to point out because it doesn't show up in our analysis of the comp plan. I do think it's pretty important. Thank you, Commissioner Peeler. Other questions or comments? Commissioner Bernett for the applicant. Is there any uh overt desire for the properties to be for for students or young professionals, or is it pretty much um I guess up in the air right now? It's difficult to tell, but we did put in garages and driveways. So, I think that's a little more attractive to somebody who's a young professional possibly or somebody who's um looking for a place that, you know, they can put their stuff and not just come outside. Um it's difficult to tell. I I would think that it may be a mix of both. Sure. Um and for forgive my my u lack of knowledge on it. When was the last uh community meeting? Uh six weeks ago, eight weeks ago. So, real recent. Yeah, that's pretty I'd say in in February. Were there any like new concerns at the most recent one that didn't pop up at the previous one? No, we had unanimous support. Um, like I said, I've been meeting with these folks, I think, for like three or four years or five years. So, I kind of know them. I know what they wanted. Um, they were the ones that requested that the or one of the gentlemen was asked about uh keeping it three bedrooms. You know, I thought that was a little awkward, but I did it. Um because I felt like I could I could still get this project to work. Um but we uh like I said, there will be a lot of undisturbed area in the back in the very back. The fence concern. I don't even think we're going to see the fence. I think if you looked on a Google map, you would see kind of what I'm talking about. It's going to have a lot of natural trees staying in the back end. And I always do that on every project. Um I try to really insulate whatever is around it from it. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Commissioner Hav, you look like you Well, I saw Bert, Commissioner Fox grabbed the microphone. I thought she was going to go next, but um one question for staff and then a few comments. Um just curious what if any requirements um will be placed on the applicant along avent ferry road when the site's developed. [Music] I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question? What if any um rightway improvements will be required when the applicant redevelopments this project? I will defer to transportation staff. Good morning. Carter Robertson with transportation. Uh right now Avent Ferry is built out to its ultimate crosssection two-lane divided with that center turning lane. Also have the sidewalk and uh bike lanes in place. The only difference um between what's there now and what's in our uh UDO is our UDO has the bike lanes raised above behind the uh curb. So, if this was determined to be tier three development at site plan, uh that would be a change that would be required, but otherwise it's already at the built out cross-section. Thank you. Um just a couple comments. Um I feel for the applicant. I mean, I'm assuming Miss Maddox, this is the project you've kept deferring to work with the No, no, this is not that. Okay. This is not that one. Well, just hearing as And that's that's fine. Thank you. Hearing as often as you've met with them, I mean, it seems like people can't win for losing. I mean, on some cases, we're upset that they don't talk to the neighbors and here we have a case where they've talked to the neighbors for years and we still don't like the condition. So, at some point, I feel like we need to balance that. And not not suggesting that my fellow commissioners should like the conditions. Not suggesting that at all. I'm just saying I feel for the applicant here. Um I live in downtown Raleigh in a historic home and town homes are getting ready to be built caddy corner to me. I have a fence. I'm not trying to keep my neighbors out. I just like my I like my backyard and I like my fence. So, I certainly hear your comment about fences, but I don't know that they always mean we're separating each other. Um, understand Commissioner Fox's concern about the frequent transit development, but again, if we don't vote these conditions in, we leave the existing zoning, we're not going to get frequent transit developments. It's not going to happen. So, I appreciate that. Um, Miss Maddox, you know, one of my concerns, and I appreciate that y'all dealt with this, is when we are doing multif family development adjacent to single family, just making sure that separation is there and with 65 ft of tree protection. I appreciate that. I'm completely comfortable with that. I wish I would have that at my house when the town homes get built behind me. Limiting to twotory is unheard of in this situation. I really appreciate y'all doing that. And so I'm in support of that. And again, understanding some of my fellow commissioners concerns about a $400,000 unit. Nobody's going to be working at the food line, but young professionals need to live downtown as well. That helps build our community and they'll certainly shop at the food line. So I appreciate providing areas for young professionals as well. So, I um I hear all my fellow commissioners concerns, but I really appreciate what y'all have done, how long you've worked on this, and I'll plan to fully support this application. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Haver, I I feel compelled to respond. Um, first I I just want to say that I am not in any way penalizing the applicant for responding to community comment. Um, I I think it's great. Um, but I think also, and I want to say this the right way, members of the public can sometimes have unreasonable requests. So just because someone in the public asks for it, we're here to determine if we think it's reasonable and in the best interest of the public and not someone living next to it. So I I do always encourage community engagement and I encourage being responsive to what the community is asking you for, but then we have to determine are those reasonable requests. I also if you have your own privacy fence that's I that's fine. I've had fences before but I think it's different when we have a reasonzoning request that has a condition for a fence to separate an entire development from others. It it doesn't feel right. And and the applicant mentioned something about meeting with the city about the fence staff. Did the city request the fence? Yeah. In our Yeah. But so Timman's Engineering is the engineering company and we've had uh paid for meetings with the city and Yeah. that was a request uh by this by one of the So if there is a tree buffer, which you've said you have a a nice tree buffer, I don't mean to harp on the fence, but the fence bugs me. Why would there need to be a fence? Well, I think it says that if there is a six-foot fence and it's and it's already there and everything's good, it stays. But if someone had a ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch link fence and they prefer to have a a wooden fence that that would be installed if I'm if I understand that correctly. And one thing regarding the two floors is because of a tree protection area and such, there's limited parking that honestly three bedrooms work in this development because of the number of parking spaces available. If we if we tried to go three stories and add be bedrooms, I think at that point it would create a parking situation and it's real paramount to me that anything I build the parking fits it absolutely correctly. Um I don't want to kind of take that out of whack where cars are in the wrong spots or parked over at the plaza. So I think we're really limited based on the large tree protection area and the setbacks to two stories. It seems to work. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Commissioner Cochran, you look like you have something to say. So, I do support densifying this area. I think reszoning this to R six makes sense here, but I I want to echo Commissioner Bennett's concerns that this does seem to be intentionally excluding certain groups. And I while I appreciate your attention to detail and trying to build the perfect housing for for someone to buy and and live in, I could see these as starter homes, which we know is in short supply. Um my concern is that if someone were to buy one of these and want to add a fourth bedroom onto the back of it or just a fourth room in general that you've um by us putting these restrictions on it, we're actually building some homogeneity into it instead of diversifying. Yes, that's a good point. Um the HOA will restrict something such as that. You wouldn't be able to um add to any of the buildings. It would be in the HOA uh covenants that certain rules for everybody. And one more question. And is that an existing HOA or is that one that you're going to created? But I am an HOA president of a 29 town home just down the street. So we'll have a management company. Um we'll have an HOA for but it'll be newly established HOA. That neighborhood as a whole doesn't have an HOA. It's an older. So we're adding another restriction. Um, no. The you I think you have to have an HOA when you have multiple owners in this situation. Yeah. And it's it's pretty unlikely for a townhouse unit to add on to it because they they are what they are and they they are almost always under an HOA that doesn't allow those kind of modifications to the building. Thank you. Um, Mr. Burns, you're standing up. Did you want to add something? Yeah, Ju just a quick comment. So the uh fence condition uh was not requested at the resoning stage. However, I do know that this uh applicant has had a sketch plan review in the past and may have other plans in review and there is an existing condition on the three lots um that are currently zoned R six which calls for a privacy fence. Thank you, Commissioner Peeler. Um, I also support densifying this area. It's across from a what's a mix mixeduse center. One thing I wanted to bring up though is it being an FTA. Um, and we we've talked about this in the past with FTAs. I don't think we've had one this year. That is uh a frequent transit area which Raleigh has several corridors of. It has a density bonus. Um, I do believe we could get to the density if we use the density bonus and that we've had plenty of cases like that. You shaking your head now, but could we are you because the the the density that's put in the staff report and staff may correct me, but that is the density that's there without using density bonuses. Correct. The number of Yes, it is. So there's of course more density that's allowed in that number if the density bonus is utilized um anywhere where there's a frequent transit area is my understanding. So I did want to throw that out there when we talk about the conditions and what's allowed there. Um anywhere in Raleigh that's in an FTA, there is a higher maximum units and higher usage that's available if the density bonus is utilized, assuming there aren't conditions limiting it. Right. Right. Yeah. I um because I've had these properties for over five years combined um we've drawn up the actual we've fit buildings in and what what would fit with the tree protection area and what would fit for parking and this these four lots combined cannot yield anything beyond what we're currently doing. There's not a pos there's not even a foot available. So, based on spending some pretty good money and hiring some pretty smart people, um I I'm hearing you and I understand what you're saying, but believe it or not, based on tree protection areas setbacks, uh curbs so that the fire truck can a firet truck turn around um having the correct curb uh angles for the truck fire trucks, the elevations of these four properties are are pretty significant um from left to right kind of sloping pretty significantly. ly. So based on all these conditions, um we are maxing out what this property can house, how many parking spots would make it um efficient and effective for everybody. So we've explored every possibility while also communicating with the neighborhood behind and this what we're attempting is is truly taking this property to the maximum it can yield. Thank you, Commissioner Omay. Um I just want to clarify my stance. I think again the outreach that you all have done uh to incorporate what the neighbors want to see on the property. Uh every neighbor is different. Um I do have an issue I guess slightly with fences I guess but it's to me it's more how it's implemented than anything. Um but it looks like you all are managing that. I make my comments of some of the comments that I feel like in in in the other side of this because I like to treat these issues as isolated issues whereas another developer may come and they could actually build more density or did not take some of the routes that you took. So the points that I made kind of stand but I also understand that you want to build uh young professionals need a place to stay. It is close to shopping centers and things of that nature. I was responding to the point of jobs because I don't believe these people will be working across the street. However, that does not mean that they can't benefit from the commerce across the street. So, I want to clarify my position, but I also want to state that if in the future another developer that didn't go through these things that you did in the same college area that does require density and some measure affordability for students, just making sure that the issues are looked at in their own right versus as a comprehensive situation. Thank you. I think it's entirely possible that one of these units gets rented by three students who um a little bit of a Yeah, there probably be a mix. Other questions or comments from commissioners? Okay. Up. Commissioner Haver, did you have something else? Do I add? I was going to make a motion. I will entertain a motion. Um, in regards to case Z4424, after considering the policies, maps, and other materials included as part of the comprehensive plan, um I recommend, y'all change this up a little bit. I have determined or I feel that the proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plans and request the zoning case should be approved. We have a motion by Commissioner O'Hver, a second by Commissioner Atwell. All those in favor, okay, that's nine. All those opposed to me. Um, motion carries 9 to one. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. 8 to one. I'm sorry I'm not counting well today. Um I didn't have my waties this morning. U 8 to one with uh myself opposed and I want to say um I'm not opposed to the development itself. Um I I I don't dislike the development itself. Um I speak a lot about equity and I feel this is Um I I feel that this can be interpreted as um excluding certain people and groups. And so um consistent with the torch I always carry. Um I I'm voting against it. I I have every confidence that this will be approved by council and it's going to go through, but I just need to state on the record that I don't really love restricting the bedrooms or or the fence. I understand restricting the apartment type to be consistent with the neighborhood, but um the other two conditions just kind of give me a little bit of heartburn. Thank you. Okay. Um, next item up is approval of minutes. Commissioner Peeler, do you need to leave? Okay, thank you. We still have quorum. So, we will look at the minutes from our April 8th planning commission meeting. Does anyone have any um corrections, edits to those minutes? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve them. Commission just a comment. Um on page two regarding TC 1024 um the motion was uh noted as being unanimous but the vote was 80. So um there might just be a minor correction there. Okay. Did you get that Chenita? All right. Any other um comments on the minutes? Okay. If not, then I'll I'll move to approve the April 8, 2025 planning commission minutes. Second. All those in favor? Any opposed? That's unanimous. Moving on to report of the chair. The chair is absent and excused. Um report from the members. Um, I don't see anything on the agenda for committee of the whole binum. So, we will have no committee of the whole meeting this Thursday, April 24th. So, you get that time back. Um, and um, I just like to welcome Commissioner Bernett. I wasn't here at the last meeting when you were officially welcomed. So, welcome to the planning commission. Isn't this fun? going down the line. Um, Commissioner Atwell, uh, thank you, Chair Bennett. No April meeting for the text change committee, but we are expecting items on the May agenda. So, I believe, let me double check my calendar. Uh, May 21st, no items pending yet, but we're expecting to have some items and, uh, hopefully a new member to the text change committee. Um because I think we're down one right now. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett. I don't have anything. Okay, Commissioner Fox. Um there are no items pending for strategic planning committee. Um so unless uh something changes, there will not be a May meeting. Commissioner Omay, nothing. Commissioner Cochran, it's like a test trying to get every comments. Commissioner O'Haber, no report. Commissioner McCreman, no report. Okay, then we'll turn to the report of the assistant director. I don't have anything to I do have one thing to add beyond what's in my printed report, which is I have a question. Are you receiving emails from the planning commission distribution list? For example, you should have gotten the agenda last week and maybe you would have seen an email. Uh I I know I saw one related to an old case request Z5422 at Peace and West, a neighbor emailing you about a case, a new request for that same address that has not yet been filed. Are you getting these emails on your PC email addresses? I know you're not, Mr. Bernett. You are commissioner. I am. I get two. I get every email twice. Congratulations. So do I. I don't understand why. I've tried to talk with them. And you all see the emails when I ask to add and remove folks. Yes. If you're getting the Well, because you're not on the list, but you have been added to the list. So I haven't received any emails or text unless they're individually sent. Commissioner Mccrim, do you get the emails? Okay. and Mr. Hiver, you do. So, we're still working on Commissioners Cochran, Amay, and Bernett. I know you're not getting them because my request from last week is still open. So, and I made it again this morning because I'm just like, "All right, so I'm going to keep working on that. Uh I am I have asked for a list of all recipient so I can cross check make sure I have like spelling and dots and comms and such in the right order. So I apologize for the delay in getting your getting information to you regularly. Thank you Vinum. Is there anything else? Well if not we stand adjourned. [Music] There is a distribution list. Heat. Heat. [Music]